User:Realist2/Editor Coaching/Archive 1

Okay, here's the page where we will have our editor coaching. In my past coaching experience I would start by asking you the three standard RFA questions, but I'm trying a different angle. Instead, let's start with these questions below. Once you've answered them, we can determine the direction this editor coaching will go.


 * 1) What areas of the encyclopedia do you enjoy editing? Which WikiProjects, if any, are you active in? I know you deal with articles related to Michael Jackson a lot, are there any other areas?
 * A nice easy question to begin. I enjoy articles relating to Michael Jackson obviously. I've got a few articles relating to him to GA and FA. I basically run the ship over at WP:MJJ. I've taken it upon myself to give all the articles quality and importance ratings and RfD unimportant articles (most MJ fans can't stand to see articles relating to him deleted no matter how unimportant). I've just started a consensus building task relating to the possibility of including Jackson 5 articles within the project. I'm very proud of my work with the subject, it's really helped me understand BLP, Undue weight, NPOV etc etc. Recently The Times plagiarized the article in one of their pieces (I'm writing them a letter don't worry). They also took a lot of my work out of context, cherry picked the negative bit's giving their article a slight anti-Jackson swing. This has made me realize, more than ever, that it's very important to make sure everything I write about him is as accurate and neutral as possible.
 * I set up the Wikiproject for Janet Jackson at WP:JANET myself and obviously I'm a major contributor to that. I've got a few articles relating to her to GA.
 * I've reviewed about 10 articles for WP:GAN and fully expect to review more articles in the future. I've also commented at FA nominations. I have nominated both GA and FA articles for reassessment if they no longer meet the criteria, then I feel really bad for nominating them and usually help out improving them. — Realist  2  22:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Where do you do background or behind-the-scenes work? Do you find yourself at WP:ANI, WP:XFD, WP:ER, etc?
 * I report vandalism, but usually contact specific admins for help as I hate AN/ANI. I usually contact User:Iridescent or User:Rodhullandemu who give advise or intervene themselves. I do use the AN/ANI boards sometimes but they really need changing. I request page protection at the appropriate notice board. I have about an 80% success rate there, I'm a strong protectionist I will admit. I don't like IP's very much (they cause a lot of trouble on my watchlist) and I feel strongly about protecting BLP articles from tabloid crap. More recently I have started nominating articles for RfD as part of my WP:MJJ clean out, I understand that quite well. — Realist  2  22:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is a dispute you have been in and how did you handle it?
 * Would this be a dispute over article content or a dispute over other things unrelated to articles? I've had my fair share of both and don't mind discussing them. — Realist  2  22:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your goals on Wikipedia?
 * My goal on wikipedia, I don't really have a goal, my only "goal" was to get Michael Jackson to FA, something I have already done. Now I just edit for the enjoyment of it. I guess I would like respect, I feel people have a low opinion of me, maybe in the future that will be different. — Realist  2  22:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputes
Being able to resolve disputes amicably is a great skill in an editor, so let's go ahead and discuss a couple of disputes, then, that you've had and how you handled them. Perhaps one about content and one about something else? Or whatever else that comes to mind. Obviously there was that sockpuppetry case on which we clashed, but it sounds like you have had others as well. Useight (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, my first dispute that I can remember was when I was blocked for 3RR. There was an edit war regarding the sales figures of the Thriller album. The dispute was happening on both the Michael Jackson article and Thriller album article. One editor was trying to change the sales figure on one article and another editor was trying to do it on the other article. They were both friends looking at the discussions they had on one another's talk pages. It seemed to me that they were either sock puppets or they had communicated off wiki and decided to tag team and change the figures. I should have reported my suspicions but instead I just kept edit warring and was rightfully blocked.


 * I was blocked again for 3RR and not discussing changes, it was the same issue involving the same people. However the blocking admin didn't research the events correctly. Since it involved two articles I actually had built and took part in a very lengthy consensus building task on one of the talk pages. I was then upholding the consensus of 5 editors who agreed with my compromise against those two editors. If the blocking admin had bothered to look at both the article talk pages she would have realized I wasn't edit warring. I eventually pointed this out in my unblock request, another admin looked into it, eventually the original admin came back to wikipedia and unblocked me. The first block was fair, the second wasn't fair, still I've had no problems with 3RR since.


 * My next block was for incivility. An editor who I was very friendly with was using multiple IP's to racially attack me, blank my work and stick goatse on my user page (over a long period of time). I said a lot of really bad things to the IP's in retaliation. Eventually it emerged that the IP's were from an editor on wikipedia I liked and again I retaliated towards the editor upon discovering this. I was blocked but the admin didn't know about the racial bullying etc. The editor involved was blocked indefinitely. While I was blocked I could still edit my talk page. I called the blocked editor a "bigot" on my own talk page and my block was extended for "harassment and personal attacks". It was extended for calling a spade a spade. Not to mention, how could I be harassing a blocked editor who probably wasn't reading my talk page. Another injustice, one admin declined my unblock request twice. I had to tell the admin to back off and let another admin take a look. She later apologized for this. By this time shit was flying and a lot of people were unhappy with the way I was treated. The issue was taken to ANI and I was unblocked. User:Rjd0060 apologized for the original incivility block and the extension for saying "bigot". Having two admins apologize to me was a new experience, I never realized admins could apologize until then. More on this can be seen here. I haven't been blocked since then. I made a request for Rollback shortly afterward, there was some reluctance at first but after further investigation of my block history it was decided that the blocks shouldn't be held against me.


 * Since these blocks I've kind of had an axe to grind with admins. Lol


 * I famously declared war on a number of admins over what I felt was bullying of User:Xp54321. He was getting picked on over every error he made and I felt there was a deliberate effort to drive him off wikipedia. There were the sock cases made against him where people were saying thinks he had no way of disproving, I didn't like that. Me and Iridscent got in a huge argument at one stage when I read that she had considered blocking me. She had suspicions I was a sock of User:Kodster. It was a breach of AGF in my opinion. I then began the infamous "I DEMAND A CHECKUSER" case over at ANI where I wanted to clear my name, I also called her bitter and hormonal. Me and Irid have since patched things up rather well.


 * Overall I would say I haven't handled these things well, but I usually find myself in rare situations. I find that once I've made a mistake I learn from it quickly by the second occasion. More recently another editor thought I was being in civil but that was a language barrier on my part. I went out of my way to assure him that I wasn't being in civil and he accepted my explanation and all was fine. — Realist  2  21:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's quite a story. You have indeed run into some interesting situations. I'd have to agree that you didn't handle them as well as you could have, an edit like this is unacceptable in any circumstance. It seems like you have somewhat of a tendency to go "flying off the handle" as they call it. Perhaps take a look at WP:COOL, it's got a whole bunch of suggestions and a neat little chart. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA make up the core of our community, in my opinion, and these are some of the best traits an editor can have. However, I've somehow managed to avoid situations like those, pretty much the worst than has happened to me can be found at User:Useight/Complaints. So I'm not real familiar with these kinds of things happening to me. But it does seem that you came out having learned and improved, becoming a better editor for it. Useight (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, even though the provocation was unacceptable so was my response. I would say I'm more thick skinned now and don't bat an eyelid anymore when someone calls me a nigger or whatnot. That link you pointed out makes me cringe, I've looked over the incident many times. Sometimes I laugh at myself for getting so worked up. It was quite embarrassing having a mate torment you with an IP like that, but it's made me a lot stronger here and I can sympathies or help other editors in a similar position. It's definitely worth making a cup of tea over smacking the keyboard when in these situations. — Realist  2  04:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, over the last few days you've had to put up with a lot. Editors creating insulting accounts. Editors vandalizing some of the articles into which you've put the most effort. I must say, you handled it very well, both calmly and maturly. You've definitely improved since times past. Useight (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Realist2/RfA Criteria
Let's talk about your RFA criteria next, that could be interesting. This is what I've gleaned from it so far: #4 and #5 are kind of redundant, and #7 is a pretty tough requirement. Useight (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How are they redundant, I'm not sure what redundant means in this context. As for #7, I agree it is a touch requirement but I'm very big on article building, I've bumped into a few deletionist admins who have no understanding of what is or isn't a good article. My criteria has been discussed on the talk page and I did explain that there are certain editors I would support even if they had never written an article. I'm definitely open to making exceptions, in the case of User:Jaysweet for example. — Realist  2  16:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, so in #4, you don't mean 6 consecutive months with 200+ edits, just 6 total? I had inferred that you wanted them to be continuous, which would make #5 redundant (an editor could not conform to #4 without also conforming to #5). Useight (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They can be be non consecutive, split up over a long period of time, just as long as there are 6 of them. I also don't want to see that someone has taken a long break before applying for RfA, things change quickly don't you think? — Realist  2  17:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, as long as they can be non-consecutive, they aren't redundant. Just making sure. And, yes, certainly, things change over time. Obviously this is a volunteer project, so people come and go, but I, too, want to see that the candidate is active for some time prior to the RFA. Useight (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I think if someone hasn't been editing much 4 months prior to an RfA attempt that's a legitimate reason to go neutral or oppose. — Realist  2  17:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that that is a good assumption. If they have had sub-100 or so edits in recent months, they might not be very familiar with the current situation. Useight (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Goals
Hmm, I was looking at your answer to the goals question above, and then I happened to stumble upon User:Realist2/to do. How's that coming along? Useight (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's going well, Thriller (album) is currently at FAC (hopefully it will pass) and I've nominated D.S. (song) for GA, just waiting for someone to review it. The Jackson 5 and Jackson family are long term thinks. Marvin Gaye isn't for me, another editor is asking for help so I'm providing him with long term advise on improving it. — Realist  2  23:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thriller (album) passed FA (my second FA article now). D.S. song failed it's GA review but I've been working at it and plan to renominate it soon. — Realist  2  01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent job, the list is growing. Useight (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
Over the last few days I have done a GA review, someone came to my talk page and asked me if I could review their article. I did a bit of the clean up myself and then left a list of corrections for things I couldn't fix. Today I made a successful report at Admin intervention against vandalism. Also today I have been protecting the Sarah Palin article. I also welcomed my first editor today using a template. — Realist  2  20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, nice work. You're all over the board doing a variety of tasks. I've never done a formal review. Useight (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you used the User Creation Log to welcome that new editor? That's also a good place to catch new vandals and fix good faith edits made by newcomers. Useight (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oww, never seen that before, no I just noticed someone was new, they were using a talk page as a forum, not in a nasty way or anything. I though I would give a welcome template which gives them links to some of out policies. I will have to monitor that creation log. — Realist  2  13:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Some questions
I'm interested to see your answers to these two questions. Useight (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) In your opinion, what is the most important policy on Wikipedia and why?
 * Hmm, there are 3 policies that are at the top of my agenda, I'm not sure if I could rank them 1,2,3 but they are all very important. WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM. Maybe that shows how much of an article writer I am though. I believe the worse problem with Wikipedia is that it attracts a lot of breaking news, usually negative news about a living person. IP's or new accounts are set up and people report this news on articles as if it's a big deal to the biography or what not. The truth is in two days the excitement will pass and it won't be such a big deal, yet we are still left with this article that is terribly unbalanced by this recent event. I'm a strong believer that protecting the biographies of people dead or alive is important, more important than the project itself. If our articles cause another human being, no matter who it is, to suffer unfairly, be it financially or emotionally, the project should be ended. Of course, the reality is that our project has already damaged real peoples lives with falsehoods etc etc. I don't have the power to close the project so all I can do is try to protect biographies the best I can. Why should other people have to suffer for our little hobby?
 * 1) If you could change any policy without any restrictions, what would you change?
 * I suppose I believe some topics (biographies mostly) should be permanently semi protected. I have no problem with IP's editing articles, I just believe the importance of protecting the person, out ways the pro's of allowing IP's to edit them. Another thing I would change would the our policy regarding Fair-Use. I think the criteria is too restrictive for some things. Take Michael Jackson for example, he's the most famous man in the world yet Free pictures are really hard to get. One of those pictures (The music video shoot with his sister) is a fair use image. That's all we have, no live performances, not much 90's coverage, no 2000's coverage. How can an article on one of the most charismatic live performers and visual artists look so dull? I also think the picture policy issue is far too complicated for most editors to understand. — Realist  2  02:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally I would make some alterations to the 3RR rule. For new, inexperienced editors the title is misleading. Many believe they will not be blocked if they stick within the margin, however people can be blocked for edit warring without breaching more than 3 reverts. Of course, it could be argued that these editors should read the policy correctly. But many people read the misleading magazine cover title without opening the magazine to find the content of the story is somewhat different. I think the 3RR title should be replaced with edit warring. — Realist  2  01:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the long break, my final semester of school just begun and I've been really busy. I should have expected that response for Question 1. Most of the time I've known you, you've been protecting others from libel. It is indeed very important work and I commend you for taking that angle on the encyclopedia. It's a difficult thing to monitor and often results in angry editors throwing things back in your face, but, as in all tough jobs, someone has got to do it. Again, excellent work in that area. Useight (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, we all have real lives. — Realist  2  01:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Some more questions
To be a well-rounded editor it is good to participate in a number of these areas. I know you have done some of these, but go ahead and indicate which areas in which you are highly experienced, in which you work occasionally, and in which you have never worked. Perhaps some of these would make good pies for you to get your fingers in. Useight (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Do you list vandals at WP:AIV?
 * Yes
 * 1) Do you request page protections at WP:RFPP?
 * Yes
 * 1) Have you tagged articles for speedy deletion, PROD, XFD?
 * I do a bit of AfD work. I rarely do speedies unless it's obvious vandalism. I'm generally of the opinion that more than one person should have a say in any one action.
 * 1) Have you critiqued other users at WP:ER?
 * No
 * 1) Have you had an editor review yourself?
 * No
 * 1) Do you receive the Signpost or otherwise read it?
 * Yes, I now receive the sign post, I used to read it off other people.
 * 1) Do you use automated tools (TWINKLE, popups, VandalProof, .js tools, etc.)?
 * I recently installed Twinkle (about 2 weeks ago), I only use it for AGF rollbacks, template warnings and AfD stuff.
 * 1) What XFD's have you participated in?
 * AfD's, but I usually do more of the nominating work rather than the "voting" aspect
 * 1) Have you posted or answered a question at the Reference Desk or the Help Desk?
 * I've posted one answer at the help desk about a week ago
 * 1) Have you uploaded an image?
 * When I first started yes I did. Usually getting it wrong all the time. These days I'm quite good at giving fair use rationals though. So if I needed a fair image I could upload it correctly.
 * 1) Do you welcome users?
 * Yes recently started doing that.
 * 1) Have you mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
 * Yes, I did on the Obama talk page. It was a very complex debate about Obamas various controversial "associations", how much weight they should have if at all. I was taking the middle ground, even though I'm a crazed liberal. Tried to keep the partisan's on both sides working together. Unfortunately when it comes to people who want to push an agenda, one way or the other, they can rarely be stopped by us mere mortals without block buttons lol. I think I can be a neutral voice, getting Michael Jackson to where it is now was no easy feat.
 * 1) Have you participated in discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI?
 * Yes but I loath those pages, it's a blood bath and admins are to slow to reply.
 * 1) Have you taken a look at meta philosophies?
 * No
 * 1) Have you helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?
 * No

The question then is then why haven't you participated in some of those areas? Obviously, you don't have to edit in them all, and you don't want to spread yourself too thinly, but let's just explore. Let's start at the top and work our way down the list. Starting at AIV, I see you have 5 edits there (at least out of the last 50,000 edits that have been made to that page), which is somewhat low, but I would not consider that a problem, as most editors don't come across a myriad of vandals to report (many reports come from editors using automated tools), and I, myself, only had 14 edits there when I passed RFA last December.

As for requesting page protections, I see you have 49 edits there, so it looks like you're pretty active in that area. And that is particularly good because it is an oft-overlooked place (in fact, I've never edited there). I commend you for that.

Next, and lastly for now, is editor review. You've never been on either side of a review. Why is that? Is it uninteresting? Is the backlog too daunting? Had you just never thought about it? Useight (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well with AIV I often find I'm beaten to the post. Like yesterday for example. An IP was vandalizing the The Jackson 5 and Tito Jackson article. While I handed out 4 warnings, someone else reported him to AIV just before I could. There are many instances when someone else sneaks in and reports it lol. You should also check out my hundreds of messages to Rodhullandemu & Iridescent. I have been using them as my own person AIV. It wasn't deliberate, it's just they always edit at the same time as me, I'm friendly with both of them, they reply quickly, I'm not a fan of the AN/ANI thing. I guess I became a little too dependent on their assistance. This is something I'm trying to cut down on, only seeking advise when something is new to me. I'll still have random chats with them because they are nice admins.


 * I'm still sharpening up on my page protection reporting. I have about a 80% success rate. I've made some "bad reports" because I wanted article talk pages semi protected. I stopped asking for that as it's rarely successful.


 * The editor reviews I've seen tend to be mean, they can be more negative than RfA's sometimes. — Realist  2  09:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree. At AIV, it's really common to get beaten to the punch. Many times I attempt to block an account listed there after I finish reviewing the circumstances, but end up getting the big, red notice: "Account already blocked". Having your own personal AIV admins isn't a bad idea, either. A lot of people use WP:AN/K for this kind of stuff, so that's on par with that. Useight (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As for RFPP, I'd say 80% isn't too bad, although closer to 90% couldn't hurt. I'm not sure though, because I don't work in that area (I only protect pages when I happen to stumble upon an edit war). But the point is that you're working there and trying to improve and make a footprint there. I think your best footprint, though, is in the mainspace, which, in my opinion, is the most important place to be (after all, we are here to build an encyclopedia). Other namespaces could be thought of as a "side dish". And as you mentioned above, protecting talk pages is rarely done as the goal of protection is to keep edit warring off the article and move the discussion to the talk page. Useight (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wanted to protect the talk pages because IP's were writing things like "Rhianna is a slut", "Jacko is a pedo" etc etc. At some point the talk page was being used solely as an attack piece rather than for discussing the article. Shrug, what can you do. — Realist  2  15:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Successful report at AIV. — Realist  2  16:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice. Stuff like that shows that you know what you are doing and would know when to block (or decline to block) if you were to run for adminship. Useight (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also did some work on the recent changes last night, I tagged two articles for speedy deletion because they were fake and reported a page move vandal to AN. He was blocked and the articles were deleted. — Realist  2  12:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. Perhaps you might also find Special:NewPages to be an interesting place where you can also tag articles and find vandals. Useight (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (I always wanted to do you of these)
King of Pop (album) and D.S. (song) both passed GA today! Recently I tried to get Loose (album) semi protected any my request was declined. I was told to watchlist it instead (which I already do) :-( — Realist  2  19:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just saw that King of Pop had passed and I came here to congratulate you! Nice work! And the article was only started a couple of months ago. You're a GA machine. Useight (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history of Loose (album), it was borderline, I'm guessing some admins would've semi-protected and some wouldn't've. One instance of vandalism each day isn't too bad. Useight (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So it's more the rate of bad edits rather than the ratio of bad edits that should be taken into consideration. — Realist  2  17:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems the rate is indeed more important than the ratio, at least I'd say so. On Loose (album), there weren't any good edits (aside from your reversions) to balance the vandalism, but it was only once a day. I'd be more prone to issue semi-protection if it was vandalized three times in a single day, especially if it was done my multiple IP addresses or accounts. Useight (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that might explain why I haven't been hitting a 90% success rate, I've been looking at the ratio too much. That should help things. — Realist  2  18:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hours ago I left a message over at AN asking for assistance with Womanizer (song). No-one has thus far replied, I can't do it alone, and I really would rather not go down the protection route if at all avoidable...— Realist  2  21:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess it's time to try WP:AN/K? — Realist  2  21:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Is my user page too divisive?
You can be honest about this, please do in fact. You are a conservative and your my editing couch, so your better than anyone on this. I've never had anyone complain about my user page before, it's always been well received. I didn't think anyone took it that seriously, it's just tongue in cheek stuff at most. That said, some are easily offended, particularly strong liberals/conservatives. If the political info needs toning down let me know. — Realist  2  17:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What gave away my conservatism? Anyway, after a careful review of your userpage, most of it isn't too controversial and I definitely don't find it offensive, even though I do disagree with a majority of your political views (which doesn't matter in the slightest). Obviously this question came up because of the conversation with DrAmerica, and he was just looking to push his agenda. But perhaps removing your DGAF userbox would be a good idea. Another idea, which may or may not be beneficial, would be to break it up into a few subpages and link to them from your main userpage. Perhaps one for your political views, one for your "People who hate me", etc. I suggest this mostly because your page is kind of long, not due to the content. As a very conservative individual, I'm fine with the content, it is quite mild for the Internet. Useight (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed the DGAF userbox, I was tempted to remove it the other day. One of the reason's my user page is so long is because of the RfA thing at the bottom. At some point I will be removing it and save it at a page of it's own, just for the positive memories in wiki-years to come. Lol, I read you were a conservative on one of your pages once. I have a good memory, I always try to remember if someone is male, female, nationality, sexuality etc etc. After all, we are all people behind this screens and it's nice to have a diverse community that respects individuality. We aren't just numbers and stats. :-) — Realist  2  13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well put. Nobody likes to be called "him" when they are a "her" or vice versa. Useight (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Requests for adminship/SoWhy is an eye opener. — Realist  2  22:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In relation to the content of his userpage? Useight (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes me think I should burn my user page lol. It might just be an odd co-incidence. Maybe the community is changing it's view of what userpages are to be used for. I must have missed that memo. In unrelated news I had a successful page protection request today on M.I.A. (artist). I'm also angry about this Dr. America thing, he's made me feel terrible and is becoming quite annoying to be honest. *Shrug* — Realist  2  03:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't feel about what he has to say, he's just trying to push our buttons. He also showed up on my talk page and gave me some flak. I did tell him that I would not be continuing to converse with him and that he is in violation of WP:TEND. Hopefully he will calm down and become a benefit to Wikipedia. If not, this incident will just roll off my back like everything else. Useight (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll try to do the same (calling me a bigot was a sticking point), I'm sorry he's after you too. — Realist  2  03:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed he did attack you more directly than me, but try to shake it off. Useight (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible adminship
Just out of curiosity, would you really decline to go for adminship before your list reaches 55 supporters? I only had 79 supporters in my successful RFA. Useight (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't be running for adminship anytime soon, I'm fully aware I have made too many enemies to physically pass an RfA at 75%. With bogus AN reports like the one User:Ogioh made last night, I don't stand a chance. — Realist  2  21:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I must agree that you do have an image that would not really help you. The problem with image on Wikipedia is that it is near impossible to change. This is something, though, that could, at least hypothetically, be explained away by the fact that you edit high-traffic articles. Useight (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a master plan, you become a crat, and let me pass my RfA at say 66%? That I can do. :-) — Realist  2  13:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That made me laugh out loud, awesome. Another option is that you make a list of people you think will oppose and I can block them for a well-timed week. So many possibilities :P. I did notice, though, that you've gotten more than half-way through your list of 55. Useight (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that sounds like even more fun. Yes, in recent days a lot of people have been adding their name. Even a sock master tried to add his. It's probably best that I keep a low head for a few months, and avoid many of the drama spots. I should probably stay away from RfA's as well, I've gone opposed or neutral so many times, sure that will come back to haunt me. — Realist  2  18:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * RFA is indeed the place to go for drama, but I hope that people wouldn't oppose you in an RFA soley because you opposed theirs. If that's the case, I'd never be able to pass an RFB. Take a look at User:Useight/RFA Participation, I've voted "Oppose" 86 times, "Weak Oppose" 17 times and "Strong Oppose" thrice. Hopefully people at your future RFA will be able to look beyond your RFA participation. The problem is that beyond your RFA participation is more drama. Useight (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)