User talk:Pedro/Archive 38

Moooooooooooo

I've just spent an hour chasing a cow over two miles of my semi-rural village. Can any other Talk Page Stalkers beat that? :) Pedro : Chat 21:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I once had a 'possum sashay through my house. In one back door and out the other. I waved a broom at 'im and he hissed at me. Then we parted ways. ;) Dloh cierekim 21:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possum v. Cow. No - I win! Pedro : Chat 21:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, you didn't say who won! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Pedro. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page.
Message added 22:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 22:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer on permissions page

Thanks for the question, Pedro. I answered on the request for permission page Sheeana ^Talk 21:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for rollback. I appreciate your thoroughness here and want to note that my intentions here are not deceptive - I'm a longtime user of mediawiki on my own servers and I've used Wikipedia extensively as an IP address, so I'm a newer "logged in" user but not an inexperienced one. Thanks again. Sheeana ^Talk 21:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q

I've generated a "rough draft" of the first three questions, should I post them yet or wait until the RfA opens? ceranthor 23:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post them when you wish - certainly prior to transclusion though! Pedro : Chat 06:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

On my rollback request, you said something about how I used User talk:Sandbox for user warnings. That page is a Sandbox and is meant to be used for testing. I didn't report myself for vandalism. I was testing something with the Sandbox. Hence, I don't feel that it is fair for your to judge my request based on a Sandbox edit. I am not asking you to change your mind, but I could not leave this unsaid. I do not want others to go through this injustice. --Chris5858 23:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback is a useless bauble, don't take it so seriously. Just install Twinkle. Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't used Rollback in a while, I wonder when it'll be removed without warning. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how useful or useless Rollback is, (1) I would like to have it, and (2) it is still unfair that I was rejected for using a sandbox.--Chris5858 01:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that were Pedro's only reason, I'd agree, but a little more anti-vandalism experience might do you some good before being granted the flag. That's just my opinion of course. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Chris, I misread that diff - I didn't look at the page title. I'm still of the opinion that your edit count is a little low with very few vandal reversions but I've asked at WP:PERM for another admin to review the request.Pedro : Chat 06:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I wasn't mad about not getting the permissions, it was more because of the reason. I will keep doing CVN and I will reapply at a later date. --Chris5858 05:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFA rationale

I really like the rationale you gave here. Being blocked would certainly be an unpleasant experience for anyone, so I'm in agreement - they would be unlikely to use blocking inappropriately. A block (for something minor like 3RR, and from a while before the RFA) could easily be a plus for a candidate. Aiken ♫ 17:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. Sometimes we need to take a more holistic view on WP, which often we don't .... possibly due to the culture of this website. Again, thank you for the time in commenting and your positive feedback. Pedro : Chat 20:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I was once blocked inappropriately on another wiki and I was amazed at the emotional response it evoked. –xeno^talk 20:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Yeah Yeah [1] every block is the blocking admins fault - never the editor :). Seriously though, I can imagine how you felt Xeno. I do believe that to be on the receiving end of admin actions is certainly a rough albeit potentially good learning process - and not just blocking. If your new article get's nuked it's similar in pain level. I'm not arguing all admins should have been blocked (before someone decideds to block me!) but I'm fairly convinced it adds a useful perspective. Pedro : Chat 20:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does. And the first thing I did was immediately unblock myself and declare to the other admin (more senior) that the wiki was too small for the both of us and Bid Him Adieu! –xeno^talk 20:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find that being blocked just makes me mad and further lowers my already low opinion of wikipedia administrators. Still, who cares what I think. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it does, but I still feel that an RFA candidate who has been on the receiving end of a as is often the case and appears to be so here dubious block is very likely to be particularly cautious with that tool if they pass. Pedro : Chat 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... or to do completely the reverse, and overuse it on the "if I had to go through it then so will you" rationale. Not that I'm saying that's likely in this specific instance, just a general point. Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Pedro : Chat 21:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Yeah!

pedro doesn't probably need this aggravation

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Early celebrations. Reverted, commented on, and pissed on by everyone's favourite non-admin. I fucking love this website. f o x 21:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this minor scrap might escalate to a point no-one wants it to be at. Let's all just drop it. Pedro : Chat 21:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep your comments civil. We don't want you upsetting the horses. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one horse around here (here specifically does not mean the editors involved in this discussion), and that's Pastor Theo's latest sock. Let's try to manage the damage chaps and move on from this. It's not helping and we really don't need to add to the pressures. Pedro : Chat 21:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was rude. Who does he think he is?22:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 22:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to back away from this guys ..... Pedro : Chat 22:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that the Pastor was back, that's much more interesting than another boringly rude administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that a perfectly wonderful thread has been ruined and archived. We can all go back to being sour and irritable. Dloh cierekim 22:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Duke of Edinburgh

No problem. Sorry if I sounded too harsh :) Surtsicna (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ceranthor comments

In general, referring to another editor's comments as "more clueless drivel like the stuff you typed" is not considered to be in keeping with WP:CIVIL, no matter how true it may be. Let's try to keep comments civil in the future, okay? Thanks. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the deal is done. Ceranthor, I'm sure, will make an excellent admin, so let's accentuate the positive, after all, it is the weekend... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the deal is done. Joe, piss off with the CIVILity police crap, there's a good chap. Pedro : Chat 19:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was trying to be nice about it. There's no reason to be an ass. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm sorry. Perhaps it was not the best of comments or responses, but the CIVILity bollocks needs serious review. I appreciate your support and comments at the RFA, to be sure. I'm afraid we loose to many good editors due to what some people ^[who?] consider uncivil comments as opposed to what others may think are, shall we say, to the point? Either way, I'm not intending any malice, I assure you. Pedro : Chat 19:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main point is that there are more polite ways to tell someone their comments are "clueless drivel". That's it, really. I appreciate that you weren't intending any malice, though. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe

Yep, true, but sometimes one just gets so frustrated with this place and to be honest Joe I really think I do have enough tenure to find WP:CIVIL without the blue link thanks; something I find rather akin to the "not templating the regulars" concept. Either way, point noted. Pedro : Chat 20:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just habit to link shortcuts like that. Nothing more. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Pedro, thanks for the wonderful nom. :) ceranthor 19:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just deleted a blatant A7, and don't plan to use the tools much today. Settling in should be interesting. ;) ceranthor 19:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One for the "pot" [2] Pedro : Chat 19:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wikipedia:Facial hair is required for administratorship is true, after all. ceranthor 19:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I shaved my goatee of some ten years off at the new year. Now that says a lot. Pedro : Chat 19:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're like me...

...you may not check your email regulary. So I'd like to notify you that you have new email :)

Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Received, dug out of overly agressive spam filter and I will reply good sir! Pedro : Chat 07:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on the spam filter. You're marked "safe" now. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for extending the Rollback permissions to my account. --Seaphoto^Talk 20:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping by

to say hello. Hello mate. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How you doing? Long time no "type" :) Hows RL? Pedro : Chat 19:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not too bad - busy working on my dissertation research. I also have a cold and a ton of scratches from my kitten : ) (random info) How about you? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madly busy :) Just launched a new site that I did a Dragons' Den deal on (took a quarter of the business and built the site and did all the marketing and communications stuff in exchange for equity). We clocked just over 260,000 unique visitors in our first ten days (nice!) but page views do not equal money so I'm up against it turning this into a decent revenue stream. Other than that, generally dealing with the "joys" of parenthood and playing scrabble on Facebook ! Re: WP I'm very pissed of Tan has chucked the towel in. Good admin, nice guy (and we've had our differences don't get me wrong) and a general cock up to loose him over a stupid spat that went wrong. Not thinking you might venture forth are you? Pedro : Chat 19:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed! Do you also design personal websites and such for customers? Don't get me started on Facebook, it's a nefarious creation, but one that is highly addictive : ) About Tan, I was watching it unfold quietly from the sidelines, although I caught it in the middle. I'm disappointed that Tan has up and left, but I have a feeling that he'll be back after some "cool down" time. This place can be sanely frustrating in large doses. In regards to another RfA, I just don't know at this point. I have thick skin, but the thought of running again makes me a little nauseous. I'll let you know when I'm good and ready : ) Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I design any site I can get paid for :) Yeah, you're (hopefuly) right about Tan. A couple of days or so of chilling will help ...I know!. Tap me up if you want to run the Bear Pit again (as Malleus, quite rightly, calls it). Nom's allways on offer. You should have passed at RFA 3. Pedro : Chat 20:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon skeet

For Jon skeet, you deleted the article using G11. Is that a valid criterion for people? Andrew Grimm (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, about half the article consisted of the ISBN for his book and the next 25% was fully promotional so arguably yes. Say someone posts a CV as an article it could be A7 or G11 if you see what I mean. Possibly a liberal interpretation of the advert criteria on my part, but still a valid deletion IMHO. Hope that helps. Pedro : Chat 07:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deceased Wikipedian

Hi Pedro - I see you were involved in the discussion about how Wikipedia deals with deceased Wikipedians. Sadly I have learned of the death of User:Johnhk31. He made the page on the Day Joyce Sheet, with information provided by Dr Bernice Archer, who is the expert on the sheet. Through Bernice I asked John's family if they would like a note putting on his user page and they have responded that they would like that. They are happy for his real name to be used. I am not sure how to proceed. Could you advise? I can forward you the email conversation if you would like. Jasper33 (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jasper - my apologies for not coming back to you sooner, and thank you for passing on this sad news. It's probably best you don't send me the email conversation as that will contain private address information I don't need to know and it's not my place to receive. My suggestion would be to simply add a note at the top of both the user page and user talk, archiving the current talk page at the same time (I can do this if you wish). Pedro : Chat 19:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. According to this [3] his pages should be protected (rather than archived). Can you do that? I don't know how to/whether I can as a non-admin. I don't have any reliable sources that he has died other than the emails with Bernice and his family. Thanks again for your help. Jasper33 (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected his user page and archived the talk (and protected the talk archive too) Pedro : Chat 11:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pedro. Jasper33 (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roseleena Blair

Please take another look at this. The redirect is grossly inappropriate; the new title is itself a BLP violation, since the article subject, despite what the article claims (without sourcing), was never expelled from anything. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me review the main article for BLP issues - 1 moment please. Pedro : Chat 20:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interim, I've raised related issues at AN/I; I'm concerned about the newly titled article being picked up/mirrored elsewhere. Thanks for taking a second look. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not prepared to delete the main article. The redirect is entirely appropriate to the extent that we do not carry articles about people under their name when they are only well known for one event - we describe the event instead - c.f. Madeleine McCann. There is no way this event is acceptably documented under the subject's name. If you wish to get Expulsion of Roseleena Blair from the University of Alabama in Huntsville varsity tennis team deleted (which may be a good idea as the cources are weak and te notability questionable) please use WP:AFD Pedro : Chat 20:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there's not a shred of documentation that the subject was ever "expelled" from anything, which is very different from being involved in an NCAA eligibility dispute, I don't understand your dismissal of the BLP issues. Whatever the merits of the BLP1E argument, it doesn't justify an article title which grossly mischaracterizes the nature of the 1E involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam just nuked it, so I trust you're now happy. Please note that discretion is one part of the admin role, and also doing nothing is another part. I'm not obliged to delete stuff around here. Specifically I am only mandated to delete stuff I am fully comfortable that I am deleting within policy. I support the deletion but that explicitly does not mean I had to actually do it. Pedro : Chat 20:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I see it got a better redirect - happier still and I agree with Flo's comments at WP:ANI. Again, as above, take the new title to WP:AFD for consensus. Pedro : Chat 20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I didn't nuke it, I just moved it to a more discrete title. I'd love to A7 it, but I don't think that would fly, so I think I'll AFD it (unless you want to do the honors, Hullabaloo, since I rarely venture over to AFD). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD - it's not a CSD candidate. Hullabaloo - let me know if you want me to post it for you. Pedro : Chat 21:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Alabama in Huntsville varsity tennis team Playboy controversy (I decided I'd exercise my afd muscles so they don't attrophy). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy from across the pond

I see you've been busy IRL; hope it's all going swimmingly. WP is dysfunctional as ever, you aren't missing much. I should follow your lead and back off a bit too, this place is sucking time I don't have. Now, go enjoy your kid and I'll do the same (unless they're acting up, in which case I'll come back to the computer and hide from real life again). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kids :) Sigh - too much life and too little time to fit it all in to. Pedro : Chat 21:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. And indeed, if only there were 30 hours/day, and 9 days/week (4 of them weekends). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too true my friend. Pedro : Chat 21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/S Marshall 2

By some jiggery-pokery I managed to fool the wikipedia software into restarting the numbers after the collapse box. However there are two problems with this:

The jiggery-pokery uses a deprecated attribute of a HTML tag (it has to as no CSS equivalent currently exists). Is this likely to be a problem? I've tested it in Opera, IE and Firefox and it works fine. If you don't know the answer do you know a more appropriate place to ask?
It's breaking the RfA tally. I'm fairly confident I know why it's doing this but are less confident about how to fix it! Is it better to have the tally correct or the numbering correct? If I can get an answer to 1 I could possible ask the bot operator to modify the bot although this has problems as well as they are on a break.

Any advice would be much appreciated. Of course all this could be moot if someone comes along with a better way of fixing it. Dpmuk (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is usually handled by someone suitably uninvolved moving the discussion to the talk page of the RFA. –xeno^talk 21:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moot now as it's been moved to the talk page. Would still like an answer to 1) as I'm sure I've come across this problem somewhere else (although I can't think where) and was thinking of creating a template for it. Dpmuk (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate place to ask would be WP:VPT, but #2 is definitely a deal-breaker for using it at RFA. –xeno^talk 21:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I sometimes forget that the Village Pump exists as it's not somewhere I have much to do with - not sure I even knew the technical sub-page existed. Will go and ask there (although probably not this evening now). I think it would be reasonably easy to change the bot to cope with #2 but I'll chase that up if others don't have a problem with the way I've done the template and I decide to take it 'live'. Dpmuk (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, discussions on the RFA page should either be visible as relevant, or moved to the talk page as irrelevant. –xeno^talk 21:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you're right - had my technical hat on and was just thinking about what would need to be done from a technical point of view. Will still ask at VPT as I'm fairly sure I've seen the problem elsewhere and now I've worked out a 'fix' it seems worth creating a template. Obviously I won't follow up the bot line now. Dpmuk (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you clever techy people! Pedro : Chat 21:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record on further review, with the realization it was collapsed by an involved party, and the further realization that Keepscases subsequent comment makes it clear (contrary to the first response) that it was a serious oppose, I've moved it back to the RFA proper and uncollapsed. I now return you to your regular scheduled User talk:Pedro programming. –xeno^talk 21:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xeno. A good call, but I've opposed the candidate so I'm not going to get further embroiled. Pedro : Chat 21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where next? Research Fellow

Hi, Thanks for intervening. I noticed you protected the article. What happens next? What would be the best do with when user persists that no changes (i.e. addition of 9 citations) are possible, during an RfC? Mootros (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commented on talk, appealing for calm (optimistically!). It's a one hour protection. I don't want to see anyone blocked over this. The RFC may give a good outcome, and I urge you to stick with it if possible. I think the position is clear that now the page has had to be fully locked down, further edit wars will result in account blocks. As an aside I'd ask you not to use WP:AIV for stuff like this as it's simply to complex for that board - use WP:ANI if the edit war re-occurs but hopefully a middle ground can be struck. Pedro : Chat 22:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive approach. We had discussion input from the MOS notice board (on some issues of the disagreement), but unfortunately this has not help to resolve the issue. Neither has the introduction of references. I will stay back for the moment; hope we don't have to take this RfC further. Mootros (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so too, but Kushsinghmd is pushing my patience at the moment. I'm not going to be online mch longer (bed time!) but wil review at 08:00 UTC. Very best. Pedro : Chat 22:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pedro: First I have to thank you very much for your prompt and effective intervention. My question is clear: Why was the positions of degree switched when it is still under discussion, and the editor is part of the discussion ?!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats absolutely unethical , and compeletly unacceptable. We can't be disccuing an issue, and then because you fail to complete the discussion and fail to provide a solid argument, so you go take the action you liked and have been trying to do several times. And to cover such unethical actions, he added few citations in a trial to make it look as if it is a constructive edit. However, If intentions were really adding citations, why then switching positions and changing the orders??????????. Yet claiming Vandalism on my side, yea right !! Again Thanks pedro, for you positive actions. Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.170.205 (talk)

I just forgot to add the reason first time when I undid the vanadalizing edits. Kushsinghmd (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is the one who started reverting all my edits and labelling most of them vanadalism, and I haven't seen any notice given to him that he should not do so !!! second, yes he is vandalizing , cause he is intentionally compromising the integrity of the article by all his recent edits. Again Thanks for your effective intervention and thanks for following the article. Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than bring it back up at BN...

"By far the majority of admins are not mandated to grant rights such as rollback or account creator, much less even use the revision delete tool that comes with so many painful warnings we're all too scared to go near it"

Interesting. The argument that "they weren't chosen for that job" has been the only valid (in my opinion) counter-argument for 'crats being able to turn the bit off, but you make an excellent point about granting additional rights to existing administrators. Doubly interesting when you consider that everything administrators can do (and have been granted the ability to do well after the fact) is far more "dangerous" than allowing bureaucrats to remove flags in the exact same conditions that they grant them.

If I had faith that the community could have faith in us to not go ape-shit over it, I'd probably push for a fresh round of "let's undo this incredibly silly policy about the 'crats". :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is it's true and you're right. How we ended up thinking that +sysop as a button was more "powerful" than BLOCK I have no idea. I have no mandate to grant a tonne of rights that I technically and in practice can (and indeed I believe I am one of the most regular admins at request for rollback). To be honest EV, I've generally being against granting 'crats the switch off ability but I'm rethinking my position. The lack of mandate, by my own admission above, really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

It's actually the second part of what you quoted above that's key however. If 'crats are granted the right to remove the sysop flag we need a page not un-akin to WP:REVDEL in tone; Plenty of dire warnings to make sure that the bureaucrat team are fully aware that anything but a very much "in process" desysop will see them loose their crat bits (and likely admin bits too). If the community could see that a bureaucrat was basically putting their kneck on the block if they did desysop, then they might be more prepared to grant the right. I also think we need to be honest about the WP:DEAL thing. The simple fact is that a desysop does cause way more drama than an admin removing rollback or protecting a monobook etc. Honestly, I feel previous opposition has been down to a combination of;

No mandate (refuted above)
No need (generally a poor argument - it keeps the logs on .en.wp which is handy and likely gets a slightly quicker response)
Don't give people yet more rights - I'm jealous enough of the ones they've got (that might sound bad faith but I bet it's true)
Don't give people that have barely if ever used bureaucrat tools any more tools (bad argument - if a 'crat hasn't used their tools in years (which is the case for a number of your brethren) then a suitably worded "you'll be de-crated and de-sysopped" page is likely to make pretty certain they're not going to now.

Just my ramblings. Very best as ever. Pedro : Chat 20:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the absolute necessity for having a REVDEL-toned page about abusive removal of the sysop flag, if for no other reason than because there's no similarly-toned page about the abusive granting of the sysop flag. You and I (and anyone else that isn't clinically braindead) both know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any bureaucrat that granted a sysop flag outside of regular processes (either RfA or restoration of self-requested flag removal) would be committing wiki-suicide just as readily as if they decided to remove anyone's flag without consensus. So, on those grounds alone, I don't see the need for a highly-codified page; I am willing to concede that others, however, probably want to see it strictly stated somewhere so they can better sleep at night knowing that the "big bad bureaucrats" aren't going to come for them, and that's a valid enough reason I suppose (despite my silly summation of their attitude, heh), but I personally (as an editor, and not as a bureaucrat) think it isn't necessary. (also, I apologize for the rampant aliteration in this paragraph; I'm in an odd mood)

I honestly think just a regular "Bureaucrat guidebook" page would work just fine. Actually, Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools is a good example of what I think we should have; just a simple page that lists what we do, and when we can do it. What I have in mind could stand to be a bit more descriptive than that admin page, however, simply because the range of additional userrights at the bureaucrat's disposal is far more limited than an administrator's, so we can get more verbose.

We're already (rightfully) locked-in on what we can do anyway; the only process where we're not bound in any way, shape, or form to community consensus is in renaming. I think that right there is the chief reason why I don't see why we ("we" here being "bureaucrats", but you could interpret it as "the community at large" and it'd still work) need to have über-explicit instructions and threats against going against the rules, as compared to administrators. For admins, there are guidelines and policies in place, but they can delete/undelete, block/unblock, protect/unprotect, muck around with the interface and private userpages, bulk move pages, move pages over existing titles, selectively delete edits, etc... the bureaucrats can only grant a very specific collection of flags (bot, admin, bureaucrat) under exact conditions, and perform renames, and those restrictions are already written pretty clearly for us.

Hell, I'm not even sure I'm making any sense. I think we're both rambling at this point. ;) Some of the above was honestly just me throwing stuff out there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Within your random ramblings (yeah - aliteration and an insult - lulz.. :)) you're dead right of course. The thing to me about the whole "do this action and you could loose all the tools" page is, as you mention, with a view to trying to mitigate concern from the community. I think an issue here is that as +sysop is hardly a frequent occurence (as against BLOCK, DELETE etc.) a great awareness is thus placed upon it. As De-sysop is, without doubt, seen as highly emotive I feel that to pacify the community (yeah - well me to be honest - I can't speak for the community as currently the bulk of them hate me over the S Marshall RFA ) a fairly clear cut, unambiguous and definitive set of criteria would be the ideal starting point. Last time we got too bogged down on the "look at the positives" (one log, local handling, etc.) [that may sound odd, but as I well know in RL, starting with looking at vague yet ill-defined positive aspects of a task is simply not the way to convince people to accept stuff - you start by teling them it won't give them any problems]. Further we had to many crats leap in to support, making it look rather like a power grab. If we started from a point of "we've got an idea, it's good, but bugger me we're going to be tough on people that misuse it" rather than "we've got an idea and it's good" the community might be happier. Wrong in an ideal world? Yes. Reality? Yes. Just my 2p dollars and cents likely accepted as well Pedro : Chat 21:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... your comments about the frequency of the various actions are pretty spot-on, both in comparing admin vs. 'crat actions (delete vs. promotion) and even within the actions of the bureaucrats (nobody cares about a botched rename vs. a botched RfA consensus reading, for example). I might make continued work on this my next personal wiki-project once my show is done this weekend... I was going to write up something new akin to WP:NSA, but this would probably be a lot more productive. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you following me?

I do hope so, always good to have someone watching your back. :-) I was quite shocked at the state of Marjorie Proops's article, she was a major influence in her time. We've got better articles on minor league American football players. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've checked any of the citations, but the article is almost complete shite. What Proops's obituary says is that "It was during this period at the Herald that she had a glimpse of her future. The paper's advice columnist, Mary Marshall, had died. Marje Proops became worried by the letters piling up, and took it upon herself to open and answer them ... Hugh Cudlipp hired her as a columnist on the Daily Mirror in 1954". Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do my best to stalk :) the article is hideous and, no, I haven't fully checked the references. I'll try to do so. Pedro : Chat 20:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No real loss.

He's been around since January and basically all he's done is piss in the pool. The only reason he hadn't been blocked already is because he posts once every couple of months... HalfShadow 22:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for granting my Reviewer request! Good call with Rollbacker! Sign My Guestbook!·Sumsum2010·Talk 22:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. Pedro : Chat 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded

Totally unneeded, unwarranted, and unproductive comment at BN. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which I was undoing when I edit conflicted with your clueless "that was today comment" makes us even mate ? Yes ?Pedro : Chat 22:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I apologise then. Sorry. Pedro : Chat 22:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear

There are some administrators who believe that they are all-powerful, but they're not, and when they get caught they start yelping. I have never accused any administrator of being corrupt; I accuse the system of being corrupt. That I have become a target because I criticise the system is a further indictment of its corruption. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]