User talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired/Archive 2

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you protect the current DYK image at Commons? Shubinator (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's off the Main Page now. Do you think you could occasionally check the DYK queues here and protect any Commons images? That way we don't have to do a temporary upload, which will be better for the servers I'd imagine. Shubinator (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed it. I'll try, but today in spurts aside I'll be lower activity for at least several weeks. If one sneaks by pop it on ANI, and someone can get it quick. rootology (C)(T) 05:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is he blocked or not? The block log indicates it was set to have already expired, but he says he can't edit. I'm guessing the admin who revised the blocking mis-stated himself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems like he's off the hook now, but I don't know how to do an autoblock. Ask him to post the autoblock #, I think. rootology (C)(T) 06:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for your future reference just go to Special:IPBlocklist and either ctrl-F to find the username in the triggered autoblock or click the "autoblock finder" link at the top of the page: http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php . cheers, –xeno (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Wikipedia:HIPPIESCANTBLOCKCONSERVATIVES|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cerejota (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Rootology, I deleted that page as an A3, but then I realize who created it. I'm trying to figure out the point of the redirect's name, particularly why such a long string of compounded words would be used to act as a redirect to WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. If you can come up with a reason, feel free to undelete the article yourself. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 16:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it was a bad joke from this thread, from Tarc's comment. rootology (C)(T) 16:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It got the ax, man. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:HIPPIESCANTUNDELETEREDIRECTS rootology (C)(T) 16:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, dude, another redlink. In the previous comment, I almost said, "it got the ax, dude", but that's the wrong joke and besides I don't use that expression. Or do I?

Oddly enough, on Communistpedia, there are ONLY redlinks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Colours for wlinks on Hippiepedia are pulled randomly from a 16,000 hue database. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OHNOESEVENTHECOOLESTADMINSCANTMAKEJOKEREDIRECTSWITHOUTEXPECTINGTHEMTOBEDELETEDBYUNSUNSUSPECTINGRCPATROLLERSWITHSOFTRIGGERSONTHECSDTABOFTWLOL also WP:OMGLOOKICANREDLINKTOO--Cerejota (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment just to clear the gigantic redlink of my watchlist.--Tznkai (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My best best would be reading the article about regular expressions and taking it from there. But this is such a potent tool, it's not really smart to allow "idiots" to edit it. I've added a requested filters page instead which would hopefully help a lot. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know regex. I meant for the mechanics of the tool itself, for what to edit, where, how, and so forth. The on-wiki stuff. rootology (C)(T) 19:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I put in a suggestion for what its worth.[1] rootology (C)(T) 16:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated. I see the case name has changed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Rootology, would it be appropriate to show me the content of Talk:Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama so I could fairly assess its bearing on the Arb case. I actually never saw it and only became involved later. If not, I understand, and I wouldn't want to get either of us in trouble. I would however, encourage you to bring this up with the arbitrators like Fayssal, as it seems only fair that those who are clueless here get a fair chance to assess the entirety of the situation. Grsz¹¹ 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For anything else (subject to BLP/sensitive data etc) I'd be fine with it, but not for Obama stuff. I don't do anything tools-wise there. Looks like Matt is clerking this one, I was going to ask him after it opened for a staging copy somehow that we could use for evidence in a public fashion (with NOINDEX on it of course). rootology (C)(T) 22:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an important piece of evidence that shouldn't just be restricted to helping admins. Thanks for the reply, Grsz¹¹ 22:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not actually due up in the rotation yet, so I'll ping the list and see who is clerking it. Also, I'll ask about restoring this page. MBisanz ^talk 22:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Matt. Grsz¹¹ 22:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, talked to the other clerks. If/when the case open, I or another clerk will copy and paste the largest version of that page to the evidence talk page for others to review. MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Will it include edit histories, for who added what? rootology (C)(T) 23:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It has 5 edits total to it, and there are only 2 editors, one who added all the content and one who added a link formatting at top. Is this the right page? MBisanz ^talk 23:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think so. Let me ping Wikidemon to look here, just in case. rootology (C)(T) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It should have been edited by User:Stevertigo, per his admission here. Grsz¹¹ 23:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hang on about WorldNetDaily, I'm working on it at the moment. Thanks. :) TheAE talk/sign 15:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed "right-wing" again, but left "conservative" with the sources. From what I see, they are used for the same meaning, so it is overkill. Thanks for finding the sources. :) TheAE talk/sign 15:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I undid you. :( Rightwing and conservative are two different concepts. Let's take it to the article talk. rootology (C)(T) 15:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

*shrug* I undid you again. :P Actually, I didn't undo that (and I replied on the talk page regarding it). I partially undid it (leaving right-wing), but only because I had worked on it further (especially with the refs, and also the title & website name). If you want to reply on it, that's fine, but I'm willing to let it go. :) Good to meet you, though (too bad it was over edit-warring... :P). TheAE talk/sign 16:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

GoneAwayNowAndRetired has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as GoneAwayNowAndRetired's Day! For being an excellent user who is dedicated to the English Wikipedia, enjoy being the star of the day, dear GoneAwayNowAndRetired! Signed, →Dyl@n620

For being an extremely knowledgeable, sensible, helpful, and active admin, and valuable content editor, I hereby declare that today (March 26, 2009) is your day. Enjoy! :D →Dyl@n620 00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Jack Hamann, or someone impersonating him, is using the Fort Lawton Riot article to help promote his book [2] [3]. I'm going to go fix the article and leave a note on his talk page but wanted to make you, an admin with some prior familiarity of the article, aware of the situation in advance in case it blows up into anything. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The page you requested to be deleted is Jimbo's personal user page! An IP address saved it from deletion. Please do not abuse Twinkle in this way. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Inclusionists be first against the wall when the glorious April Revolution come! rootology :  Chat  02:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if it is April Fool's or not, but I intend to keep WP as safe as possible from people like you. Please do not add unconstructive edits to WP. Thank You. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"People like you", eh? While we're being uncivil and templating the regulars, GRINCH!!!! Wikidemon (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, we all need protecting from the evil that is Rootology. You know, once you learn that he's the opposite of Squaretology, he's not so scary. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 03:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ipatrol (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh god... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There's always one. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 03:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The MfD nomination is harmless enough, but the message at User:Jimbo Wales is borderline. That page is widely viewed by members of the general public, most of whom will not get the joke (and might mistake this for a serious issue regarding Jimbo).
I decided not to remove the message myself (as I realize that the community needs to have some fun), but I strongly believe that it's a bad idea to edit-war for the purpose of reinserting a prank that a user in good standing deemed inappropriate. Rather than reverting again, please consider settling for the talk page notice and the MfD page itself. Thank you. —David Levy 03:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm at a 1RR on that page, it's fair game for whomever. It was either this, or an usurp request to rename myself User:Grawp. :) rootology :  Chat  03:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, we may need a Checkuser and a SPI, too ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew :  Chat  03:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of pi years in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Grsz¹¹ 03:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If your AFD joke does not earn a block it is just not good enough. Why, I think I'll create some sock accounts to add conspiracy theories to a few featured articles.Wikidemon (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

GoneAwayNowAndRetired (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It was a trap and setup.

Decline reason:

You are too close to discovering the truth, We cannot allow that. Mr.Z-man 03:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

He is part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor, deny unblock. Grsz¹¹ 03:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of googol years in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to discover the truth. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Grsz11 (C)(T)

I can't win. rootology :  Chat  04:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bye. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 04:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please rename me User:Vanished User 666, because I am that hardcore. \m/ rootology :  Chat  04:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I will only rename you to User:You take no retirement. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 04:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do I still get the watch? rootology :  Chat  04:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ipatrol (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone has a case of the Mondays! rootology :  Chat  04:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Shit is it Monday already? Someone should have woken me up days ago. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this topic ban and no reason to impose it so precipitately - the discussion hasn't even run 24 hours so this means that some editors now asleep havent had a chance to comment?. I have reversed your archive and marked the discussion unresolved. Lets let it run its course OK? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 22:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me an actual explanation, as opposed to the useless smart-guy comment posted by a non-admin the first time. I very seldom participate in RfA's (and including my own, I've participated in one too many), so I didn't know the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, just wanted to head something off before anyone blew their top. rootology (C)(T) 05:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I never blow my top. Although the steam rattles it sometimes. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Before you start removing comments on bureaucratic grounds, you may wish to consult this: CoM not only accepted, he ASKED to be nominated. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Now we know it's a joke nomination. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And once it's formally accepted on the RFA and transcluded for everyone to see, you all can vote. rootology (C)(T) 05:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I especially like the part about him being "a proficient vandal fighter". Except when the vandals are coming from WorldNewsDaily, apparently. That's another good point for the "Oppose". Although maybe I should use the one that the first opponent of Neurolysis' RfA used. It turns out there was at least one arguably good reason for turning down his nomination, but "There are already too many admins" wasn't one of them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a smart ass, but I'd laugh if someone opposed on the grounds there are now too many RFAs. rootology (C)(T) 05:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good one, but I'll go you one better. Actually, the "too many admins" was a "Neutral" rather than an "Oppose". But it was stated by the same editor that nominated CoM. That's perfect. I've got my "lead story" now. :) [4] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless he's a masochist, I doubt he'll approve the nomination. He's working on his exit strategy now: [5] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A reply regarding BC's ban text. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have him watchlisted now for ages... rootology (C)(T) 04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit was mainly because there is no separate Gathering Storm article, and links to disambiguation pages should generally be avoided. Sanderson had already stated "A Memory of Light: The Gathering Storm" would not be the title, and all (non blog) sources state "The Gathering Storm" would be used, Robert Jordan will of course still be credited. The article A Memory of Light generally explains the final title usage. Rehevkor ✉ 04:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Advice is always welcome . Thanks. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

I realized you have put a protect onto the Assassin's Creed II page. I am curious as to why. On the original Assassin's Creed talk page, there is a definite consensus to split the Sequel section into it's own article(a consensus of 9-4). Also, there is well over 6 reliable citations available for AC2. So, I humbly request that you either un-protect the Assassin's Creed II page or provide me with a good reason why it does not deserve it's own article. Thank you for your time. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, check out Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Assassin.27s_Creed_2 this discussion. If you think there's consensus and it's ready to fork out now, drop an {{editprotected}} and any admin can get it. I'm about to log off and don't have time to review the sources. Since it was AFD'd, it would otherwise need to go through WP:DRV, but if there's consensus the editprotected is just easier. rootology (C)(T) 04:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Should I consider this resolved or is this still ongoing? - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 13, 2009 @ 05:13

Done far as I'm concerned, pending that last comment from me. I got nothing else. rootology (C)(T) 05:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks! - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 13, 2009 @ 05:20

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Assassin's Creed II. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so that you know, I have removed the protection which you added to Assassin's Creed 2. There seems to be strong talk page consensus that recreation is warranted (see Talk:Assassin's Creed#Sequel Page Vote). If the previous issues aren't fixed it should probably be taken back to AFD, but I don't see that a DRV is required because new information has become available and there is already a strong consensus. Please correct me if I am wrong in this; I'm still a new administrator so if I made a mistake please let me know. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops; just realized that there is an active DRV. I've reprotected it until a discussion can be reached there. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ta, glad you didn't mind. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rootology. Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle, I just wanted to take a moment to say I appreciate you taking the time to state the reasoning behind your closure. I think if more admins took the time to state a clear reason behind the decisions that were made, we'd have a lot less fuss and entries at WP:DRV. Job well done. (perhaps I'm making an incorrect assumption that it won't be re-opened, but one can only hope) ;) — Ched :  ?  05:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If it DRVs, it DRVs... rootology (C)(T) 05:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're three days early, not one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I closed at 05:07, April 16, 2009, it opened at 12:11, April 12, 2009. But apples and oranges, I suppose... :) rootology (C)(T) 05:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Right. AfDs run for 7 days now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that in three days, the "slow news day" stories will have moved on to something else, and this woman will largely have been forgotten. The AfD could have changed quite a bit had it been allowed to run its full length. - Brian Kendig (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And I believe otherwise. Why is your crystal ball any better than mine? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not, but now we'll never know, because policy wasn't followed. - Brian Kendig (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You can always nominate for deletion at a later time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Single AFDs nor single DRVs are ever binding in any sense of the word and can be trivially overturned with another later. "Policy" doesn't hard-require 7 days, nor did it "hard-require" 5 days before for duration. Even since I've closed, I see 2 more sources have been added, and it hasn't been DRV'd, so it seems my extrapolation so far has been thankfully right. Feel free to DRV my close, of course, if you think I was wrong. rootology (C)(T) 13:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor closure, simplistic even. I guess 85% does sound impressive when you don't bother with any weighting at all. In a situation where bean counting was obviously innappropriate due to the amount of ill informed newcomer pile ons, why even mention it? Did you exclude anybody from that figure? You didn't even address the elephant in the room - a good number of the keepers you are saying with this closure have won the day with their weighty and considered policy based reasoning, demonstrated they actually have no idea what the presumption of notability is, or how it relates to 1E and current events, because they are under the utterly wrong impression that deleting the article in 6 months if the 'fuss has died down' is actually something we do around here. Point me to a single policy that says that. I can at least respectfully disagree with people who think this woman has achieved lasting notability, but how can ideas like this be openly tolerated? Stating that she is not a private person, and that she is in the next audition, and that she might actually sell an album, were utterly irrelevant to this debate, I am at a loss as to why you mention these and not that. Also, there was a complete disregard for the merge/redirect opinions. As for closing it early after early closure was hotly opposed multiple times, that speaks for itself as just not necessary. Anyway, a good read for next time is the essay section Benefits of recentist articles. When you read that, and read this article, it just makles you want to die inside. MickMacNee (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mick, if that makes you die inside, I don't think leaving it open three more days would have helped. :-) This isn't the Star Wars kid, who did one thing and wished he hadn't -- this is someone who dared to grab at her dream, succeeded, and is running with it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll concede that when a deletionist doesn't get his way, he dies a little bit. It's like depriving him of food. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Root, I thought I was going to blast you when I came here, but MacNee is scorching you more than even I would. Keeping the article is not a terrible decision, because consensus does enter into these things, but you're all wet on the reasoning, in my arrogant opinion. The "event" in WP:BLP1E should be considered broadly, encompassing related appearances on the same show that essentially are the same experience and depend on her initial appearance (the "event" is really "her appearances on the show" because all the coverage will treat it as essentially the same thing). The strongest Keep argument, it seems to me, is a bit common-sensical: existence of articles that talk about her life as a whole. With enough of those kind of profile pieces, it's hard for the Delete side to say there's not enough detailed sourcing covering this subject as a whole, which is the point of WP:BLP1E. You are right about expecting more coverage in a case like this, which is another common-sense point, and common sense is supposed to enter into this. So you're really not all wet, although it was fun to say. -- Noroton (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Read below. I'm one of the far more rigid people on BLP generally, so I really don't think BLP1E counts here. Read below... rootology (C)(T) 13:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, BLP is not a factor here in any level, to just clear that, and I'll explain why BLP1E is a false argument here. And again, feel free to DRV it. I fundamentally agreed more with the collective weight and opinions from the Keepers being more in line with our history, precedents, and principles, and ideas like this should be openly tolerated, since the presumption that "Internet notability" (what does that even mean?) is "less important" than "real world" notability--that's really what you and many Deleters here are arguing, no matter how it's dressed up--are naive attitudes.

The Internet IS the real world at this point, for better or worse, no matter how hard or vigorously some people like to poo poo the entire web 2.0 thing. It's nothing to do with our needlessly rigid, increasingly irrelevant--each month, it fades in social value as an internal concept--"Recentism" ideas. The press is faster now since it doesn't rely on the permanence of physical media to deliver news. Recentism because of this is a wholly subjective thing, with too many people valuing "physical" news in some vague way over "transient" news, with "transient" being the Internet. Again, what does that even mean? It's a nonsense argument. A well-maintained bit of data that is properly preserved in an open format will last theoretically forever. A newspaper will eventually rot away and crumble. But you see where this is all going?

It boils down to Deletionists vs. Inclusionists, and the foolish idea that an AFD or DRV is binding forever. I closed the AFD as I saw where it was heading, and where it had gone per policy. Consensus clearly supported Keeping already; I agreed that the Keepers had won the arguments and day--and not just by numbers, Wikidemon, Ched, the first few sentences by Stude62 (painfully true, AGF aside), Raven1977, and J Van Meter. BLP1E is absolutely a false argument here as Iakeb points out: her performance; the significance and separate reporting on her unique YouTube popularity after, and since then we have her being signed to a record label and when (in a week?) she performs again we'll have even more events/details. Each passing day there were more and more sources about Boyle visible online and in searches, so presumably as well in "old world" media like physical newspapers, of course. I closed based on what has come before, the opinions expressed, my interpretation of policy, the sourcing there (and growing--23 refs today, 21 when I closed), and the fact that 1) she's not a BLP1E, she's a BLP4E now unless she drops dead before her appearances on the actual show contests, and 2) every single time one of these social culture articles like hers gets AFD'd, if the person isn't really a BLP1E--like hers, they are virtual always a better article later as the sourcing really does not stop.

Many people like to AFD quick, hard, and fast, in the presumption that it will keep something "out" of WP longer. Nonsense--DRV is too smart to allow gaming like that in any pointless Deletionist vs Inclusionist content race. If something isn't a one-off or Deep Fancrust, sourcing will always build over time--it's inevitable, like the tides themselves. And like the tides themselves, the consensus backed by policy was pretty darn clear on the Boyle AFD: keep. Deleting Boyle today would also, in my personal opinion, be a completely pointless strategic move of no benefit to anyone. The day after her next appearance on the show, or the minute the media comes out with the information on the forthcoming album, it would sail through DRV so fast that people's heads would spin. Why nuke the article for a week (or two) then? It would be a pointless procedural exercise that would lead to rules-jockey admins fighting people trying to recreate it for the 10-14 days, and pointless things like ANI alerts. As for your wording of it being a poor close, thanks. But it's not poor because you disagree with it's outcome. rootology (C)(T) 13:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Consider this my expanded close reasoning which I'm adding to the AFD now. rootology (C)(T) 13:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference between new and old media is irrelevant, nobody challenged the fact she has already passed the presumption of notability in old media. An online version ofthe Guradian is still the Guardian, the TV news is definitely old media. The idea that because another news story will appear next week, about the same thing, makes this any more noteworthy, is boohockey. I don't want the article gone for a week, I want it gone per policy, not per Afd accepted bad practice, until it is demonstrated that she is notable by our definition (not famous) for more than one thing, and that biographical info becomes demonstrably not news puffery and meaningless backstory, the sort of which you find in any trash magazine every single day (e.g. details given because she does actually win, or she does actually become a recording artist, or she does actually get the congressional medal of honour for changing the perceptions of society). The fact the article has to spell out why she is notable should clue you in that maybe she isn't really all that notable for Wikipedia - that sort of desperate self justification has no place in article prose. Transient puffery is transient puffery, no matter if it appears in one article or eight hundred. This is what the presumption part of the notability criteria means, simply source counting is not the bar of inclusion. Another issue with the close is that you seem to have bought into the idea that was wrongly pushed that deletion really does mean that this woman gets no mention at all on Wikipedia. Quite obviously that ignores the possibility of coverage in the show article, with the proper weight. Appearance on a show + media attention + possible music career = 1 Event. Period. 1E is not simply about protection of people, it is also about not giving undue weight to people known for one thing. This woman is no presidential assassin, she is no hero pilot, waving that away because this is 'pop culture' and that is a misunderstood aspect of web culture, is simply not going to fly, and is patronising in the extreme. If the basic policy definition of an 'event' for the purposes of interpreting "passes/fails BLP1E" is the issue here and why the deletes were discounted, then I definitely think DRV is in order. If an Afd on this article in 6 months time actually succeeded, then obviously something is not being done right, either now or then. Notability is not temporary, and demonstrating notability is not the only bar to inclusion. These are core ideas, you would expect their application to be consistent by now, not flip flop from Afd to Afd in the space of months, certainly not when it is the same article being debated. MickMacNee (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Just one last point, on your sentence, "These are core ideas, you would expect their application to be consistent by now, not flip flop from Afd to Afd in the space of months, certainly not when it is the same article being debated." That simple point is: consensus can change. Articles that were shit for years are gone now in other cases, and articles inappropriately nuked in part for various pointless internal political reasons of the past are back now. If the community supports your views, consensus will change, DRV will reverse me, and this will fail at AFD #2. Or, DRV will say I was right, and you might see AFD #2 six or twelve months from now result in Boyle's deletion. Wikipedia is not about getting your way, or your way in interpretations of things we do, "today". That sort of mindset is the fundamentally wrong way to approach things, and I advise anyone who thinks that way to clear such ideas. We're not here to win, we're here to keep growing the encyclopedia with quality content. DRV today, or next week, or next month, AFD in 6 or 12 months. If the community goes against my close later, then I was wrong. If this is a Good or Featured Article later, I was right. It is what it is. rootology (C)(T) 15:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this discussion is continuing on your Talk page is evidence that the AfD was closed too soon. And I'd like to remind all present that an alternative to "keep" or "delete" is "merge with Britain's Got Talent (series 3) and redirect." I don't see anyone saying in the AfD that this woman is noteworthy for anything outside her appearance on one episode (and likely, a few more episodes) of "Britain's Got Talent." Perhaps your crystal ball shows her having a noteworthy recording career, but that hasn't happened yet. The strongest argument right now for her having her own article is that lots of people are talking about her around the water cooler this morning and they really really like her. - Brian Kendig (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a fundamental disconnect here between how people view notability and consensus, and how it applies to AFD. To say the AFD was wrong because discussion continues here is a fictional argument vs. the AFD itself, as you're both clearly in favor of deletion, while the majority of users that weighed in (135 or so) disagree. Only the minority that wanted it gone are continuing discussion. ;) If you all want to DRV, please go ahead, it's the natural course of things. I am disinclined to reverse my decision at this time. rootology (C)(T) 15:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I suppose it's pointless to try to explain any perceptions, viewpoints, or reasoning to those who are so steadfastly determined that this woman is not notable and doesn't deserve to have a BLP here. And I'm not calling out any individual editor, I'm just asking for a moment of Root's and all his visitor's time here. Even if we throw out the IAR, there are still enough points to cover the inclusion of this lady. If it were simply a matter of a great performance - sure, merge to the show's article. When you take the whole picture into perspective however, it becomes a bit more of a keeper. It's not just the performance, the ability to shock the judges, the huge impact on YouTube, or the media frenzy that followed. It's about perception on a global scale. The sheer numbers of people who were reminded of the old adage "Don't judge a book by it's cover" has an intangible factor here. Looking at the new editors who signed up at Wikipedia just to contribute to the discussion alone is enough to convince me that keeping the article is the right move. Perhaps many of the "keep" votes were not the most clueful reasoning in regard to our policy - but the intent and the effort alone speaks volumes. I suppose that there are a few editors who may bide their time, and try to push this through another AfD as some later date; all the sadder I'd think. If you try to stick so close to the letter of the law, that you've got your nose buried up against the individual words, you lose perspective of the intent of the guidelines that we've so carefully put into place. We're not sending people to jail here, or deciding on some monumental earth-shattering changes. We're trying to build an encyclopedia that contains the sum of human knowledge - something for future generations to look back on, and to learn from. If it doesn't exist, they don't learn a thing. I apologize for my ramblings, but these were things I felt I needed to say - discard at your whim. — Ched :  ?  15:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think your decision was the only sensible one, we have BLP policies to protect unwilling public figures from privacy violations and prevent people using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Arguments over how the exact wording of these policies applies to this case miss the vital point that this is not what the policies were written for. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I voted delete but it was obvious that the article was going be kept. DRV would be a lost cause as it would be a repeat with even fewer deletionists (I am sure). But I just wanted to remind you that you kept a biography for a person who spent no more than 8 minutes on the screen, and that less than eight minute clip is the only thing she is famous for. Therefore, it is a one event case, and that was enough reason to delete the article. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to say a bit more about why I think an early close was a good idea. Wikipedia, as "the encyclopedia that anybody can edit", depends a great deal on how the public perceives it. When you combine a very high-profile article about which people have strong emotions, with actions that the great majority of the public see as bizarre, it harms Wikipedia significantly in the eyes of the people whose good-will we depend on. If the article on such a famous person is up for deletion, who is going to dare to try to create an article? With certainly well over 100,000 article-views by the time the AfD would run out -- over 1,000,000 if the current exponential growth trend continues -- the factors of intimidation and loss of good-will add up. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

An excellent point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the masses. People come here looking for information and they couldn't care less about our pedantic rules. If they don't find it, they'll think wikipedia is out of touch.
FIRST RULE: DON'T MAKE WIKIPEDIA LOOK STUPID.
Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Such a famous person"? I must have been asleep in that history class back in college. Wikipedia is not a catalog of the current Youtube-sensation-of-the-week. Please stop appealing to emotional arguments and instead back up your reasoning with Wikipedia guidelines, which have been honed against thousands of cases like this one. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You can always post it for deletion at a later date. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Assume notability; delete later if not" is not a Wikipedia guideline. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And a guideline is not a rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I think this close was totally in line and if I had the cajones I would have done the same. Putting aside the fallacious BLP1E argument for a second (there is no obvious "one event" and even if there was one event can generate permanent notability in some cases), sometimes it's as if people forget why we're here. What does the encyclopedia gain from deleting a well-sourced, informational article about an individual who is notable, at least for now, and generating tens of thousands of page views per day? Does keeping a big ugly AfD tag on top of a page that's generating this much traffic when the AfD is a foregone conclusion make the encyclopedia better? Oren0 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Who's still talking about deleting it? I would like to see it merged. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You could propose that it be merged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that. I don't know why it didn't occur to me sooner. Thank you for the idea! - Brian Kendig (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That was your idea. I merely restated it back to you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm reminded here a bit of the second AFD for Chris Crocker, in 2007, and this version of the article, when it was AFD'd, compared to this version here when the AFD closed. It went from a handful of sources to 40, all ensconsed in the BLP1E fears. Now look at it today--over 100 sources and only a halfwit would reasonably argue for deletion. rootology (C)(T) 17:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Or a deletionist. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Or dream killer.Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(... since Root seems to be more popular than either Jimbo or ANI today). Sometimes I think these people so firmly entrenched in "XfD" are so caught up in the letters and words of our guidelines, that they've lost touch with the intent to build an encyclopedia. I'll avoid all the "D" words, but even Al Gore knew when to give up ... well, sort of. ;) — Ched :  ?  18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, Root. I argued delete, but I perfectly understand why others voted keep, and why it might close as keep. However, leaving a pompous closing message that suggests we're all "Web 2.0 haters" and substituting your own opinion for an even evaluation of opinions presented is a right poor idea. The expanded soliloquy just made it more obvious. Way to create way more drama than was necessary... I would have expected a bit better. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't (and re-reading it, I don't see it that way) smashing of "web 2.0 haters", but as an expanded explanation of my entire thought process on the close that I did last night based on reading the entire AFD and the views presented on it.

The first paragraph is why the close should have been a Keep in line with collective consensus of the AFD, and with the previous decisions I've read on similar AFDs. The second paragraph was an evaluation of the AFD as I read it based on the opinions expressed in the AFD by some that her notability may have been transient, or "internet" driven, and why in the pure face of notability it doesn't matter where or how the notabilit is generated--WP:N and it's sub pages don't say x notability via it's origination source is ever more or less valued. The third paragraph was aimed at the feedback here that I'd somehow "closed a door" on the entire process of the article, which I found plain nonsensical, as consensus can change. The third also went on to the specific people that swayed me the most, and why I rejected BLP1E as an argument here--I'm one of the bigger supporters of BLP, and so for me to brush aside BLP concerns as a deletion reason here I hope have some value in my interpretation of that consensus. The third went on into how the sourcing has increased each day of the AFD, and not just sourcing that's actually included in the article, but that could be.

On a borderline or perceived borderline close, the closer has to evaluate sourcing in that way. My point there was also based on precedent, and the Chris Crocker situation is a great example. The sourcing always gets better over time--a merge today would need to be undone tomorrow as she got too big for the parent article on the show. We've seen it time and time again; so precedent carries there. The last paragraph is basically why I disagreed with the consensus of some users for a merge, and how it would generate needless cycles of work. Was my language perhaps a bit overly firm? Probably, but I've never been good at political delicateness. It's a wasted art on me, and I think we spend far too much time dancing around sometimes instead of just getting to the point.

Or maybe I should have just said "Keep", let it get DRV'd, and start up another round more easily... :( rootology (C)(T) 03:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what advantage you feel closing early has done here. Better not to have invited drama by closing early a case that is generating such interest. It might be worth considering undoing your close and just letting the AfD run the full seven days. The outcome is almost certainly going to be the same, but done without the quibbling and nit-picking. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC) And, just for the record, I feel that notability has been well established in the article, and Susan Boyle should be kept. It's just the process of allowing people to have their say fairly that is in question here. SilkTork *^YES! 12:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure 1E was ever exceeded, but only time will tell if she fizzles out (and I will agree consensus, discounting all the crap votes, was probably for keeping in some respect). I think at this point reopening it again will only create more drama. Either way, Root, you should have realized that closing it early was a Bad Idea. What was wrong in letting more comments in (especially after they were likely to support keeping). As to your expanded closing, you still talked about your opinion more than the AfD--I don't care one bit about how much you love BLP in any other respect, if you didn't comment in the AfD your personal relations with the policy are not german. This is on top of the seeming misunderstanding of "AfD is not a vote"; keep/delete percentages (especially when you are apparently counting comments like "she's an inspiration") are irrelevant. You throw out google news hits like that's an actual viable rubric for keeping an article (nevermind the fact that they must be nontrivial and reliable, I see a lot of ghits, must be notable). As to precedent, last time I checked no one in the AfD brought up Chris Crocker. As you state yourself, consensus can change, so applying "precedent" to an unrelated AfD is, once again, a Bad Idea. Please read this again, as I'm not sure it sunk in the first time. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, thank you for all the feedback.

I strongly disagree that I somehow--I get the feeling this is implied in a vague way in some of these comments, even if you didn't actually intend it--that I somehow closed this almost as a voter based on my personal views, I did not. I closed the AFD based on my reading of the AFD itself, and the consensus there, and my interpretation of the policies involved and the opinions presented. I reject utterly any suggestion that the number of comments from the number of users plays no role in a discussion's consensus, and I will reject that till the I die as a user on this site. The arguments matter, but just as well do the number of opinions presented by the number of users. "Not a vote" is "not a policy", and I reject it. If 200 people support something, but 10 oppose, the weight of the 200 by volume must be considered. Abstractly vague precepts of the 'wikiway' semi-influenced by fringe ideologies like objectivism, circa 2002, are not binding on us and never were. Everything changes over time, and in this way, for the better as it decentralizes the power of the discussions and places it back in the community realm and common sense, rather than whomever can throw the most political power or written heat. I decided the AFD based on the overall consensus of the AFD, and if I was wordy or flowery in the interpretation, that's just how I am. I'll explain why I see something to the most painful level of detail, and given how some admins historically do literally the opposite, I figured that would be a good thing. You know exactly what you get from me, and are likely to get from me, and always have.

And one final point, the idea of new decisions not being influenced by modern precedent I utterly, absolutely, completely, and 100% reject as bogus. That's exactly what we are supposed to do. Precedent became practice became policy. Are people unhappy with my close being influenced at all by previous precedent on such AFDs? That's how policy works. That's just how we roll.

If you'd like a simpler explanation of how I looked at it, then here's a formula. In the AFD, consensus is c; weight of arguments that actually invoke policy or interpret is w; previous practices on similar cases is p; the closer's read of the sourcing and it's actual adherence to V, RS, and N is r; any possible BLP factors are b; number/volumes/!votes is v; and finally the closer's own interpretation of policy as it relates to AFD is m:

c+w+p+r+(b*2)+(v*0.5)/m=AFD close.

As for closing a bit early, Silk, yes, it could have probably gone a couple days more... but the consensus with each passing day was going to swing even more into the Keep side as it had been. In truth, there was only (I believe 20~ odd Deletes) and nearly all the Keeps came later on by volume and the "metrics" of it all. It would have been "nice" for everyone else to get to say something, but AFD isn't a Board or Arbcom election, or site wide discussion. When it's served it's purpose and the consensus is solidly locked in, any admin should be able to close one. I love process--I really do, since good process often keeps bad or nasty little fingers out of any theoretical abuse, if people hew to and closely monitor the good processes--but process for the sake of process is just a waste of everyone's time.

And finally, I'm still disinclined to reopen or change my close, and I really can't think of what else to say about it at this point. I believe wholly that my close was 100% in line with the policy arguments and clear consensus by argument and volume in the AFD discussion. I'd be happy for someone to DRV it, if they disagree and have a solid policy-based reason, but I note it still has not been. Thank you, all. rootology (C)(T) 14:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus". So in other words you put the reasonable comments based in guidelines and policy behind such comments as "She has already touched thousands, and the ball is rolling, even if she by some fluke shouldn't win there will be records and concerts in her future, the word is already spreading like wildfire across twitter,facebook, email and even word of mouth on the street. Today the UK, tomorrow the world." Nice to know you're willing to disregard the entire concept of consensus; as the policy page states, "Consensus is not in numbers". The issue here isn't Susan Boyle, it's your hasty close which makes me lose all faith in your conduct. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice to know you're cherry picking in bad faith now, which for you of all people to be doing disappoints me terribly. Why would you quote IceHunter from that AFD, and imply that I simply counted votes? If you choose to lie and misrepresent everything I've written utterly out of context, you're welcome to not post to my talk page again. I have zero tolerance or patience for political games or political point scoring. I explicitly said the number of users weighing in must be considered, but I explicitly said as well that it's one small part of the consideration; anyone willing to use both hemispheres of their mind can see that this is the case. If that's a political unpopular thing to say as it rains on our precocious wikiways of old, that's a shame. It's the truth. If you're really this unhappy with my close, please take it to DRV, as I will remove without comment anything else I perceive as bad faith from this page. rootology (C)(T) 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How am I cherry-picking in bad faith? I grabbed a support not based on any policy or guideline at random; according to your own words above, that kind of support influenced your decision even when the deletion guide exhorts us to not consider any sort of argument like that. It's not enough that it was a "small part" of your consideration; it's not supposed to be a consideration at all. We aren't a majority vote for good reasons. If the fact that I am calling attention to your selective reading of the consensus is troubling to you, remove it. I'm not trying to take this to DRV as that accomplishes nothing; the issue here is your conduct. You refuse to accept that closing an AfD early, when it was clear that was not a supported action, was a bad idea, and that considering bad arguments in your close was a bad idea. This has nothing to do with politics, this has everything to do with misuse of tools and bad judgement. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of you need to take a deep breath at this point, and dial down on the emotionality. Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of tools and bad judgement? Please sir - as Looie496 says, let's dial it down a notch. The public, the people who make this site what it is, have clearly voiced a desire to have this article. When you start picking at the foundation of our domain by using words and letters to undermine the potential of Wikipedia, you're essentially tying our hands an cutting off our legs. Root got it right, I'm sorry to disagree with your premise, but to be blunt - you're missing the "big picture". Please, let's put this behind us and move on to a more constructive task of building the world's best repository of knowledge. — Ched :  ?  20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC) By the way, referring to a new editor's, or any editor's, contributions as "crap votes" is hardly what I'd expect from an administrator! — Ched :  ?  20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather than continue to make disruptive accusations I strongly suggest you just let this topic die its death. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And rather than stick your pithy comments into a discussion between Root and me, I suggest you ignore it if such talk bothers you. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be reminded to be civil Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like it, don't respond. And I hope you were trying to say "do" instead of don't. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

←@Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs: David, first let me say that I appreciate your valuable contributions over 3+ years here. Anyone who would not take those efforts into account in a discussion would be naive. Also, I'd like to say that if my comments about what I expect in an administrator came across as snarky ... then I do apologize. I noticed that you've put the best interests of Wikipedia above your own beliefs in endorsing closure at the DRV. My compliments to you sir - truly admirable! While it's common to see editors disagree about various aspects of Wikipedia, it's an eye-opening experience to see editors come together in collaboration to benefit the project. I tip my hat to you with all due respect sir! Good Form! — Ched :  ?  23:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to sugarcoat your comments, Ched, just be plain! While I disagree with Root's judgement in this matter, the AfD was pretty much plain, garbage votes or no... opening a DRV doesn't help solve anything 'sides generate more discussion than needed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ummm .. OK... then flat out? .. You were wrong this time around - big time. But I still respect your efforts. ;) — Ched :  ?  23:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Susan Boyle. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MickMacNee (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For summing your views up better than I, or anyone else ever could at Susan Boyle's AFD, I give you this barnstar. CarpetCrawlermessage me 02:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! rootology (C)(T) 02:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Red Barnstar
		While it's not the "revolutionary new policy" this barnstar is usually given for, I think you should be awarded for putting something into words that is sorely needed. It could stand some editing to clearly address the different points at the start of the text and a little less repitition, but it's very useful nonetheless. Mgm|(talk) 10:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! rootology (C)(T) 14:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		For showing common sense at a time when there is very little of it left on Wikipedia, you deserve this! Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!! rootology (C)(T) 02:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How was it that you found your way to the userpage in question? Thanks, IronDuke 16:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I think it's pretty obvious which thread on Wikipedia Review I read about it on. That, of course, has no bearing on the policy application here on Wikipedia itself. rootology (C)(T) 17:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't obvious to me, thanks for replying. IronDuke 17:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, man, and you're welcome. And, just FYI, this isn't anything personal. rootology (C)(T) 17:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Okey-doke... however, I must insist you stop using the word irregardless. Don't make me start an AN thread on it ;) IronDuke 17:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I ain't not yet begun to approach the depths of my grammatical depravity. rootology (C)(T) 17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Just of note, that's Ironduke, not Ironholds. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Eeek! rootology (C)(T) 17:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Root. I'm not really sure what words I want to put down here; "Thank You" doesn't quite fit, simply because it doesn't really involve me really. I did want to let you know though that I appreciate you taking the time away from encyclopedia building and protection to add so much insight, help, and input to the Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Proposal to establish practices to be followed for deceased Wikipedians. I did go ahead and post a notice at the crat board here. I hope that's the place you were suggesting. Well, I'm glad you've added so much work to the whole matter, and even if it's not exactly the correct terminology: "Thank You". — Ched :  ?  15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to raise support to create a Wheel of Time Task Force under Wikiproject Novels. Given the current level of interest that exists at the Wheel of Time pages, I think now is the best time to create such a project to help coordinate our efforts and keep the participation level high. Would you be interested in joining such a project? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines? ... don't know if it's worth considering or not, but it might be. I posed the question, hope that you might weigh in since you've been fundamental in expanding communications. — Ched :  ?  19:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Root, sorry to bother you again, but I noticed the CENT template showing up here. Has it always been like that and I didn't notice, or is it somehow in a header somewhere that's making it show up at individual pages? — Ched :  ?  21:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's always been (I forget what template calls it). Do a What Links Here on Cent. The mass AFD coverage is nice, but that was one of the only 'broadly' featured sections. The Policies & Guidelines page I don't think gets a ton of views... I was thinking more the big noticeboards that people always hit. rootology (C)(T) 01:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... yea, I looked through a couple weeks of history there (AfD) and that {{cent}} template seems to go back a ways. Guess it's just one of those things I never noticed before. But then again, I don't hang out a whole lot at the XfD sites. I should mention though while I'm here ... good work on improving the communication infrastructure, long over-due - and hopefully the community will appreciate the time and work you're putting into it. ;) Cheers — Ched :  ?  06:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC) (Ched foresees more barnstars in Root's future. I'm sure that and say maybe $5 will get you a cup of coffee or a cold beer somewhere ;))

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, we are going to need a separate US article as this thing is spreading fast. I live in Canada, it is only a matter of time, that it reaches here! Green Squares (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 H1N1 flu outbreak in the United States. They already got it. rootology (C)(T) 21:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

scary outbreak. Thanks for providing this link. Ikip (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing is a big mess. You see how many countries now in the main article? rootology (C)(T) 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

After famil members died in the WWI outbreak, I had a dead family member pulled out of the family farm house window into a cart for the dead. What is interesting is there is no Mexico page, just a US one. Just shows how country biased english wikipedia is.Ikip (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's terrible. I wouldn't say it's a bias thing overtly so much as people write what they know. A lot of us are American. The American media is going nuts--this hasn't happened to us in 40 years. I'm sure if there was more readily available coverage in Mexican media and people with time/skill to work it over that it could be just as built out. rootology (C)(T) 16:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rootology. You've made a series of comments at the block review (for the block imposed on Ikip), and you later reversed Ikip's block. I would request that you answer my questions as promptly as possible.

1. Have you made any attempts to communicate with the blocking admin prior to your unblock? If so, how many minutes elapsed between your attempts to communicate with the blocking admin, and your unblock?
2. You have stated to AMIB: "You as an admin have zero standing or authority to levy this block as one of the deepest "deletionist" partisans on this site, just as anyone deeply involved in the squadron would have zero standing or authority to undo it." Can you please provide diffs to support this claim?
3. In saying to AMIB: "You must undo this block and not do such a thing again, or you will not be long for your tools once the Arbitration Committee sees what you're about", can you clarify what you meant?
4. You've stated to AMIB: "You pretty much missed the goal as far right as you can on this one, for being involved." Can you provide diffs for this claim?

Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Blocks and admin actions are never sacrosanct, unless they are from the Arbitration Committee as a body or cited as an OFFICE action. Any can be reversed once by any admin in good faith with justification. I provided my justifications here. For your specific questions:

1. We were talking in the ANI thread. That is classically regarded as sufficient, but I posted the diffs that he was going to pull for him. There's no canvassing for days before the block. Since blocks are preventative by policy and not punative, the block automatically has no standing. I re-opened the archived discussion, that Abd closed, so that my unblock can be reviewed and re-instated by any uninvolved admin if required.
2. This would take a long while to gather it all, but a long-standing user's leanings are hardly secret. I'm a BLP zealot most times; Ikip is an inclusionist; DGG is an inclusionist; JoshuaZ is an inclusionist; AMiB is a deletionist; Phil Sandifer is an inclusionist.
3. Admins have repeatedly been told by the AC (and policy) that they may not use tools in areas in which they are involved. My strongly-worded suggestion was so that another good admin doesn't fall down that hole.
4. See #3. Again, any demonstratably uninvolved admin can freely reverse my unblock, I waive all wheel warriness, etc.

AMIB has replied to my unblock, by the way, on that thread. rootology (C)(T) 15:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay; just to note that it was very appropriate of you to revert the closing and leave the thread open, for the reasons you've stated.

There are a couple of things I'd like to clarify for future incidents. If AMIB had participated in that particular deletion discussion, then using his tools would likely be inappropriate. Alternatively (as may be the case here), if AMIB had been involved in personal and direct conflict with Ikip, especially if it was recent, then his use of tools would not be appropriate. Such involvement can cloud judgement. However, mere general participation in other deletion debates/discussions is not necessarily enough for an admin to be considered "involved". Similarly, merely having a particular stated leaning that is in conflict with the other user's is usually not enough to suggest any user is involved, and should not be used as a reason to prevent an admin from enforcing what they should be. The same has generally applied for all other discussions, RFAs, AC decisions, etc. Although there are likely exceptions to everything I've just said, does that make sense?

Btw, would you mind if I sent you email? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Email's always welcome. :) rootology (C)(T) 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to leave a note: sent one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Heya Rootology. I think you kinda lost the "uninvolved status" when you made those accusations. Just my $0.02. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I have, going forward, but I'm definitely an I/Dist "centrist", if my AFD record speaks for itself on the ones I've begun. Although for BLPs I'm definitely a deletionist, so I suppose one "partly" deletionist undoing another's block isn't the end of the world. I'm more concerned about the INVOLVED concerns, which have always been one of my biggest policy concerns. I think a lot of us play far too fast and loose with that, all the way up to the Checkuser/Oversight level. rootology (C)(T) 15:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. When you made the accusations on the board that he was blocking because of I/D agendas, you became involved.

FWIW, I would have unblocked if Ikip had employed the {{unblock}} template. Which is to say, there is at least one admin even more uninvolved (or at least closer to neutral on the topic) than you :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Know you're busy in real life and all, but thought you might like to see some available changes here. We now have some more options for formatting the Template:Cent box. ;) — Ched :  ?  23:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears an abuse filter was put in place anyway without visible discussion. It is currently set private so I can't even get a look at the regular expression(s) in use. Details on this talk page. Legitimate links are currently disappearing, there should be ~160 for TPB, but the count is down to 153 as of right now. I find the secretive nature of this whole thing quite disturbing. Tothwolf (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bring up your concerns there, please. I'll take a look. rootology (C)(T) 01:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I did, I also had a very very long discussion with Promethean on IRC when he first brought it up there. I thought that was the end of that discussion but others have gone ahead with it anyway, I guess. Tothwolf (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at my post. Also, barring "emergency" situations, and rarely that, no wide-reaching thing like this should be hashed out on IRC ever. It lacks transparency. rootology (C)(T) 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Promethean was looking for support for his proposal on IRC but he didn't really find it (at least I thought). I do believe he understood my concerns by the end of the discussion I had with him. I would never support a filter such as this where the regular expression and such are being "hidden" from public view and where no public process has taken place beforehand. Tothwolf (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

An interesting read that explains allot about your interest GoneAwayNowAndRetired, This just screams Canvass personally as it shows you had a predisposition without even looking or knowing about the filter. Also Tothwolf, thier was support on IRC as you were the only one with minor concerns, whereas [Roux] and [Soap] supported the idea in its entirty.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no, I'd been active in the WP:AN discussion about torrent links, and was opposed there to the blacklisting of piratebay.org on the site blacklist functionality without a wide prior concensus, and Guy and I had gotten Godwin involved. There was no consensus on AN (or anywhere else) so the possibility of it being restricted in any way via the Abuse Filter, let alone YouTube, was an unfortunate way around consensus. It was good of tothwolf to say something. You have to rattle the cages sometimes and drag people's eyes onto possible issues. rootology (C)(T) 13:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Promethean, if you had read the original AN discussion (which I provided you a link to when you were first proposing your filter idea on IRC) and that I've linked to on the abusefilter #155 request discussion you'd realize your claim of canvassing is way out of bounds. There was not consensus based support for your filter proposal on IRC and as I recall you managed to get into quite an argument with [roux] leading to you being banned for 12-24 hours. Tothwolf (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of politicizing article review. Maybe I would support it with some lower-profile editors in an isolated area, but applying such a sanction to the parties in this case seems like it would open the doors to claims of wikistalking and bad faith across the project. A GA review wouldn't just be a GA review—it would also represent 5% of an editor's unfettered privileges; I don't think it's good to tie them together. Cool Hand Luke 06:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Pong. Cool Hand Luke 16:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts? Seems as if we're playing musical namespaces at this point... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 swine flu outbreak/Table rootology (C)(T) 17:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should move it back to templatespace, <noinclude> the TFD tag, and re-open the TFD allow re-nomination at TFD if required. –xeno ^talk 17:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should close the whole thing down since arguing over this stuff is silly. It needs to be off the main page for a few days to a few weeks, and it doesn't matter in the end. rootology (C)(T) 17:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why you didn't just speedily keep the TFD? Do you mind if I move it back into templatespace? –xeno ^talk 17:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No secret that I despire IAR 99% of the time, but I still won't close an xfd I'm involved in that closely. I really think it's fine where it is, all this nonsense over a pointless mechanical solution we came up with makes me want to delete my entire userspace and scramble my password. This guy's AFD is a waste of everyone's collective time. rootology (C)(T) 17:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I think the TFD was really the bigger time waster. Yes, it's a single-use template, but there was a justifiable reason for it. –xeno ^talk 17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-templatefied, FYI. –xeno ^talk 18:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you add it to the map? Thanks. --67.189.254.208 (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rootology, thanks for keeping the swine flu map up to date, I just noticed South Dakota is still on it despite the fact the cases there were negative. I would correct this myself, but I suck at images so i was wondering if you could look at it. thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 00:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in helping to keep the swine flu maps updated, but I've never edited an image file on Wikipedia and I'm not familiar with svg files. I noticed that you've been doing a lot of work to keep the US map updated, so clearly you know what you're doing. If it's not an overly complicated process, could you drop me a line to let me know how it's done? --DavidK93 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty easy--Google and download a free app called "Inkscape", which you can use to edit .svg graphics. It's just a matter of paint-filling in the fields, then. At least that's how I did it... rootology (C)(T) 16:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As you are an editor who had been involved in the Afd discussion of Jennifer Fitzgerald, I'm here to let you know that I re-opened the discussion on the article to gain a stronger consensus. After some discussion with a few other editors I agree that I may have closed the article too hastily and that further discussion is necessary before a final decision is made. Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You semiprotected this template in April. An IP user used {{editsemiprotected}} to request that a {{pp-semi}} be added to the template page. I declined since it looked awkward and I couldn't find any templated templates during a brief search. Could you visit template talk:2009 swine flu#protection template and comment one way or the other? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Root, I'd welcome your views on this suggestion, if you have time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started a proposal: Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I just realised a typo in this edit summary of mine [6] could be mistaken for "naive" it was meant to be "nice." Nothing Freudian, just a genuine typo. I am a great beleiver in people being given the opportunity to pull themselves together and sort their own problems out, without fear of blocking etc. It's sad that, in this case, there is so little hope, I think if KB could be removed from the equation BHG and VK could probably sort something out, but KB's hatred of VK in that field is too intense. Giano (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

See my comment on the Impeachment of Functionaries talk page.

I largely agree that in virtually every instance that a public complaint about a functionary brought by the Community to ArbCom should be voted on in public. These would happen if a complaint is part of a RFArb.

But I want to make sure that the ArbCom Audut Subcommittee still can do its work. Since the Audit Subcommittee is new, the process is still evolving. I'm certain that we will get a stable policy over time. For now the way we are working is that a request for an investigation might be made in public or private. All reports of the investigation will be recorded in public. But it is possible that a private vote might happen under some circumstances and I don't want to box in the Committee by saying every public request must be in voted on if that outcome stops the right thing from happening. Effective quality outcomes is the goal and it is not yet clear how best that will be achieved in every instance. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That totally makes sense. I'm all for transparency (big shock, there) but I'm totally on board with a lot of information having to be private, if it's 'outing' in nature. But for the actual Arbcom votes? I'm trying to figure out any circumstance where the final roll coll of who voted what on a fixed proposal would need to be private from the community. I thought that this only came up previously on the Lar vs. Slim dispute, and on the JoshuaZ desysopping for private votes, but then it was later disclosed who voted which way.

Arbcom unbans are also private votes, but for any public outcome--an unban, a ban, a loss or restoration of status--I don't quite get why it would be bad for the votes of the individual arbs by name to be known? I.e., if there was a line vote for me, last year, on the mail list or wiki. Why would it be bad if everyone knew which Arb supported me, and didn't? rootology (C)(T) 20:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Lar-SV case was a public vote. Evidence and discussion occurred in private. JoshuaZ happened in private by his request. If he decided to seek the return of the tools then the private information would have been disclosed.

I strongly prefer a public vote if the situation goes to a situation where an involuntary removal happens. But if the user agrees to the private case and private vote, then I think it might be for the best to do it that way if the outcome is reached with less stress and disruption. As long as the Audit Subcommittee is charged with monitoring it all, I think we can be reassured that a fair preceding in the best interest of the Community occurred.

Additionally, if we are going to investigate misuse and poor conduct, irrespective of the status of complainant, then some people think ArbCom might not want to publicly disclose who voted to allow the user to retain the tools if there is a significant chance that it will result in real world harassment for the Audit Subcommitte and ArbCom members. If the complainant is a banned user with history of harassment, then we still want to investigate if there is problematic conduct. We have grappled with this in the past in respect to starting and closing ban discussion for some highly toxic people. Personally, I don't think it is really effective to do it in private since the harasser will transfer their displeasure at the outcome to everyone. But knowing that this internal discussion has occurred, I don't want to force a public vote if the majority of people think it is a really bad idea in a particular instance. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, going to ask you to refrain from further posting there as well, at least as regards OR. Please let me know if you have an issue with this - it seems best to just have you both step away from the conflict there, and stick to the ANI thread. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally fine by me. rootology (C)(T) 16:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am now here to ask if you will also let it drop on ANI. It is in repeato-mode now, your rebuttals are only continuing the drama - let it go, yes? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. rootology (C)(T) 17:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks, I know it irks to let some posts go un-rebutted, and I appreciate your forbearance. Now, if we can just get OR to drop it, too.... KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Some things are more important than getting what we or "our claimed people" (:P) want. By the way, he's spreading out, FYI. rootology (C)(T) 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It was an honest mistake that I forgot the "subst" prefix and an honest mistake. Calls for an indef block are a bit severe. Sorry. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The comment was a joke-- did you see my edit summary? :P rootology (C)(T) 23:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Sorry, I just read what was on my page (and someone else had a more recent change to my page). Thanks for the clarification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You might need to copedit your RFAR on AMiB; the second line currently reads "This admin by our current standards...are exactly the same." I think maybe you meant to say the standards for admins are the same and that AMiB no longer equals them?

I also wonder if it's a good idea to have the RFAR and MFD running concurrently; it might be good to have one of your colleagues close the latter (as it's unlikely to end in straightforward deletion). Regards,  Skomorokh  05:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. And more evidence that I can apparently write, but can't copy edit if you put a gun to my head. rootology (C)(T) 05:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As for that MFD, I'm sure it will close down with the RFC suggestion soon. I'm honestly torn on the whole thing, especially after a long chat today about the topic. rootology (C)(T) 05:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, the statement is clearer – and punchier! – now. I share your ambivalence on the ARS MfD; seeing the disruption around the project unfold the past month or so has been like watching a slow-moving car crash. Quite demoralizing. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember when I voted "Neutral but wanted to Support" on your rfa (I do not support candidates that pledge to the be open to recall.) You said you wanted to use the tools for "the housekeeping, primarily. I want the tools primarily so that I can have another way to help out. Moving images to Commons is a big thing I want to work on, that I have worked on on-and-off in bursts. Speedy deletion clean-up is another, and Requests for Page Protection is yet another area I'd like to help on. Those would be my primary areas, especially the images work involved in clearing out images moved over to Commons (principally the categories User-created public domain images and Copyright holder released public domain images). IFD is another area I could help out on, and I've been on and off trying to trudge through an image clean up project at User:Rootology/Images which is basically rooting out Commons move candidates from the orphaned PD images that belong more on Facebook than here or Commons. I do Huggle sometimes, if I have some spare time and don't feel like actually writing, so I'd probably try to help keep an eye on AIV backlogs when I can, as well. The image work, to go in tandem with my work and tools on Commons, will be my primary focus."

Now, 5 months in, do you feel you are following the statments you made? Hipocrite (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hip.

Well, my full log of actions as an admin is here. I've ended up doing the bulk of my admin work at WP:RFPP like I predicted, and I've only gotten any actual static on an admin action for one AFD, the Susan Boyle one as seen here. That close ended up being overwhelmingly endorsed (almost unanimously, if I recall) at DRV. I haven't done much RC patrol lately, not since I think a few weeks after my RFA, but I hadn't done much of that for several weeks before the RFA either. I've had free time in much smaller bursts lately, the odd day notwithstanding, which is why I've been just poking around more in admin areas and doing even less dedicated writing.

That image cleanup project in particular I still want to do, but I've been stuck on a reasonable way to automate it, as so much of it is subjective work: "Is it worth porting that image to Commons? What about this one?" I can get a fresh SQL dump of the images in question any time, and reconfigure it structurally into any number of bite-sized pieces in minutes... but that still leaves the question of manpower and time to actually figure out where to put 250,000+ images. The last time I figured out the math, if I did all of that queue by myself, it was something like 18,000 hours assuming I consistently had a good fast connection on all ends, and worked at maximum speed. It's mind bogglingly boring but needed work, and it's hard to stay focused on it in long doses, though. If I can find a way to shave even 10% of that time involved off the top, I'd rather figure that out first.

Overall my main admin work has been spot-checking WP:AIV periodically, and then also especially WP:RFPP (which I particularly enjoy working on, since I think I know the Protection policies better than any other). I'd link my overall edit stats off Soxred's tools but toolserver appears flaky again.

So, 5 months in? Pretty much, yeah, for use of my tools. I've still done some of the work I'd always done along the way of trying for 'change', but I'd been doing that forever. I haven't blown up anything yet, at least, with the buttons. What do you think, based on that admin log? rootology (C)(T) 17:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do a thorough review. I merely realized I had seen your name in two back-to-back dramaz and wondered if a gentle reminder of what you said you liked doing might be helpful. Carry on. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I'm not a fan of the dramaz anymore--you know I've had my fill of them over the years. Hopefully I can go x months after this current fire dies off. By the way, you're whip sharp--you ever see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees? Any thoughts? rootology (C)(T) 19:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but my solution to all content disputes is far too simple to require a comittee. Topic ban everyone remotely involved in the dispute. Then, the wrong parties will be topic banned, and the right parties won't need to do whatever it is they were doing to counteract the guilty parties. The fireworks of the massive topic ban would bring enough other editors to solve any problem, especially now that everyone was topic banned an unable to bother them. I trust editors who don't care to do it right. I just wish someone would try implementing my suggestion on something and see how well it would work. Hipocrite (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, i'm dropping it now anyway and going to bed to recharge. Hopefully i'll wake up tomorrow in a slightly better wiki-mood ;) Cheers! John Sloan @ 02:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up you little shit.Drew Smith What I've done 02:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. rootology (C)(T) 02:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Woah, my apologies! Wrong user! Should have sent to the user below you, just caught that. That was a really bad mistake.Drew Smith What I've done 02:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what is going on. I thought you genuinely joking given the clusterfuck that is that thread? What is going on? rootology (C)(T) 03:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, The person who posted below you said being called a little shit is no big deal. I accidentaly clicked on your talk instead of hers, and proceeded to prove my point. To the wrong person.Drew Smith What I've done 03:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. rootology/equality 03:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant to say here, but I don't see a problem with WP:=. There are others using symbols, such as WP:!. --NE2 04:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It was meant to be "we don't need that = do we?" but I hit enter too fast. :( Do we need the extra symbology there? rootology/equality 04:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not - it's certainly more of a shortcut than the others. --NE2 05:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm dumb, I get it now. Good one, I'll add it. rootology/equality 05:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that you call me "Myth" instead of "Mythdon", and you call Ryulong "Ryu" instead of "Ryulong". Why is that? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No reason, I was just being friendly. I don't like tossing around any admin bravado, and it was just a friendly suggestion. It wasn't a "STAY AWAY PER THE ADMIN" sorta thing. I'll refer to you as Mythdon, if you prefer. rootology/equality 05:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to be addressed exactly by my username, yes. I don't want other editors getting confused. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Rootology. I think that I might end up hosting tonight's WikiVoices skypecast, so I wondered if I might have your Skype nick, as it would make things much easier if we are pressed for time later. If could could reply here with it or give me an email, I'd appreciate that. Thanks, NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll shoot you an email. rootology/equality 22:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I admire you for deciding to try to make Wikipedia better for its editors. ParlorGames 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I like this as well. Thanks Root. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK 17:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Prize for "first workshop proposals." ;-) AGK 17:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm nothing if not fast, and you caught me seconds after I wrapped up my evidence. :) rootology/equality 17:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note: The Committee has indicated that it would like for all evidence to be submitted by June 6/7th. If you foresee any problems on your part with meeting that deadline, please mention so on the case's evidence talk page. Thanks, AGK 18:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'm actually done barring one piece that I mailed the AC to ask for permission to disclose in some form. rootology/equality 18:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that was not a broken edit. It was a good one. I was converting the reference to use a refname because the reference already appeared elsewhere in the article. Gary King (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

		The Dual-Boot Barnstar
		In recognition of the fact that you actually deserve more than one Barnstar for your recent work, Ched in his typically lazy manner drops off your "Dual-Boot" Barnstar for: Your efforts and work with WP:CENT to embiggen the communication levels of wikipedia. Your efforts to keep things fair in establishing the WP:EQUAL proposal. (note: This is the very first, and original "Dual Boot Barnstar" to be awarded. ;))

Thanks for your work. — Ched :  ?  13:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!! rootology/equality 16:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Good work! Please make sure to include the caveat that some must be more equal than others in that policy. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you semi for longer? It's just off two consecutive one month protections. "13:07, March 25, 2009 Juliancolton (talk | contribs) changed protection level for "LeBron James" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC))" "13:48, April 26, 2009 Tanthalas39 (talk | contribs) changed protection level for "LeBron James" [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC))" Cheers, Enigma^msg 04:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I just got it. rootology/equality 05:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 14:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh. The closing admin declared "no consensus", told people to work it out on talk, so someone starts edit warring it into a redirect, and that's the version that gets protected? :-) (heck, far as I'm concerned it _should_ be the redir, it just ticks me off that people ignored the AfD result and implemented their preferred solution with minimal talkpage use...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that stuff (especially after AFD) is always silly. I just saw the volume of edits, the 12kb-13kb size constantly flipping to 300b and pulled the plug. Which is the Right Version? :P rootology/equality 18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, but I think it involves FORMAT C: somewhere... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for revising your action on the WP:MOS. Let's hope it works. Finell (Talk) 21:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To what edit war did you refer? I've already responded to Kotniski, but because it seemed more like a personal question than an article-specific one, I did so on the user's talk page. Also, I'm pretty confident that K's first reversal of my contributions was due to a typo on my part: I'd written "inside" instead of "outside" by mistake. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC) (Moved from user page 0:03, 30 May 2009 (EST)

EDIT: I've sent a message to MB asking said user to identify the dispute. Still, if you are in a position to clear things up, I'd welcome it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry i posted in the archived an/i section; it wasn't closed yet when i made my edit. i was just feeding him anyway - good call. untwirl(talk) 17:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I criticized Petri for his statement, one year block might be too harsh. I suggected an alternative at ANI (topic ban plus civility parole). If this would be supported by you and/or others, of course...Biophys (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your participation. Also when I first read question 15, I thought you were asking my position rather than poison, oh well, you got the long answer. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I swear I mean no harm and I won't get further involved if I'm wrong in the matter. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't... I have no idea what is going on here but it is better to simply go with the original and keep them deleted for now. I'm really sorry - I honestly haven't the foggiest what's going on. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to see you active more in the article namespace and less in the project namespace. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Me too. I work more comfortably on articles when I have long, protracted blocks of time, which I rarely do these days. What specifically don't you like about my work in the project space? rootology/equality 22:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine to be passionate about things. But you've subverted your user signature, your user page, and your recent edit activity into advocacy for a particular proposal, for example. Imagine if you'd redirected that energy into an article. Just something to consider. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The equality thing in general is something I've been thinking about for years, even back 'in the day', but it's hit as big of a brick wall of apathy as it can get (I was actually thinking yesterday about dumping my sig, which I may as well do now). I do get passionate, but only on really specific points. For the recent activity do you mean my being more vocal again about BLP stuff (I've been on that forever)? Or the equality stuff? But I get what you're saying. Like all of us, we end up getting hung up on our pet issues. I was actually telling someone either Friday or Thursday last week that I was purging my watchlist of most dramaz hotspots after the AMiB RFAR I brought closes. rootology (C)(T) 23:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This user has resumed his disruptive activities following his unblock. In particular when I warned him that if he continued arguing on the talk page of Europe (I suppose the same point but it was essentially trolling because he had no edit to suggest), he reported simultaneously on WP:WQA and WP:ANI without informing me. I filed a separate report on WP:ANI. Please can some oreder be restored here? TheThankful is continuing to be disruptive and is harrassing me by this forum shopping. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you asking here, but I kinda have my hands full timewise before taking something else big up. If it's all over ANI, it's as visible as something can get short of RFAR. rootology (C)(T) 23:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What's interesting to me is that Jayjg's status was changed twice in June 2006, but the story did not break publicly until August 2006. Around June 8, several members of the then-standing Arbitration Committee thought that some of his oversights were outside the scope of the oversight tool (the policy at the time was murky). There was also note of an anonymous complaint from an admin in "good standing." Arbitrators actually discussed some of the edits later exposed in August. One arbitrator sagely predicted that the oversight of older edits that had already dumped would make it easy to find such edits using dumps and mirrors.

There does not appear to have been a formal vote on this subject. Perhaps Brion Vibber became satisfied that oversight would not be overused in the future (or perhaps he was convinced it was not in fact overuse—I cannot tell). In any event, several commentators tended to agree with Jayjg's rationale, and only about three strongly disagreed with the oversights.

These discussions were one motivation for developing an internal log feature for the tool. Early on the oversight log was public, but it was turned off because it made it trivially easy to find things that were freshly oversighted. However, no private log was implemented at that time, so oversighting was completely blind—even to other oversighters.

I think that Wikipedians ought to know that the June 2006 status changes stemmed from the very same overuse of oversight that later became public. There's not another hidden abuse that I'm aware of. Cool Hand Luke 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've looked into this as well, and while I have some unanswered questions, I think the most likely explanation is that people were jittery about a powerful new tool.

The user rights log shows that Jayjg's oversight was removed by a steward and a developer [7]. First, it's important to remember that the stewards are only empowered to act on an emergency basis (I assume the same applies to developers) and that in the absence of a finding by Arbcom to confirm the removal, the default position is to restore it when the emergency is over.

Jon Søby removed access on 6 June 2006 and restored it 5 minutes later. I can't find this in the archives of m:RFP, so someone must have contacted him privately. (Also, several hours had passed from Jayjg's last use to the user rights change, so it was not apparently an emergency.) Since he restored it 5 minutes later, there obviously wasn't time for deliberations or even detailed explanations. I am tempted to suggest that someone who was using these edits as evidence of something noticed that they had disappeared and made some kind of "emergency request", but that is of course purest speculation.

When Brion removed oversight and restored it 2 days later, he did leave a notice on wiki. [8] [9] Obviously I don't know what was discussed in email.

From looking at the edits themselves, it appears that the removal (and even Luke's casual use of the term "overuse" above), hinge on two questions.

1. It is clear that if an editor posts to another editor's talk page, "Your name is Joe Smith of 123 Fake Street, Springfield," that is oversightable. What if instead, the editor posts "What do you think about my new web site www.greentreefrogs.info", where the web site actually contains the personal information of several editors and admins? Is that also oversightable or not?
2. Should oversight be used to remove edits that are months or even years old, when the edit would be eligible for oversight if it had been made recently?

So I don't think it's fair to say that Jayjg "overused" oversight. He certainly used it a lot, 83 of the first 150 logged actions are his. I think it is more fair to say that he used it in an unanticipated way, by (a) hiding evidence of logged out editing, and (b) hiding revisions that were several years old, that would have been eligible for oversight at the time if oversight had existed. At least (a) is routine and uncontroversial today, and as far as I know, no one has ever really discussed (b). Thatcher 13:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, guys. I'm 1) Amazed that no one actually asked the Question, after the offer was put up after so long; and that 2) no one ever really offered/bothered to go after this bit of often sideline-discussed information until now. These explanations from two people that I trust are basically the equivalent of watching the Star Wars prequels: "Really? That was all? Everyone was expecting he like blew up a planet when he was a kid, too." rootology (C)(T) 15:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. That whole thing was so outta policy and random it boggled my mind. Got a lone cockroach in your kitchen? Clearly, you need to white phosphorous your apartment in response. rootology (C)(T) 17:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the whole "note that IP/new accounts may be discounted if their motives are suspect/their opinions not based in policy" thing. I note that a large number of the IP votes you have unmarked are not based on policy. Ironholds (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but they're still always allowed a voice, is the thing. Its on the closing admin to discount nonsense, not people involved in the debates. Refute, sure. Manipulate/mark out? Absolutely not. rootology (C)(T) 22:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Darkfrog24 and a couple of others are at it again over placement of other punctuation with quotation marks at WP:MOS. They have weakened the long-standing, pre-edit-war guideline and added back the paragraph about American English versus British English, which is not and never has been any part of the reason for the MOS's adoption of the logical quotation style guideline. In fact, usage is not consistent on either side of the Pond: some American publications use the so-called British style, and some British publications use the so-called American style. Also, do we really need to have a dispute tag in this section just because there is a recurring minority who argues with, but never achieves consensus for, changing the long-standing guideline for using logical quotation? The minority argument comes up every 3 or 4 months, and the result is always to keep the logical quotation guideline. This is all confusing to conscientious editors who come to the MOS for guidance. Finell (Talk) 07:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And now User:Mchavez is edit warring over this. Finell (Talk) 08:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection of the MOS is not the result I expected or wanted. Further, it is not tollerable for the MOS to be full protected. As I said before, and you agreed, everyone who works productively and collaboratively on the MOS should not be shut out becasue 2 editors keep changing this one, long-stable section of the MOS without consensus for changing it. You agreed to the solution of blocking editors who edit war over this issue. Please enforce that solution, and unprotect the page. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 03:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And this time it is some different people again, and I'm not going to start blocking wide swathes of users; edit warring over the MOS of all things is just pointless. I will happily unprotect if there is consensus and I have no problem if another admin unprotects. I'm not going to protect that page again, a third time. If you would like to request unprotection to take it up the WP:DR process for all future edit warriors, please post a request on WP:ANI linking back to this thread on my talk. The MOS is not some ultra-critical process or policy where the project is in grave risk if it's locked or "held up" temporarily. Policy pages even--which the MOS isn't--often get protected historically over petty bickering and edit warring. Go look at the logs on WP:BLP for example, which is an ultra-critical page for what it describes. My protect there is totally standard in that regard. I'm going offline probably the rest of the night now (if I can pull that off) so please, again, take it to WP:ANI and link back here if you do believe the MOS urgently needs unprotecting. rootology (C)(T) 03:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rootology: thank you for protecting the page. I see nothing wrong with such protection from time to time when MoS is being treated like a sandbox. It would be a pity if protection became more permanent, since it makes routine maintenance and copy-editing difficult. Tony (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI: [10]. Just wanted to point out that poll you proposed has already been performed, and the results are available for anyone to see. See my comment in the section above yours replying to Rlevse, as well. Nathan ^T 02:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, GoneAwayNowAndRetired. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rootology, I'd suggest that both you and AMIB are getting a little too personal and you should perhaps take a step back. Not meant as an attack, warning or anything else, just my observation of the tone of the discussion. I'd put a similar note on AMIB's page, but I'm even less certain how that would be taken. Sorry to be a bother. Hobit (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Sounds like me and Atwater-Donnelly. They've never given me anything for editing the Wikipedia article, but I used to run their website, and have scored a couple of free CDs over the years. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No free CDs for me, and with the bands I've drank with I've bought at least as many rounds as they have (it's not like they're rolling in Aerosmith money--I'd make Tyler buy all the drinks!), so I figure it's a draw. rootology (C)(T) 19:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Colds7ream/RfA

Wednesday, June 10 2009 @ 02:54 AM EDT [11]. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

MS crawling our GFDL content is a wholly separate issue; it's GFDL. They can do whatever they want with it, good or bad, as long as it's attributed. The Weir/Brown thing on the endless standards debate isn't a paid editing thing, however, in any way. That's a pure WP:COI matter related to that, and so complex in this instance that few users here would be fit to really judge and sort it out. More reading here, on Brown's site, where he discusses it with Weir in the comments. I used to follow the standards battles and issues more closely up until about a year and a half ago. This almost comes down to a pure content dispute matter, even moreso than COI, to be honest. It's very deep into the semantics and even versioning of the software for who supports what. It looks like "our current debate" on the surface, but it's really not. rootology (C)(T) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However, have you ever thought of Wikipedia's reputation in the eyes of the masses before pushing for 'paid editing'? Be assured that whatever the limits you'd place on that concept, the image which will be seen by outsiders (media, observers and analysts) and readers would be totally different than the image you're trying to convey by placing those limits. The burden on Wikipedia admins would be high. Wikilawyering would attain a max level. You'd be ending up with paid editors working for company X edit warring with paid editors of its rival and other neutral editors. A total mess that neither you nor ArbCom would be able to fix. We are debating a MAJOR change in our editing process; this is not a simple FlaggedRev issue which would work in favour of Wikipedia since readers would trust that what they read has been okey'ed. You know more than most editors here (because of your experience) that Wikipedia has not yet attained a high level of trust among academics, scientists, students, media and the general populace.

It is not the right time to say the least, Root. You have to fix the already existing problems (NPOV, COI, etc) before pushing for something as important as this. Once the field is ready for implementation, then that'd be the right time to push it. This is only the 8th year of the existence of the project; that's nothing. Let's fix the existing problems first. After that, what you are asking for would become much more acceptable; not to Jimmy or me or any other Wikipedian opposing it but to everyone around the world. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're asking too many stock questions at RFA. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and which to cut out. The problem is, though, is that some of those questions have to be asked to get people on the record after some of the crazier abuses we've seen lately. Which in your opinion are most extraneous beside my last fun one? rootology (C)(T) 15:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Stifle here... Please see Wikipedia talk:RFA#Amount of questions and consider limiting yourself to 2 or 3 of the questions you feel are most relevant in determining the suitability of the particular candidate you are asking. Unleashing a battery of your questions could be seen as selfish and may discourage other users from asking questions that may be more immediately relevant to the candidate. –xeno^talk 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  Further to the above, if you had tailor-fit your questions, you would've realized that asking Mazca if he is over the age of majority was a waste of a question because he openly discloses his age on his userpage. –xeno^talk 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• For the "other accounts" question, you could simply ask the candidate to disclose other accounts, if any. If they say they don't want to reveal it publicly, you could follow up afterwards. Enigma^msg 18:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) It may also be good to consider not asking questions that directly attempt to invade a user's privacy. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, guys. I dropped a long answer here. I feel stupid now, like my using these questions have turned me into the new Kurt or DougsTech or something. rootology (C)(T) 23:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the RFC you say that there has been no consensus previously on whether paid editing is ok. Does the existence of the WP:RB not suggest that there previsouly has been consensus? It was put to AfD in 2008 and survived but not many people voted. I'm tempted to be bold and add a note about this being allowed currently at the top of the RFC as from the talk page (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#And_another_thing and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Reward_Board) it seems as though not many people are aware it exists. I'll leave it to you to decide if it should be there or not. Smartse (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's up to you, really. I don't 'own' the RFC. :) rootology (C)(T) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[12]. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Commented on your second proposal. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it has been compromised. (see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

I already have a sleeper account on the Arbcom! And I'm actually both User:Grawp and User:Entsmoots of Trolls. You're next on the deadmin wall, buddy (and is now the second time this has happened to me??). rootology (C)(T) 02:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I actually use fairly complex pass phrases with idiosyncratic mixes of absurd character sequences that I change semi-monthly, at least. After I passed RFA, I really upgraded this one... O.G. paranoia from when I used to work with some really hardcase network security guys, one of whom had a background in cryptography. Crazy but wonderful Russian guy, his typical password would be something like:

nMi:Ud(o`g3[<Z`cj+)"'Q%EaS*e>P^yN-2[:sD";ljr`TJDs,{Y+_fpJWHWA|Hwn>P3-qJK3G1p=I%u}hKd+;_V3&\"CtXw}D.UH6~*\\O_e_xwhz;$95[mp?=[Y]tW

Totally insane. I wonder how long my patience with something like that would last, having to load up it from an encrypted keyring app (which to be done right, would be locked down with an RSA token, and locked on a 256-bit AES encrypted unique USB keyring that had a thumbprint reader requirement to be read on my unique PC that only runs on an encrypted volume with a remote content kill mechanism in case of theft...). rootology (C)(T) 02:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I understand the arguement for ultimately deleting the article; and I have no problem if that is the way the community goes on this. However, you were well aware of the terms of the article's userfication, and you were also well aware that there were terms on that userfication that gave 1 week to the parties involved to bring this up to standard. When you start the MFD two days early, it shows a clear spite for the people who were working on the article, and disrespect towards me as an admin. A compromise solution was being worked out, and that you short circuited that compromise seems to serve little purpose except as a personal "screw you" statement to JoshuaZ and ChildofMidnight. I have never been a particular fan of either of them, but there is no need for this. I am not sure why this had to be done two days early, and I am disenheartend that you had such a level of disrespect towards me that you felt that my involvement here in attempting to work out a solution that would minimize tension on both sides wasn't worth paying attention to. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, this was honestly not intended as a slight toward you. I honestly, and truly, strongly believe that in regards to BLP matters, the anti-BLP extremists or the BLP-deniers shouldn't be shown an inch of leeway. I did end up searching all over for sourcing out of morbid curiosity, and could come up with nothing. If I didn't believe the article had no possibility of salvage, I wouldn't have done it, but I will forever till the day I retire refuse to give any deference to internal politics or ego (not yours--Josh and CoM in this case) vs. BLP subjects. The internal users will lose that fight every time, as far as I am concerned. I hate to sound harsh, but... even if it was some other user had drafted up the user space, I would have been doing this. I won't lie that Josh doing it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth, as he has gamed BLP in the past to the highest level (and I'm unsure why he hasn't banned from anything BLP-related) but I promise you this wasn't intended as a slight toward you. I left a note on the MFD after you posted there, specifically endorsing your suggestion of the MFD length and left a note at the top of the MFD, before you posted here. rootology (C)(T) 14:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining all of that, and that you for this small public gesture as well: [13]. Small gestures go a long way towards maintaining a collegial working relationship. I do understand and support the strict attitude towards BLPs; I just have no opinion on this specific BLP. From an outside observer, this just gives the appearance of a personal conflict between two camps, with this article being ultimately inconsequential anymore. It just feels like each side is now continuing this out of personal spite towards their "opponents" and its not about the encyclopedia anymore. Your explanation above helps me understand that you may not be doing this, but in general this still feels like it has gone way beyond the article in question, and is now about who did what to whom two years ago, and who is going to get revenge for that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Was this confirmed offwiki, or is there a place you can point others? Syn 00:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom knows[14], but given his odd nature about some stuff I'm not surprised he didn't announce it in public. I was kind of surprised it hadn't been tagged to be honest when the other was. rootology (C)(T) 01:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)