Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:44, 21 November 2008

User talk protection

Uhh, its not permitted to protect a user talk page? Yet others have it? O.o II MusLiM HyBRiD II 23:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally, no, although in extreme cases of mass multiple-account vandalism someone might make the occasonal WP:IAR brief semi-protection. (As per User:Abd, who is repeatedly harassed by the IP-hopping User:Fredrick day, for example). The whole point of talk pages is that they're for anyone to comment on. – iridescent 23:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone watching, there's currently a full debate on this issue taking place over at AN. – iridescent 16:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Canterberry

In view of the discussion on the UKT talk page, I've proposed that the issue be raised at WP:AN so that it can be fully debated and put to bed. Your comments appreciated on the UKT talk page. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Already there, but (as you've no doubt guessed) I agree with you. – iridescent 19:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Pre-vet me?

Iridescent,

Now that I've qualified for a WP:CROWN, I'm considering an RfA, mostly so I don't need to bug other people to block vandals, but also to help out with the housekeeping. Since I hear your vote is a great predictor of RfA success, I'd like to hear your thoughts on my potential candidacy--In other words, I'm inviting you to be a one-person pre-RfA and save me and Misplaced Pages the effort of a failed RfA if you don't think I have what it takes. Interested? Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply (long version)

I personally wouldn't see any problems with you, although I rarely comment at RFA (no, really). If you have any skeletons in your closet (flamewars, anything that a single non-nuts person could perceive as rudeness, arguing in favour of a really bad cause…) make sure you declare them at the time you accept your RFA nom; they will be uncovered, and if you haven't mentioned them it looks like you're hiding something.

If you're planning to run an RFA, now is probably the time to do it. The aftermath of DHM's RFA has (still) temporarily driven off the serial-opposers and the "dig for trouble" brigade. (DON'T self-nominate, though!) I think you'd probably pass, assuming there are no skeletons in your closet, but RFAs are very hard to judge.

You know better than me if you're likely to pass an RFA. Ideally you should have at least one substantial article under your belt that you're able to point to unequivocally and say "I did that" (otherwise, you'll fall apart on the "what are your best contributions" question). Huggle use will gain you some opposes; as long as you make it clear you don't rely on it - and haven't made any mistakes with it - it shouldn't derail an RFA, though. If you have any skeletons in your closet (arguments, blocks etc), declare them; they will be found out, and looking like you're trying to hide something will derail you.

As a content writer you'll avoid a lot of automatic and semi-automatic opposes and as an AIV regular you'll avoid more. I believe that you were involved in the Sarah Palin Wars, so you'll pick up a few opposes from that, but AFAIK there's nothing else problematic, and two years service with no particular screwups should mean even sworn enemies who come to your RFA set on finding an excuse for opposing (RFA shouldn't work that way, but as Malleus can tell you it does) will find it hard to find a reason.

(The "waiting for a chance to oppose" RFA-watchers are one of the less appealing aspects of the already unappealing RFA setup; expect a batch of "Oppose, don't agree with his userboxes" opposes or similar silliness within minutes of it going live. While the crats discount these, it's disheartening watching the Oppose column shoot up in the early stages of an RFA, as the opposers tend to say their piece at the start while the supporters generally drift through over five days.)

And (although it sounds obvious, you'd be surprised how many even very experienced people don't) make sure you're familiar with core policy, particularly WP:FIVE, WP:AFD, WP:CSD and WP:AGF - and make sure you understand what isn't policy (notably WP:ATA in all its many names), as someone always decides to pull people up on any perceived departure from Wiki-orthodoxy. You don't have to agree with the cabal broad consensus, but you need to justify deviations from it.

While the "content creation is the most important factor" group (among which I'd include myself) seems to currently be in the ascendancy, there is a strong and extremely vocal opposing camp. Some of them might read this and comment here; in the meantime, familiarise yourself with RFAs like Karanacs's and Moni3's to get a feel for the sort of opposes a nomination based on a content-contribution history is likely to get in the current climate.

As I know you know, but it warrants repeating, while WP:DEAL is no longer accurate, adminship is really unimpressive - nobody treats you with any more respect, you have to be politer when dealing with people, you don't get any kind of special status, your talkpage will become a general dumping ground for any crackpot with a complaint, you'll find what personal details can be unearthed about you spread across a variety of dubious websites, and you'll use your new buttons a lot less than you thought (see my old block log — while it's now skewed from testing Huggle block functions in assorted permutations and at assorted settings, in the six months leading up to that I performed maybe a dozen blocks). Plenty of the most influential people on Misplaced Pages (Giano, SandyGeorgia, Gurch, Malleus, Giggy…) aren't admins.

If you want a nomination, I'm more than happy to write you one, but it might be better coming from someone you've done more work with, and possibly someone with a less divisive reputation than me at RFA. I see Balloonman on your talkpage, who has a pretty good track record at judging RFA nominees (with a few - ahem - unusual calls); Keeper76 has semi-retired but can usually be winkled out of his burrow if you use a long enough stick, and as one of the leading lights of the "content creation isn't important" school of thought would counterbalance a "hey, look at all my articles!" candidate; J.delanoy might also be quite a good nominator for similar reasons.

Thank you for a thorough bit of advice. So, here's my self-appraisal per your criteria:

• I've had a couple of fundamentally mutually antagonistic relationships with two editors who have both sinde departed: Hrafn, who consistently tried to suppress Unification Church articles as NN, and Tautologist, who was part of the Sarah Palin wars. After some rather contentious interactions at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Frank Kaufmann, I voluntarily quit interacting with Hrafn or those sets of articles, and he later retired. I interacted with Tautologist, who started as EricDiesel, only in the context of the religion-related articles surrounding the Palin wars, most notably Thomas Muthee and Wasilla Assembly of God. He later vanished after I got him blocked for Sockpuppetry. Those are really the only two substantially antagonistic relationships I've had, although I have had occasional nominators take exception to me pointing out WP:BEFORE at AfD. Oh, and Shii has a hate-on for everything related to Babylon 5, but I keep responding by adding sources, so I'm not sure that any of the anti-fiction faction really have any good reason to oppose me.
• My interactions in the Sarah Palin wars were pretty limited--when AfD's for tangentially connected religious institutions and figures proved unsuccessful, I sat on them and tried to keep them coatrack and non-RS free. After Tautologist's departure, the remaining editors on each article have worked substantially collaboratively, and both Thomas Muthee and Wasilla Assembly of God are GA candidates.
• My work affiliation can be uncovered in a thorough review, and I'm 100% COI free.
• I've been reported (without basis) for 3RR once, by Tautologist, but never been blocked or formally warned for anything. I've made a ton of goofs, inlcuding initially with Huggle, but never had a problem admitting and reverting a screwup when one was pointed out to me.
• Other than that, I think my track record generally shows me learning--I've made about every newbie mistake once. If you recall, my first interaction with you stemmed from my not understanding CSD and your decline.

At any rate, I'll hit up Keeper and Balloonman and point them here, per your advice. Thanks again for the detailed and conscientious response. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

More than welcome… I don't think anyone's going to hold any mistake against you unless it's very recent (although someone no doubt will), provided you realise it's a mistake. (IIRC my first interaction with you was a truly arcane discussion of whether Myspace could ever be treated as a reliable source; if that's the worst of your mistakes, even the most diehard oppose-anyone brigade will be hard pressed to find anything.) Something I forgot to say which wouldn't hurt, is to have a look at your analyses on Wikichecker and Wannabekate, to identify your most edited pages (on Wikichecker scroll down to "frequently edited pages" to see them) – which often aren't what you think – and review your histories on said pages, as those will be the ones the RFA crowd are likely to look at most closely. – iridescent 22:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If Iridescent thinks your up to the job then that's a support off me from the outset. ;=) — Realist 00:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(To Jclemens) So that's what happened to EricDiesel! I did wonder why he vanished from this talkpage as quickly as he appeared…

Yeah, EricDiesel renamed and picked up again on the Palin/Religion articles almost immediately, and did not disclose his name change. Keeper's prediction came true, despite everyone's efforts to get Eric/Tautologist clued in to how to work collaboratively, he seems to have given up. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I should feel sorry, but I'm not really. Although it's blasphemy against our core principles – and I personally never had any particular problem with him – I think sometimes it's better for all concerned when editors who don't "get it" about how Misplaced Pages works leave the project in disgust; it saves them wasting time writing things that will just be reverted, and saves us time cleaning up the mess. Yes, everyone has a deleted article in their early history – when you pass that RFA you can marvel at the dismalness that was mine – but some people just don't seem to pick up on the wikipedia dialectic. – iridescent 01:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(to Realist2) Hmmm… Don't take anything I say at RFA as gospel! While I can and do defend every oppose I've made (see previous threads ad nauseam), I've certainly supported some characters whom I've later regretted supporting, including at least one for whom I'd instantly support a WP:DESYSOP request were the process ever to become enforceable. To harp on a well-worn theme, part of the reason I tend towards "if you're not sure, say no" at RFA is the all-or-nothing character – in the entire history of Misplaced Pages, there have been a grand total of 46 admins desysopped involuntarily (plus some who resigned voluntarily). Yes, I know we have the current system because nobody can think of a better alternative, but "least worst" doesn't mean "good". – iridescent 00:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply (short version)

Unless you've a spectacular skeleton in your closet, I don't see any reason why you'd fail. – iridescent 20:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm being boxed as one of the leading lights of the "content creation isn't important" school of thought. Seriously? I've been more than clear that I support, encourage, and greatly respect, article writers, and their RFAs (if they are brave/silly/naive/smart enough to try them). Seriously. Leading light of content creation isn't important? Ouch. I suppose you (the "serial opposer") aren't the only one with an unearned, inexplicable reputation. My only argument related to content builders vs non content builders is that there is no correlative data that suggests that one (or the other) will be a more fair, more direct, and/or more empathetic admin, in any dispute (content or otherwise) needing admin assistance. Some "content admins" are freeking insane to work with. Some "non-content" admins are ridiculously wiki-lawyered up to their ass in policy wonkery and holier-than-thou-ness, yep. I argue the character card, not the content card. Because I support those that are perceived (and it really is only a perception, not a reality) as "non-content" candidates, that means I'm against content candidates? pfft. Keeper ǀ 76 02:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for my sloppy wording, as I do realise on reflection that it makes you sound like some kind of Misplaced Pages Review cliche of a policy-drone Wikipedian. "Content creation isn't important" is my sloppy wording and isn't what I intended it to mean; "Content creation isn't essential" would be a more accurate way of describing it, I think. I may be horribly wrong, but I'd say the broad-church that takes in you, Ryan, Balloonman, Useight etc see "understanding policy, why our policies are what they are and when they should and shouldn't be applied" as the primary criterion with "experience creating articles and/or images, defending their preferred versions at reviews/XfDs/content disputes" as useful but not necessary, whereas the group that contains myself, Lara, East718, Realist2 etc have the positions essentially reversed.

It's an artificial engineers-vs-designers divide – the people I'd characterise as "pure-policy" admins like J.delanoy still have at least some mainspace work (in some cases like Gwen Gale or Newyorkbrad, huge amounts) and the "content-driven" admins like Karanacs or Bish/onen/zilla/apod still have large amounts of RBI gruntwork (well, except for Carcharoth, but C is unique), while the incident that gave me the "serial opposer" reputation (Shalom's RFA and the fallout from it) was based exclusively on policy-compliance concerns – but just because the boundaries between the groups are blurred doesn't mean the groups don't exist. (The reason I cite Moni3 and Karanacs's RFAs so often in conversations is because there were no other major issues to obscure the boundaries, so this split is very visible; Aervanath's is another good example.)

I wasn't trying to say you (plural) were against content creators – I can't imagine anyone is, and don't forget, the first time I ever came across you was as co-nom on possibly the purest credible "content ahead of policy compliance" candidate there's ever been at RFA – but that as people who are both familiar with Jc's behaviour, and familiar with the arguments likely to be used against him, both you and Balloonman are better placed than me to give honest opinions as to whether Jc is likely to pass, to anticipate what the arguments that will be raised against him will be, and also would have more credibility than me as nominators (given that you're not only different characters to him, but were all involved in the Palin disputes so have seen him at his best and worst). – iridescent 03:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I see myself as a mediator between the engineers and the designers. One of the last things I did here before !disappearing, and one of the more frustrating things about this place is the factionalism. Fuck the factions. Designers lose their jobs if no one builds their designs, engineers lose their jobs if no one designs them something to build. I knew what you meant, just had to put you on the spot about the wording - keep you honest. Keeper ǀ 76 03:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, those particular factions are dying out as they blur together, as the Kurt v Everyone war moves on to fresh woods and pastures new, and as the 2006/07 "pre-Huggle" group gradually drift away. The next Big Issues at RFA will be a revival of the ageism debate and Jimbo-loyalists vs "the voice of the people cannot be denied" wannabe-revolutionaries. (For anyone wanting a preview, head on over to Jimbo's talkpage. Take peanuts.) – iridescent 03:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a proponent of blurring the lines. It's the difference between the very archaic "melting pot" mentality vs more acceptable "co-exist" mentality. The lines blurring simply means that it is exactly that much more difficult to pass RFA, because you have to be all things to all people. You can't be a designer and have the respect of the engineer, and VV. You have to be a designer that also is proficient in engineering. That is precisely my frustration. I'm not anti-designer. Or anti-engineer. Both (can) make damn fine admins (and damn lousy ones too). Opposing one skillset because it hasn't blurred into some jack-of-all-trades hoopjumper is most dangerous. I fight just as belligerently at RFA when a content writer is opposed for not sucking face at AIV and NPP. If I see evidence of someone doing what they like to do here, and doing it well, they can have some extra tabs on their browser to do it even better and with more efficiency. With their volunteer time. On a free website. It still amazes me that anyone would actually want to be an admin. Does that make sense? Keeper ǀ 76 04:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I always argued against it I'm starting to come round to the idea of splitting the tools. Maybe not splitting delete/block/protect – I can't imagine someone I'd trust with one but not the other – but splitting the mainspace itself into sections, so you (for example) would have full admin powers in sport but no powers over transportation, while I'd be the opposite, and nobody would be allowed to choose more than (say) four admin areas. That would not only limit the damage anyone going nuts could cause, and so reduce the "can't be trusted" argument, but shut up the bandwagon-hoppers who jump on anything controversial and make ANI the joy it is to read. I'm sure there's a good argument against this but I can't think of one off the top of my head (aside from the fact that some specialised areas would get very clique-y – but that's already the case). – iridescent 04:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for copy of deleted article

Hi: an Article on "American Dog Club" has been deleted: can you send me a copy? My email is EveryBlogHasItsDay@gmail.com . Thank you! Apologies if this isn't your preferred way to request this - I couldn't find an email address for you on your User page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EveryBlogHasItsDay (talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. Should you need to in future, to email any Misplaced Pages user just click on "email this user" (on the left of the page, a couple of inches below the search bar) while on their talk page or userpage. – iridescent 22:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Is the picture at the top of the page you? Who is the other girl? 62.200.52.25 (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Iridescent the mother of God? I can't be certain of course, but on balance, I'd guess no. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that's probably not likely, considering that 2000 years is an awfully long time to live... J.delanoy_adds 15:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nor is Iridescent the young Christina Rossetti, the Archangel Gabriel, or "professional models, Maitland, Lambert, and White". In the no doubt certain event that this is a serious question and not a piece of trolling (since your recent edit history consists mostly of edits to Mariolatry-related articles and art history, I'm fairly sure you know exactly what the significance of the image is both in religious terms and in terms of the introduction of realism to religious iconography) you can find out more than you're likely to want to know about that picture here.

J.d, don't even go there – every so often "does BLP apply to Jesus" raises its head, and there is still an ongoing debate filling five large talk archives over whether Santa Claus is real – and of course the burning issue of whether Santa smokes has yet to be resolved. – iridescent 17:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"Does BLP apply to Jesus" Are you serious? I was joking. If he is alive, then I would assume that as God, he could not only change his article, but also make the people who edit it think and write whatever he wants them to. J.delanoy_adds 17:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to think that he has more on his plate than monitoring a poor-quality chatroom with an inaccurate encyclopedia attached. Although the work he's put into judging longrunning disputes might qualify him for RFA (although the article on which he's done the most work is subject to a long-running content dispute, and his self-confessed use of his bad-hand User:The Holy Ghost sockpuppet might cause problems). – iridescent 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having just looked at a Bible (New International), the footnotes come before the punctuation. Changing to strong oppose. – iridescent 17:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've occasionally looked at a Bible too. Can't remember the last time I actually opened one though ... --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the things I keep meaning to do is read the thing – I always think that given its impact, I really ought to know what it actually says. I invariably get about thirty pages into it before giving up. – iridescent 18:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. Its impact isn't in what it says, but in what people believe it says. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the MOS? – iridescent 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Similar, although closer to wikipedia's guidelines and policies I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit Notices

Dear Iridescent, I am sorry at how often I contact you however I know you are regulary logged in. The reason I put it here not on the Help Desk is because you must know how to do it as you have done it on your talk page. How do you add the:

If you post here, I'll reply here, so make sure you watch this page. Thanks.

If you have a question about something I've written/photographed/deleted/edited, or want advice on article writing, Misplaced Pages policy etc, I will answer as soon as I can. If you've come here asking me to take sides in whatever flamewar you're currently involved in and there's not a good reason for me to be involved, your post will go into the archive unanswered.

To your talk page? The help desk also has it:

This page is only for questions about using Misplaced Pages.

Please read the FAQ or search the Help desk archive before asking a question here.
For factual and other kinds of questions, use the search box or the Reference desk.

For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details.
We are unable to provide answers via email, post or phone and this page is highly visible across the Internet.

Limideen 16:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Pagename/Editnotice. Use them sparingly, and be aware that should you use editnotices in the mainspace or article talk pages without good reason there is a fairly high probability that you'll find a {{uw-create4im}} warning gracing your talkpage. – iridescent 17:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit Notices

Dear Iridescent,
Thank You for replying. I will not use this on the mainspace, I was just going to use it on my Userpage and Talkpage. From,
Limideen (Rollbacker) _(verify) 17:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This user is not a Misplaced Pages administrator, but would like to be one someday.

Hello, Iridescent. You have new messages at User talk:IRP#Please slow down.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

Hello, Iridescent. You have new messages at User talk:IRP#Please slow down.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.