Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:57, 22 May 2009

GoneAwayNowAndRetired is busy and is going to be on Misplaced Pages in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Centralized discussion Village pumps policy tech proposals idea lab WMF misc Voluntary RfAs after resignation Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed? For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard. view edit history watch archive talk purge

User:Rootology/Admin User:Rootology/useful User:Rootology/Pages Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Notes

• User:Rootology/Images
• User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a
• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style
• Misplaced Pages:Cleanup

to do

• User:TenPoundHammer/Country
• Flatt and Scruggs
• Foggy Mountain Boys
• Soggy Bottom Boys

Busy

I'm going to be on and off only reading here and using the site as a starting point for research and sourcing, like... well, like a regular user for a while. Something has quite happily "popped" and my free writing time will be consumed by something hopefully engaging in a significantly different way than this site. I'll be around, mail is on, but only in bursts for possibly several months, or if I need a quick break from the other writing. If I don't get back to you immediately, it's definitely not personal. Please, no urgent admin requests by mail. The urgency may get lost for several days. If you need to undo some admin action of mine, please drum up consensus on WP:AN for it in the meanwhile. rootology (C)(T) 16:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG

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, Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold 02:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Flu

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)

Ncmvocalist's questions

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 | 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 | 15:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

hey

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)

torrent link abuse filter

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 and 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 leading to you being banned for 12-24 hours. Tothwolf (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Community service"

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)

Swine flu chart

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

Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Swine flu confirmed in Indiana

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

Swine flu US map

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Misplaced Pages
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Misplaced Pages Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

AFD Re-opened

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)

Template:2009 swine flu

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)

I/P articles

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

I've started a proposal: Misplaced Pages:Neutrality enforcement. SlimVirgin 07:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case

I just realised a typo in this edit summary of mine 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)

Transparency v Private peer review

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)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 11 May 2009

• News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
• Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

Requests for adminship/Everyking 5 ‎

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)

Thank you for the feedback

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, , TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 —  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 —  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 —  23:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 18 May 2009

• From the editor: Writers needed
• Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
• Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
• News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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

Comments of little importance

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)

Your RFA

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 Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages 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)

RE: Archiving that ANI thread

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)

"snark"

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