User talk:Cassianto/Archive 8

Block notice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continued personal attacks (1) after being warned. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Mike V • Talk 15:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mike V: Am I missing something here? It was a misplaced edit for which he apologized the very next second. - NQ (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the edit was placed. It's the content of the message that's of concern, in addition to the diffs I included in the warning. Mike V • Talk 15:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Mike, telling a trolling IP to "fuck off" is unmannerly but hardly on a par with doing the same to an editor of standing, as in the diffs you've linked in your warning. This is a triumph of confusing form with substance. A cursory check of the IP's contributions would make it clear that its purpose was to create drama, and you've done a splendid job of abetting it. Please provide a better rationale for a 1-week (!) block than "he said 'fuck' after I told him not to", as I'm otherwise inclined to unblock.

Cassianto, I don't think this was blockable but it was extraordinarily bad judgment; you know you have people gunning for you, and a revert without editorial commentary would have accomplished the same purpose without putting you at risk. Choess (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This is getting utterly ridiculous!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Choess, the civility and personal attack policy does not make any distinctions as to whether it's towards a registered user, an anonymous user, a banned user, etc. ("it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour ...") The block was 1 week because the user's block log shows a history of personal attacks and came off a 48 hour block for the same concerns 2 weeks ago. ("Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur.") There's not one civil sentence in the edit or the edit summary. As I mentioned on my talk page, the block is not solely for this one edit but a demonstrated continuation of inappropriate behavior since the previous block. I believe the block is entirely appropriate and supported by policy. Mike V • Talk 16:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What with the amount of shit I have had on this talk page, and elsewhere recently, from sock IP's, I took it to mean that it was meant for me. I apologised in my edit summary and self reverted. I was also editing on a smart phone so it wasn't very workable and I had the wrong screen open. Again, I'm sorry, and it certainly wasn't intended for the bot's page. But hey, if Mike V gets his frills out of blocking me, let him; small things please small minds. I'm certainly not going to beg to come back. In fact, I was keeping myself to myself and happily getting on with improving the project. Where was my thanks for that Mike V?Cassianto^Talk 16:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop with your personal attacks towards me. Continuing to do so will result in your talk page access being revoked for the duration of the block. Mike V • Talk 16:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

So why else would you block me for what was an obvious misplaced edit? Cassianto^Talk 16:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I'm talking to you? Cassianto^Talk 16:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, it doesn't matter where it was placed. The concern is with what you said. As you are continuing to be uncivil in your edits/edit summaries (1, 2, 3), I'm revoking your talk page access. Mike V • Talk 16:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. I really couldn't give a fuck anymore. Cassianto^Talk 16:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Mike V, you are a bad admin, guilty of stalking and harassment and of carrying a grudge against this user. That's a sign of being too WP:INVOLVED in my book. - SchroCat (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling Mike V was somebody who helped me out once with OTRS agreements in the commons and was very helpful and decent. I do hope this isn't the same guy as this kind of thing is just the opposite of helpful to the site.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear

Oh dear. Can everyone calm down and take a breath? Cassianto is one of the best content writers I have seen, and I have been impressed with his work ever since Peter Sellers' FAC many moons ago. I believe he was about to give a much needed improvement to Michael Hordern and now the brakes have been slammed on to those improvements. Meanwhile, Mike V is also a hard-working admin and checkuser who has come to the rescue with some unblock requests of mine and been very helpful. So there, you're both good guys in your own way. Have a man-hug or a beer, the pair of you.

And indeed, reading the above conversation, I see Cassianto apologised for misbehaviour, and Mike V ignored it and threatened a block for personal attacks anyway. If you say that, you're almost wishing the conversation to develop into a block and increase the temperature in the discussion. We should always try and defuse disputes, not ramp up the volume to "go ahead punk, make my day" levels.

Now, technically, I can unblock Cassianto in as much the button is pressable but I will catch absolute hell if I do, and given all the grief at Arbcom over the last few days, that's the last thing we need. I don't want Cass to be "Eric Corbett Mark II" with the associated soap opera. So @Mike V:, can we please compromise, drop Cass' block down to 48 hours, turn his talk page access on, and if he says "<bleep> off", ignore it. I'm afraid admins need a thick skin sometimes and even in my short tenure I've been insulted several times. Admin actions upset people - just the way it goes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I would have to respectfully disagree with decreasing the block length. The previous block was for 48 hours, it was relatively recent, the block log shows a concerning trend, and given the continued behavior after the first block and after the current block was issued, I believe that the 1 week duration is appropriate. Cassianto apologized for the location of the post, not for the content. (Which is also seen by his comments above.) I have tried to address his conduct before any action was taken. On two occasions I've showed Cassianto that the behavior he was exhibiting (with specific diffs) was inappropriate. I also asked him to stop when he was being inconsiderate towards me on his talk page. I truly feel that I have been quite reasonable in this situation. Mike V • Talk 19:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Just for information: I (like others) received the same message more than once, and was glad that it was reverted (found it, four reverts). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mike V: a block is not supposed to be punitive. If the blockee has shown contrition then that should be considered. Furthermore the person (Cassianto) was being trolled. If everyone of these accounts had responded, then would you have scolded all of them? The account is a throwaway account and is deliberately baiting a series of stablished editors. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

So I strongly recommend unblocking, otherwise you've just shown the world that stalking and slinging mud anonymously can cause big damage to wikipedia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The block meets the requirements of a preventative block. There was continued disruption, it was used to deter the continuation of disruptive behavior, and to hopefully encourage a more productive style of editing. As I've mentioned before, the edit was only reverted because Cassianto realized that it was not performed on his talk page. The edit is not appropriate regardless if it was on his talk page or on another page. Even so, you can't swear and insult someone, revert the edit a few seconds later, and then genuinely believe that they are sorry. As for the IP, the conduct of others isn't a valid explanation for Cassianto's actions. He should do what everyone else does, revert it with a simple message (e.g. "reverting vandalism"), request admin action if needed, and pay no mind to the individual. I don't follow your logic as to how one block can be considered big damage to Wikipedia. Mike V • Talk 21:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You badly need to unblinker your eyes here and start being a little more straight. Cassianto has been the subject of some unpleasant attacks and trolling messages here, here, here, this ANI, and this.

The message Cassianto clicked on was typical of the sort of messages that he has been left above. Having realised his mistake, Cassianto reverted himself here and left the summary "Oops, I thought it was my tal, sorry". It is obvious that "Tal" was a typo and was supposed to say "talk". Mike, you've been itching to block Cassianto for a while, and been stalking his edits, harassing him in the process. Your block was much more WP:INVOLVED than I am comfortable with. Several other admins have expressed their concern with your block and you are showing rather bad signs of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which isn't good,in someone who has stirred the pot on this. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mike V:, we both know there is a cohort of people keen on causing disruption, often located at a certain website, who time and again do expriments or troll here or whatever. You've just blocked a productive editor or high quality content for a week based on momentarily losing his temper with an IP troll who deserves no recognition and no say in anything here. And shown anyone watching they can do the same. There are three admins on this page recommending an unblock now. Do we have to seek a wider venue for more discussion on this? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please also see my comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mike V: See, this is why blocks of very prolific editors like this cause more trouble than they're worth. They create divide and long term resentment between admins and editors and expose how weak the system is on here when the blocks are reverted, if nothing else. It honestly looks to us as if you've been itching for a few weeks to get one over on Cassianto. While I do think Cassianto could be a little less aggressive in his edit summaries, it's more important that he cracks on with building content. In any blocking decision I think an admin really needs to look at "how does this help the encyclopedia" rather than "Thou shalt not swear, anybody who does will be blocked".♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do you have space in your diary for a PR?

Hi Cass, After a recent re-write, the Hitler Diaries are now at peer review, should you have the time and inclination. Any and all thoughts on the article are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Noted and watch listed. I see Cliftonian got there first so rather than trample over his comments I'll wait until he's finished. Cassianto^Talk 17:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ariana

Hi. Thanks for your kind edit summary. Think you should self-revert however. While that beginning of RfC rule would be applicable, I think in this instance BLP trumps RfC. What do you think? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no BLP issue here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Per SchroCat. I also see no BLP issue and would request for you to resume at the last stable version until the RfC closes. Cassianto^Talk 20:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A couple (when you get the time)

I didn't like to bother you while you were engaged with the hosts of Midian, but since you seem to have have emerged victorious, can I draw your attention to a couple of reviews where your comments would be valued? They are The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold, at FAC, and Jeremy Thorpe at peer review. Take all the time you need. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You certainly can Brian, and I certainly will. I may need a few days though if that's OK. Cassianto^Talk 21:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. I wait with keen anticipation. Brianboulton (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

So funny

This morning, I discovered to my embarassment, that I expanded the "wrong" Bach cantata, BWV 2 instead of 9, well both on hymns by the same hymn writer. So in haste I expanded BWV 9 and nominated for GA (it's for today), thinking that I would have weeks to really make it good until someone might look. Wrong ;) - Need to get in that the hymn was written in prison, the poet facing a death sentence, - but not now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Too Much Too Soon (album)

Hi Cassianto ! Would you be interested in reviewing or commenting on my newly opened FAC for the article Too Much Too Soon (album)? If not, please feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Diaries, again

Many thanks for your excellent comments on the recent Hitler Diaries PR; the article has now moved on to FAC, should you wish to comment further. Thanks again – SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Bentworth

Hi, thank you for your comments at the recent peer review. Bentworth is now a featured article candidate, and it would be great if you could comment there. Thanks! JAGUAR  20:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Adele

Whoa, so many requests! Seeing them I don't think you'll consider this one – can you take a look at my nomination? Regards. -- Frankie _talk 18:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course I will, although I maybe a day or two if that's ok. I don't believe we've met, nice to meet you! Cassianto^Talk 19:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Ditto! :) -- Frankie _talk 19:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Protection request

Can I get some please? This has gone on the whole morning now. Cassianto^Talk 12:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Done – three days. Favonian (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Favonian, much appreciated! Cassianto^Talk 12:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Seeking guidance on WP:RS

Recently I have come across citations from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. They seem to be appearing more frequently. I had always thought these were not acceptable sources; am I missing something? A sea change in the encyclopedic world that accepts such as valid primary sources? Thanks! Scr★pIron^IV 20:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the subject. If it was a BLP, and it was their own Twitter or Facebook account which they operated themselves, then I would think this is OK. If it is an account set up by a fan in their idol's name, then that would not. Trying to differentiate between the two is another question, however, and would be a question for someone else. As far as YouTube is concerned, I would personally consider it to be a reliable source. However, using it comes with problems. A lot of the stuff on there is copyrighted and is not allowed to be linked; not only that, but the videos can be taken off at anytime by the uploaded and that would inevitably lead to link rot. I wouldn't use YouTube for those reasons, especially the latter. Cassianto^Talk 20:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Mostly, I am seeing twitter accounts to be used for primary, but from my experience, knowing which accounts are "real" and which are not is impossible without third-party verification. Unless that is sourced, to me, it immediately becomes suspect. A username like "OfficialJohnHenry" does not necessarily mean it it the correct John Henry. I have no intention of using Twitter myself, but when I see an IP adding "John Henry is dating Mary Smith" and I revert it as unsourced BLP, when it returns wih "John posted on Twitter that he is dating Mary" then I have a hard time determining whether it should be left alone, or if it is a clever shot past the goalie. Scr★pIron^IV 20:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Then I would err on the side of caution and not accept them at all. It would be up to the editor trying to cite them to prove that they are the real deal and that it is a reliable source. I'm led to believe that a small blue tick next to the individuals name on Twitter is the official account of that person. I don't think you'd ever be criticised for not allowing social media websites to be entered as a primary source. Nikkimaria knows a thing or two about references and sources. What's your opinion Nikki? Cassianto^Talk 21:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

For twitter, this might be of help: https://support.twitter.com/articles/119135-faqs-about-verified-accounts --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks John. ScrapIronIV, does this answer your question? Cassianto^Talk 18:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much; I always get quality answers when I ask on your page! Scr★pIron^IV 17:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Thorpe – FAC

This is to advise peer reviewers of the above article that I have now nominated it at FAC, and will welcome any further comments. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin

sorry but i am unable to seem to find a way of replying directly to your comment to the information i recently posted on the Charlie Chaplain info page, it seems to me that because i said i originally found out about this from a facebook page you automatically presume that it is wrong without even reading the news articles attached. The letter is believed to be correct by family and research has taken place to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person who wrote it lived at the address quoted and was in a position to know the facts. it has also been used in radio programmes and verified by film experts. (and this is all stated in the news articles). this to me gives enough doubt to at least discuss the information and not just dismiss the information without any thought. Mbb123 (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Mbb123, Facebook is unreliable balderdash. The papers are speculative. Nowhere do I see concrete confirmation that Chaplin was a Brummie. Cassianto^Talk 06:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	It's been a few days since we have known (in Wikipedia) each other, and I think you are an amazing contributor – George Formby, an example of your work. Thank you for not being offended by the last thing I did. :) Frankie talk 11:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well thank you, that's very kind! Although SchroCat did more than me on Formby. No offence taken and I'm thankful to you for pointing it out. Cassianto^Talk 17:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Nah, not a spot on Chillum. Chillum is the finest encyclopedic contributor we've ever had!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully, I will never be anything like Chillum, or like any of the civility warriors who frequently make this a miserable place to be. Cassianto^Talk 17:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so bad if they actually produced content and made the odd "watch what you say" sort of thing but they contribute no content whatsoever and seem to exist purely for being a civility warrior. Anybody who spends more time at the drama boards than article writing we'd probably be better off without.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It's incredibly sad that to them, being lovely to one another is more important than actually writing a half decent article. What they don't seem to understand is that without those nasty content writers, they wouldn't have a platform to spout their liberal, sugar coated bullshit in the first place. Cassianto^Talk 18:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Begging bowl out once more...

What ho, and all that. I'm being a pest on the Bond front again, with book three of the series, Moonraker, which is now at PR, should you have either the time or inclination to visit. Many thanks and pip pip. – SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Cassianto^Talk 22:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Kafka

You have repeatedly removed vandalism from Franz Kafka, thank you! - New question, this time regarding his navbox. I believe that it should contain the original titles also, but they were removed. Discuss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

FLC

Cassianto, I was just reviewing your previous outstanding featured lists, and I was wondering if you could impart some of your guidance and wisdom regarding two FLCs I have in the queue: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Attorneys General of West Virginia/archive1. Whether informally or formally, I wanted to see if you had any suggestions for improving either of these lists. I always welcome and solicit input, especially from experienced editors such as yourself. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

FAC

Any chance of you looking at my latest Indian cinema FAC? It just reached the older nominations marking point. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge/archive1. BollyJeff | talk 21:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. BollyJeff | talk 20:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

RfA

Any idea whether it is common for people who are basically inactive to pop up at RfA? - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

(watching:) some seem to enjoy it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't what I meant, Gerda. The example you give appears to be someone who frequently comments at RfA even though they are otherwise not particularly active. I'm thinking more of people who don't even seem active in the RfA sense, let alone anything else, but then pop up out of nowhere to !vote. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. I pop when I have a relation with a candidate. I had an argument with the latest one about "the spirit of the restriction" because I haven't found "spirit" in any restriction yet. No reason for me not to trust the candidate with clean-up work which I would not want to do. - We have a community, - if a new admin makes a mistake that will soon be corrected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush, I'm sure it is. I don't mind admitting that I'm not terribly active at RfA and will only ever go there when I see a candidate who I would really rather not see have the bit. I think in five years of being here, I've only ever commented twice and that's this one and NeilN's. I opposed him for the same reason. I heard a whisper that Montanabw was thinking of standing; if that's the case, it'll be my first supporting vote at RfA. Cassianto^Talk 20:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be supporting Montanabw as well, but I think she'd have a rough ride. Eric Corbett 20:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course she would, she is a writer with an opinion and not a yes person with an agenda. Cassianto^Talk 22:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I always worry that even someone as tough as Montanabw obviously is might be knocked back by the inevitable bollocks at RfA. Even after all these years I still remember how I felt, and it wasn't nice. You never know how it will hit you until it's hit you. Eric Corbett 00:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I was going to nominate Montanabw for RfA, but after a thorough check over everything that might get called up and trigger a pile-on, and based on recent RfAs, I concluded it would be a tough and stressful job, probably ending up at 65-70% support and going to a crat chat, stressing her out completely. I've dropped her some advice about what she can do to alleviate that and hope to see her with the bit by the end of the year. I see a number of people publicly saying "I'll support her" so hopefully it'll inevitably happen. The trouble is, as we all know, "RfA is a horrible and broken process" but it's impossible for anyone to agree on anything beyond that. PS: You forgot this :-P Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot that one. I stand corrected! Cassianto^Talk 12:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Why does Montanabw need admin tools though is the question?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The answer, Dear Doctor, is that she doesn't (of course). The paradox is that no particular person needs the tools, but if nobody had them, we'd have have little protection from the vandals and disruptive sockpuppets who would otherwise make writing content impossible. In the final analysis, I think it's a question of balance: if somebody has to have the tools, would we prefer to give them to someone who has a long track record of good content creation or to someone who has spent their brief wiki-career mashing buttons on NPP to inflate their edit count? I suspect none of us will disagree on that. Regards --RexxS (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever thought about standing RexxS? Cassianto^Talk 20:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

(watching:) I have been asked, and a good observer said it was like offering the princess the post of janitor. Seriously: does a janitor need a doctor's degree to qualify? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a kind thought, Cassianto, but I realised very early on in my wiki-career that if an editor of Eric's value wasn't welcomed as an admin, I'd have no chance whatsoever. --RexxS (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, as this current RfA has proved, the faceless thousands who snow vote on the sole ground that the nominee is "a good egg" are not interested in Eric, you, Montanabw or indeed anyone who possess's a bit of the old grey matter. Alas, Eric's RfA was a bit before my time. Cassianto^Talk 20:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's strange that you better have 80% support for the dirty jobs of admin, while you can serve as arb - with much more power - on 227 supports vs. 153 opposes, NOJUSTICE ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hi all, my Spidey-senses were tingling. Why do I "need" the tools? I have accumulated a collection of times I wish I had them: User_talk:Montanabw/snarkives! (I suppose that's troll bait for an RfA, but ...) LOL! But seriously, doing stuff like moving DYKs into the queue, and revdel BLP attacks are a couple things. For example, this week I wished I'd had them for this. Luckily I had a friendly admin fix it, but there isn't always an admin available who can act promptly. Montanabw^(talk) 16:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a few in my little black book who I would trust enough to call on when needed. I also have a few who I like but who I would not think of asking, as they're not quick to get back (for that read "I don't want to get involved. No, I'll ignore him, hopefully he'll bugger off!"). Cassianto^Talk 20:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Everyone isn't pleased with it, though. I'd wanted to change the citation style for a while but didn't do it. It was necessary now to sort out all the problems with the citation names. We hope (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel guilty; look what happens when you take your eye off the ball! Cassianto^Talk 18:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem :-) However, I wonder why there was no participation by the person when everyone was working on the article--taking it from GA to PR to FAC. We hope (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The civil side of me wants to assume that perhaps they didn't know about it? If I'd have said "that would've required too much bloody effort" I'd only have Casliber arrive with his cane and send me to the naughty step! :) Cassianto^Talk 19:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

To me, the time for major changes is either during the steps above or if the article has been really neglected and needs a major re-write. This is where I started with Skelton some time ago; there was very little left of it after the foundational copyright vios had to be removed.We hope (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

....and you'd be right. Some think you just go through the three processes for a laugh! It certainly wouldn't of been the version supported at the FAC and so you were absolutely right to undo the versions of the other editor. Cassianto^Talk 19:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm just glad I did Dr. B.'s Beverly Hills Hotel Flickr pix before starting Skelton. With all of that text still looming before my eyes, who knows what photos he might have gotten! (But it may have been interesting.) :-D We hope (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The Reverend Reed says hello

File:Reverend Andrew Reed.jpg :-) We hope (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You are so very kind. This is a great image and very much needed. I'll be forever in your debt :) Cassianto^Talk 23:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And you are always very welcome! :-D We hope (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

George Robey image

Hi, why did you revert the image I added to the George Robey article? Uncommon fritillary (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Because it's not an improvement (it does not reflect the text it sits next to); is badly cropped and shot; is badly placed; is not your image to use (i.e, you don't own the copyright (if any)) and is therefore unlicensed. We already have a few images of Robey in music hall costume within the article and it is therefore surplice to requirements. This image isn't even a proper image of him, I wouldn't mind if it was, but this is merely an illustration (and a bad one at that). Whilst I thank you for your good faith edit, I must advise you about introducing such inaccuracies to a featured article. Cassianto^Talk 22:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently I erred in thinking that an image illustrating Robey's early career would be a useful addition that might be of interest to someone. If it was badly placed, that could be easily fixed. And why is an image from an 1899 publication still protected by copyright? I apologize for marring the aesthetics of your featured article. Uncommon fritillary (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There really is no need for such sarcasm. Your copyright tag states that you own the copyright. I hate to break it to you, but you don't. I shouldn't think it has copy right, but this is not evidenced either. Sure, the position of the image could've been adjusted, but that is the least of the images problems I'd suggest. Cassianto^Talk 23:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, this is a copy of the book at Internet Archive and it's only known to be PD in the US as it's a British publication from 1899. There's an image of Dan Leno and other "old timers" in it as well as George Robey. Cass, if you want any of these, let me know and I'll get them uploaded for you. We hope (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks We hope. I'm not adverse to the idea of an image or two being added to the latter half of Robey, it's just this image seemed a bit flawed. We hope, another of Robey, perhaps to the latter end of his career, would be good. Although I think Dan is up to maximum strength with images at the moment. Cassianto^Talk 23:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Whoa! User:We hope, I see that User:Uncommon fritillary has uploaded a large number of images to Commons, claiming them to be his/her own work, but none of them seem to be. Is there someone to notify who could help correct that and explain to the user what to do in the future? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Kalidas FAC

This article is currently a FAC. Although you have made some edits to it, I ask you to do another re-check, as the article has been somewhat revamped since. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It's better than it was before. I'd double support if I could! Cassianto^Talk 21:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Theatre productions of Dan Leno

I just scheduled this list, which you suggested at WP:TFLS, for September 4. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Cassianto^Talk 21:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Things are slow.......

Hey if you have a moment let me know if the prose of this one (Imperator torosus) is ok...things are slow so it might be a tad....dry......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Will do Cas; I already owe SchroCat a visit but I'll try to get along to both tomorrow as I have a very rare day off! Cassianto^Talk 12:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thx/much appreciated....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Snaresbrook Crown Court

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere else please

Cassianto, if you have an issue with Chillum's adminning, you know where to find his talk page. The talk page of someone who's blocked and can't post to it is definitely not the place for long bickering threads. Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It's pertinent to the discussion I was having before Chillum deviated off the subject by arguing the toss with me about my observation. If he had a problem, he could've come to me. I take it you will now be reminding him of the same? No, of course you won't, how silly of me. Cassianto^Talk 07:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Two minutes before I posted here, actually. Although I did call you a pest. Because you were being a pest. On the substance of the issue I agree with you, but that doesn't mean the talk page of anyone Chillum ever blocks is a good place to start yet another round of this same argument. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw and I reverted your uncivil remark. Chillum has been a twat on many occasions, so can I say that? Or is it one rule for admins and another for everyone else? Cassianto^Talk 07:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am totally the wrong person if you're looking to pick another fight over admins vs people who use words on the naughty list. Not interested. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course you're not interested. How predictable! Cassianto^Talk 13:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't have called you a pest. But you and Chillum both should know better than to bicker on a third party's talk page. Thank you for moving along. But, bickering and complaining about what another volunteer spends his time on isn't getting articles written either, is it? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't, and I still don't see an apology. I do see, however, that you have cleverly concealed your acknowledgment of wrongdoing in a telling off, which is not good enough as far as I'm concerned. Cassianto^Talk 23:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I apologize for calling you a pest.

I wasn't telling you off, I was disagreeing with you. Since the original source of the disagreement is moot, I'm going with: never mind, and you may slap my wrist for being grumpy and undiplomatic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your belated apology. People can accuse me of "double standards" if they like, I couldn't really care. The fact is that if the ordinary community are expected to adhere to WP:CIVIL, then administrators must adhere to it. A specimen like Chillum, who frequently goes about flouting the rules by, amongst other things, administering punitive blocks and enticing people into arguments so as to achieve the desired effect of blocking for a resulting uncivil remark, should be desysoped and chucked off the project. Cassianto^Talk 17:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't help but notice just how many core, prolific editors here think little of Jimbo. And in turn it is reciprocated, he clearly has little respect for us. I guess we'd all like somebody heading the project who shares our passion for content instead of somebody who seems more interested in his social/political standing than the encyclopedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

For that also count 80% of his yes men administrators who also seemingly go about and do sweet FA under the guise of "if it wasn't for us back room staff, the encyclopedia would fold" garbage. Jimbo, I'm afraid, is at the head of the rather cumbersome pantomime horse while his little yes men are operating the flatulent rear-end. Cassianto^Talk 06:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Non content contributors always come up with that excuse. "There's more to building an encyclopedia than actually writing content". The fact is if they cut the administrative bullshit there wouldn't need to be that much more to building it than writing content. Yes, vandals need to be kept at bay and disputes need to be resolved, but a large part of the problems are caused by the bureaucratic system on here and obsession with civility above content. Regardless of how important they think they are, content is more important than anything to this site, and the fact that Jimbo's list as you said would likely contain most of the major content contributors here says it all.. A pantomime.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

A brownie is a flat, baked treat made of dense, rich chocolate cake. They are usually served as squares or bars. Hafspajen (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Hafs Cassianto^Talk 00:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Gracie Fields

Not sure how being listed by Guinness isn't notable but being a "cancer survivor" is. Pretty sure more people survive cancer than get recognized by Guinness. I am confused what you mean by "clutter within the templates" though. I manually listed the category I did not interact with any templates. Ranze (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Your POV notwithstanding, the Guinness website didn't even say she had won an award so the information was wrongly attributed anyway. The article is a diabolical mess and if I had the time or the inclination, I'd bin it and start again. I don't even get why she won a Guiness award; for what? Cassianto^Talk 21:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Shooting the moon

Hi Cass, this is a courtesy note to let you know that the Moonraker (novel) article you kindly peer reviewed, is now at FAC. Should you have any further thoughts or comments they will, of course, be most welcome. All the best – SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

United States v. Washington Featured Article Candidate

United States v. Washington is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Washington/archive1. If you feel up to it, I would love for you to stop by and assist in assessing this article. GregJackP Boomer! 17:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wbm1058

Hi Cassiato. I hope you don't mind me suggesting that you might wish to consider stepping back somewhat from ths RfA now. Your comments are not likely to influence the outcome at this stage and they may well be simply perceived as disruptive. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: If admins like Chillum are allowed to pester people as to why they are opposing the RfA, then Cassianto should be allowed to ask users who support an RfA without an explanation why they support the candidate (and this is coming from someone who supported the RfA, despite the (legitimate) concerns regarding the lack of content creations). By saying what you said in your latest post here, you are basically creating a double standard. I don't think you meant it that way, but it certainly can (and might have already) rub the wrong way with some editors. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It's fairly clear, they have managed to harass me into submission, via ANI threats, now they want to silence anyone else that opposes the nom and seeks clarification. Of course, no one, not a single admin, have addressed the wikibullying and harassment on the other side of the issue. Not one. GregJackP Boomer! 04:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys; Kudpung, firstly, I'm not trying to influence the outcome. All I want are explanations from people as to why they want to support a complete stranger to have a set of powerful tools. This isn't someone, by the way, who they know; I bet 85% of the supporters have never even met the nominee. I would also say that a large majority of that 85% snow voted and didn't even bother to check their hunch that the nominee "seemed like a good person". I would therefore consider it to be entirely appropriate to ask people for their reasons if those reasons have not been given.

It's also not tit-for-tat; ie, opposers are given grief, so therefore the supporters can have some of it back. This is a serious process which people are not taking seriously. Last night I had the misfortune to run into someone called Juliancolton. The exchange between us on the RfA was bitter, all because I asked him to explain a few things. We had a snarky exchange of words on the RfA and as I left he then abused the "thank" feature by using it to provoke me into further arguing with him. Julian colton is an administrator. This, apparently, is the type of behaviour becoming of an administrator. I decided to challenge him about it on his talk page, with evidence, and then blow me down, good old Chillum showed up, by pure coincidence, like an unwanted smell. He then tried to dig up past arguments between he and I, like the time he published a response to a private email I sent him asking for him to give me my talk page access back. He did this, not because of a technical fault (i.e email not working, misguidance, etc...) No, he did this to publicly humiliate me, and he achieved that. Chillum is also an administrator. This, again, is behaviour expected of an administrator? The result of that incident was the Rambling Man sending him back under the stone from where he had crawled and Chillum was forced to admit defeat in those circumstances.

It's specimens like Chillum and Colton who shouldn't have the tools if they think it's ok to go around and behave like that. And I bet if I counted up their iVotes I'd find they were mostly made up of people who voted without a rationale. I would therefore hate to think that owing to careless voting we are electing more Chillums and Coltons into the fellowship. Cassianto^Talk 10:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

FAC

Cassianto, I recently submitted my second FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Romney Literary Society/archive1) and as I'm rather new to the FAC process, I was wondering if you could do me the honor of taking a look at this article and provide me with some feedback. I'm eager to improve this article so that it warrants FA status, and I thought it best to seek your guidance (should your schedule allow for it, of course!) -- West Virginian (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

My copy editing

Well, Cassianto, I think you may have overstated the facts a bit, but thanks for the complement. --Biblioworm 15:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I've seen what you do and like what I see. Cassianto^Talk 16:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

An Apology

I am here to apologize for the lack of info put into my support vote, it took me some time to realize that there should be explanation as to why to support. Do bear in mind this is the first time I'm voting in an RfA, I will make sure the next time whether support or oppose, that I will provide a thorough explanation. Secondly I am also here to give thanks for all your contributions, such articles like George Formby on screen, stage, record and radio a detailed article on George Formby's career! Such articles like this are fantastic and well written, it adds a subtle emphasis on the person and its just so perfectly done. I recognize your work as some of the finest here on Wikipedia, and the many editors who have helped you in the process of it and other great articles available to view. Thanks Cassianto. --CyberWarfare (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

CyberWarfare, you really don't need to apologise. You supported at the RfA, I asked for a bit more information, you gave it, I thanked you, and that was that. You have nothing to be sorry about as it was you're provocative to support,; I just wanted a bit more information as to why you were supporting, that's all. Let me explain: When people support at an RfA, it should be a requirement for them to add a supporting comment as to why they want to see the nominee hold the admin tools. It has become customary for people to just say "support" and that's it. That to me is not good enough. As I have pointed out in the thread above, these tools come with a lot of power and they shouldn't just be given out to any Tom, Dick, or Harry as they can be, and in fact are, abused. We currently have a lot of editors with the tools who perhaps shouldn't have them. I'm not saying this nominee shouldn't have them, on the contrary; I just want people to justify their support that's all. Re the Formby list, that is very kind of you. It's not often people pay compliments around here. Alas, in that case of Fomby, all the praise belongs with my esteemed colleague. I just went along for the ride, that's all. Thank you for taking the time to write to me tonight, but I'm sorry you felt the need to apologise; nonetheless, it was nice meeting you and you're welcome back at any time. If there's anything I can do for you around reviewing, sourcing, or just advice, drop me a line. Cassianto^Talk 22:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Manny Ramirez

So...I know you may not be particularly familiar with the topic of American sports (correct me if I'm wrong though), but can you tell me in terms of style and general content (like how much of what, etc.) I would need for this article to have a shot at attaining FA status at some point? (If copy editing has something to do with it, then I invite you to help with that as you like.) Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem Sportsguy17, I'm open to anything, although I'm unsure how much of my ignorance will get in the way of my understanding of the prose. On first glimpse I would say that it is not ready for FAC. It really does need a copy edit; the lead alone is too long at five paragraphs and it should be trimmed down to four, as per WP:LEAD. It may do you a favour to open up a peer review and to invite some names along for FAC advice. I'd be happy to take part, depending on real life of course. I'm doing one for GregJackP, then Dr. Blofeld and then SagaciousPhil, to name but a few, so my visit to Ramirez won't be for some time yet. Cassianto^Talk 23:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I apologize. Even though I was not trying to suggest that your ignorance would hinder your ability to understand the text, I struck that remark. Anyway, I may take you up on a peer review, given that you're pretty busy in both real life and on the site, which I understand. I do agree that work will be needed for it to become a FA. Thanks for the lead advice and I'll take the article to the Baseball WikiProject for further advice/review. Best, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 23:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Whoa! What is it with everyone apologising to me today? I am ignorant of baseball; I'm admitting that, and I'm not suggesting for a minute that you insinuated it. I'm English and know nothing about baseball, but that's not a reason not to read this article. Hell, I might even learn something! ;-) If I can help in any way, just let me know, I'd be happy to. Cassianto^Talk 00:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well then; no harm, no foul. After all, everyone is allowed to read any article they please, and you can often learn a lot from a GA or FA. In fact, I read some your FAs. Similarly, I don't know a lot about English music, albeit having read through a few of those articles, I thought it was very interesting (and well written, of course ;D).

Also, feel free to help out any time. For right now, I'll work on the lead for Ramirez and open a peer review, but along with that, I have this to finish (additional suggestions there would be appreciated, if you wouldn't mind). Anyways, thanks for the advice thus far and good luck with your endeavors on this site. :) Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Playbill

File:Playbill for Moonbirds on Broadway 1959.jpg as promised! ;-) We hope (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it Christmas already? :-) Cassianto^Talk 15:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Rod Steiger

Evening, any chance you could provide some input at the peer review?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Will do Doc. I may be a few day though. Cassianto^Talk 22:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You or Schro have anything to add or are you still on a break? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to commit to anything at the moment Doc, but I will get round to looking at it eventually. Cassianto^Talk 11:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Fully understand, feeling the same way!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ditto! I'm lined up for Brian's first (starting tomorrow), should get to you by Tues pm or Weds. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

tks

Thanks for the kind words. Maybe I'll see ya 'round some time. Cheers! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeannette Expedition FAC

This is a note to all participants in the recent peer review. Many thanks for your help; the article is now at WP:FAC Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

With pleasure. Cassianto^Talk 23:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A diamond in the rough

Hi Chris, I have a slightly rough Diamonds Are Forever (novel) which is at FAC for a final polish, should you have the time and inclination. No rush, given the many calls on your time. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Will do; not my favourite Bond novel it has to be said, but with your skill it will be all the more readable. I'll try and get to it tomorrow. Cassianto^Talk 21:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

AIV or go right to the guy with the mop

In cases of blatant vandalism it is best to report to WP:AIV. While some admins require a final or only warning prior to blocking, policy allows obvious vandals to be blocked without warning. This does not mean that an administrator is required to, but they may. Frankly I see no reason in giving a full ladder of warnings to someone who is clearly acting in bad faith.

If I was the first person to get to every single vandal report I would imagine that the rate of blocking without warning for people who replace portions of a page with "poopy" and such would go up. While it is fully within the discretion of an administrator to decide to act with more leniency towards such vandals, I am not one to do so.

If you find that an obviously disruptive user/ip is not being prevented from being disruptive via the regular red tape you can come by my talk page and I will look at it personally. If a page is being disrupted while you are trying to work by persistent vandals I will certainly consider semi-protection and probably be a bit more liberal about it than an average admin on a noticeboard. I do indeed seek to use my tools to improve the project, and if I can help you protect the encyclopedia let me know how. Chillum 21:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Appreciated. I got you confused with someone else earlier on GB Fan's talk, so please excuse the ping. While you're here, why have you awarded barnstars to the two people who I've had crossed words with over the last 24hrs? Do you have an agenda, or are you going to tell me this was a coincidence? Cassianto^Talk 21:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No agenda, just a pat on the back. They are just moral boosters, a way of saying that I appreciate the contributions of other editors. I get them too sometimes. Chillum 23:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your tireless contributions towards improving the article content of the encyclopedia. I really appreciate the hard work you do here. Chillum 23:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I certainly didn't expect to see that when I fired up WP today. Thank you. Cassianto^Talk 15:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I'm gobsmacked!! I'm most impressed Chillum.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Consider it an olive branch. We both want the encyclopedia to be a success. Chillum 18:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm very pleased to hear it Chillum.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

RfA comments

Cassianto , please stop asking every supporter at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/APerson who fails to give a detailed rationale to expand on his or her reasons. You've made your point, and this is becoming disruptive. A mention in the General Comments section of why you think detailed rationales are needed would be appropriate, but repeated more or less duplicate comments, along with heated words at least when people challenge your request, does not contribute positively to the discussion. There is long-standing practice that such comments will be read as agreeing with the nominator's reasons. Perhaps that should change, but it hasn't changed yet. DES ^(talk) 00:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this is something that Cassianto should be be dealing with at WT:RfA - detailed responses are not generally expected from support votes as they are assumed to be "per nomination", under our "assume good faith" policy. Oppose votes are where the voter cannot "assume good faith" and therefore need to express why. The two are not equal and opposite. Cassianto, stop asking every undetailed support for an explanation, and especially comments like "I'm just asking those who have posted bullshit reasons to elaborate further." "not good enough" are unacceptable. As I say, take this to WT:RFA, but do not disrupt individual RfAs. Worm^TT(talk) 07:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't fall for the bullshit reasoning that one is to assume a simple signature as someone agreeing with the nominator. As a member of the community, much like a public political vote at election time, I am entitled to know reasons as to why some should be "elected" as an admin. Why do people have to write war and bloody peace when they oppose, but simply sign their name when they support? The process is flawed. Cassianto^Talk 07:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

If the process is flawed, you tackle the process through community discussion. You don't disrupt the process to make a point. I can point you to a number of pages that explain that, but you've been around long enough to know better. Worm^TT(talk) 07:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I can do without the likes of you turning up and being patronising. As per my user page, which I updated last night, I've had enough of this farcical pantomime which masquerades as an encyclopaedia. Cassianto^Talk 07:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

My !vote in question, of which was a simple "Net positive", was one of the votes you asked to elaborate, but all I did was say the same thing with 50 words more. Your was-support of APerson, likewise, could be described as a simple WP:NETPOSITIVE, but you decided to put it out in 50 words. I see no real difference. There is no word limit. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 14:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @DESiegel: and @Worm That Turned:, an admin, Chillum, who was harassing editors who opposed RfAs pointed out that we should question supporters who did not put a reason down for their support of a candidate. I would suggest that you either tell Chillum and the others who are harassing those of us who oppose a nomination to either back off of us, or that you leave Cassianto and the rest of us alone. In other words, treat both sides fairly or STFU. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 08:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Another (talk page stalker) This attempted enforcement of double standards reminds me of a fairly recent RfA where some oppose comments were diligently removed but a support from a known sock puppet still remains. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe @DESiegel: and @Worm That Turned: would like to explain this point and give their thoughts on having socks turn up and vote? Cassianto^Talk 08:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Another (talk page stalker), bemused by the double standards of WTT: "I can point you to a number of pages that explain that, but you've been around long enough to know better" I'm stuggling to see where you are AGF with this comment, despite your preaching that particular lesson. I didn't know that RfAs don't require an explanation of support either, and I've been here for a fair time too: maybe you should take a leaf out of your own book? Perhaps this lack of explanation in the popularity contest explains why we have so many piss-poor admins jumping on GF comments and harrassing long-term editors? - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to preface this first of all by pointing out that RfA needs to be improved, as does the entire concept of adding and removing the sysop bit. I'm certainly working to improve it and as a bureaucrat I'm afforded a certain amount of trust of the community to take the initiative - alongside more consensus based change. I am focussed on improving these areas and I'm certainly willing to listen to feedback on that. At the same time, I'm not everywhere and do miss things. That doesn't mean that I should keep quiet when I do see issues and it doesn't mean that there's a double standard.
  My issue with Cassianto's actions at APerson's RfA are that he's not just questioning supports without explanation, but also ones with a short explanation, eg "net positive". His tone was unacceptable, calling such explanations "bullshit" and "not good enough". There is nothing wrong with these votes, and whilst a request to expand on them can be reasonable, the method in which he was doing it was not.
  GregJackP, you mention Chillum has been harassing editors who opposed. Can you point me to where he's done that? I can't comment on a situation I haven't seen - and it may be better to bring it to my talk page (or indeed Chillum's) as it shouldn't really concern Cassianto.
  Sagaciousphil, similarly, can you point me to the support from the known sock? I'm assuming it made no difference to the outcome of the RfA, but again I'm not aware of the circumstances.
  SchroCat, "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" is an extremely over quoted guideline, that I expect every long term editor to have knowledge of. I don't fill my text with blue links, as I would much rather explain my meaning. Cassianto, and indeed every person in this conversation, is well well aware of "WP:POINT" and so I didn't see the need to link it. That's not an AGF issue. I'm not saying don't challenge support votes, I'm saying don't challenge 20% of the support votes individually in that manner. I'm saying don't call them bullshit or not good enough. I'm saying that if he (or you or anyone) is unhappy with the process - get the process changed, don't just go in all guns blazing at an individual's RfA. Worm^TT(talk) 09:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I consider "why not", "of course" and a simple signature to be bullshit reasons Worm That Turned. What would you consider them to be? Cassianto^Talk 09:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

When I look at closing an RfA I consider them in a number of ways. A simple signature I believe is just a numerical bolster to a candidate and I don't give it much credence when it comes to a close call - I consider the nomination as separate. On the other hand "why not" (or say "net positive"), I see as the voter has looked at the opposition and has dismissed it and would take that into account. "Of course", implies the user knows and trusts the user, but doesn't imply they've looked at opposition. Overall, I think explanations of votes are there for two reasons - firstly to persuade others with respect to their vote and secondly to help the bureaucrats make a decision whilst closing. It's not needed, in either opposition or support - but in opposition it can come of as insulting without a reason to back it up (depending on the number of oppositions already in place). The position of the vote (support, oppose, neutral) on the other hand is there to give a weight of numbers. That's my thoughts anyway. Worm^TT(talk) 09:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm quite surprised that you are unaware of the RfA I mean, but hey ho ... This sock was confirmed at the onset of the 'crat chat but the SPI had been opened a few days before. I agree it's doubtful if it would have made a difference and I will not impart my thoughts concerning the outcome of that particular RfA. It does, however, mean that inclusion on this list is inappropriate. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that I nominated the individual, I'm not really in a position to be striking or removing votes, either during or subsequently. The sock was confirmed long after the outset of the 'crat chat, when he was blocked the discussion looked like this. I'm not surprised that none of the 'crats went back and spotted it after that point, any vetting would have occured earlier and is not to the detail of checking if every user is being investigated for sockpuppetry. I also note that in that RfA, there was one oppose and one support removed by WJBScribe. Otherwise, the only vote I saw removed was that of an IP editor, which is standard procedure. As to WP:RFX200, it does say "ideally without sockpuppets", so I think you'd be well justified in removal if you feel strongly about it. Honestly, I don't ever look at such lists, so I can't say it's a big deal to me. Worm^TT(talk) 10:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

And as I vehemently opposed, so much so that I actually gave an opinion at the RfA, which is something I seldom do, no doubt it will be deemed pointy/petty if I remove it. I simply use it to demonstrate the double standards that are generally applied. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, why doesn't the whole process just be simplified to everyone should give reasons to oppose, support or remain neutral. Cassianto^Talk 11:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

My only argument to that is an argument I generally don't like making. - slippery slope. What counts as a "reason"? If someone said "My default position is that everyone should be trusted with admin tools unless there is a reason to not give them, and in this case I do not see sufficient reason to not give them", I'd hope that would count an acceptable reason. However, it's a verbose way of saying "why not?"... which would therefore make "why not?" a sufficient reason. Furthermore, who should enforce it. At the moment we have a small number of bureaucrats who are willing to work towards improving RfA and in the past the group have been relatively against clerking RfAs. Worm^TT(talk) 11:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

If someone said "everyone should be trusted with admin tools unless there is a reason to not give them" I would shoot them down in flames. My argument would then be "OK, let's give everyone the bit, including every single visiting IP". Of course, you and I both know that if that were the case, the encyclopaedia would be ruined within five minutes, but if someone honestly believed that should be the case, then they should expect people like me, GregJackP and BMK to challenge them. "Why not" signals a question, albeit a rhetorical one. It would therefore not be unreasonable for me or anyone else to answer that question. I can't remember whose RfA it was, but a few months ago someone even had the audacity to use "Support just to piss off the opposers really", or something along those lines. That, in anyone's book, is an unacceptable rationale to support someone having the tools. Cassianto^Talk 11:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you would be surprised how many people default to "individuals should be trusted absent reason to not", which goes back to the whole "adminship is no big deal" meme. If you do not agree that a person should be trusted by default, do you have minimum criteria for a candidate? Is that criteria that you believe the community would agree to? I looked into the possibility of developing criteria in the past, requirements which were fairly low, but there didn't seem to be much interest at the time. As for the "just to piss off the opposers", certainly I'd have ignored that vote if I were closing that RfA. Worm^TT(talk) 12:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, nothing would surprise me for this site anymore. About 5 minutes ago, I came across GregJack's criteria which I support 100%. Civility is not an issue for me, although I would rather they be "the poked" as opposed to "the poker". To illustrate that, I would support Eric (as the poked) at an RfA, but for someone like User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I would certainly oppose. I would also require them to have at least 1 years worth editing experience, or at least 1,000 edits, which ever is sooner; have written at least 1 FA, or at least several GA's; and a knowledge of the back room stuff like category's, file moving, vandalism patrol, etc. there are others, but at this time I can't think of anymore. If you ever get round to developing such a page on the criteria , I would very much like to be involved, so please ping me. I would say that, without a doubt, The Rambling Man is the sort of person who would tick every box for me; he is a fantastic featured article editor, is very approachable, doesn't suffer fools gladly, and has a supurb knowledge in all the boring stuff to boot. Cassianto^Talk 12:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Cassianto^Talk 12:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I certainly will do. My priority at the moment though is a decent desysop procedure, I do believe WP:BARC has legs, it just needs... fine tuning. Worm^TT(talk) 12:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Doh, I missed that. For the record, it would have been a strong support from me too. Cassianto^Talk 12:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto, GregJackP, indeed anyone, I personally would like to see more eyes towards resolving the logjam at Talk:Ron "Pigpen" McKernan/GA1 and less badgering of support voters at RfA, if that's alright with everyone. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's world of difference between asking someone to mildly elaborate on their support vote compared to badgering them. The latter, I would take to mean, would be me repeatedly asking them for their reasons when they have failed to answer me the first time. I'm not doing that. I haven't forgot about your nomination and will read through the article later today. Cassianto^Talk 13:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I rarely bother with RFA myself. I detest everything about the process.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Trouble is, that's the same attitude that Russell Brand had about voting, then suddenly had a last minute volte face when he realised the Tories were going to get a landslide victory and shouted "zomg vote Labour!!!111one1". Similarly, if you (heaven forbid) get blocked for something stupid and petty, it would be gutting to think "bugger, he's only passed RfA two months ago, wish I'd opposed now". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that honest people would have to oppose every RfA until the broken system is fixed, which it will never be. Hence the only alternative is to ignore it, as Blofeld says. Eric Corbett 14:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There just seems something wrong about the whole process, the way editors have to undergo that sort of grilling and treatment, with people pettily digging up every minor thing they've ever done. It makes a lot of the people commenting on them look a bit sad and petty in all honesty that they still remember certain diffs from years and years ago and give that as the reason why they shouldn't be given tools. And it's usually the more decent editors who get a harder time there because they have a longer history and more opportunity for conflict than somebody relatively new whose general editing means little chance of conflict. I'm of the opinion we should scrap RFA and the current admin system. The sheer number of incompetent admins we've all encountered over the years demonstrates how flawed the process is. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"There just seems something wrong about the whole process" - well I think that's about the one thing everyone can agree on! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)