User talk:Andrew Davidson/permissions

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

AutoWikiBrowser
Hi Andrew, I've granted you the AWB permission for 24 hours, as I'll do for any of the other participants who ask. However, you easily meet the requirements, so after you've tried it out, just drop a note back at Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser to give a better idea of where you're going to use it. --RexxS (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How did the Skillshare session go? Did you find AWB useful? --RexxS (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It went reasonably well and I understand the tool better now. The main issue now is that it seems to rely mainly on Windows and that's not an operating system that I use much now.  Rich said that there's a Linux option so I'll look into that when I get a chance. Andrew D. (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear. There's a JavaScript version called JavaScript Wiki Browser that runs inside almost any browser, so is OS-independent. It's not quite the same, but should be perfectly usable under Linux. If you try it out, let me know how you find it. --RexxS (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. JWB sounds better and seems to load correctly so that I can see its interface.  Please can you extend my permissions so that I can try using it. Andrew D. (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's all taken care of, Andrew. If and when you decide you want the permission permanently, just let me know. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. JWB sounds better and seems to load correctly so that I can see its interface.  Please can you extend my permissions so that I can try using it. Andrew D. (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's all taken care of, Andrew. If and when you decide you want the permission permanently, just let me know. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

 * You're welcome. I have followed up at WP:RFP/NPR. Andrew D. (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Andrew Davidson. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.


 * Thanks, I'll give it a try. Andrew D. (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Andrew Davidson. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Alex Shih (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll check out the details. Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

NeilN
I am dismayed to see the amount of hostility that you are receiving at the current RfA. Even though your viewpoint is clearly a minority one, you raise legitimate points. I myself !voted in support of the candidate, but I recognize that a difference of opinion should be respected. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Such badgering of opposes is normal at RfA so I'm accustomed to it but it's good to have your support.  And, whatever the immediate result, I sometimes get more accolades later.  Recent examples from my career as Colonel Warden include: "Particular credit to the illustrious Col. Warden who noted during the RFA...";  "At this point Colonel Warden's sole Oppose turns out like some kind of genius..." Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You've always spoken your mind at RfA, and I know you do a lot of content work and are a good editor. Nothing wrong with stating your opinion whatsoever. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

APerson

 * I suppose you mean this, right? You're very welcome.  When's your turn in the stocks...?  Andrew D. (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thine Antique Pen
I thought you should know that you were mentioned here, as it didn't seem you had been notified by ping or otherwise. Samsara 00:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am quite busy currently but will try to respond briefly. Andrew D. (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Eclectic variety

Hi Andrew. I thought I'd bring conversation over here as I detest long threaded discussion at RfAs - it's just not fair on the candidate. I hope you don't mind. You mention that Thine Antique Pen's contributions are formulaic, I do agree that he does spates of formulaic creation, and I believe that's been a way of participating in the Wikicup. But the articles he's written well don't appear to be formulaic at all - paintings, volcanoes on the moon, Wheelchair basketball players, military history. All are a selection the good articles he's written over the years. I struggle to see how he's got a narrow approach in general. WormTT(talk) 13:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I take your point and will look through these and other articles when I have more time. But the comments of user Yngvadottir also concern me - the candidate may still too much of a point-scoring attitude and this might carry through to their behaviour as an admin.  I'll keep an eye on the RfA and reconsider after we have more input. Andrew D. (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm not trying to change your vote - I have no problem with the oppose, just the idea that he's been creating articles by rote goes directly against my nomination and I thought I should address that. WormTT(talk) 08:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have just studied those topics more closely. I give the candidate full marks for attempting varied and difficult topics but am now quite concerned about some aspects of this work.  The Compton–Belkovich Thorium Anomaly is a challenging technical topic, which seems to have been written from scratch.  If we look at the state of it before other editors got involved, it seems quite weak to the point of being incoherent.  For example, the sentence, "It only appears when there is the highest amount of concentrated Thorium possible."  doesn't make any sense and so seems to have been written without understanding.


 * The article Battle of Besançon starts better but seems to have been translated from the French wikipedia. For example, consider the translation of the following sentence: " La majorité des protagonistes protestants parviennent cependant à s'enfuir ; les assaillants capturés sont quant à eux pendus avec les Bisontins réputés traîtres. The majority of the Protestant army managed to escape, but those who were captured were hanged with traitors."


 * That doesn't read quite right because the context for the word traîtres has been dropped. Another editor then comes along and copy edits this and the original meaning is then garbled: "The majority of the Protestant army managed to escape, but those who were captured were hanged as traitors."


 * What's especially shocking, in this case, is that there seems to have been no attribution of the original authors of the French article. This is contrary to the best practice given at WP:CWW.  As the candidate has claimed both DYK and GA credit for the article, without seeming to mention its origin in those processes, this seems to be unacceptable plagiarism, "Do not make the work of others look like your own. Give credit where it is due." Andrew D. (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

BethNaught
Andrew, I'm saddened to see you pursuing you usual manner of participation at RfA. I realise that you very occasionally support candidates but this vote once again demonstrate a clear pattern that has emerged over the years including your work as Colonel Warden. We are trying to make adminship a more interesting prospect for users of the right calibre but the style and relevance of the voting  is exactly what discourages them. I'm sure you will understand that I and other users now feel it is possibly getting close to the time for the broader community to comment in another venue on what appears to be your agenda. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want to pile on at the RfA, but I'd like to add that implying the candidate's gender, or disclosure thereof, has anything to do with their suitability as an admin is totally inappropriate. Sam Walton (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This RfA is still open and so it seems best to keep discussion over there. Andrew D. (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Why would you move this discussion halfway up your talkpage? Is it because you don't wish to continue discussion over your clearly odd position at this RFA? Perhaps you have something to hide? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To bring related topics together. It's how I tend to file topics which I'm keeping. Andrew D. (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well. Hopefully by now you see the error of your way here. If not I sure the community will disregard your future attempts to contribute at RFA. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Each case goes differently, depending on its merits. We shall see... Andrew D. (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's clear that you have no alignment with the community, which is fine, but as a word of friendly advice, you need to address your discriminatory tone in future, unless you wish to lose any credibility you thought you had. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Rollback
Your userpage is on my watchlist (as you may now have guessed) and I accidentally clicked the rollback link. I apologise for that, I think it's fixed now. BethNaught (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Accidents will happen – especially on a touch-screen device such as a tablet, I find.  If, as seems likely, you become an admin, you should please be careful not to block editors accidentally – this seems quite easy to do and is harder to undo, I gather.


 * Our discussion at the RfA was hatted so if you've anything more to add, feel free to continue here.  But I already expect your prior history was as you indicated.  If you have a maths background, then you probably took to wiki-markup and conventions quite quickly.  I have an aptitude for maths and coding too but have still found the learning curve to be significant and so had trouble understanding how you would learn so well as an IP.  No doubt we have a different approach...


 * Andrew D. (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be careful, I promise! But for now I have used CSS to remove the rollback links from my watchlist. As for my learning approach, I guess I spent a lot of time reading the manual. BethNaught (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, for your information Andrew, blocking people involves multiple clicks and selections of drop downs, whereas rollback can be achieved in one or two clicks. Unblocking people is as straightforward as blocking them, it's the same process as blocking them.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This information is available at WP:ADMINGUIDE/B. Using rollback and blocking/unblocking editors are very different processes. Also, a standard unblock is arguably less complicated because there are not as many inputs required. Mkdw talk 20:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If Andrew is unaware of these differences, then perhaps his "judgement" in who should and should not make an admin is in even further doubt than it already is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a fresh example of someone being accidentally blocked. I trust BethNaught will do a better job. Andrew D. (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an inevitability of the IP address structure. Sometimes editors with accounts will be blocked when a range block is made across a particular IP address.  It happens. (If you'd done your homework, you'd have seen that the editor's account wasn't blocked).  But I guess you can (and will) use it as a reason to oppose other good candidates in future.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Just for your education, in order to determine which users use which IP addresses to edit Wikipedia, the Checkuser flag is required. Just in case you went off to blame other admins for not being able to do this task... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It shouldn't happen in such cases. As I understand it, a soft block would have been better.  It's perhaps hard to assess performance with such admin-only functions at RfA but one might look for a cautious, careful demeanor. Andrew D. (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If the vandalism comes from a small range of IP addresses (which is commonplace) then a rangeblock is the best answer.  I see that you were indefinitely blocked a while ago, perhaps that this sort of thing stings?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that range blocks do not have to include logged-in accounts and should not normally do so because of the high risk of collateral damage. As for myself, I have been blocked several times but I am quite thick-skinned.   Others are not so phlegmatic, though.  For example, I came across someone I once knew on Wikipedia; a quite respectable professional.  I didn't get to do much with him here because it wasn't long before a single block resulted in him walking away from the project completely after 8 years work.  My impression is that such incidents result in the loss of thousands of editors and so are responsible for the general decline in participation.  This attrition of the more sensitive souls then naturally results in the survivors being quite hardened.  Andrew D. (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll need to provide more than just "your understanding" if you're going to claim that a rangeblock results in the loss of thousands of editors. The example you give is a gross misuse of tools and was a good block.  To throw ones toys out and leave, well that speaks more of the editor than the blocking admin.   And somewhat archaic that he would quote a "25/0/0/ admin vote" when these days RFAs have usually around 200 participants.  Getting adminship back then was just a matter of asking your mates for it.  Odd you would talk about attrition of "sensitive souls" when you yourself have shown unlimited insensitivity toward BethNaught.  Ho hum. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Relations between BethNaught and myself seem just fine. They refunded an article for me today and I thanked them for the service.  All's well that ends well... Andrew D. (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Anarchyte/Biblioworm – Admins vs content providers
For once, I have to agree with you. Entirely. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kudpung. Four GAs and about a dozen DYKs mostly written/overhauled from scratch isn't worth anything at all, is it? And neither is thrice outdoing the definition of an active admin. Biblio (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

78.26

 * You're welcome. Note that, by coincidence, I've been researching an old 1912 12-inch single recorded by the Victor Talking Machine Company. Andrew D. (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Egads, this time period was a bit busy for me, and I missed this correspondence. Are you still working on this?  I likely have some sources on this that may help, although DAHR is simply one of the best available.  This was issued twice, first as a single-sided "purple label" disc, and then as a double-sided "blue label" disc.  These were series that were considered prestigious, but not as "high-class" as one of their "Red Seal" series.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 14:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Christmas Day in the Workhouse appeared on the main page on Christmas Day of 2015. It got another good spike of traffic this recent Christmas but that's not surprising.  I've not done much more with it myself but I did write up an interesting pioneer of sound recording last year – Alfred Clark (director).  I have moved on from that topic since it appeared as a DYK so please feel free to pick it up and add more, if you have some specialist knowledge of the period. Andrew D. (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

 * You're welcome. Andrew D. (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Widr
Hi Andrew, I like your posts at RfA/Widr, especially your rationale about the responsibility of admins (of 22:41, 18 March 2016) and the reply to Jdcomix, which combines being informative with humour and brevity.

I was led to the RfA page by a message on the main page. I didn't know that individual RfAs are announced there, too now. This may may explain the observation someone made (which is loosely connected to Jason Quinn's observation about "anchor bias") that people come here towards the end and add a lot of "support|oppose per ..." votings. &mdash; Sebastian 18:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Sebastian. After the 2015 administrator election reform (Phase II in particular), RfA's are now announced on user's watchlists and on the Centralized discussion. Is one of those what you meant by "main page"? The watchlist notice should go up near the beginning of the RfA after a short initial grace period, so it shouldn't be directly responsible for the late voters but it surely is responsible for the larger turnout we've been seeing.
 * I meant the Main Page, I thought it was in the banner on top that is often used for announcements such as ArbCom elections or donation appeals. But it's possible that I misremembered; it was already a couple days ago, and can't check it in my history, because it updated the access dates since. &mdash; Sebastian 23:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmph. I didn't see anything on the main page and I'm not aware of such a thing but it's perfectly possible that it's something that occurs now and I just missed this developement. I'll keep on eye open. Thanks. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As for the late voters, I think many of them (like me) tend to "sit on the fence" and make a decision near the end. When I glance at the late voters, I see many highly active and respected editors that I am certain were following the discussion closely since the RfA commenced. These are people who simply don't like making a decision until they have the most information.
 * Regarding bias, bias at RfA has been something I've been contemplating for a while now. Anchor bias would affect later voters more than earlier voters since there's a feedback loop where each subsequent voter is biased not only by the initial comment but also by the prior bias-contaminated comments. The bias is "stacking" so to say, although the size of the effect on an individual comment likely approaches a saturation level asymptotically. The only way to defeat anchor bias is to randomize the order of the comments or to hold all comments until the end but this is incompatible with the current RfA format, which I think may be the best possible despite its susceptibility to anchor bias. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned about the natural anchor bias you're describing; partly, because I think the distinction to reasonable change of opinion is hard or impossible to do. Take Andrew's vote, for instance. Of course his well thought out arguments are apt to influence me. But why shouldn't I be influence by them? Sympathetically listening to each other's arguments is good behavior in any reasoned discussion; humankind has done that pretty well at least since the rhetoric schools of Athens; why worry about it now? &mdash; Sebastian 23:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments and I'm glad that Sebastian understood me so well.  It's good to get such feedback because opposes at RfA are more usually subject to considerable insult and intimidation.  I suppose that most !voters prefer to sit on the fence for fear of attracting such opprobrium.  See groupthink for more on this.  I would prefer a secret ballot more like the arbcom elections to counter this. Andrew D. (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Re groupthink, I used to call it "sheep vote" back in 2005. This was the last edit to the essay. (Can you see it? Not sure if diffs to deleted pages work for you). In 2012 I deleted the page, because I felt "|it doesn't represent my view anymore". I'm more worried about groupthink among administrators; I think I wrote about that on WP:AN on occasion, but I can't find that now. &mdash; Sebastian 02:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see the diff when logged-in because I'm an admin. I was curious if it could be seen while logged-out, and when I tried it it gives shows the Special page "Permission error" that says:
 * You do not have permission to view this page's deleted history, for the following reason:
 * The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Oversighters, Researchers, Checkusers.
 * So there's no security hole. I haven't been able to find any matching interface page for this message so it may be hard-coded into MediaWiki. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this the page you're looking for? sheep voting Andrew D. (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the one, as the hatnote states. &mdash; Sebastian 07:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Amakuru
Re this edit, it required no "admin powers"- any editor could have done the same thing. I made the edit because as a Wikipedian I care about WP:BLP and as a Bureaucrat, I care about RfA. BLP mandates no need for discussion nor consensus, more it directs us to remove breaches "immediately" - I suggest you read the policy. Incidentally, I'd have done the same, if I saw it, for a similar comment from any editor. I'm not sure why you think that your helpfully improving my text at WP:ERRORS would mean I'd single you out for specially nasty and vindictive redacting. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * When I saw your comment in the oppose section, it took me a while to figure out what it meant. I checked the edit history but, for some reason, I couldn't see the update – perhaps a cache needed refreshing or perhaps I couldn't see for looking.  I then supposed that it was some sort of hidden revdel/oversight action.  Now I look again, it's clear as a normal edit so thanks for the explanation.


 * I can't see the point of doing this via ordinary editing though as that will tend to draw attention to the redacted text per the Streisand effect. Anyway, I wondered if it was something to do with the article being an FA but then recalled the WP:ERROR incident.  If that's got nothing to do with it then that's fine.  It might help avoid confusion and speculation if the nature of such edits was made clearer.  If it is an official bureaucrat clerk action then perhaps this could be indicated by a different colour?


 * As for BLP, it seems quite a stretch for it to be applied in this case, as one would not normally put citations to sources in such a discussion and RfA will become quite complex if we start having to do this any time we're discussing such a subject. Otherwise we'll start having to use euphemisms like "the d-word" and that will get confusing too.  The NYT interview indicates that we do have to watch what we say about Kagame though and so it's good to be reminded of this. Andrew D. (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC) "Several dissidents said that Rwanda fields a lethal intelligence service with assassins who can operate anywhere. Rene Claudel Mugenzi, a Rwandan human rights activist living in England, told me that in March 2011, Kagame was on a BBC radio show when Mugenzi called in and asked a provocative question — whether an Arab Spring-like revolution could erupt in Rwanda. A few weeks later, two Scotland Yard bobbies rapped on Mugenzi’s door to deliver a letter. “Reliable intelligence states that the Rwandan government poses an imminent threat to your life,” it read. Mugenzi was stunned. “I never thought they would try to kill me in the U.K.,” he said."

- The Global Elite’s Favorite Strongman

If you'd like to amend our BLP policy, start a discussion at WT:BLP. Until then, we are mandated to remove immediately breaches of the policy wherever they appear, not just in article space. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah
I did my Ph.D. and a postdoc in astrophysics. While "in the constellation X" is great grammatically, astronomers say "located in the constellation X" all the time. I recommend you strike this objection from your oppose in Oshwah's RfA. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * When one makes an appropriate search, there don't seem to be any cases where the word "located" is used in this way. They all seem to say just "in the constellation Sagittarius" or "in Sagittarius".  My view remains that adding the word "located" is not an improvement and the candidate should not be claiming GA credit for such edits.  I qualify my doubts by using the words "debatable" and "arguably" and this seems adequate. Andrew D. (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban proposals
FYI, please see Administrators' noticeboard. Sam Walton (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That went better than I expected. My thanks to the participants for their fair-minded stance. Andrew D. (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Some additional links, for the record
 * Discussion of Cyberpower678's close
 * Final AN archive
 * Samwalton9's further thoughts on the matter

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Everymorning (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been moved to Administrators%27_noticeboard. Alex Shih (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have closed this discussion as "no consensus"; however I see a common theme that even those opposing an outright ban have said your views at RfAs tend to be ill thought out and are generally ignored. I would advise reading Advice for RfA voters carefully, otherwise you are likely to find RfA a waste of your time. Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Final AN archive

Ansh666
Hi Andrew, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words. Cheers, ansh 666 23:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Muboshgu
Please withdraw your question, as it is clearly out of line. You simply cannot just speculate without any facts. The right thing to do was to simply ask for clarification, as I do agree it wasn't clearly expressed in the nomination statement. As I handled that RevDel request, the content was a paragraph of gross BLP violation that needed and should have been handled immediately. Thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if you have any objections to this question being removed, I'm inclined to move it and the follow up discussion to the talk page and collapse it. If so you are welcome to ask new questions (and not have that count towards your 2 questions); multiple admins have reviewed the revdel now, and support the removal as-is (I also reviewed it). Thank you, —  xaosflux  Talk 22:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Muboshgu, I've left the majority of the question in place, but redacted the specific article information. — xaosflux  Talk 04:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted. Andrew D. (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Prospective candidates
Since this'll get lost in the noise at WT:RFA.....

I thought was an admin already, so that'll be a "support" from me. I have worked on at least one article with but I'm blowed if I can remember what it was; his AfD stats look good so I would probably support on that too. Never heard of so can't really give an opinion. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good words, both of you, but I remain uninterested in becoming an Admin. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And there's the rub - everyone who would be a good administrator doesn't want to be one. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Checking I find that there's lots of overlap between Edwardx and Ritchie333. If you add me in too then there's just three articles which we have all edited at some time:  Boris Johnson; Denmark Street; Oxford Street. Andrew D. (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thinking of me Andrew and Ritchie333. There are a few areas it would help me in for content creation, and for my growing deletion activity, being able to look at the text of previously deleted articles, for example. Yet am just not seeing any compelling need. RfA may yet happen. One day... Edwardx (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Silent applause (re Cordless Larry)
I didn't want to write it there. I actually commend your discussion style (except for a few words, of course, like "absurd", but forget that) and applaud your persistence in something you believe in. I'm also in awe that you don't cow down to number pressure – that is, the social pressure of having a huge number of editors against you. It's an honest appreciation of you. Warmly, Lourdes  04:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you – your kind comment is much appreciated. Our discussions are supposed to be based on the quality of argument rather than its quantity but this is not always easy.  Feynman tells a story which sticks in my mind as the ideal. Andrew D. (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)"Then Compton, for example, would explain a different point of view. ... So everyone is disagreeing, all around the table. I am surprised and disturbed that Compton doesn't repeat and emphasize his point.  Finally, at the end, Tolman, who's the chairman, would say, "Well, having heard all these arguments, I guess it's true that Compton's argument is the best of all, and now we have to go ahead."   It was such a shock to me to see that a committee of men could present a whole lot of ideas, each one thinking of a new facet, while remembering what the other fella said, so that, at the end, the decision is made as to which idea was the best—summing it all up—without having to say it three times.  These were very great men indeed."

RexxS
It might be a little bit late, but I for one enjoyed your little play-on-words - or puun - as I have been known to call them. Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm not getting your puun pun yet but will think on't. Andrew D. (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49
Thanks for taking the time to ask me a question and otherwise consider my candidacy at RfA. To have that consideration end in support is an honor. This is especially true because I kind of ducked your question - I have run into at least one other Barkeep49 and so I wanted to be rather cautious about linking this account to anything except Wikimedia. So further thanks for that forbearance. I look forward to our paths crossing again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I understood your answer to mean that the account name had first been used elsewhere.  I'm still mildly curious about the details but accept that you might not want to say too much for privacy reasons.  Andrew D. (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Greenman
You disrupted RfA for years with your persistent systematic oppose votes. Unnecessary drama there is one of the reasons why candidates won't come forward. Your attempts at being vindictive for my pointing it out won't wash - if you are going to continue to teach people at your editathons, please consider brushing up on some of the inclusion criteria: human settlements are considered notable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to refer to Greenman's RFA, which Kudpung opposed. I did not oppose and the candidate described my questions as a "a welcome change from the others".  The populated place in question was Lulsley.  The RfA is now closed but I am still working on a spinoff which I populated myself yesterday, before walking to the Wikimeet via some other Green Men. Andrew D. (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Rollback
Don't revert discussions on my talkpage ... But thanks for letting me know you're stalking me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I suppose I must have inadvertently clicked my mouse pad while my watchlist was displayed and an undo link got pressed by accident. My apologies. Andrew D. (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No, that would be a "rollback" abuse, not an "undo" (which requires confirmation). Glad to know you're checking on me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My watchlist calls those links "rollback" so that'll be it. Andrew D. (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Either way, please be more careful in future. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm trying the customization suggested at Rollback. So far, so good.  Andrew D. (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for participating on the Myrcella Baratheon AfD. I would encourage you to add any additional sources to the AfD to support your vote and help with the general discussion. If there are enough sources that notability is firmly established, I would be more than happy to work on the article. I have a soft spot for the character so I would be happy to research more on here.

I would also like to apologize for the following edit. I checked your contributions to see if you had participated in the last Myrcella AfD and put up any sources there; while doing so I accidentally reverted one of your edits on another AfD. I have reverted my edit, but I just wanted to apologize for that as it was my mistake. I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The revert glitch is ok; accidents will happen. To avoid this in future, please see Rollback.  I installed the script which is suggested there and haven't had this trouble since. Andrew D. (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. I will check it out. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)