Pages worth reading:     Fighting is boring Logical fallacies of relevance Three Men make a Tiger The Blindmen and the Elephant The Last Commandment The Golden Rule and WikiLove

CAT WP:CAT WP:NCCAT WP:CLN WP:CFD WP:OC WP:OC/U WP:USERCAT Help:Category Help:Categories Readers' FAQ Editors' FAQ Categories (Tree)

Motion

Memorable comments from discussions I've been in:

• I flipped a three-sided coin, it came up "no consensus". --Kbdank71 (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2006 (From a talk page discussion)
• Outline my position, which is actually built on a big pile of marbles in a game of kerplunk and the straws are slowly being pulled - Hiding (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2006 (From an edit summary)
• While the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may be useful for other XfD discussions, it isn't as useful for CfD, due to a commonality of consistancy due to prior consensus. The guideline WP:OCAT is an excellent example of this. And the same seems true for WP:ALLORNOTHING. - jc37 17:12, 9 April 2007

  Due to a what of what due to what? Please rephrase for us simple folk. Picaroon 01:23, 12 April 2007 (From a WP:DRV discussion.)

• I think I was more involved with the fiction MOS when it was started than I am now, I have kind of given up on those sort of pages, no sooner do you get it all straight, have a few drinks to celebrate, put the chairs on the table and start mopping up than a whole new crowd walks in ready to get it all straight again. - Hiding 21:03, 2 November 2007 (from a talk page discussion)
• But in my experience, every talk page of XfD closers seems to be filled with vehemence about disagreement of a closure. Nice to know that you've managed to (mostly) somehow avoid that. ("somehow" - you'll have to loan me your special medallion sometime : ) - jc37 00:11, 6 March 2008

  It's a medallion of troll-protection +4. I looted it from a [contentious] AfD along with a masterwork ban-hammer +1, a mop of template sweeping, and 103 gold pieces. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2008

• Enjoy reading this text in context : ) (From a talk page discussion starting on 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Just FYI, I'm nominating User:Fayenatic london for adminship. You can co-nominate or just save your thoughts for later, as you like.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ping at Mike Selinker's talk page : ) – Fayenatic (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

jc37, thanks again for co-nominating me at RfA. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Grey

Daniel Case only knows about this matter because I contacted him about it, precisely because it was I who wanted an uninvolved admin to block him, since it appeared at the time that it would possibly be necessary imminently, and didn't want to hear any whiny complaints about being "involved" or "uninvolved". I did this against my better judgment, in light of all the times admins and other members of the community have completely failed to act with anything other than milquetoast equivocation, and as a result, allowed obnoxious troublemakers like Asgardian to continue to run rampant.

If those in the community who crow endlessly about admin "involvement" want me to take them seriously, then they're going to have to get off their collective duffs, and stop being so bend-over-backwards passive when disruptive entities like Cerenok start coming here to pretend that Wikipedia is their own personal property. When an editor has a good faith belief in how an article can be improved, he discusses it. Had Cerenok done so, you can be assured that I would not have taken any admin action with regard to him or the article, since I don't do this when the other editors I interact follow the site's rules. Cerenok has not done this. He has engaged in rampant sock puppetry and ownership of that articles (and possibly others), and arrogantly ignored attempts by committed, good faith editors to discuss the matter with him. Daniel Case should've blocked him, but didn't, as he has once again failed to act with any sort of decisiveness toward an unambiguous troublemaker, and again pulled his paper tiger routine, trying to "talk" to someone who thinks Wikipedia articles will bend to his personal whims, and couldn't care less if others tell him otherwise. Good faith is, and should be finite. And if the other admins I go to for assistance are not competent enough to provide it, then I'm not going to bother with those who bloviate about "involvement". Involvement is only an issue in editorial matters, and not with clear cases of disruption. Nightscream (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking him. It's nice to see that I'm not the only one who saw that it needed to be done. (And an indefinite one, no less! This is only the second time I've encountered a situation in which a blocking admin was willing to consider that!) Next time I need an uninvolved admin, I'll know who to turn to. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had blocked him before dropping the note on your talk page

And blocking duration depends on the situation. Notice I tied it to criteria for unblocking. But based upon checking the edit history, it looks like this was merely an SPA, per WP:DUCK.

And blocking had the benefit of changing the page protection. Neither you nor Daniel Case edited the protected page even though as admins you could have, so I felt secure in unprotecting, and just stopping the IP and SPA issues.

As for the rest, I think I want to start by asking Daniel Case's thoughts at this point. - jc37 22:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you asked ... I'm a little hurt that Nightscream thinks I "failed" since I've met him in person on several occasions and helped him with other problems, but I will let that pass since I understand he was upset and I am familiar from those discussions with other occasions when he feels the admin community did not act decisively enough towards a persistently disruptive user (until the ArbCom finally banned that user). I'd like to know to which other time he refers when he says I've "once again failed to act with any sort of decisiveness toward an unambiguous troublemaker".

Per WP:AGF, I didn't necessarily see Cerenok as unambiguously intending to be disruptive, as he registered an account, did try to explain himself eventually, and stopped making the edits in question (though he then began to make other somewhat disruptive edits to the same section of the article, I allow). I felt it was entirely possible, from my extensive experience with vandals and disruptive users big and small, that we might have been dealing with someone rather young who might not have intuited all these things, and might need them explained to his face. I have not checked his edit history since I logged in this evening; I can only assume he continued to prefer revert warring, and as I implied last night that would eventually lead to sanctions. So, I gather, you blocked him.

We'll see how this plays out, whether he comes back or not. Daniel Case (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jc, I know you blocked him prior to the note. I didn't know that he had been blocked at the time I responded to your note, hence the addendum. Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part.

Also, Jc, can you check out the Ben Templesmith article? It seems that there's a revert war currently going on regarding which photograph of Mr. Templesmith is better for the Infobox image. J Greb and I have started a discussion on that article's talk page, but JGreb, Weepygoon and 174.44.95.202 are still reverting instead of waiting for a resolution. Can you protect the page? Although I haven't reverted the article, and have restricted my participation to discussion, I was previously involved in a previous incarnation of that same conflict, and one of the two photos is mine. Thanks.

Daniel, you blocked Asgardian once, I recall, and then refused to help after that, because, according to you, you were now "involved". It was a ridiculous bit of reasoning, and it was that type of pass-the-buck, bureaucratic apathy that allowed him to terrorize WikiProject Comics community for over three years, and continues to provide a breeding ground today for problem like those Cerenok caused. So........thanks for nothing. Nightscream (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cash for Gold (South Park)

Hi. With all due respect, the issue at Cash for Gold (South Park) is not an MOS issue, or even a legitimate editorial dispute. User:Hearfourmewesique is removing valid, sourced information from the article, and in so doing, is removing attribution of an claim that is evaluative analytical interpretive, and thus presenting that reviewer's opinion as an unattributed fact. This is clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:PSTS. He is claiming that the critic's opinion is "not opinion". He even makes the mendacious claim that "the other editor chose to quit the discussion", when no one, to my knowledge ever started a discussion, nor notified me of one. This guy is so ignorant that he doesn't know the difference between a fact and an opinion, then he has no business making any edits that require that sort of selective judgement, assuming he has any business editing Wikipedia at all. The next time he removes disrupts that article by removing sourced information and/or presenting opinions as fact, I will ask that you block him. If you do not, I will either find a responsible admin who will, or do it myself. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:) - Taxman ^Talk 04:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been comparatively dormant this last year. But I still check in from time to time. I hope the Comics Project is going well. Thanks for saying hi! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jc37. When you moved Oratory to a new title and then moved the disambiguation page to the old title, you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Oratory" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, I was fixing a copy/paste that had apparently gone unfixed for around 5 years.

Second, by moving the oratory dab page to oratory I was actually fixing all the incoming links, since some dealt with public speaking and some dealt with oratory (worship) (among other things). This simply helped navigation. (Which is the point of all this, I would think.)

That said, I did go and fix a misdirecting hatnote though.

Thanks for your note. - jc37 20:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just what do you suggest I "fix"? Literally everything in those articles is in-universe, unsourced plot summary. There is literally nothing that asserts real-world notability, nor could I find any secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you posted them all for deletion in the same minute that you posted here (literally the first tag, AND the nomination AND listing it at AFD, and even notifying an editor of the nom, were all in the exact same minute you posted this question here), I question your sincere interest in wanting to improve these articles. So not much point in offering you some suggestions, I would guess. As noted at WP:AGF, presuming good faith only goes so far. - jc37 17:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Building upon this previous discussion can I suggest you add to the main nomination that all categories be renamed to "Category:Wikipedia categories named after..." This is absolutely essential to show our readers that there are not real-world categories, but self-referential ones. I believe there will be near unanimous support for this as the tree currently contradicts usual Wikipedia self-referential guidelines. It also gives support to your main proposal. SFB 17:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've commented there : ) jc37 17:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:categories named after..

I missed this discussion. Here to say thank you for bringing this up, it's a relief to know that there is agreement to hide them. Thanks for doing messy stuff.Oranjblud (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those pesky eponymous cats

Good on you for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_3#Category:Eponymous_categories. I would have supported it but it passed way under my radar. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that they are now poking themselves into content categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Triage newsletter

Hey guys!

Thanks to all of you who have commented on the New Page Triage talkpage. If you haven't had a chance yet, check it out; we're discussing some pretty interesting ideas, both from the Foundation and the community, and moving towards implementing quite a few of them :).

In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an office hours session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Triage newsletter

Hey all!

Thanks to everyone who attended our first office hours session; the logs can be found here, if you missed it, and we should be holding a second one on Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. I hope to see you all there :).

In the meantime, I have greatly expanded the details available at Wikipedia:New Page Triage: there's a lot more info about precisely what we're planning. If you have ideas, and they aren't listed there, bring them up and I'll pass them on to the developers for consideration in the second sprint. And if you know anyone who might be interested in contributing, send them there too!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

help triage some feedback

Hey guys.

I appreciate this isn't quite what you signed up for, but I figured as people who are already pretty good at evaluating whether material is useful or not useful through Special:NewPages, you might be interested :). Over the last few months we've been developing the new Article Feedback Tool, which features a free text box. it is imperative that we work out in advance what proportion of feedback is useful or not so we can adjust the design accordingly and not overwhelm you with nonsense.

This is being done through the Feedback Evaluation System (FES), a tool that lets editors run through a stream of comments, selecting their value and viability, so we know what type of design should be promoted or avoided. We're about to start a new round of evaluations, beginning with an office hours session tomorrow at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to help preemptively kill poor feedback, come along to #wikimedia-office and we'll show you how to use the tool. If you can't make it, send me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org or drop a note on my talkpage, and I'm happy to give you a quick walkthrough in a one-on-one session :).

All the best, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A big NPT update

Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding

• Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
• Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages update

Hey Jc37/Archive/07 :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.

On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).

On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Triage prototype released

Hey Jc37! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Triage/New Pages Feed

Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.

The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely involved as I've been the intended target a couple of times, but I feel that User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz's comments at CFD over the past few days are getting close to being "disruptive": [1], [2], [3] (edit summary), [4], etc. They are certainly not helping. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links.

In the hopes of things becoming a bit more WP:COOL, I merely started with a note in the discussion. But if it continues, I'll go to a warning on his talk page, or further sanction if necessary. - jc37 00:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having interacted with him before, I think much of what he writes is intended as good-natured ribbing and flippancy, and I don't have a huge personal problem with him—but for those who are not familiar with him some of the stuff he writes could be borderline offensive. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it, maybe. But in looking over his talk page contribs, I'm not so certain that that's always the case. - jc37 00:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much getting sick of this: [5], [6], [7] (note edit summary), [8]. I wanted to check with you if you wish to do anything. If you want to take a pass, I could move on to ANI, and all the fun that that entails. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time for AN/I. To me it looks like he sees this as individual editors with concerns. Maybe a community discussion will help express the concerns better. - jc37 22:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Regarding my recent comments on this talk page, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you done with ""A," My Name is Alex - Parts I & II"? It should not have a {{underconstruction}} tag on it for a long period of time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I haven't been moving very quickly on that. I was/am working on some text for the body of it offline. but regardless it's still a stub, so that shouldn't be a big deal. I'll add a few sentences to at least get "something" on-wiki, and work more on it this weekend. Thanks : ) - jc37 22:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I disagree with the move. As originally broadcast, this was a single episode. It was merely split later for syndication (and distribution, like DVD). - jc37 22:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the official name from the Writers Guild of America Library Catalog. Copy/paste the new title at the catalog link.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if you want you could take off the parts, but the quotes belong.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot just reminded me that this has been neglected for 8 days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NC-TW straw poll

Perhaps this it what you are looking for? Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)/Archive_13#NC-TW_straw_poll --Kildor (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it, thank you. - jc37 05:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassed comments

Just to let you guys know about this discussion thread. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now at ANI. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Jc37, I award to you the Admin's barnstar (together with Aervanath and Graeme Bartlett) for finding consensus in the unreasonably big and nasty discussion of the ROC -> Taiwan move. Many thanks! Mlm42 (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this. That move request was one giant indecypherable mess for various reasons, but the three of you managed to sift through it all to come to a conclusion. Great job. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 20:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beer

		A beer on me!
		Now that we've built the barn, let's take a breather in the pub, shall we? :) Aervanath (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, most kind : ) - jc37 23:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		ROC/ Taiwan RM mop recognition
		Thanks for stepping up to join us in the closure of the requested move. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks : ) - jc37 06:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On consensual discussions

There is little current ongoing central discussion on exactly how to deal with the content at this point. There was a general feeling, as far as I could tell as a participant, that we should wait and see how individual cases pan out in their own discussions to get a gauge on how the community feels and so we could try to reflect that, rather than creating a guideline which goes against what is generally agreed upon, like the previous NC-TW was. So far we've had some renames and some that remained at the original title, and I think you were right to close the overall China and ROC category discussions, but I feel the smaller discussions should continue (although perhaps a limit could be agreed upon) to help determine consensus. Regards, CMD (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any category that was successfully renamed or merged? Jeffrey (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per above:

Discussion notice

• Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. KarlB (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Your reasoning in closing these discussions seems unclear. The main objection to the proposed names was that there did not follow WP:Commonname and were not used by any sources. While the proposed names are permissable within WP:NDESC, the preference within Wikipedia seems to be for names that are used by sources. While some editors clearly did not like the Old Fooian names, I would argue the use of the Old Fooian names were actually in accordance with WP naming conventions. Since it affects other discussions, I would be grateful if you could clarify your reasoning on these matters. Cjc13 (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cjc13 seems not to have noticed that WP:NDESC is part of the policy WP:NC, tho it is nice to see that cjc13 is finally acknowledfing that the new names do conform to WP:NDESC. Per WP:NDESC, a descriptive title may be invented for use in Wikipedia, as is the case with these titles. Per WP:NDESC, a descriptive title may incorporate a sourced name, which was the case with every one of these renamings. The preference within wikipedia is strongly in favour of descriptive titles for categories of school alumni, as shown by the 48 previous CfDs which renamed 147 categories to the descriptive format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. If you were to look over my contribs, you might find that I am one of the biggest supporters of consensus being substance over "vote counting". One person can overrule the rest of the commenters IF their argument is substantive and is not refuted by policy-based opposition to their interpretation. As I see (even above), your argument is and has been refuted by BHG. I understand that you want to keep the old fooians as the category titles. But please remember that categories are about navigation, and not content. We have to go with whatever name will be the least ambiguous. Period. Anything else would be a hindrance to navigation. And the arguments in the discussion were clear, and supported by others, that the Old fooian usage was not as clear as that new target names would be. And so looking over those who supported rename, as opposed to you who did not, as well as one person who wanted to keep the status quo (the other "on principle" comment, while having the right to express their opinion, had little weight in the closure), the consensus was simply for renaming. And I might note, has been repeatedly in similar discussions for a couple months now. So, to me, it's a fairly straight-forward close, regardless if I go "by the numbers" or "by the argument". I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 20:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments. By consensus you seem to mean majority vote. I would have said there was more to naming a category than picking the least ambiguous. I would refute BHG's interpretation of WP:NDESC. It does say you may invent names but it does not say that you have to use invented names. I would have thought names that are used by sources would be better. I would also refute that Old Fooians is ambiguous or unclear, but that is a much longer argument. BHG's argument and that of her followers comes across as being more "I do not like" than anything else. Cjc13 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have repeatedly argued for: 1) consistent naming structure; 2) a clear two-way relationship between the name of the school and the name of the category; 3) avoidance of ambiguity; 4) rejection of obscure terms which are almost unused in reliable sources. If you really think that adds up to "I don't like", then you should test your vision at WP:DRV.
  While you are there, don't forget to seek a review of some of the closures by Vegaswikian, who you accused of making "decisions reflect his own opinion rather than the actual discussions". That was a very serious charge against an admin, and if you genuinely believe it then you should have it tested. Otherwise, withdraw it. It's quite unfair to just make a driveby attack on an admin's integrity, without seeking resolution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(de-dent) "By consensus you seem to mean majority vote." No. I clearly reaffirmed that consensus is not a vote. And I followed that up with how the consensus was determined. I'm sorry that you disagree with it, but the goal is not to convince me of your personal POV, it's to convince your fellow editors so that together you all may come to a consensus. But consensus does not mean a unanimous "vote". Not in the least.

"It does say you may invent names but it does not say that you have to use invented names." - Are you claiming that Bloxham School (for one example) is not the name of the school in question? If not, then no name was invented.

Are you disputing that the people being categorised were educated at the school in question? If not, then the proposed category title is accurate.

So therefore, you appear to be only left with the argument is that you feel that since you feel that old fooian is commonly applied to people previously educated at a particular school; that that term should be used in the category name. You are, of course, welcome to that opinion. The onus is then on you to attempt to convince your fellow Wikipedians of this perspective - typically through verifiable reliable sources.

And, from a policy point of view, the main argument that you will likely need to refute to help convince them would seem to be - as categories are purposed for navigation - that calling these categories old fooian would better help facilitate navigation to these categories, because you feel that most people when looking for these terms (even those who may not be as fluent in the topic as you may be) would be more likely to search for old fooian, than people educated in foo school.

And further, that the old fooian appellation in question is neither unambiguous nor vague.

In the discussions you are asking for clarifications of, you did not convince your fellow Wikipedians of this point of view. Instead the consensus was clearly that old fooian was not the appropriate choice for these category names. Several suggesting that that they were ambiguous; and that they would not be helpful to navigation, but rather would be a hindrance to it.

I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 05:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their claim is that Old Fooian is obscure but I think, like alumni, it is widely used and recognised. The invented part I feel is "People educated at", which does not seem to be a widely used phrase. Thank you for the clarification. Cjc13 (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, while I understand discussions can get heated, ad hominem attacks or other such accusations are simply not appropriate. No closer will takes such comments into consideration of closing a discussion, so making them is not only pointless, but has the potential to bring sanction or the start of the dispute resolution process into your behaviour. Something I might suggest you keep in mind for future discussions. And while not necessary, in my opinion you either owe User:Vegaswikian proof of your assertion, or an apology. - jc37 05:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My comments are partly based on this discussion on his own talk page. Cjc13 (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be one of the more-interested parties in the categorization of these articles. I totally understand where you're coming from with the idea that species connotes a scientific classification. I'm only trying to make the categories as clear as possible. Do you have any specific thoughts or suggestions? I want to do this with community support and help. Reply at my talk page (or here). I'll be in and out today. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi jc37! I'm happy to tell you that I've completed all the things that you requested:

• {{named after}} has been replaced with {{Eponymous category}} and I've deleted Template:Named after, which was a redirect to Template:Eponymous category.
• I've added a container=yes to all the {{Wikipedia category}} usages, such that both hidden=yes and container=yes are parameters.
• I've removed any instances of {{hidden category}} and {{container category}} on the pages as this has been merged into the Wikipedia category template as per above.
• I've removed the transclusion of Template:Wikipedia category from inside Template:Eponymous category as they have been separated now on each page.
• Finally, I've re-ordered the templates on each Category so {{Wikipedia category}} with its parameters comes first, then {{Eponymous category}}, as you can see for example in this diff.

If you notice anything is missing or incorrect, please don't hesistate to tell me. The Helpful One 13:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, I decided I couldn't properly thank my fellow Wikipedians without making it known what I was thanking them for. Wikipedia itself is a valuable resource and definitely influenced my writing style. Thank you for everything you said there. It means a lot. Doczilla _STOMP! 19:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jc! It's been ages since I've seen your edits in WikiProject Comics! Thanks for protecting The Avengers (2012 film). I hadn't known you'd become an admin — congrats! Hope to see you around the Project again soon. With regards from a fellow WPC old-timer, Tenebrae (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jc37 - 2 : )

And I'm around. If you see something you think I'd be interested in, feel free to drop me a note. - jc37 07:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, geez ... 2006! You must have been an admin the whole time we were both running across each other back in the day! Sheesh! As the Thing would sort of say, "What a mortifyin' development!" :- ) Best to you, Jc! -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck me funny

• This diff

Enjoy : ) - jc37 18:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was pretty freakin' hilarious! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Categorization/Noticeboard, a page you created, isn't getting much traffic. I added a notice to the Categorization guideline. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Format

Is there a particular reason for the transcluded sections at this noticeboard? I see you're the one who created it. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:15, 16 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I reformatted your new board to match other noticeboards. I don't see any special reason for transcluded discussion section or a separate "projects" area (any more so than other noticeboards), so I merged it all together. This way everyone can more intuitively see which page to watchlist and where to place new discussions. I created a new categorization nav template from the userbox you had previously on the page, and styled a header that's streamlined with other noticeboards, along with their "new discussion" button, which is now possible with everything merged to one location. Hopefully you'll see this as an improvement :) Equazcion ^(talk) 16:55, 16 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. There are more than one kind of "noticeboard". The kinds like the WP:VP or WP:AN, and the kind shown at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice board (the latter of which I helped with).

The idea was that there are a LOT of talkpages with category-related discussions. So I was trying to set that up as a sort of central "hub". (Similar to template:CENT.) The transclusions are designed so to have an automatic archiving mechanism.

But as you have now changed it to the other kind of noticeboard (which is fine, as others seemed to want to use it in the same way), the transclusions are rather moot at this point.

I don't use archiving bots, but since the noticeboard is now set up this way, I suppose we will need one. Would you mind adding one (with the requisite archival templates/search etc.)

Thank you for your interest and help : ) - jc37 23:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you wanted the page to be a place where people could post more transclusions than just the two you had up there for "discussion" and "projects" -- that is, any page with category-related discussion. Aside from CFD, though, which already does that for categories, I'm not sure what else could go there. Category discussions might crop up on an odd talk page, but you'd have to transclude the entire talk pages (barring some impractical coding). I see the benefit for Wikiproject Comics, to have a page listing deletion discussion limited to that topic, but categories basically have that already. I could see something like that page's "Alerts" section being useful, at it just lists links -- we could add a transclusion back in for something like that. But I actually figured a discussion-style noticeboard would be good for categories in general, since there is no other such place yet (that I know of, aside from some policy-type talk page).

Anyway, as long as you have no objection, cool. I added the miszabot configuration set for 30 days, and an archive search/list box (the list will appear under the search line automatically once one is created). Things can always be tweaked if/when a need arises; we'll see how people tend to use the page. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:08, 17 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Actually there are a LOT of category-related pages discussing things even now. (WT:CAT; WT:CFD; WP:CATP; WT:NCCAT; etc.)

I wasn't looking to transclude the discussions themselves, but merely links to the discussions (like CENT). And nod, we could actually still do that in a transcluded header section I suppose. I may play with that some later.

Thanks for adding the archiving tools. - jc37 00:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah like I said there are the policy/guideline talk pages and CFD. There's the wikiproject talk page too, but for such a fundamental aspect, centralized discussion shouldn't be limited to those more tangential places (IMO). Good to have a proper noticeboard. If you want to add a transcluded "alerts"-type section let me know, maybe give me some content for it so I can set an initial format; I say let me know only because I've been redoing a lot of neglected noticeboard headers lately (that's how I came across this) and feel adept at it, but of course you can go ahead yourself if you want. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:38, 17 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the situation is getting worse, not better. I thank you for your comments and ask that you see my latest comment at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Use_of_Category:Categories_requiring_diffusion. It's getting a little bizarre, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Jc37

Clarification

Just in case you miss it in the mass of text, I posted a follow-up question after your answer to mine. WilliamH (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied on my talk page. WilliamH (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

• Jc37, irrespective of the result of your RFB, please know you have my thanks (and, I think, the thanks of a majority of the community) for volunteering your time to this difficult role. Bureaucratship is not for everyone, as the high rate of RFB failures can attest, but all things considered I think it is admirable that you offered to serve at all. AGK [•] 22:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFB

Hi, Jc37. I'm sorry to inform you that after a thorough read of your RFB, I have closed it as consensus not reached. I wish you well in your future endeavors, whatever they may be, and would like to personally tell you that your contributions to Wikipedia are very much appreciated. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any other bureaucrat. Useight (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it'll happen next time, just keep up your good work in the admin stuff. –BuickCenturyDriver 18:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Condolences and good luck next time! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 22, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jc37, please would you take a look at the procedural request at the foot of my talk page and advise whether you think this it would be appropriate for me to close the current CFD as withdrawn, and immediately start a fresh one? It seems that if I set out my full proposal and rationale from the start, it is more likely to be supported. To avoid looking as if I am trying to hide the previous opposition, I would disclose it. It seems to me that this course of action is in good faith as it is at the suggestion of the editor who initially led the opposition (so I would mention that too). Even so, I'd like to clear it with a more experienced admin, as it's rather different from both the actions and the reasons given at WP:RELIST.

Maybe RELIST could do with an additional para to encourage this course of action where the nominator changes his proposal after comments have been made (probably only for CfD, not other XfDs); what do you think? BHG made similar comments in a recent closure as "no consensus" after I had been chopping and changing the proposal. – Fayenatic London 20:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best course of action, now that there has been substantive discussion would be to continue with what you have. If you would like to leave a note for a potential closer that you would like to immediately start a new discussion on this following the close of this discussion, most closers will note in their close whether this is appropriate (and if they neglect to do so, it's simple enough to ask them on their talk page following the close).

But to try to get this closed to start a new discussion is likely going to have some see this as disruptive or gaming or or or. So I think you're better off just riding this out til close.

All that said, I suppose someone "could" claim WP:IAR thinking that Wikipedia is best served by a speedy close and starting over.

Whatever you decide is up to you (and obviously feel free to ask others' opinions), I think I'm pretty neutral on the whole discussion as it stands so far. - jc37 20:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only came back and saw this after I had relisted the discussion. To counter the appearance of gaming, I have notified the editors who !voted on the first discussion.

I'll ask BHG to review what I've done, and comment on my suggestion for WP:RELIST. – Fayenatic London 07:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being slow in getting here after FL posted on my talk at here, permalink).

FWIW, I think that FL did the right thing here. When a nominator radically revises the proposal in the course of discussion, then there is no neat way of presenting that change of heart within the current of CFD. A change of merge or rename target can be incorporated easily enough, using strikeout, but a more radical change effectively leads to two proposals happening in the same space, That makes the discussion hard to follow.

In this case, there were no !votes supporting the original proposal, so a speedy close of it was fine ... and the relisting allowed a new discussion to start with a clean sheet. So well done FL for relisting.

However, I am wary of changing the guidance to accommodate this. It does not happen very often at CFD, and there are several difft permutations of situation where this can apply, so I think that attempting to formalise the solution would create a lot instruction creep. Best to keep this as a WP:IAR situation :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments : )

And I don't disagree.

My concern was (among other things) how other editors might react (as I think we've all seen in the past, that can be: less-than-thrilled).

Anyway, it's relisted now, and (happily) no disruption seems to have happened.

So my concerns have (again happily : ) - become rather moot : ) - jc37 16:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good. Thanks, both. (Somehow I missed your replies until now.)

It occurred to me that my action, while achieving my own original intention, also served to save face for another editor after his initial overstated opposition. Anyway, everyone seems happy.

And I take your point about instruction creep, so I'll leave the Relist page as it is. – Fayenatic London 18:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	This was great! I really appreciate your efforts and it would be helpful a lot if the foundation accepts this. →TSU tp* 03:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you : )

The new proposal is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37/3 - jc37 23:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I thereby award you with this Admin's Barnstar for closing four discussions, which were listed at the Requests for closure subpage of the Administrators noticeboard. Keep up the good work. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 20:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated : ) - jc37 20:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• diff

I understand referring to software that comes with mac or windows, but I think we should avoid references to other software. Can this be explained without referring to third-party software? - jc37 21:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of the editing methods I listed at Help:Sorting in that section can be done with the Notepad text editor that comes with Windows.

Also, there are no generic instructions that will work across other freeware text editors. It is complicated to figure this stuff out. It took me years. So most people will not do these things unless they have very specific instructions.

By the way, I am not connected to Notetab Light in any type of WP:COI. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd like to know that the Foundation has posted a comment on the "moderators" proposal. Nutshell: go for it. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This message was placed at the top of the page in a big info box, which looked a little too "the WMF endorses this", even though it didn't say that. I would've moved the message (minus the template box) to main proposal page, but you protected that page (not thrilled about that decision either, FYI). I moved it to the bottom of the talk page under a separate header and placed an anchor link at the top instead. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:07, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Philippe already copied it to the main page anyway, FYI. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:09, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need for the proposal page to be protected and it could come across as a being a little too protective of your own proposal. I could also see no discussion about this, so I have unprotected the page again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello jc37, and thank you very much for volunteering to be one of the closers of the verifiability RfC! (Sorry, but it didn't look like any other admins were coming forward, so the mediation participants have gone ahead and named you as one of the closers on the RfC page.) I think I speak for all of the mediation participants in saying that we are grateful for you agreeing to put the time and effort into this. I've set a mini-deadline for the mediation participants of 10am on Thursday 28th (UTC) to agree on the final tweaks to the RfC wording, which should mean that the RfC will finish on July 28th. There's nothing you really need to do until then, but if you are interested the mediation participants are currently having a discussion about whether we should outline anything about the closing process in the RfC instructions. I think the participants would value your input, but there's no need to comment if you don't want to. And also, if you have any questions about how the mediation process has gone, etc., just drop me a line. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 04:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V RfC closure

Hi. You, I and Coren (talk · contribs) are the designated closers for the Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC, scheduled to close at 15:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC). I've taken the liberty of preparing a userspace page for drafting our closure at User:Sandstein/WP:V RfC closure, and have drafted a possible structure for our evaluation of the RfC there. If using that page is OK with you, I suggest that we use its talk page to continue discussing our work on the closure.  Sandstein  11:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a brief reminder, the last thing to be done is moving your revised statement to the project page and sign. I think we're all anxious to call it a day.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 16:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poke, poke? Pretty please? If you manage to get a minute to finish this, I'll even do the housekeeping and posting and stuff myself.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 21:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol. I will, no worries. I just wanted to catch up on some other stuff on my watchlist first : ) - jc37 21:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and I think a final statement after only 2 days of closing is rather quick, all things considered : ) - jc37 22:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the header sez ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Tfd

Hi Jc37, in response to a request from yourself I spent some time recoding this template. You may not have noticed this, as you have been busy with other things. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your work on your userright package and research over at WT:RfA. -- Luke (Talk) 22:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Kind of you to say : ) - jc37 23:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the Resilient Barnstar and the kind sentiment behind it. I, too, am glad that we were able to engage in constructive discourse.
As I can think of no award more suitable, please allow me to second LuK3's presentation of the Barnstar of Diligence. You've certainly earned it! (: —David Levy 19:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-02/Discussion report. Is the entry accurate? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out! That's pretty cool. :) Zagalejo^^^ 19:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to clog up the page with loads of comments on comments so I will say it here. I think you are spot on. "Closure review" is a fair description of what the case is about. This is about what the closures did... but it is not like anyone wants to place sanctions on the closers or anything like that. Move review and deletion review are fair parallels. It makes me wonder why there isn't a standard thing for closure review. Yaris678 (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When MRV was initially proposed, I suggested it be broadened to include reviewing all RfC closures, but there was a concern that that would make it more difficult for the process to be adopted (among other things).

Depending on how it was presented/designed, I would support the starting of Wikipedia:Consensus assessment review (CARV) - or some such. - jc37 16:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. As a non-admin, I wouldn't like to be the driving force behind the creation of such a thing, but I would be willing to contribute some ideas and effort. Yaris678 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd like WP:MRV confirmed finallised into a process before starting another such process. - jc37 16:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed this comment: "Reading archives is not pleasant. Seems the bots archive by last edit not by how they may have been arranged on a page". When I run into that, it can be easier to load up the page version before archiving and read that. Really, archives should include a list of diffs showing the removals that created the archives. But not sure if any bot is set up to do that. Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment on User talk:Okeyes (WMF). Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the Fae proposed decision talkpage to the concern you raised there. I mention it here only because you might not be following that page now that the decision has closed. Your input on this wording will be appreciated the next time there is a case that uses it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jc37. I'm hoping to start on the long road towards community de-adminship, and I thought I might come to you to help out with User:Worm That Turned/Community De-adminship proof of concept. I'm hoping to get an RfC together to judge the community's view on "community de-adminship". I know this isn't going to be a short process, there's a reason it's perennial, but I thought it would be a good way to start. Would appreciate any thoughts. Worm^TT(talk) 12:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:RRA, I've added it to this navbox for easier navigation. If I've misrepresented it, please do feel free to change what I've written, and add any other links that you think should be included. Worm^TT(talk) 16:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've no real desire to participate in a long conversation doomed to failure. But I noticed your de-adminship proposal, and while I think it might be tilting at windwills, I still admire the attempt. I thought you might want to look at my admin recall process, and see if there are any features you could use. I've often thought (self-admiringly) that it would be a decent model for a non-voluntary community desysop, perhaps with higher required levels of support to stop using the tools while the RFC goes on, and for the actual desysop (for example, consensus to desysop, rather than consensus to remain a sysop). Just fodder for thought. If you think it's brilliant, thanks. If you think it's stupid, sorry. User:Floquenbeam/Recall. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the kind words. And if you have any suggestions concerning the proposal, I'm all ears.

  And thank you for the link. It's a nice proposal. The most common suggestions I've seen for requests for de-adminship process is typically based around RFC/U or RFA. So I tried to add a bit of both in RRA. The process you have: Having certifiers acting as "gatekeepers" to help prevent "pitchforking" (a key component of any proposal); then having a discussion; which is potentially closed by a bureaucrat. It all sounds similar to what I recently proposed here, which was the initial draft of the RRA process. Something about "Two great minds travelling along the same path" : )

  Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. And who knows, maybe if we tilt enough at this windmill... - jc37 21:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coming here for the first time, I like your "recommended reading" - both discussions and articles - on top! - Thank you for changing to support 28bytes from neutral, after reading. - Why did 28bytes unblock PumpkinSky? For part of the answer see here (perhaps a discussion I should recommend), quote "You are probably aware that the admin who blocked PumpkinSky said "there are a thousand other admins to overturn the block if it's unwarranted." 999 of those would be afraid to do so, right?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks : )

I sometimes wistfully think that if everyone read (and followed) those, Wikipedia would be a much better place : )

As for the rlevse stuff, I was following how things were going back then. There were many discussions over many different pages, noticeboards and talk pages. Yes, in the end, I think someone would be needed to cut the gordian knot, but I'm not thrilled at the when, and to a lesser extent the who. "there's always another admin". - jc37 14:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Jointly to Coren, jc37, and Sandstein, for excellent work in closing the Verifiability RfC! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the barnstar : ) - jc37 01:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undo move requested. This move seems to me to be controversial and unsupported by anything in the article. (An admin seems to be required to undo this.) Oculi (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• He is Craig Gower on Italian wiki: it:Craig_Gower. Oculi (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	reading and thinking
	Thank you for acting on reading and independent thinking, and for making us read more, repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (14 May 2009)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]