User talk:Indubitably/Archive 52

Ki Chung Kim

Hi Jennavecia,

I am not sure why Ki Chung Kim is not a significant person. Wiki has several pages on boxers. Ki Chung Kim was one of the best Taekwondo fighters and instructors in the 20th century. As proof, coached the first American Olympic gold metal winner.

If I were to do an article on his philosophy would that be more appropriate?

Cdblachford (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)charles blachford

As long as the information is cited to reliable sources, it would be appropriate. In order for Kim to warrant his own page, he needs to meet the inclusion criteria of WP:BIO. لennavecia 01:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps July update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nashville meetup notice

A few users were in Category:Wikipedians in Tennessee, but didn't have a user talk page already. You should {{subst:welcome}} them and put the notice on there manually. Or something. List below. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

1. User talk:Dhc529
2. User talk:Mamargiotta
3. User talk:Vaprotan
4. User talk:Darth_Topher
5. User talk:StarsFellOnAlabama
6. User talk:WAEllison

Thanks, buddy. لennavecia 02:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Man, I wish I could be there for the first night of festivities. Maybe I can sneak away for a brief bit during Act 1... Also, I dunno when the cool kids are getting into town, but I'm free to hang out with folk during the afternoon before I have to head to the park. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's what you do. Buy a can of Campbell's vegetable soup. Pour some of it into a sandwich sized Ziplock bag. Smush it up fairly well. Ensuring it's well-sealed, put it in your pocket. When you're at work, about 6pm, seclude yourself momentarily, hold the bag by one corner, bite a hole, squeeze the soup into your mouth, discard bag where it won't be found... (still with me here?)... then run over to a grassy area where co-workers (but not guests) can see you, and proceed to "vomit". Time to go. See you at 7. :D لennavecia 04:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this is my most lucrative theatre gig each year. I'm not so sure I want to bite the hand that feeds me. (or, rather, vomit in the ha... you know, nevermind, I'm not liking where this is going) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

ROFL. Dude, are you not allowed a sick day? XD What are the chances you could ask for that day off now? Anyone capable of covering for you? This is srs biznis. لennavecia 04:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm the house manager this year; for the past three years, I've been the assistant house manager. However, the meetup is happening sufficiently late into the run that we'll be in our groove (every year is slightly different, and opening weekend always has kinks to be worked out), and I have faith in my assistant (and our intern). I'll talk to the folks upstairs about it; I might just show up to help set up everything and then bug-out to have dinner with you freaky fine folks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A:

Yes, I would describe mine that way. It's even more remarkable to garner so much participation in 2008. Cool Hand Luke 07:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, this is besides the point. If I resigned my adminship for doing something like Coffee did, I think I should have to get the community's mandate before having adminship restored. We easily told Everyking that. I'm surprised that this one is so close. Cool Hand Luke 07:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be using the Everyking case as a shining example of ArbCom at its best. If you want to compare cases, how about the automatic resysop of SlimVirgin. You think Coffee's lapse in judgment was of greater detriment to the project than Slim's transgressions (which included abuse of administrative privileges), so much so that he cannot request his bit back after what, a year? But she got her bit back automatically after six months? What about Aitias? Is he an apt comparison, since you're wanting to compare cases? I think Aitias is a much better comparison than Everyking, who was needlessly desysoped years ago over misunderstandings wholly unrelated to his adminship, which was stellar.

Look, we all know that ArbCom punishments are handed out just as unevenly as the community enforces the civility policy. Practically nothing on this project is consistent or balanced, but at the very least, you can base your decision and your comments on the merit of the case before you. Calling on an old RFA that means nothing to the situation as it currently stands is not constructive thinking. It was a bad call to frame his RFA as you did, and that you don't understand why is unfortunate. Maybe if I explain my position more clearly: You're a good example of how an RFA can, in your inaccurate description, limp into passing, and then the candidate go on to be highly successful. Now, I know Chet really well, and I know how he's matured in the past year and I know why. That why is the reason I am so protective of him.

The comment was not only inaccurate, it was unnecessary. Look at him, Luke. No reason to look at his RFA when you've got logs of admin actions to base your decision and comments on. You're an arbitrator. Why does this have to be explained to you? لennavecia 13:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He actually gave out his password. I would want admins desysoped for that every time. As it turns out, a group of Arbs is categorically opposed to times temporary desysops, so at least one of the cases you mention would certainly turn out differently today.

At any rate, I think it's a bad call to bring up the PeterSymonds RFA. Different users are different, and we shouldn't infer things from another's RFAs. Cool Hand Luke 16:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this: I think it might be psychological dissonance from the Everyking request immediately below. In that case, I think that ArbCom took the bit away in error (unlike in this case), and so one might think it would be an even stronger case for resysoping. But in fact the comments generally say something like "we don't want to contravene community 'consensus' by bypassing an RFA." I had believed was the actual reason. By that reasoning, I think Coffee would have to go the same route. He was not desysoped for a term like SlimVirgin, or until the commencement of a case, like Atias explicitly was.

That said, I won't oppose. I think it should be easier to give and remove the bit anyway; puts him full cycle. Cool Hand Luke 16:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You shouldn't be inferring things from any RFA in this case, but since you mentioned it, you're the one that brought up Peter's RFA and compared it to Chet's. And you compared Chet's case to a case from four years ago. Pull it together, Luke.

The motion passed following the case read:

::::User:Coffee and User:PeterSymonds, having resigned their administrator status while under scrutiny when their accounts were compromised, may regain their status either through the usual RFA process, or by application to ArbCom, at each editor's own discretion.

Chet chose to apply though ArbCom. So look at the merits of this case, review his administrative history, and make a decision. It's a lazy move to go back and look at his RFA as if it's relevant at this point, instead of looking at his adminstrative record to determine if he would again be a benefit to the project as an administrator. Other arbs aren't having any issue doing this, and it's not close anymore. It's one vote from passing with no current opposition.

The kid had lapse in judgment. He admitted everything, apologized, resigned his adminship, and immediately returned to constructive editing. Following some serious real-life issues (that, trust me, I know every detail of, and hope you've bothered to get yourself up to speed on), he joined the military and has just completed boot camp. So take what you now know and make a decision. Dancing around the irrelevant and then telling others not to bring it up isn't really eliciting any faith in your ability as an arbitrator. لennavecia 16:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I think that ArbCom took the bit away in error (unlike in this case)... - ArbCom didn't take Chet's bit. He resigned. لennavecia 16:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize that. Again, it would seem to be a stronger case for restoring.

This was discussed on the list. There, as on RFAR, people repeatedly brought up PeterSymonds' RFA as evidence of the Community not caring. You made an oblique reference to it in your own statement. I'm sorry for bringing up other RFAs, but I didn't find the comparison to PeterSymonds' useful. That's all. Cool Hand Luke 17:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You're confused. You're talking about Peter's restoration RFA. I'm talking about you bringing up Peter's original RFA and comparing it to Chet's original RFA. Peter's restoration is relevant to establish that the community has shown a willingness to forgive a more severe case of the same transgression. How you don't believe that is relevant is a little beyond me. Regardless, the RFAs that gave them adminship to begin with are wholly irrelevant, yet you seem to think, or you at least thought, that they were relevant.

I don't understand your line of reasoning at all. It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. The means to which you've reached your decision, or lack thereof, seem completely backward to me. It's disappointing, to say the least. لennavecia 17:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not confused. People pointed out the handsome margin of Peter's RFA to suggest that Coffee would similarly pass. The argument seemed to be, "so why go through the drama of another RFA?" My modest point is that we could not infer that Coffee would also pass because his original RFA was nothing at all like Peter's. I actually doubt that he would pass. I'm sorry if this was not clear to you; I guess I was speaking in shorthand from our list discussions, and I can certainly fill it in if you think it would be less insulting toward Coffee.

Peter's restoral RFA shows that he's a widely respected editor. It shows that for an editor like PeterSymonds, that the community could overlook this issue. It does not suggest that the community absolved everyone in the incident, even if it's true. I don't think votes should be used to support propositions that were not actually voted on. That's all.

Anyhow, since we're apparently not trying to predict how his RFA would turn out, it doesn't really matter either way. Cool Hand Luke 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You just predicted how his RFA would turn out... well, you said you think it would fail. Personally, I think he would pass by a wide margin. That's not my concern. I'd like to save him the stress, and as the option of ArbCom was given to him to begin with, I don't believe he should be dismissed to RFA. Furthermore, I think your reasons on the request page are insulting to Chet, and I know I would appreciate some clarification on the request; however, Chet may not be bothered by your comments. I remain disappointed, though, and I would be interested to know what arb-list chatter leads you to believe he would fail RFA and for what reasons. لennavecia 17:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether he should pass RFA or not is irrelevant because he's appealing to us. Plenty of qualified candidates are rejected for capricious and bizarre reasons; I think it's likely that he would run up enough opposition because of this incident without enough support to pass. I'm not actually fond of RFA: I think it deters too many good people from applying. Cool Hand Luke 17:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So you don't trust RFA to make the right judgment because so often "qualified candidates are rejected for capricious and bizarre reasons". I completely agree with you. Why, then, are you wanting to defer the decision to the community instead of looking at the case yourself and making a decision based on the whole situation, as Chet was told was an option both during the initial case and in the motion that passed after? Rather than make your own determination, you'd rather send him to a process you don't trust. You continue to not make sense to me. لennavecia 17:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Again, I am of the opinion that it should be easier to move in and out of adminship than it currently is. Having to run through an RfA again would be enough to deter most people from ever consider regaining the bit. If the bit is removed by ArbCOM, then it should be restorable via ArbCOM. If ArbCOM leaves that as an option when a person leaves, then arbcom should be willing to act on said option.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

At root, I'm still shocked that this could actually have occurred. It seems like one of the first rules of computer security—not just Wikipedia, but of the internet. It was well-intentioned, and I understand his personal background, but I can't bring myself to sign it at this time. He's been mostly off Wikipedia since the incident (another difference from PeterSymonds' RFA). His personal situation explains that, but I'm not convinced adminship would be a net positive; if it goes unused, it seems like nothing but a risk. I might be persuaded to support a timetable wherein the bit was automatically restored after editing for a time, but looks like it's going pass outright. Cool Hand Luke 18:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think it would go unused? I realize he's been away for some time, but he will be regaining internet access now. His editing may be at reduced levels, of course, as he'll be going to school now, but surely you don't think he's requested the bit back just to have it. Here, let me ask this very simple question, which should elicit a very simple answer: Why do you think Chet would not be a net positive as an administrator at this time? And please cite tangible reasons. لennavecia 18:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a skeptical person, and he hasn't edited in ages. If he's not around, it's not a net positive and still strikes me as a security risk. Given that he's asking for the bit before he's resumed editing, it does seem like it might be a status symbol. Cool Hand Luke 18:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a "status symbol" to everyone else, don't see any reason to single out one particular editor. What I see at the root of this discussion is the childish culture that informs much of wikipedia's governance. Sure, he made a mistake in handing his password over to another user, but I doubt he'd be inclined to do that again. His real fault though was in admitting to his guilt, instead of inventing elaborate tales about implausible family members gaining access to his computer, as more than one serving administrator has done. In my book that to the lad's credit; he put his hand up and he took his punishment. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

For your argument to be taken seriously it would be better for it to be consistent. Do you, for instance, agree with removing admin rights from inactive administrators? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I support removing rights for inactive administrators who have shared their passwords in the past. I'm not aware of any at present. Cool Hand Luke 19:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I asked you, as you well know. Your evasion does you no credit. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This user has demonstrably made this error in the past, and my imperfect mortal heuristics tell me I should be a more worried about users who have made similar errors in the past. Therefore, I don't think your question is comparable. But as it happens, I do support desysoping inactive admins, but I also support a regime to automatically return their bits after they've returned to the site. Cool Hand Luke 19:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay. So your reasons, which aren't tangible, really, are that he's not been around lately, and you're assuming bad faith on his claim to have learned from his mistake and his ability to avoid making it again. It's worth noting that none of your statements on the request mention either of these points. I can understand that people would have a concern with him having been away for some time now. I expect less concern from those who know why he's been away for so long. As for you, I don't know. I'm assuming you know the whole story, as I forwarded most all the details to the committee, for this very reason. So that when he was ready to get his bit back, there would be a full understanding on the part of those making the decision. To send him through RFA... the stress in that... Because it is not feasible to clue in the entire community to what he's been through. I've given a basic overview with his permission, but I'm not sure that should be the premise of an RFA. Instead, I think you should consider fulfilling the offer made to him last year, and make a definitive decision on his request. Dismissing it to RFA should not be an option. If you want to oppose the request, then oppose it, but give your real reason, as you apparently have here, and stop dancing around it there. He deserves that basic respect. Consider, too, what kind of state of mind he was in during the time he gave up his password. This one is important, Luke. Consider what he's been through since October, and consider what his childhood was like before he escaped. Consider, Luke, why a child would not want to let someone down or refuse them a request. Consider what one's self-esteem is like at that point in their life, and consider why one may want to keep close friendships (in their view) secure. And then, Luke, consider now that he's free from that situation, beginning his adult life in the military, and ask yourself if you think there is reason to trust someone who has voluntarily made such a change in their life. And not just made the change, but fought for it. Much to consider, Luke, but thus far you don't seem to have considered much at all. لennavecia 18:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I opposed his request in bold letters, which earned me your ire (now on WR, I see). I'm sure he's a good guy. Assuming he starts editing again, he'll probably do a good job. But I don't think we should restore bits under these circumstances. That's all. Nothing personal. I wish him well. Cool Hand Luke 19:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[1] You compared SlimVirgin, not me. I compared Everyking, who we are presently dismissing in spite of the fact that the desysop was probably in error and in spite of the fact that he has something like 100,000 edits since then. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your original comment in bold letters is not what earned you my ire. The fact that you didn't give a respectable answer as to why is what earned you my ire. Your dancing around the request page and then giving a series of completely different reasons (most of which made no sense) here is what earned you my ire. I've completely lost confidence in your ability to arbitrate, because I don't think you knew what you were doing here. You don't appear to have spent any time at all reviewing the case before making your non-decision. That worries me. And then you seemed to have not put any real thought into your comments here. Reading over this thread it seems like you just spouted out whatever came to mind without actually putting any serious thought into any of it. Changing your position repeatedly. Read over it again. It's not consistent and much of it makes no sense. You're telling me not to do things you did. It's really funny actually... but to me, probably won't be to Chet.

Bold denial of the request accompanied by some tangible reasoning would have been optimal. But that train has left the station and you didn't get on it. As for WR, don't speak to me like you don't have twice as many posts as me and like you weren't almost a mod. I expect to have comments like that thrown at me from the WR-haters, but don't pretend you don't have appreciation for WR, and you damn well better not attempt to condemn me for post there. You least of all people. If you want to discuss what's being said there, post it there. I will, however, respond to this one point, which is that I didn't say you compared to Slim. I said I would not have made comparisons if you had not. You compared to Everyking, so I made more apt comparisons. Yet that are all irrelevant in the big picture. If you can't keep up with the conversation, gracefully bow out. لennavecia 19:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not WR hating at all, and I'm not sure where you get that impression. I might have more posts there than any admin on Wikipedia. I think it's good for Wikipedians to have an open mind about the site, and I emphatically believe there's nothing wrong with posting there. Would you be at least mildly annoyed if someone disparaged you in another forum without telling you? That's what happened here. Cool Hand Luke 19:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary gave that impression. And no, I would not be even mildly annoyed to find someone was discussing me on a site in which I'm a known poster. That's like being upset that I'm being discussed on a talk page everyone knows I watchlist. I typically avoid cross-posting WR matters onto WP. Did you want an email notification? I figured you'd see it. لennavecia 19:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Which edit summary? You seem to be reading things into my comments that don't exist. As for me, perhaps I'm idiosyncratic insofar that I don't like to be disparaged before an audience. Cool Hand Luke 19:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and why on earth is adminship necessary to maintain his friendships? Cool Hand Luke 20:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this question. Neither my mention here or on WR of his friendships was in relation to his adminship. لennavecia 22:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[15:03] <SoxBot-1> New edit: User talk:Jennavecia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=299937452 * Cool Hand Luke * /* A: */ I opposed his request in bold letters, which earned me your ire (now on WR, I see).

I may have read into it, in which case you have my apologies. The fact that you mention it here at all seems as though you do so with negative intentions. In that you've stated you're at least mildly annoyed by the thread there, it supports my reading of it, I think, considering you could just respond to the thread on WR. By continuing to discuss it here, you're distracting from the discussion at hand. Whether this is intentional or not isn't clear to me, but it doesn't look good either way as I've asked more than once that the WR discussion be kept on WR. لennavecia 19:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that at all. On talk pages I tend to use verbatim copies of text as the edit summary.

Anyhow, I think the conversation should continue here, and I consider your thread to be the distraction. If you want to keep WR on WR, maybe you should also keep your WP conversations on WP? Anyhow, I'll respect your wishes. Cool Hand Luke 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't very well get the opinions of people on WR without mentioning it on WR. I mean, you either you support posting there or you don't. If you're distracted by a thread on WR, then that's another unfortunate matter, but it's no reason to derail this thread. However, I think we're done here anyway, so I suppose it's a moot point now, unless you have further points to make. لennavecia 20:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The opinions of WR members are interesting, but dredging up your own disputes often seems tacky to me. It's fine though; I should expect it as an arbitrator, and I appreciate what you've done here. Criticism is good. I'm satisfied with the state of this conversation and the thread on WR. Cool Hand Luke 20:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it is more tactless than tacky. I've never claimed to be tactful. Good call to expect this sort of criticism as an arb, however. The community wants more transparency and explanation from arbiters, and too often it's like pulling teeth to get it. لennavecia 22:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No one cares

Not that anyone cares, but I think there should be one standard for all admin desysopped in any form by ArbCom, and that is to require an RfA before receiving anything back. Even the slightest problem with the bits should be of the gravest concern. The community's trust is what adminship requires, and the community needs to be turned to if a person is to get the bit. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That isn't always feasible. Occasionally there are factors which can't be shared with the community openly, either due to privacy concerns or in order to prevent abuse of the wiki. Durova²⁷³ 05:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom could always issue a small declaration saying - "After reviewing all private matters during the ArbCom case, we feel that there is nothing restrictive" (or "we feel that there are still restrictive issues") "in this case". Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

At least you know that no one cares. ;) لennavecia 07:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As a lone voice in the wilderness, it is easy to look around and see that there is no one else. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Some people will never accept that kind of assessment, Ottava. On the one hand, there was an example last year where ArbCom decided to commend an administrator, even though ample evidence had been submitted privately that serious problems existed. So a 'stamp of approval' may justifiably be regarded with skepticism--which would be unfortunate in other instances where a candidate really does deserve trust. On the other hand, there was another case two years ago where the Committee decided not to allow RFA because an administrator had knowingly and persistently misused the tools in order to assist a sitebanned editor's disruption. The details of how that had happened needed to be submitted offsite because that particular vandal was especially persistent, and long term sockpuppeteers usually try to parse that type of report in order to improve their effectiveness at socking. Naturally enough, afterward the people who got sanctioned claimed innocence, frame-up, etc. And if we changed practice as you suggest, Ottava, it would increase the motivation for people to respond that way instead of admitting their mistakes and seeking to learn from the experience. Durova²⁷³ 15:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify - if ArbCom bans someone from ever being an admin again, then I say that should stick. I am only refering to situations in which they desysop someone and then allow them to get adminship back after. I disagree with any of this "6 month desysopping" crap. If there is any justification to desysop for at least a minute, the person should be reaffirmed by the community before adminship. ArbCom should be in the business of removing rights, not granting (when it comes to cases). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• By the way, this is so true - "I was not aware of OR's status as "influential opinion maker". Of course, I also wasn't aware that him being blocked elicits an outcry. Shows how much I pay attention." I'm just struggling everyday in order to not go down like DougsTech. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's closer to the perception I've held. لennavecia 15:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

redirect Banners

Thanks Lara, I thought so, but wanted to make sure. On a side note - wish I could do that Nashville thing, been a couple years since I spent any time there. They have a great race track, and it's a big weekend for auto racing ... but, likely won't make the long drive. IIRC .. that Jackson's place you mentioned, I think I've eaten there. If it's the place I'm thinking of .. lots to do all along that strip, sidewalk cafe kind of thing ... if it is the place I'm thinking of .. GREAT FOOD!. Anyway, thanks again for the BLP help. Looked on IRC, but looked like you were away at the time. ;) — Ched :  ?  05:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no prob. Too bad you can't make it. Bunch of us flying in. More than just a meetup, it's a BRC thing, so more effort than most meetups probably see. But yea, what you describe above fits the description of the place, so good to hear. It's ranked high with lots of reviews, so I'm hoping everyone enjoys it. :) لennavecia 08:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Coffee

I suspect that you knew long before I did ... but just in case: - they gave him the bit back! — Ched :  ?  16:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I was notified when it happened, but thanks for the note. :) لennavecia 16:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

<3 LaraBot

Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly unreferenced biographies of living people. لennavecia 06:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

hax? –xeno^talk 06:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If records are accurate, you've made precisely two edits to my talk page, neither of which conveyed a meaningful message. Is there any reason you're now loitering around my talk page and do you have any actual message you'd like to share? لennavecia 14:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Saw the term "LaraBot" and for some reason had this vision of a robot in leather, high-heels, and holding a whip ... sorry - but actually I love what it did. But boy, these "lists" just seem to be never ending sometimes - even though I know we need them. Good work Lara! — Ched :  ?  16:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Simmer down.

Bot isn't mine, by the way. It's MZMcBride's. He just named it after me. لennavecia 16:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he ever writes one to detect "blubbering idiots" ... I guess he could name it after me .... lol. ;) — Ched :  ?  17:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Other than that MZMcBride is the king, no. –xeno^talk 17:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 14:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Silencing someone

Thank you for silencing that Duchamps guy. He loves to argue endlessly and costs many folks' time, especially you admins, whose energy can best be spent on productive matters.--Kgwu24 (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)KG

I don't recall the situation you're referring to, but you're welcome. لennavecia 22:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In case you're curious, the context is here. It started with an AfD on May 24 (in which I was involved), and for the ensuing days, the guy debated any object that moved. Then came silence, after Jun 2. Thank you.--Kgwu24 (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)KG

Arash Hashemi

Can you and your flock sort out what is to be done with this article? Gracias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. G10. Not a clear cut case, but I can't let that stand. Best to start that one from scratch within project guidelines and policies. لennavecia 05:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not a nurse and I don't need a few stitches... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. Amputation is quicker. لennavecia 16:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I properly thanks you for your *cough* clean-up *cough* of said article. So here's an article offering in appreciation for your efforts: Buttock cleavage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Justindavila

Justindavila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I suggest you see this. Please block the editor indef.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't. If I see anyone blocked by the Civility Police for anything said on my talkpage, they'll be immediately unblocked. – iridescent 21:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Iri. I only wish more people would visit my talk page and leave cool notes like that. Civility is so 1860s. Law _{type! snype?} 22:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I can loan you this guy if you'd like? – iridescent 22:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Iridescent, I forgot to sign that one. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd love one like that. If you don't block this guy, does it still make a sound at AN/I? I would hate to deprive a select few from what seems to be a rather mundane start to the weekend. Law _{type! snype?} 23:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would I ever be the go-to admin to block for incivility? Especially against Iri? We laugh at this stuff, so why would I be the killjoy that blocks for the dumbass comments? No, no. I'll pass. That said, I thought I already indefed him once. I'm too tired right now to go investigate, though. لennavecia 16:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility police? >>>>>>>>>>> don't mind me ... just passing through >>>>>>>>>>> — Ched :  ?  17:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

ACPD pages created

I've created two initial pages for the ACPD:

• Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development
• Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development/Forum

Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.

Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree

You have criticised me very strongly recently, but I am not sure we really disagree. As you will see from my recent support of a candidate at RfA, someone who comes along and says 'I do this', however trivial it may seem, will get my vote if that is what they do. If on the other hand they make grossly inflated claims about featured articles or editing abilities, then I will oppose. Their are many different ways that people help out on Wikipedia. The current problem with RfA is that it sets expectations that few will be able to meet. I hope this clarifies my point of view, and I hope we can be friends, for much of what you do here is good. Peter Damian (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As seen at Skomorokh's RfA, you waste so much real-life time looking for a reason to oppose. You spent hours dealing with semantics only to join a small minority of opposers. While this has no reflection on your relationship with Jenna, you could have wisely spent your time notifying me that you brought a comment of mine to AN/I.It may be odd to bring that up here, but you certainly had no intention of looking elsewhere. Like I said before, your time is limited, by virtue of your actions. My block will, in time, stand as one that has merit. Law _{type! snype?} 11:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. Well, as Law points out, Peter, you go out of your way to find a reason to oppose people, and for things that I don't agree affect adminship. You surely would have opposed me. I'm certain of that. So, no... we don't agree. I've worked with Skomorokh more closely than most editors here. Collaborated with him/her on what is my favorite article (my baby, I call it), we both maintain Jimmy Wales bio (Sko more than me), and we've worked together in other areas at times. I've seen a lot from the candidate over the past many months and have always been impressed, even when we don't agree, which as I noted in the RFA is often. So, seriously, we really don't agree. لennavecia 16:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Law vs Malleus: Round 1

I doubt it. Your block was hasty and ill-judged. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It was spot-on. Law _{type! snype?} 12:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact you believe that simply demonstrates that you ought not to be an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Because you opine such? Your clout resides solely in your ability to write an article. You clearly have no idea what administrative actions entail. You have clearly demonstrated that administrative abilities are not for you at this time time. But you know that. Law _{type! snype?} 13:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I know is that I'd make a better admin than you ever will, as you continue to demonstrate so effectively. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you would make a great admin. I've even said so. If I had my way, I'd make you such. In fact, you have all rights that I can give you. Please use them wisely. Law _{type! snype?} 14:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That was a rather poor move on your part, Law. Malleus has stated several times he has no wish for extra rights. I suggest you remove them all post haste. Majorly talk 14:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) While I have much respect for you Majorly, I have no doubt that MF not only deserves such rights, but will use them accordingly. If he feels, or anyone feels, that they are without merit, then they can be removed. However, I would strongly urge against such an action as I am of the belief that he is better off with them, regardless of what he may think of me. Law _{type! snype?} 14:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And as nobody owns a talk page, why are you here? If you are within your right to be here, as am I. As is anyone. If you really want to keep the drama going, feel free to stalk this page. O right. You have. Thank all that is holy that the ID cabal has met its deserved demise. Happy editing. Law _{type! snype?} 14:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Law, he has had the rights before and has specifically asked for their removal. Please remove them now. I also think you need to take a step back and reconsider your actions here. Not good. I strongly agree with your block of Peter Damian, but I think this patronising attitude towards Malleus is poor. Majorly talk 14:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Patronization is not my thing, mate. If I used my discretion, it was only because I felt the rights were merited. Some have already been yanked. However, I'm not going to rid him of all I have given. If you feel I made such an error, it is time to open a dialogue. Law _{type! snype?} 14:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

He has asked for the rights to be removed before, and they have been removed. Why have you gone and added them again, very much against his wishes? Granted you may have been unaware of the history, but now you are, you need to do the right thing and remove them again. This is not very good at all. Majorly talk 14:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If he wants them removed he will ask for it. MF is no stranger to being assertive. I am quite aware of his history. It was my call, so if you feel administrative action is needed, you know exactly where to take this. Law _{type! snype?} 15:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want any "rights" that can be granted or taken away at the whim of an administrator. It's just an opportunity for abuse, as Chillum clearly knows. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't have even done this, and the fact you are even aware of the history makes me question your real motive for this ridiculous stunt. Just remove the rights now and stop being so ridiculous. Majorly talk 15:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave MF 'rights' only because I believe he deserves them. No other reason. If he wants them revoked, I will sadly comply. Law _{type! snype?} 15:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No one deserves rights, ever. He has said he never wants extra rights, and you were apparently aware of this, yet you went ahead anyway. What the hell is up with you? Majorly talk 15:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Semantics. How would you explain Rfa? Those who deserve the tools. I feel strongly that MF could use some extra buttons. So, in your jargon, what the fuck is up with you? Law _{type! snype?} 15:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Malleus feels strongly he doesn't want extra buttons. Why have you given them him despite this, and still refuse to remove them? You are being nothing but disgraceful, Law. You need to a) Remove the rights you should never have granted, and b) Go and work in another area for a while, since you can't seem to handle these extra rights very well. Majorly talk 15:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess Law is trying to prove Malleus's point that he's not fit to be an administrator. Works for me. Algebraist 15:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually think Malleus would be a great admin. When I want you to interpret my words, I'll tell them to you. Law _{type! snype?} 15:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

He was referring to you as an admin, not Malleus. I agree with him. What a ridiculous stunt this is. Majorly talk 15:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

← This really doesn't need to be a huge deal. It's a bit odd, but nothing to stir a storm in a teapot over. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I go to sleep and shit blows up. Uhm... simmer down, everyone? Mebe? Kthx. I had like 20 pings in IRC for my talk page. It was wicked. Thought people were bitching at me for something. Anyway, this is extremely unfortunate, as I know Law appreciates Malleus. Unfortunately Malleus appreciates Peter, who was rightfully, albeit prematurely, blocked by Law. So it goes into an unfortunate full circle. Also, the thread on ANI about the email and suggesting there was a violent tone... that's just stupid as hell. There's nothing violent about that obviously sleepy email. What dramawhoring, and another good example of why Peter should be blocked. Anyway, not my problem, so off mah talk page. :D لennavecia 16:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)