Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:46, 9 March 2015

User:Chetblong/bar

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Coffee}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 Long Inactive Period October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 June 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 October 2014 December 2014 February 2015

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Isle of Man

I note that you recently closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ballagarey Corner, Isle of Man as "keep". Having, no doubt, weighed up the evidence presented, please can you explain how it meets WP:N? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Likewise Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brandish Corner and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/26th Milestone. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Andy, you know (hopefully) how highly I think of you, and in fact how much I consider you a wiki-friend. But I have to agree with Coffee on these ones. I know that XfD is a !vote, and not a vote. Still, part of determining consensus is indeed factoring in the numbers. Even if Coffee would have agreed with you, had he closed those as "delete" - it would have been a case of "super-voting" himself. On each, there was your request for deletion - followed by at least 3 "keeps", and no "deletes" save your own nom. I'm sorry - but he was right on these. — Ched :  ?  20:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not my position to state how consensus finds an article to meet WP:N, merely that they do. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who reads that "discussion" can see that not one of those !voting "keep" made any reference to notability of the subject. WP:N is, I understand, still a policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Andy posted similar comments at Stifle and Mr. Guye's talk pages for their "keep" closures of closely-related AfDs, though not (yet?) at postdlf's talk page. I've referred the first two here in the hopes that any discussion is centralized. – Philosopher  21:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Emmay Entertainment & Motion Pictures LLP

I cannot see why you removed the speedy tag from this article and replaced it with a PROD. It's a classic db-corp, created by a SPA who is probably associated with this thoroughly insignificant company. Are you surprised that the PROD was removed without explanation? I thought not. I've replaced the speedy.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the page, but next time try to be less condescending. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll do my best, but I'm still mystified. And you left no explanation or note on my talk page. I'd accept a judgement that the article should be taken to AfD, but PRODing an article like this is pointless since a dollar to a donut the page creator will remove it. Or an IP will.TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's because there's no requirement that I do so. (referring to a talk page notice) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I call that condescending.TheLongTone (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's just factual. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So, you made a crap call and are now getting all precious about it. You know what you did was wrong.TheLongTone (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Corbett at AE

Hi, I'm not particularly familiar with AE. Was there really consensus for this close? And should an admin who commented in the discussion be permitted to close it also? - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No consensus at AE is required to enforce the WP:ARBGGTF remedy, as any uninvolved administrator is able to do such enforcement at his own discretion. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks. No point in AE then, really. - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Sitush, given that the entire rationale for ArbCom is "sometimes consensus leads to no useful outcome because you have angry people on both sides", that is entirely the point in AE. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. The same thing actually happened the last time he was blocked for AE. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No probs. I'm disappearing for 72 also. And Ironholds' barnstar below is sick. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	heh. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Ironholds:, if this barnstar is for the AE closing and blocking of Eric Corbett, then you should be ashamed of yourself. This sort of grave-dancing is juvenile in the extreme, and if you had left a diff showing proof of such, then you would now be sitting on the outside of a block right now. If I am mistaken in my assumptions, then I apologize; but I think it unlikely that I need to. — Ched :  ?  19:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd hate to fail to hit the bar of maturity reached by a user who waxes lyrical on an editor's association with firearms and conspiracy-theorises. To be more clear, however; this is indeed for the blocking of Eric. And it's not because wooo, grave dancing - it's because I can count on one hand the number of administrators actually willing to block Eric, and having any editor who is block-proof, regardless of who that editor is, swiftly becomes tiresome. I think Coffee demonstrated a lot of courage by making the block; this barnstar is for that courage, whatever it was demonstrated through. Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Unblock clarification requested

I'm very surprised to see that you unblocked Rationalobserver. Have you notified Ddstretch? I'm about to request a review at AN, so consider this a notification. I've been offline for a few days and only now working my way through diffs but there has been a lot of disruption that began with me a week ago. Victoria (tk) 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoriaearle: Blocks are intended to be preventative not punitive. As the editor made a statement that seemed to show they understood why they were blocked and would not repeat the behavior, it was perfectly rational for me to unblock them. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the amount of disruption, I have to question that. In the least I'd request that you notify Ddstretch who seems to have been following the sequence. I won't bother to bore you with it here since you've made up your mind and opening another drama board thread will be just that, so I'll leave it with your opinion that your action was rational and I'll disengage again. Thanks for the reply. Victoria (tk) 19:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoriaearle: If the user continues any form of disruption, believe me, I'll be the first to block them. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Set your calendar, then. She appears to last approximately six or seven days until she falls back into bad habits again. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, Viriditas: Roger that. If I miss her starting to be disruptive again, please feel free to notify me immediately and I'll take care of it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is that an Ddstretch (who will be overwhelmed with pings) already made that decision based on following the evidence closely. The AE thread was less than 24 hours old, I would have added relevant evidence had I been around and was just reading through it, and it looks as though you've undone a good block under the pretense of political correctness - unblocking a woman and blocking Eric Corbett. It only perpetuates unnecessary drama. Victoria (tk) 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, The unblock had nothing to do with her being a woman, or political correctness. I was simply going through WP:RFUB as usual, and happened across her unblock request which I treated as I do all unblock requests. This was in no way a judgment against Ddstretch's administrative judgment, merely an accepted unblock request based purely on its own merits. Like I said, if the behavior that got her blocked happens again I'll be the first to re-block. Re-blocks are cheap, as they say. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am slightly surprised that you did not discuss this with me, since section 8.1 of WP:BP states "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." As far as I can tell, the editor in question has edited out the protests she made that she had done nothing wrong less than a day previously (and the subsequent "egging on" by Knowledgekid87), and had, in fact, gone on to make insulting comments on another user's talk page for which she had also been warned (not by me). My block was preventative and done in full knowledge of a continued pattern of bad behaviour that had been pointed out to her previously, and which had resulted in an admission of her bad behaviour and an undertaking to not do it again. Furthermore, she has a history of problems with Eric Corbett, and in the opinion of many had gone to an article to edit it and ask Eric for help in full knowledge that she had tried to get him blocked previously. When he, unsurprisingly, politely declined, she launched the attacks that I quoted. Given her inability to put down the stick, I would have preferred to see more than, at most, one day in between her protestations of having done nothing wrong, and her admission of guilt, etc. The two weeks were preventative because of the cycle of repentance and re-emergence of problems that happens. However, what is done is done, and we just have to wait and see if yet more disruption now happens, even for a small amount of time, until action is taken next. I just think you accepted the unblock request a little too quickly, given my knowledge of what has happened in the past with her. But, as I said, time will tell now.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

DDStretch: I truly hope there's no hard feelings here, I just moved forward in the same motion that I'm used to when I made this judgment. As she promised to not continue her disruptive behavior, I'd say a 6 month block would be in order if the same type of behavior comes back. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No hard feelings at all. By the way, you may see the beginnings of more stirring up problems on Knowledgekid87's talk page. And I would not be at all surprised if some "revenge" action began. Ok. It is too late here in China, and I should have been asleep many hours ago.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Roger that. Also, I've formally warned Rationalobserver in accordance with our discussion here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

I applaud your efforts to remediate the recent drama-mongering and pot-stirring, and I suggest that you add User:EChastain to your watch list, as this "account" has been doing a great deal of pot-stirring during the last couple of weeks. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Pot stirring? well Rationalobserver you and the militant and trouble making wimmin of this project are the ones to recognize that. I applaud you. Why not block me too Coffee? You can really get your name in lights then. Giano (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Giano: I have no idea who you are, but if you make a comment like that again I will gladly fulfill your request. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Coffee - Consider reviewing Giano's recent edits. E.g., . EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Giano has now been formally warned. Thank you for the heads up EvergreenFir. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Coffee, you have not a clue what you've stepped into. Not even a bit. The problem is that it's the content editors who leave, the ones who actually build the encyclopedia, the ones who keep heads down while everyone else plays games around here. Victoria (tk) 21:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria: It's not just content creators that are leaving, administrators are as well. We're down to less than 600 active admins right now, and that's depressing when we have to look over 4.7 million articles and tens of thousands of editors per day. Someone being known in one arena of this site, (as I imagine Giano is from your comment), does not allow them to cross severe lines on personal attacks. Period. I'm not afraid to block anyone if I'm forced to. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know Giano, but it's an assumption of bad faith on your part that I was referring to him in my comment. And that you don't have a clue is worrying. Anyway, I've had enough. Victoria (tk) 21:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria: In what way is it an assumption of bad faith? Your reply was directly underneath my reply to Giano... it seemed at the time like you intended for the comment to be taken that way (as our previous discussion was in the thread above this one). I definitely wasn't trying to make you out as a bad person somehow. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Looks like we lost another excellent female editor - hard to take, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Victoria was saying it is frustrating to content writers when tendentious editing occurs and wastes all of our time. In some cases, the content editors snap, say something mildly (to very) antagonistic and get punished for it, and the tendentious editor makes a show of being sorry for their actions and gets off. The cycle repeats again a few days/weeks later. Giano's comments were inappropriate. I see how Eric's comments could be taken that way, although I disagree with the interpretation. Yet rationalobserver was extremely tendentious in the last few days, and she's unblocked now after a show of being sorry. This is a scenario that has been played out many times before (not necessarily with this cast of characters), with no sign that the problem will ever be solved. So content editors retire. I was gone for a few years because of the same scenario. Victoria has decided to leave now; I considered it this morning - I wasted a day yesterday dealing with RO's nonsense when I had planned to be doing the final polishing on an article ready to go to FAC. It's not your fault, per se - Misplaced Pages doesn't have a good way to deal with this type of problem other than waiting it out. Admins just don't generally have the bandwidth (or sometimes the content background) to follow all of the rabbit holes. I do appreciate your promise to block rationalobserver for six months if the tendentious editing recurs. That is sending a message that is direly needed and is a big step most admins aren't willing to take. Given past behavior, I believe it is only a matter of time until that block becomes necessary (although I do sincerely hope to be surprised). Karanacs (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I obviously cannot speak for Coffee, but IMO, I was unblocked because I promised to stop the disruptive behavior, not because I showed remorse. I'm sorry I wasted your time yesterday, I honestly thought there was an issue with Rarick's book, and I honestly thought that RSN was where we go to sort that type of stuff out. I wasn't being intentionally difficult, as you seem to think. I know better now, and I won't repeat the negative behaviors that frustrated you and others. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK queues empty; next main page promotion about a minute from now

Coffee, I noticed that you've been promoting DYK prep sets to the queues lately. Right now, the queues are empty, and the next promotion is supposed to happen about a minute from now. If you're available, could you please take a look? (I did leave a message on Crisco 1492's talk page, but he hasn't had a contribution for many hours, so I think he won't see this in time.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

One sec, I'll be right there. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I see that you've done it. (I'm restoring your message, which that IP had deleted, so this thank you makes more sense in context.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: Haha... No problem. My apologies for missing the queue not being filled. I've been trying to stay on top of that but I got caught up in some ridiculousness today. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for protecting my page, and thanks for unblocking me. I won't make you look bad by repeating the negative behavior. I promise! Rationalobserver (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Some good can come

Rationalobserver can offer some hope she'll not "repeat the negative behavior" by accepting the help generously offered by jbmurray on his talk page after she brought an argument there started elsewhere. He felt she didn't understand the writing of historical narrative. He generously offered to teach her, taking her persistent questions seriously. He gave her something to read and to discuss with him on Monday, Historiograph and Historical Narrative If Rationalobserver accepts his help and returns on Monday to discuss on his talk page, it would improve her credibility and attone somewhat for the harm she had done. She wasted many good editor's time in the last few days by her recklessly posting on so many talk pages, article talk pages and noticeboards, and her repeated personal attacks on good faith editors like Victoriaearle. (Page now deleted) A positive could come of all this if Rationalobserver corrects some of her misunderstandings about article writing by accepting jbmurray's offer. This show of faith on her part will help her and also improve the encyclopaedia. EChastain (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver: I know you and EChastain seem to be of conflicting personalities, but would you accept this idea? It truly would show some very good faith on your part, and I'm sure it would ease a lot of the conflict surrounding you at this time. With hope, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've already researched the topics Jbmurry suggested, and I admit that the Rarick source is reliable. There are; however, competing schools of thought in that regard, and I will say that I am not alone in my apprehension to use histories that fill in the blanks with assumptions. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver, jbmurray offered to discuss with you these "competing schools of thought" and ways to evaluate them. I suggest that you forgo the "go it alone approach" and accept the jbmurray's offer, since he's an expert FAC writer and you clearly misunderstand crucial sourcing issues. To unilaterally declare you are right seems to me a repetition of your past behaviour and doesn't appear to bode well. What do you think, Dr Blofeld, Karanacs, Victoriaearle? I'd appreciate your input here. EChastain (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Echastian, please stop pinging all day long. I didn't say they were wrong, I said there are competing schools of thought, which jbmurray will not deny. Please stop following me everywhere I go, and please stop stirring the drama. You are beating the dead horse, as these dramas are now over, except that you keep mentioning them. Please leave me alone. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop with the accusations, Rationalobserver, I was trying to help you and now I definately regret it! EChastain (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

???

Hi Coffee. I never had the pleasure before. Do you have a WP arbiter function, or did smb. appeal to your mediation, or how come we met now?

What war? With whom and on what? Please let me know, otherwise it's "trial in absentia" and makes little sense :-)

If it's about Nemtsov: please check the "History" page. Different people had different opinions, I went along with all rational criticism. Never just undid without trying to adapt to other editors' meaningful objections. Right before seeing your appeal (or how is it called in WP lingo?), I had just adapted somebody's edit which had adopted my (!) change, but had taken it a step further, exactly in a way that had already troubled others. So, far from me to go into pingpong games of do-and-undo.

If it's about Seaman: I just hope you're not kidding.

Too much confusion.

Have a nice weekend, Arminden (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Arminden: Boris Nemtsov is the article I'm warning you about. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

And 1) did you check the "history"? 2) We never met before as far as I can remember, and certainly not on "Nemtsov". How come it's you sending this warning? How does this come about? The first Q is far more relevant. I don't think there's any object to all this.Arminden (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden

ANI discussion

Someone's started an ANI thread about you, but hasn't informed you himself. Just a friendly heads-up. Reyk _YO! 11:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am considering to undo your block, Coffee, as an error. Please comment on the AN/I thread. Thank you. Jehochman 12:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

One important thought: there are a lot of banned editors who hang around waiting for dramas where they can inject some lulz. Don't assume that an IP who jumps into a conversation is one of the prior participants. Often its just a troll who's been lurking. Jehochman 13:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

One more important thought: when blocking for personal attacks or harassment, make sure to leave diffs so any reviewing admin can see what happened. In this case the record was not clear, and absent your explanations, as the unblock reviewing admin, I had to unblock because there was no clear justification. I did look through Giano's recent contribution history and saw nothing more serious than him calling somebody a "shit stirrer", which is a bit crude, but isn't personal. Giano will probably be upset and leave a lot of criticism for you. I recommend that you not respond. Just go for a walk or have a glass of wine and just let it pass by. There's no reason for good faith contributors to get sidetracked with disputes like this. Jehochman 13:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing against you personally Coffee, but when I see somebody blocking Eric these days I do wonder the real reason behind it, and then I see further blocks of people who criticize you without showing any real evidence for why you blocked them in your notice and then some further comments in which you did seem to imply sockpuppetry. Whatever you think about Eric, Giano or anybody here you also need to realise that no editor is infallible and you can upset people by making heavy handed blocks and accusations, even if not intentional. Giano is convinced you believe he is that ip who made those comments to Knowledgekid. Bishonen on the otherhand believes you did not mean to imply the ip was a sock of Giano. Whatever the case, in future if you're going to block people you really do need to provide proper evidence and if you're going to accuse people of sockpuppetry, even ip addresses, I think you should do a checkuser on them and prove it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? When you see Eric getting blocked for his disruptive conduct, you wonder why? Seriously?? I'm sorry, but is this a serious comment? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted brake failure article

Dear coffee, could you provide me with the original items that were in this article as i wold like to retain them for my own purposes. thanks Engineman (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Have a cup, yourself

24.151.10.165 (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

24.151.10.165: Thanks, I definitely could. :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Flashbacks

Someone pinged me off-site to make me aware of the ANI thread. Oh, the memories. Same players, same complaints, same defenses. It's like going back to high school and oddly finding your old classmates are still there, sticking with the same cliques, fighting the same rivals, and all members of the same clubs. Where's the evolution? I expected there to have been grand improvements to the site, its policies, and the community after so many years. So sad to see that it hasn't changed. Lara 22:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Lara: Indeed... it is very disheartening to say the least. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Lara: PS see this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That WP has a reputation as being hostile toward female editors isn't enough. Being hostile toward servicemembers and veterans would do wonders for the project in the public's eyes. I look forward to reading the responses that comment garners. Lara 22:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so glad to see that stupidity got shot down immediately and resoundingly. Lara 22:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Lara: s/clicks/cliques/  :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I just learned that there's also claque. How neat!

I don't know what you're talking about. >_> Also: Oh, how I have missed you! Indubitably(Lara) 21:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	We need more admins like you who are willing to step up to the plate and make a difficult decision. Kuddos to you! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Someone just beat me to the barnstar so here's a beer instead. Thank you for being bold and upholding and carrying out exactly what admins were elected to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Recall

In your RFA, you wrote "I'd be happy to add myself to that category as soon as I become an admin. Because I can create my own standard on who can ask for a recall, I have no need to worry that the recall is being done even if I haven't done something wrong." Have you added yourself to that category yet? What standard are you creating? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No matter how it would be crafted, an admin recall would just be a witch hunt. Keep the faith, it takes fortitude to stand up to The Untouchables on this project. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW

I can't bring myself to contribute to the monstrous pile-on at ANI, but I think this is worth noting. I'm not as concerned as others about Eric's block. It was, if nothing else, a dumb thing to say. In unblocking Rationalobserver, I personally think you made a mistake, but I'm not terribly concerned that you didn't seek permission first. I'll probably reblock her myself if she doesn't find a new interest to focus on soon (I assume you saw she posted about this at ANI after promising you she'd move on). Giano's a big boy too; if you can handle the heat, he can handle the block. In general, all of these people (and you, and I guess me) are partially playing Misplaced Pages The Game, and I don't lose a lot of sleep over it. Even reviewing an unblock request by someone you blocked is suboptimal, but not a crisis, and it was a long time ago. I realize that it feel like the hyenas are circling. I hope you're open to criticism anyway.

But anyway, what has bothered me for a couple of days, and now bothers me even more after some of your responses to this dust-up, is your aggressive over-the-top warning at User talk:SeraV. That was not a momentary error; that was evidence of an attitude that I think is corrosive, and is incompatible with adminship. I think it's evidence you may have come back here not only a little rusty (which is ok), but with the wrong attitude. You are not a hall monitor, or anyone's boss, and your primary mission is not to try to intimidate people with less experience than yourself into behaving themselves. I'm not inside your mind, but that is really, really how you're coming across.

If your primary concern is admin backlogs, please focus on them. A break from the blocking button isn't a bad idea, but more importantly, a return to a less imperial attitude is the most important change you could make. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm just chiming in here to say that I looked at this discussion and I strongly agree with Floquenbeam. That level of warning is reserved for edits that imperil the encyclopedia, not for a simple revert. Bad show. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

MZMcBride, Floquenbeam's comments I find to be in order... but you chiming in I find simply amusing. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

After a day like this you clearly need a kitten.

Chillum 06:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Let's make it a doppio! (double)

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 10 Adar 5775 06:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

wishes and horses

I wish you could see inside my heart .. and know how much I care. — Ched :  ?  12:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Are these edits allowed under your unblock of Rationalobserver?

Today Rationalobserver continues to post to drama boards:

1. Rationalobserver to Jimbo Wales
2. to Jimbo Wales
3. to Jimbo Wales
4. to Victoriaearle

# most recently to ANI under heading "User:Cheatspace - copyright infringement with a side of personal attacks)"

Are these allowed under her unblock deal with you? EChastain (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty sure this is already being discussed on ANI. Chillum 19:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

EChastain: None of those edits break policy or mention Eric/Drmies, nor are they inherently disruptive. So yes, they are permissible edits. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

First, I'm glad you returned!

Second, regarding the above, quickly returning to the "drama boards" is considered by DDStrech (the blocking admin) as a violation of her promise to you. See comment by DDStretch: "I have even speculated to myself that if she quickly returned to the "drama boards" and showed signs of a return to problematic behaviour, after giving an assurance that she would not, whether a new block (obviously not applied by myself) could ever be justified on account of getting her recent block overturned on "false pretenses".

Editors consider posting on ANI and on Jimbo Wales talk on the same day as your unblock as "returning to the drama boards". The problem with her behaviour was the disruptive nature of her editing, not only specifically mentioning Eric Corbett or Drmies (only a minor part of her recent disruptive behaviour).

In addition to returning to the drama boards, she has again returned to posting on Victoriaearle's page, commenting on Victoriaearle's essay to her supporters by posting this to Victoriaearle because in Rationalobserver's eyes, Victoriaearle "thanked someone for an extremely accusatory comment about me" made on 1 February, posting after Victoriaearle's thank you to her supporters by requesting that she help with the Rose-Baley Party article.

She responded to an explanatior post by Karanacs with rationalisations and accusations that Victoriaearle stirring the pot" and accusing Dr. Blofeld of "beating a dead horse when he tried to help the situationFurther, Rationalobserver reverted helpful posts by Dr Blofeld on her page saying he was unwelcome after she had previously repeatedly asked for his help and he had gone out of his way to try to help her. This is a return to her previous disruptive behaviour as described by Karnanacs. before your block of Rationalobserver.

Thanks for considering all this, and I hope you'll contribute to further efforts to stop her disruptive behaviour. EChastain (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver: Is there a reason you can't just stick to editing articles? Especially right after your unblock? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have a right to edit Jimbo's page, and I have a right to comment at threads where people are talking about me. Having said that, I took An/I off my watchlist, and I don't plan on editing there anytime soon. I have no good-faith for this above account, who is using you to hound me. I won't be responding to any more threads started about me by this "account", which is obviously not here to help me. I am trying to get back into content work, but every thread like this is a distraction. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, you seemed to notice that EChastian has taken an unhealthy interest in my contributions. Will you please weigh-in here regarding their continued following me around and stirring up confrontations and drama? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

While I don't know enough about the situation to speak on the veracity of the claims against you, I do take issue with the apparent forum shopping being done. Chillum 17:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir knows this editor, and I think they merit a closer look, as at least one editor (Lightbreather) has accused them of sock-trolling in the past, and I am getting that vibe from them now. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver, which editor are you referring to? Lightbreather (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I am referring to EChastian. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

{tps} I don't know enough about any issues with EChastin to comment on him directly, but I agree that hounding in general seems to be an issue here ; however, if the evidence shows wikihounding, I think it's probably best for an admin other than Coffee to block at this point, to hopefully reduce the resulting drama. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point, BoboMeowCat, but to clarify, I wasn't asking or expecting Coffee to block them, I just wanted Coffee to know that this account might not be acting in good-faith with these threads, which are being used to bother me, not help me. I.e., I think they are trying to manipulate Coffee, and I wanted to give them a heads up. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've had less-than-positive interactions with EChastain in the past, though we've kept our distance for the most part since. I do know this user has been accused of being a sock but don't know enough about the alleged puppetmaster to comment on the issue. Echastain can be best described as "determined" when a particular topic interests her. I'll go back to being a TPS for now. Just wanted to comment since I was pinged. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Rationalobserver, I believe that EChastain is a puppet - sock or meat - of Sue Rangell. I opened an SPI on her in December. I believe that someday someone will present more convincing evidence. (I was surprised that mine wasn't convincing enough, but there are some who agree with me, so that's a comfort.) Sue Rangell hounded me for months, and when my mentor and a couple of admins asked her to stop, she didn't like it. EChastain has been very aggressive with one of those admins. Since this isn't an SPI, I'll say no more except this: On top of her early interest in the GGTF ArbCom and me, I think it very strange that EChastain was first to show up on my talk page after I was blocked in November. Lightbreather (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Rationalobserver with all due respect, if you had stayed in the content arena from the start there wouldn't be a way for this discussion to even be presented. The bad or good faith of EChastain doesn't matter to me right now. I'd just appreciate if you'd stick to content creation and discussion, that way we can stop having these discussions. Please, I'm asking you very kindly, stay away from any form of drama for the next few months at least. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• That's fine; I agree, but EChastian is drumming up drama with this thread, and others have suggested they are obsessed with me, so will you please ask them to stay away from me? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• EChastain: At this point I have to agree with Rationalobserver to some degree; if Rationalobserver's edits become truly disruptive I'll be sure to handle it... but until then it's best if you two try to not interact as much as possible. As I said before, you're definitely of conflicting personalities. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• I got your ping, Coffee. But could you explain to me what is going on here? I asked you a question at the top because you set certain conditions for your unblock of Rationalobserver for which you indicated you would be responsible for enforcing. I wanted to understand its parameters, but I didn't intend to discuss it.

  You asked her: "Is there a reason you can't just stick to editing articles? Especially right after your unblock?" Her answer in essence was to make personal attacks against me. Since then Rationalobeserver has pinged three other editors and made something like seven posts, accusing this "account" (me) of bad faith, hounding her, and blaming me for her behaviour to the degree that BoboMeowCat thought she was asking you to block me.

  She then pings two of her friends (EvergreenFir and Lightbreather), and a discussion ensues between the three of them in which I'm repeatedly called a sockpuppet of Sue Rangell and extensive evidence is presented that I am. She attacked me rather than answering the question you put to her. You let this conversation about me continue, and then conclude that Rationalobserver is right when she says: "EChastian is drumming up drama with this thread". Though I made no further posts, you conclude: "it's best if you two try to not interact as much as possible." I'm not a sockpuppet and I wasn't the one who was blocked, unblocked, etc. resulting in an extensive ANI thread.

  Is it ok with you that this discussion consisting of unsupported accusations against me occurs on your talk? And that this discussion was the evidence that Rationalobserver is right? Coffee, if you thought my question was inappropriate, you could have just said so. I admit I was persistent on this because of the continuing harm done to Victoriaearle even today, but @Anthonyhcole:, @Dr Blofeld:, @Ddstretch:, am I crazy or is it ok for my question to degenerate into these personal attacks against me? EChastain (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

EChastain, while RO's pings may have needlessly stirred up more drama, your additional pings seem like they will only serve to bring even more drama. Any chance you (and RationalObserver) could just let all this drop and avoid each other? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hope you haven't gone

Very understandable if you need some time out but I hope you haven't gone forever. AnonNep (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I just want to clarify to you Coffee and anybody who has supported him in the last year that I don't want to be the cause of anybody leaving wikipedia. I see the above notice so am concerned if you're encountering difficulties. I don't want anybody to take what happened personally. I do think though that anybody who blocks Eric and Giano these days over minor issues just cause more trouble than it's really worth and just comes across like they're looking for a pat on the back from Jimbo and his die hard followers. Administrators should operate on wikipedia to maintain order, not create disorder with their actions. I don't think desysopping you would really get to the root of the problem, what you did is just a reflection of the system which praises pointy blocks. If you're given admin tools though, I expect you to take more care in using them, and to avoid blocking in situations where it is inevitable that something very negative is going to result from it. Perhaps you weren't aware of it. I think Jehochman made some excellent pointers for improvement and hope that he keeps in contact with you and tries to set you on the right track on here and to avoid this happening again. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld: Which version of you am I supposed to listen to? The one here telling me there's a positive way forward, or the one at Anthony's talk page telling me I should lose the bit? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know Coffee. I only suggested that you had your blocking rights removed for a month or so and still retain your other admin rights. I did say on Anthony's talk page though that if Jehochman has a better idea of what to do I'd go with that. Perhaps what happened is enough to ensure that you take more care in imposing blocks in future. Those sort of blocks involving Eric and Giano as you can see are not the solution. I don't think that you should be desysopped over that one thing, but I do think if you have a habit of regularly being very liberal with the blocking button that it's a problem for established editors and stripping of admin tools will likely result soon enough. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Retirement is an unacceptable route. Return soon. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"Calm your mind in order to restore equilibrium and normalcy.". Buster Seven Talk 23:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Coffee I would not entertain the mudslinging being done by those still talking about desysopping, you have already defended your position at ANI and people are just repeating things that have already been addressed. There is lots of talk about arbcom but little action, because people know that evidence of wrongdoing is required for arbcom rather than just a group of people who disagree with you. Frankly I suspect such a case would be closed rather quickly as lacking merit. While certain users will scream from the rooftops that Eric and Giano should not be blocked for be being abusive to others it is unlikely that arbcom will come to the same conclusion(particularly since the block on Eric was based on an Arbcom sanction). Chillum 16:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Whereas your view appears to be that nobody ought to be blocked for abusing anyone you take a dislike to. I've been called a "cunt" twice in the last 24 hours for instance. Where were you warriors then? Eric Corbett 16:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Eric you have made it clear that you don't want me babysitting you. I have always acted impartially towards you and have defended you from personal attacks and vexatious complaints several times. If I have not done so lately it is because in the past my defense of you has been met with apathy and insults from you. Chillum 16:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You must think I was born yesterday. If I'd called anyone a "cunt" on my talk page you'd have been all over me like a rash. Eric Corbett 16:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett: Where were you called a cunt? If you'd be so kind as to provide diffs, I'll handle it (if it hasn't been). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Here and here. There's been much prejudiced nonsense written recently about so-called "unblockables", but the reality is that the only unblockables are IP editors. Eric Corbett 17:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if just an IP hopper, a block is warranted. Should have read the whole discussion. Thank you for blocking them Coffee. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Eric I was under the impression that you didn't give a shit if I defended you or not. I defended you in the past and you only made me look like a fool for doing so, I suggest you report the personal attacks against you at ANI. Chillum 16:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What would ANI achieve? Nothing of course, as the insults came from two IPs. Perhaps the answer is that we should all abandon our user accounts and edit as IPs. Eric Corbett 17:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett: I've blocked both IPs for 3 days for personal attacks. I didn't notice their clandestine wording when I saw those edits before, and that's a bad on myself. If another IP comes along with the same BS, please let me know and I'll block them immediately. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou. Eric Corbett 17:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I don't believe anyone has yet pointed out how much work you have done on cases which, apparently, no one else wished to touch because they were too difficult, too tedious, too little rewarding. Case in point: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive. Thank you very much, and I hope to see you again soon. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Dittos. Being an admin is a thankless job. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I hope you are taking a brief Wikibreak and we'll see you editing again soon! Liz 01:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Glad you're back. Keep fighting the good fight. --Drmargi (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hey, sometimes there's a lot of drama here, but if you look past that, there's also a lot of rewarding stuff. Have a good break and I hope to see you around again once you're re-charged.

Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Lady Golfer

Hello. You speedied Lady Golfer G5 a week ago, and an identical article (if memory serves) has just been created. WP:SPAMNAME seems to suggest that this one should be speedied G5 too, and the user blocked as a sock, except that it's so short that it can probably be fixed. What do you think? Thanks, Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Dai Pritchard: Handled. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Close of Violence against men AfD: technical issue

Due to reference use in multiple places in the AfD, the close box doesn't actually cover everything. The fact that someone relisted the AfD discussion minutes before you closed the discussion means that people might not even notice if they just hop straight down to the bottom of the page. Would you be able to fix the close formatting? Thanks. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

coldacid: Fixed, thanks for the heads up! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

No prob, thanks for the quick fix! // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I figured that someone else would eventually fix it, so that's why I didn't note the technical issue soon after I saw you close the WP:AfD. I didn't consider that people might weigh in because they did not see that the WP:AfD is closed. Flyer22 (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Redaction of user creation log entries

Please note that for self-created accounts, the only part which ever needs redaction is the "editor's username/IP address" - the other fields don't contain any possibly problematic data. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Santhosh Rai Pathaje at AfD

Hi, I realise that I reported the Santhosh Rai Pathaje article for discussion at AfD but I am unsure of your close. I may be mistaken but certainly in those AfDs of recent months where I was involved it seems to have been the case that such a short discussion is at least relisted once. I have no idea what the policy is regarding this, and I am often frustrated by the "no consensus = keep" situation but on this occasion the consensus to delete, while apparent, is merely the opinion of the nominator and one other person. I think the relisting principle is intended to give an opportunity for additional discussion, especially in situations where the number of participants has been limited. Sometimes a relist attracts nothing extra but (again in my experience) quite often it does and I sometimes wonder if some people specifically follow a relisted noms category or something similar.

I am not objecting to the effects of your close, as that would be a rather perverse position for me to take as nominator, but I suspect that most admins patrolling the AfD area would have opted for an attempt to obtain a greater range of opinion. Just my thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sitush: I tend to treat AFDs like these as glorified PRODs, if that makes sense. But, yes different admins do sometimes relist these discussions. There is no clear rule on this, so it is basically up to the individual administrator's discretion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense to me but then I tend very much towards the deletionist camp. I saw a similar rationale some time ago. That said, I have also seen several discussions where that approach was denigrated. Alas, until things settle down here - the place has been in a state of full moon for too long now - I have no intention of doing much at all and thus I am not going to dig out the diffs/threads. Mine was just a "heads up" comment: what you do is your concern. Doubtless, others will weigh in if they have concerns. - Sitush (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK prep to queue promotions

Coffee, thanks for promoting the waiting full DYK preps to queues. It's a great help having another admin willing to pitch in, since fewer have been over the past months.

I wanted to remind you that once you've copied the material in the prep over to the queue and set it up for the bot, there are also two more steps: clearing the just promoted prep, so it doesn't get promoted again later by another admin, and resetting the "next prep" number to point at the next prep that should be promoted. I've just done this for the three preps you just promoted, and I did it for you a few days ago, but it's important that you take care of these yourself in future. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I usually try to take care of those... but since I saw you were working on it right behind me I figured I'd be lazy tonight. Haha... anyways, thanks for the help! Have a good night. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete AfD relisting

Good morning! A few days ago you've {{relist}}'ed a few AfDs without moving them from the original day's log to the relisting day's log... as a result the bot thought they were overdue and I closed them prematurely :\. See User talk:Papaursa for the debate arising from my mistake. Deryck C. 09:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Deryck Chan: I've realized that IE 11 does not work well with my relisting script... bah! Damn you Microsoft. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

An editor (in part because they disagree with my decision) said that either I reopen it or they will DRV. What are your thoughts? (There is a policy premise to be tested - to what extent is the closing admin allowed to gauge the strength of the argument by looking at the parts of the article and external sources which the debate has referred to?) Deryck C. 08:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Deryck Chan: Per, WP:RELIST "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days.", so your closes are completely allowed within policy... as long as you believe that there were policy backed arguments that verify your close is within the predetermined consensus made by the community. (AFDs are not votes, Papaursa). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

BAO Publishing

I'm asking if I can recreate the page. this comic publisher has already a page on italian wiki , sells 200.000 copies every year and has published authors such as Scott McCloud, Frank Miller and Alan Moore. thank you...

Melaen: Yes, as long as a claim of notability is established in the article, I see no issues with you re-creating it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Alberto Moreno (footballer)

Please take a look at this, this and this. All these three sources (the first and the last 100% reliable) says he's a left back. The IP user (who has six mere edits – I'm not trying to use this in my turn) only provided two links that were already deemed as not reliable enough here already.

Cheers, MYS77 05:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

MYS77: Have you tried to actually discuss this with the IP? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I did in the edit summaries, where I mentioned the Liverpool official web. Firstly, I asked him for reliable sources, and he only provided some unreliable ones. Cheers, MYS77 06:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

MYS77: Per WP:REVTALK, "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself." — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Already moved it to the talk page. Cheers, MYS77 06:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

MYS77: Thank you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Simon.terry

Hi Coffee, I noticed you left a warning on User talk:Simon.terry relating to Unilad. It would seem this user is already evading a block based on the unblock request at User talk:Uniladmag. The account was created after Uniladmag was reblocked. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Bellerophon: I've blocked the user in question, thanks for the heads up. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

deletion

Hope your doing well Coffe. My page was deleted after I posted it on Twitter. If we arent allowed to tell people about the posting then how do they find out? Are they supposed to happen to find your page via google & internet searches? Help me to better understand this. I am a public figure & I've been trying to find out how to post up a Misplaced Pages page for years. They are always getting deleted. I am listed in the top 1% percentile of all social media users & Mark Z. owner & founder of Facebook even follows me but I can't seem to grasp Wiki! Please help & I thank you for your time & commitment to this very informational platform!OGMackDrama (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC) 'OG Mack Drama'

OGMackDrama: Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a host for self-promotion. Please see the relevant policies at WP:SELFPROMOTE and WP:NOTPROMOTION. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the IP on my talk page. I was also looking into the contrib history for the /22 range to see if a range block looked safe, and realized you had already gotten there and blocked them - so thanks for that too! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that AIV report

Thanks for taking care of 86.174.161.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), a vandal you blocked. I realized later on that I probably should have included a few representative diffs in the AIV report, as some of the vandalism was a bit subtle and other edits looked helpful on the surface. I'm glad that you didn't retire. Your efforts at clearing time-consuming backlogs is deeply appreciated. I remember you've closed a number of really contentious AfDs that nobody else would touch, even though you sometimes close them with The Wrong Result (kind of like m:The Wrong Version, I suppose). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for doing the work for DYK. It made me feel good that my article was noticed and then promoted, which happened because people like you do the work behind the scene. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Hi. I've done nothing on this - dealing with life. Have you had any more thoughts on the concerns raised - especially regarding your use of the block button? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not particularly more than I laid out there so far, and at the ANI thread. Once your able to lay out any other concerns you have though I'll be happy to answer them there. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)