User talk:Drmies - Wikipedia

Did you get one too? Seems to me to be a basic complaint of someone getting stuck in a range block and thinking it's directed at them, however this person sent me multiple emails (with a "go fuck yourself" in there as well as threats of legal action) and later came into multiple channels on IRC to complain, even after I explained the issue. I'm still not sure what range they're referring to. Best, Vermont (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• No, I did not, but there have been a few pings about people complaining about range blocks; I wonder if I saw one of those emails on the CU/functionaries list. Beeblebrox, are you a more conscientious reader than I? Do you remember? Drmies (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, you should ignore that person. Absolutely do not respond to their emails. You can however forward them to Trust and Safety. Despite all the uproar lately they do serve a purpose, and this is it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Beeblebrox. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Vermont (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have recently reverted user:Vincedumond on the Battle of Roosebeke(concerning the usage of Wikipedia as a source), this is not the first time I, or someone else, have had to revert their edit(s).

• 17 Sept. 2019, I reverted and warned Vincedumond of using Wikipedia as a reference.
• 9 Sept. 2019, Epinoia reverts and warns Vincedumond of using Wikipedia as a reference.
• 9 Sept. 2019, Vincedumond edit wars with Epinoia on the Inquisition article.
• 8 Sept. 2019, Epinoia reverts and warns Vincedumond of using Wikipedia as a reference.
• 23 Feb. 2018, Diannaa warns Vincedumond of copyright issues.
• 16 Oct. 2014, I warned Vincedumond of copying and pasting from sources
• 20 Aug. 2013, I warned Vincedumond of copying and pasting from sources

Not sure what should be done. But Vincedumond is clearly not listening to warnings.--Kansas Bear (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• This is a mirror? So the editor is using a mirror of the article to "reference" the article? I mean, ????? Drmies (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Toddst1 (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah such weirdness! Drmies (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I was climbing around the roof of Melrose Abbey sometime back, should have taken more photos than I did - interesting to see you edit the article... JarrahTree 14:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• RE Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#EEng_agression:

Your closure could be fine. But could you clarify which posts you actually considered? I saw half a dozen of nonsenses, but that could be me. More to the point: how did you conclude that my OP compliant did not constitute agression, especially after EEng's own ignorant talkpage reply? -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

DePiep, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and also read Figure of speech. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

DePiep, I am a certified expert in reading through ANI comments and distilling a consensus from it. That you call half a dozen of the comments "nonsenses" is telling. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

LOL you posted in that ANI so you are involved and thus not allowed to close at al. Still my question stands: which posts did you weigh-in/discard-being-irrelevant? -DePiep (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Posts

valereee (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Roly Drower appears to be a vanity article on a deceased loved one, who was notable only locally on the Isle of Man. All of this user's article creations are seriously problematic: [3]. Need someone to pull the trigger on some or all of them. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• The sourcing is just really, really hard to follow, but yeah, it seems to consist mostly of local write-ups. The thing to do, the test, is probably AfD... Drmies (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
• I'm not sure what to make of things like this, The Sound of Music (Erich Kunzel recording). There are two reviews, that's true--but does that warrant that heavy article? Drmies (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

As regards Roly Drower, "Elected a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society" gives me pause for thought. Perhaps User:DGG can tell us whether this is relevant for criterion 3 of WP:ACADEMIC (is there a list somewhere of which are "highly selective" and the great many, with very similar names, that are not?) It's unsourced though. MPS1992 (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Also seems to have some purportedly unique legal squabbles reported -- possibly in depth -- by The Guardian, who describe him as a "poet" not just a miscellaneous internet pundit. MPS1992 (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I haven't gotten to the poet part, but the "fellow" part is seriously inflated--see this edit and this one. Thanks for pointing that out! (I took out the subject's bike--an MV Augusta is a prize possession, but it was inappropriate here.) Drmies (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for knowing the answer! I have seen that FRAS postnomial a few times, I shall chuckle at it from now on. MPS1992 (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Right, not notable as a scientist. It's difficult to deal with bios that might have passed muster if they were not over-personal. If really notable I have sometime re-written, but this is borderline at best. Any notability would come from the events in the Activism section. I checked our article on his nemesis Albert Gubay, and read the articles in The Guardian linked there, such as this and it seems that the laudatory Gubayarticle needs some additions, which might justify a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
• oh dear. This is so sad. I think possibly afd is the best route, rather than speedy. KillerChihuahua 18:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Well well, who do we have here? Long time no see. Thanks for coming back and helping out. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
• I agree that AfD is probably the best route. I would prefer that someone else do that on the bio article, if someone feels to ... thanks .... Softlavender (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Update on the albums: The editor is basically creating articles on Frederica Von Stade's entire discography. I have AfDed them all, as they all fail all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

according to our article on her, a number of her recordings have won major awards, and would therefore qualify. I haven't checked whether any of these are among the ones on which these articles are written. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not per WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings, unless the album in question won at least three major awards. The bar is much much higher for classical music albums. Softlavender (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hallo everyone! Thank you for taking an interest in the article that I created about Roly Drower. I see that my noting that Drower was elected a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society has sparked some controversy - Drmies has labelled it "a serious misrepresentation". "Election" was, and still is, the Royal Astronomical Society's term for the process of the admission of a new Fellow. Anyone who cares to verify this can visit https://ras.ac.uk/about-the-ras/bye-laws, where they will find Section VII: "The Election and Obligations of Fellows".Niggle1892 (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Niggle1892, while that's true it's extremely misleading, as you're giving the impression that the RAS is some kind of elective body. In reality, "fellow" in this context is just an archaic term for "member", and the admission criteria is just to be any one of (1) Students enrolled on a full or part-time undergraduate or post-graduate course related to astronomy or geophysics, which leads to a formal qualification. (2) People with a professional interest in astronomy, geophysics or a related science, holding a relevant professional qualification (e.g. degree) and/or currently or formerly engaged in work (whether paid or not) related to astronomy or geophysics (e.g. research, industry, teaching, media), which requires a professional qualification or experience. (3) Amateurs who have demonstrated a strong commitment to astronomy or geophysics, for example through membership of another major society and/or practical achievements and/or formal study. (4) Other professionals and supporters who may not meet any other criterion but who serve (or have served) the wider interests of the Society, and/or astronomy and geophysics in general, and are committed to furthering the aims of the Society. (direct quote from their own admissions policy), which in practice means that anyone who's interested enough in astronomy to pay the £125/year subscription fee will by definition already qualify. ‑ Iridescent 11:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the criteria for being elected a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society aren't strict, but they do exist, and it isn't the case that any Tom, Dick or Harry can become an FRAS by simply sending off their £125. People who want to join the RAS but don't make the grade as Fellows are invited to become Members instead. If your characterization of the RAS were correct, its lower-tier Membership scheme wouldn't exist. To be elected an FRAS doesn't mean that you're another Fred Hoyle, but it does mean just a little bit more than that you've got £125 burning a hole in your pocket.Niggle1892 (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Niggle, the bottom line is simply that "election" here doesn't mean what it usually means for select societies. And in this case it is entirely unclear why this person, who hadn't verifiably done anything yet, would be singled out for the kind of honor implied in "election". As for the other articles, I see there's plenty of discussion elsewhere--my only comment was that there was a lot of content for little sourcing in the one I looked at, that's all. And that applies, really, to the Drower article as well. Plus, you really need to source that properly--not just with URLs when possible, but also with better, more complete bibliographical information. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd never have imagined that the dear old RAS could inspire so much controversy! I apologize in advance if explaining this is inappropriate, but I should perhaps confess that I myself became involved in astronomy in 1968. It took me eleven years to work my way up through the ranks of the amateur British Astronomical Association and a three-year degree course in astronomy before I was finally elected a Fellow of the RAS myself. (I was nominated by the Society's then President, the quantum theorist M. J. Seaton, who joked that with his signature on my proposal form, it was unlikely to be rejected.) I can still remember opening my acceptance letter with a feeling of great happiness. No, it didn't mean that I'd done anything wonderful, but it did mean that I'd got my foot on at least the first rung of the astronomical ladder, that the British astronomical community had acknowledged that I was at long last one of them. In writing about Drower's election, I could, I supposed, have added a parenthesis explaining that admission to the RAS was a mark of involvement in astronomy rather than of great achievement in the field, but an article that tried to obviate every conceivable misinterpretation of its content would be too long even for me to write! It never occurred to me that the word "Fellow" was archaic or that "elect" meant anything other than "choose". I take your point about my not being sufficiently detailed with bibliography, and I certainly didn't need to cite sources as well as references. (At the time I was very inexperienced and imitating the format of some other article that I'd read.) I may return to everything that I've written and try to improve it in line with what has been suggested, although I suspect that I probably won't. I wrote most of my articles as the only form of voluntary work that I could undertake during several months of recuperation after surgery, and now, thankfully, I'm well enough to return to the kind of real-world voluntary service that I'm maybe better suited to. And where, to be frank, the people seem to be a bit friendlier. Best wishes.Niggle1892 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Niggle1892: people are always nicer in real life. Here on Wikipedia, we all think we are terribly important and that we are upholding standards of critical significance. Thank you for writing the biography of Roly Drower, I found it very interesting. MPS1992 (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm so glad that you found at least something in that article to enjoy. (I think it was better with the motorbike, the Hell's Angels and the biscuit factory, but then I'm irredeemably vulgar.) If you've the time, I've added a brief postscript to the article's talk page that adds another dimension to the story - though it won't be there for long, as Softlavender has got her way, and everything that I've ever initiated on Wikipedia will shortly be deleted. I take your point about the difference between how people treat one another in the real world and the way behave in cyberspace. It seems to me that all of us who've spent hours here tapping away at our keyboards suffer from the same tragicomic malady: we're all vanity publishers so absurdly big-headed as to believe that what we write is worth reading, despite the absence of the pay checks that we'd be getting if it truly was. We should all, I think, be as kind to one another as whiskery old gentlemen sympathizing with one other over their bunions.Niggle1892 (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The motorcycle wasn't vulgar, but it was unverified and unencyclopedic. I doubt all of your articles will be deleted; I haven't checked on the astronomy Fellow, but at least some of those articles on recordings are very, very likely to be kept. It seems obvious to me that at least some of them (I looked at two, which were fine though verbose) are notable by our standards. That's valuable. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Drmies. It's entirely true that my mention of the motorbike was not very Wikipedian - my evidence for it was an item of motorcycling memorabilia that I discarded decades ago, and it was certainly a frivolity. My trouble is that most of the writing that I've done has been journalism, and I find it very hard to resist those little touches of colour that journalists use to try to make a piece more lively. I'm forever yearning to smuggle in details that will convey someone's quiddity as well as their CV. I'd bet that almost anyone who read the Frederica von Stade article as it was before you made it more serious would remember The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood or the bicycle spattered with paint long after they'd forgotten where von Stade sang her first Charlotte! The nub of it is that what makes a person Wikipedia-worthy is what sets them apart from us, and what makes them relatable as a human being is what they share with us. I apologize that the album articles were so lengthy. Ironically, they've been entirely shaped by what a succession of editors have recommended, each one telling me to do something different from what was demanded by the one before. I'm now in the process of changing all the Critical Reception sections into simple lists of reviews to try to eliminate copyvio. Lastly, I do apologize for never using one word where ten will do instead. I think of Wikipedia as a kind of garden. Some of us are planting: others are weeding. If we were all just planters, the garden would become a jungle. If we were all just weeders, the garden would become a desert. The garden needs both types of us. I just hope - though it's very selfish - that you and Softlavender will decide that maybe some of what looked like my weeds are really just wonky little shrubs that need a bit of TLC! Best wishes.Niggle1892 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Niggle1892, we do what we do. When I first came to Wikipedia I was writing like I was writing argumentative papers on works of literature--including what we call OR and SYNTH. It took me a while to unlearn that. The fun starts only after you get so acquainted with the dry, boring encyclopedic format that it becomes second nature--and then you can take those (verified) nuggets and make something out of it. That's the fun part of Did You Know writing. Maybe the most fun I had was with Key Largo woodrat, which I wrote together with a biologist--and we had a pretty funny hook and got it on the front page (see Talk:Key Largo woodrat). But that factoid, that assessment, had to come from a reliable secondary source. Sometimes things just drop in your lap: Go the Fuck to Sleep.

So I totally understand where you were coming from, and the subject's friends and family will thank you for it. It's just not encyclopedic enough, and in the end, if you write it properly, it will stay, and that's already a big thing. So, what I suggest is you keep doing what you do but you dig even deeper into the sources, and with some luck you find those things that liven the joint up. And between you and me, I have written things that one might argue violate NOTMEMORIAL--a mentor or two, a family member, colleagues--but when I do I have to make double sure that a. they're indeed notable and b. I keep it neutral. Take it easy, and thanks for the note. And let me know if I can help. I don't have much of a brain, but I have some experience here. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is so far over the line. [4] 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Hmm, sure, maybe--but weren't you suggesting that they were a sock of Springee? I think this is the kind of thing you should take to ANI if you think this should be blockable--I don't know the context, and it may also be a case for discretionary sanctions, via AE. I've looked a bit at the Ngo article, BTW; that's a ton of content for someone whose resume is terrifically brief for such a big article. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

One of their friends went to ANI, vastly misrepresenting the edits of myself and Simonm223, already. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I saw that. Some of this is going to end up at AE. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Springee did this [5] and didn't notify me. Isn't that a requirement? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) Not for an SPI it's not. It's a courtesy, not a requirement. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ok. It's still rude. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's not rude. Ivanvector's description is not quite right: "Notification isn't mandatory, and in some cases it may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement." ([6]).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Drmies: Well, thank you for your response, such as it was. Maybe this is just a sign to take another break. I've a niece to help with her college applications, and a sister-in-law to reassure that daddy's little princess isn't just trying to go to a party school, while my kid brother is deployed. Wikipedia's just raising my blood pressure at this point with certain vexatious individuals out for my blood. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I notice that you recently quickly blocked IP user 101.178.163.201 for repeated vandalism of Amanda Howard. Might I also suggest similar or severer action to a more active serial vandal of the page (and probably the same person based on IP geolocation), user 203.122.222.109 Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Absolutely. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

In case you haven't seen the wiki banners... You are warmly invited to WikiConference North America 2019 on November 8-11 in Boston. Deadline for Program Submissions and Scholarship Applications is September 20. Hope to see you there! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Oh Rosiestep...thank you... but there is no way I can get all this together so soon. Are you sure it's not for 2020...? Drmies (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey Doc, how y'all doin? I did glimpse at the ToC of your talk first, and apologies if I missed it, but .... Would you consider another go 'round as Arb? I know it's a tough gig, but good arbs are hard to find these days. So I thought I'd take a shot at asking those few folk I trust - would you? — Ched (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Ched, I appreciate the thought, but I'm going to decline. I don't think I have enough time to devote to it, plus, I didn't get voted in the last time, so I don't know if I'd have a better chance this time around. We make more enemies every year... Plus, Fram helped tank me the last time and I don't want to go through that again, also because of privacy issues. Take care, and thanks for asking--maybe you should run? Or what about Writ Keeper? It's about time he got busy again. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Me? I'll take that as a rhetorical kindness, but Heavens No. I don't have the patience or temperament to deal with protracted disputes. Since I couldn't support myself in such a position, there's no way I could ask anyone else to support me. Besides, I wouldn't enjoy it, and I much rather work on some content these days. But thank you for the kind reply. Writ Keeper - yes, I could support that - no problem. — Ched (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I saw you were interested in the Alameda County articles before, so I wanted to tell you I created a page for Eden Township. @Uncle G

• Thanks. Cullen328, you might find this of interest too. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• I drove through that area this morning and am now working today in what used to be Murray Township. Those names are almost forgotten now although there are a few features called "Eden" in the area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Eden Canyon for example, and Eden Canyon Road. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The ranchos articles are interesting, and I didn't know we would have those because I hadn't seen a way to find them. I would like to see all ranchos articles, and possibly the geography articles (Amador Valley, etc.) accessible from the corresponding township page. Remaining articles to be written are Brooklyn and Oakland townships (Alameda township is essentially the same as the city of Alameda). I did see an article about a town of Brooklyn, which was absorbed into Oakland, but I'm not sure if that's the same as the township.--
-Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Washington Township

Washington Township, Alameda County, California is now here as well. All three of these articles are incomplete. There is a lot more that can be written on them from the sources available. Naddruf (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I grew up in Michigan where townships are still commonplace. It seems that townships were also commonplace in California in the second half of the 19th century, but as far as I know, there are no more active townships in California. That leads me to believe that this form of government has been abolished in California, but I have not been able to find any reliable sources to that effect. I do know that the powers and authorities of incorporated cities and towns are identical in California law, and each municipality can choose which of those two terms to describe itself. Many smaller incorporated communities choose "town" to help them maintain a small town atmosphere, perhaps. So, I am wondering if anyone with better research skills, such as Uncle G or anyone else, can find out if townships are no longer part of the government structure of California. If so, when and why did that happen? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The US Census has the answer. See "Census of governments". This links to a separate PDF which announces on page 32 that California has no township governments. Though the name 'Washington Township' may no longer have any official status, the name of the township lives on for some purposes. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

valereee (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Back in June, you helped out with this user, who was engaging in personal attacks whenever people stopped him from his, well, particular sort of POV pushing and DARVO attacks on other editors, by giving him a do this again and you're out of here warning. Well, he's been pretty tendentious about this stuff, and I just came across him still engaging in the same tactics. I'd appreciate your input. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Sure, but I don't rightly understand their comment: it's pretty vague. BTW I am not familiar with that article or its subject, but it's a lot of content for a 12-yr old kid. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • He, and now Nblund, are casting those same, gross aspersions on anyone who is concerned about this kid. Same pattern. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • But I didn't see such aspersions cast in the comment you linked to. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

For your oppose comments, at the RFA. It's always a little unnerving when there seems to be behaviour that no-one else can see. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC).Reply

• Ugh. Drmies, I'd forgotten all about that ArbCom election questions fiasco. I'll still support the RFA for other principles that I consider really important, but I kind of feel like I owe you an apology for doing so. To be clear, although I'm supporting, you were 100% in the right and Fram was 100% in the wrong there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Floquenbeam, I understand that completely. How the WMF handled this, regardless of who it was, was unacceptable. It would have been easy for me at that time to pile on and go "but yeah he was abusive", but I didn't. This RfA, I just saw it go by in Recent changes and thought WTF? already? And I had actually forgotten about the "banned editor" comments, but when I saw those again I felt like I had to comment. BTW I am not sure I knew already that so much of his commentary had been oversighted; I have tried not to dwell on that episode. You don't owe me an apology or anything: you do you, and that's fine. Haha, one funny thing--there may be some people still, or again, wondering what I meant with the good thing I did while on ArbCom: I'M STILL NOT GOING TO TELL YOU, haha, but breaking a lance for Guido den fucking Broeder wasn't it. Take care Floq, Drmies (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

sigh - I was determined to stay completely out of this - but Floq you strike a nerve there. So many people are supporting this as a referendum against WMF/T&S intervention in en-wp affairs. IMO, an RfA is simply that - a request to determine if an individual is suitable for Adminship. Nothing less, but also, Nothing more. It wasn't designed to support "other principles" (although I agree those are worthy principles to support) I honestly believe that anyone thinking a mass of support votes at an RfA is going to have any influence on how the WMF do business going forward, I think they are sadly mistaken. Saying "A" is wrong, so I'm going to support "B" (regardless of the suitability) is simply misguided devotion to anti-A.

An RfA is not a referendum against WMF or T&S behavior. It never was. It never will be. And - it isn't now. I totally agree that the WMF and T&S should mind their own business of doing business for the foundation, and that their partial ban and desysop was completely crossing the line. But that is all fodder for an RfC, not RfA. You know it's seldom I'll buck against you Floq - but I simply don't agree with you here. — Ched (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@ Floquenbeam - Fram had used the same tactic on my Arb candidacy, a few years previously. Whether it was successful (i.e changed the result) is hard to say (and I can't remember much detail) but a number of editors said "not supporting someone involved in a stupid feud like this". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC).Reply

@Rich Farmbrough: I'm not defending Fram's behavior, especially not from years ago. I'm saying that from my perspective, there is a bigger issue for me, and while I'm not really apologizing for it (it wouldn't make sense to apologize if I don't change my vote), I'm at least expressing regret to Drmies (and to you too) that it looks like I don't value the pain of your experiences, and acknowledging that that pain was legitimate. If this RFA had come after a fair and open ArbCom case that had removed his admin bit, I likely wouldn't support. @Ched:, when you say "An RfA is not a referendum against WMF or T&S behavior", what you mean is "I don't think an RFA should be a referendum against WMF or T&S behavior". I understand that point of view, but disagree that it's such an open and shut fact. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Floquenbeam: Thanks for that, I don't think this is simple, I never had a fully working hypotheses of what Fram was trying to do, certainly not a charitable one. I didn't follow the Arb case once there seemed no possibility of submitting open evidence, but from what I know the result was pretty gentle. I objected to WMF's actions on procedural grounds, though I am grateful for the intentions and work of the T&S staff, so to be consistent I have to reserve judgement on ArbCom.

However we shouldn't hastily follow two fiascos with a third. Sysopping someone who is unsuitable would be just such a fiasco. One of the support voters says that there will be no problems with so many people watching Fram's edits. If we need this as an answer to Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? it would be better for those many people to be doing the work themselves.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC).Reply

• Drmies, Alex Shih is not an admin anymore and therefore obviously not a functionary.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oh, well--there you go. But I assume he was back then. It was kind of an odd point he was trying to make anyway. Or maybe it wasn't a point, just a little jab below the belt. Maybe. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dr, what I came here to say Floq already said better, as often happens. Your oppose is probably the most damaging to Fram's candidacy, but it's also the most earnest and understandable. If the RfA fails, as looks likely at this point, I would rather it be due to your (accurate) description of the episode you describe and how it affected you, rather than due to some of the petty grudge-bearing and gleeful knife-twisting resurfacing elsewhere in the oppose section. Same result, I guess, but perhaps a more fair way to arrive at it. 28bytes (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• 28bytes, thank you for coming by: this is a rare honor. The RfA has a long way to go but you may well be right. I'm wondering if Iridescent, who has more common sense than most, didn't see this coming. Anyway, I don't know what the WMF knows, what that original complaint was all about. If my experience with them was so bad--and in such plain sight: a lot of editors must have seen the comments before they were oversighted--but didn't lead anyone to take any kind of action, what was it that was reported to the WMF? And by the same token, such "elections", RfAs and ArbCom and whatnot, are frequently less strictly policed for civility etc., which is fine sometimes, but this time it really was not. Which reminds me, 28bytes: there's some people looking to vote for some good candidates for the next round at ArbCom. You: you are a good candidate. And I see now you wrote up "IGY"--DYK that I got to see Donald Fagen perform a few years ago, and it was fantastic? Drmies (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I have not yet seen Mr. Fagen, but I can imagine he would put on a great show. I did get to see the final Cars tour, although I didn't know that's what it was at the time. :( 28bytes (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • I don't know if he's still touring--I think I saw him three years ago, here in Montgomery. It was a small band; he played a couple of keyboards, and one of the guitarists also played saxophone. They were young, but they were solid, and it was just supertight. Played all the great oldies, including all the great ones from The Nightfly. If you ever get the chance, you got to go. I wasn't a big Cars fan, but I feel your loss. I still can't listen to Blackstar like it was just any other old album. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • Yeah, Bowie was a tough loss. Bit of a one-two punch with him and Prince. 2016 sure sucked. I still can't believe Petty is gone. Loved that guy. We're just getting started, though, it seems. :/ 28bytes (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Well, myself - I'm working hard to completely ignore that RFA, but the fact that you quoted suppressed edits in your oppose is really a problem for me as an oversighter. You can make exactly the same point by referring to the same matter at links that are publicly available. To deliberately select diffs whose content you can verify only because you're an oversighter calls into question your fundamental understanding of the purpose of suppression. I ask you to refactor your comments to remove the links to suppressed material - which only 32 people on this entire project can genuinely view - and replace them with diffs or links that are visible to a broader range of participants in the RFA. I could even accept links to deleted content (which 1151 members of the project can view and assess, and which could potentially be undeleted temporarily for others to assess). Using suppressed content in this way gives the impression of using suppressed edits as a form of political control, which is not okay. Risker (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • What? An oppose at an RfA does not have to meet real-world interpretations of legal process. Drmies gave an accurate outline of the situation in his RfA comment—he obviously felt under attack at the time and there should be no requirement for him to find public text to amplify the attack. Are you suggesting the oversight was in error? I saw the original and was disgusted by Fram's monumentally dumb, hostile and totally misguided attempt to pour shit on Drmies. Fram misused the Arbcom questions page to attack Drmies and someone oversighted it. If you have reason to doubt that, make a case somewhere. However, there is no requirement for all background to an RfA oppose to be made public. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Johnuniq, nobody's talking about legal process. The phrase "political control" comes from the Checkuser policy, which applies to the other major privacy-related tool; generally speaking, most checkusers and oversighters routinely apply the most stringent aspects of each policy to every relevant action they consider. It's an RFA - our project's method of granting heightened levels of authority to individuals, which is widely seen as (at least to some extent, and certainly in this case) a political decision. I'm not saying that Drmies is wrong to raise the issue, but he can and should do so without using diffs involving suppression. I suppose the real irony is that Drmies, an oversighter himself, didn't recognize that a key part of the content should have been suppressed forthwith, and in fact repeated the BLP violation himself, suggesting it should be 'revdeleted'. Hypothetically, oversighters could perform suppressions even when "involved", although most of us wouldn't do so; however, we all know how to request suppressions or even reach out for a fast revdelete. I repeat - I don't think it is wrong for Drmies to raise his issues. I do think it was wrong for him to use diffs that have been suppressed when he could easily have raised the same issue with fully publicly available information. Risker (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • I talked about legal process as an analogy with the idea that comments at an RfA should follow certain rules. The main point is what I wrote above: Drmies gave an accurate outline of the situation in his RfA comment—he obviously felt under attack at the time and there should be no requirement for him to find public text to amplify the attack. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
• I agree with Floq and 28bytes, specifically I'll still support the RFA for other principles that I consider really important, but I kind of feel like I owe you an apology for doing so. and Your oppose is probably the most damaging to Fram's candidacy, but it's also the most earnest and understandable. If the RfA fails, as looks likely at this point, I would rather it be due to your (accurate) description of the episode you describe and how it affected you, rather than due to some of the petty grudge-bearing and gleeful knife-twisting resurfacing elsewhere in the oppose section. (minus the "(accurate)" which I don't know enough about to take over). Drmies, upon rereading my !vote subsequent to your reply, I'm no longer confident that it's immediately clear to everyone that my "serious cause for concern" was about Fram's conduct and not yours. I will happily clarify it if it's not obviously clear. Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Sorry to bother you again. I was thinking of merging Morning Musume auditions to Morning Musume, but Talk:Morning Musume suggested rationale that it was better to have the article deleted. Would you recommend I submit it to AfD? lullabying (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• OMG that whole Morning Musume thing looks like the ultimate J/K-pop wet dream. Holy moly. Yeah, I'd go with delete--what is the purpose of that information? It's not verified, and even if it was, would one expect in-depth discussion of it? You can PROD it and see if an admin agrees, but that takes a while; AfD is probably the best place to go. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply