User talk:Ahnoneemoos - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ahnoneemoos (talk | contribs) at 01:56, 16 October 2013 (→federal politics in PR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:56, 16 October 2013 by Ahnoneemoos (talk | contribs) (→federal politics in PR)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is Ahnoneemoos's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This is Ahnoneemoos's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This user doesn't use the View history nor the Watchlist feature on Misplaced Pages and may not be aware of what's going on. If you need to inquire him please leave a message on this talk page, otherwise he won't even notice.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

2009: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Thank you

Thank you for your edits on the "History of women of Puerto Rico" article. They are truly appreciated. The re-naming of the title from "Women in Puerto Rico" to it's current title was perfect and what I was looking for. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you Tony! I think we have a remarkable chance to make this article a WP:GOODARTICLE. Let's keep working together to elevate it to such status. What do you say? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

What do I say? Absolutely! Since you made a GA nomination, I decided to make a temp. removal of the citation tag which may hinder said nom. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Mayoralty_in_Puerto_Rico

I really must protest at the way you are handling this page. You do not own this article. Every time anyone makes an input, you dismiss it as an opinion (e.g. ]) and yet you feel entitled to state your opinions as fact here ]. Just because I have come to a different conclusion to you, it doesn't mean I am unfamiliar with policies. To make this kind of an assertion without evidence is a WP:Personal attack.
In any case, it is you who is not reading or understanding the policies. To make it worse, you are the one that is not familiar with policies. You even have a link on your user page, the relevant policy is ignore all rules. When you have calmed down, removed this attack and started to treat me like a human being then I will try and explain why, but at present I am sick of the ascription to me of views that I do not hold followed by a personal attack.
You raise examples of other articles to support your view ] and then when I refuted your claim that these examples support your view, you accuse me of WP:OSE].
You acuse me of making changes to your comments when I have done no such thing and yet you have changed my comments : ] I don't know what passes for civilised language in Puerto Rico, but the language that you have used here ] is unacceptable.
I am just trying to come to a civil resolution of the problem, as others have before me. I am sorry to say, that you come over as being a bully, a filibuster. Op47 (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not contact me directly ever again. If you have an issue with the way I reply to you on Misplaced Pages go to WP:ANI. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your talkpage is an appropriate place to deal with concerns regarding your communications; however, if you don't like Op47 raising the matter with you, then allow me to discus it with you. It seems you are not aware of it, but you are being incivil. It would be helpful if you adjusted your tone and VOLUME, and listened more closely to what people are telling you. I see you adopting an attitude whereby you feel that you can ignore the views of others (per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) because you feel that you can be bold. Under WP:BRD the process is that you can be bold - but if you are reverted and the consensus is that you are wrong, then you need to accept that and move along. The consensus appears to be that it is not appropriate to have a list of the current mayors of Puerto Rico in two different places. Two possible solutions have been proposed - either have a standalone list, or merge the standalone list into the main article. Your preferred solution of maintaining two separate lists has not gained any agreement. The discussion now needs to move on to which of the two proposed solutions are best: a single list in a standalone article, or a single list in a merged article. I hope you will be able to look back over the discussion with a neutral eye, and take on board what I am saying. SilkTork 11:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that volume could be transmitted through text. Please WP:AGF and leave any preconceptions you may have when coming in. Having said that, WP:BRD does not apply here as there was no consensus reached in the initial discussion. Like I already said in the talk page, and perhaps you should have read that before wasting my time here, when no consensus is reached the initial change must be reincorporated into the article per WP:BEBOLD. Second, it seems you are confusing WP:POLL versus WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is based on POLICIES, not on opinions. So far no one has been able to provide which POLICY this content style violates. However, I have provided SIX guidelines that asserts CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY that such style is MORE THAN FINE and USED ALREADY ON WIKIPEDIA. The discussion doesn't need to move anywhere since it's pointless. Just because four people raised their hand and said, "i don't like that" that doesn't establish consensus. Please feel free to rebuke my arguments on the article's talk page rather than here. I hope you are able to look into this impartially and through the lenses of Misplaced Pages policies as established in WP:CONSENSUS. Please refrain from posting about this matter on my Talk page again and move this conversation to the article's talk page instead. I hope too, that you take on board what I'm saying. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SilkTork 15:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

An abrasive and uncollegiate attitude makes collaborative editing difficult. You have been informed by several people that your views and attitude are not acceptable. You have been informed that your obstructive manner on Mayors in Puerto Rico is not acceptable. I closed the RfC per consensus. Reverting that close, and then restoring the article to your preferred version, is against the principles of collaborative and consensus editing on Misplaced Pages. Being bold does not trump all else. I have blocked you for 60 hours as this is your second block. Please take this time to reflect on your behaviour. If when you return to Misplaced Pages you again engage in incivil or obstructive behaviour it is likely that you will be blocked again, and the next time will be longer. SilkTork 15:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ahnoneemoos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is an unilateral action taken by a single admin. In other words, a WP:WITCHHUNT. The admin has been notified, CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY, the reasons why his modifications were reverted IN EVERY SINGLE PAGE including his very own talk page. The admin, abusing his power, has decided to block me instead of engaging a third party. You may feel free to review all my edits and the admin's talk page to see UNEQUIVOCALLY that everything that I have done is within Misplaced Pages's policies and permissible behavior. This is just a sad power trip by someone who doesn't know how to properly use his administrative privileges and is unfamiliar with our policies; evenmoreso incapable of differentiating between an essay and a policy. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon 15:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What personal attacks? Could you please point them out? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"Sad power trip". "Witch hunt". "Abusing his power". Your characterizations of another volunteer. Since you're blocked for your "abrasive and uncollegiate attitude", you'll need to stop being both abrasive and uncollegial, especially in your unblock request. --jpgordon 16:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but those are not personal attacks. Those are facts. Did you even check the details of all the events that occurred? It is pretty obvious what's going on here. I mean, I never violated ANY policies nor any behavioral issues. Everything that I have done is permissible. So if an admin abuses his power and I call him on doing that then I'm attacking him? So basically admins are IMMUNE to do anything they want and you can't call them out? I'm sorry but you need to look at this from an impartial perspective. How dare you call me uncollegial (is that even a word?) when I'm actively participating in a Good Article nomination collaborative effort at Talk:History of women in Puerto Rico and I'm one of the top article creators on Misplaced Pages? I'm also an active member at WP:WER and have tutored new editors. How dare you call me "uncollegial"? I have been doing this for 12 years since 2001. I invite you to look at how this has transcurred and you will find out UNEQUIVOCALLY that this is an abuse of power by an admin. Every single revert that I made was based on POLICIES, with details on its edit summary, with links to the policy being invoked, and never attacked anyone personally. Yet I'm banned because hey he is an admin and I'm not? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Josh, I have submitted an appeal to the ArbCom Ban Subcommittee on their mailing list. Thank you for your help though, appreciate it even though we disagree. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Seal-office-of-the-governor-of-puerto-rico.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Seal-office-of-the-governor-of-puerto-rico.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Bloonstdfan360 / talk / contribs 03:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOUSERS criticisms in a nutshell

Thanks for the response -- I understand that you are a voluntary contributor, like the rest of us. Please feel no obligation to read my wall, over on the essay-page, or below, for that matter. Mostly both were written for my own purposes (though I tried to be concise here more than there), and to document in depth the places I disagreed (over there), for future readers of your essays.

Here is the TL;DR version. Usernames are fun, making wikipedia fun is (#5 below) crucial to her longetivity, getting rid of usernames will not force people to concentrate on articles, it will force them away from wikipedia. Usernames help anons like me track vandals and revert all their crap (#2 below), not just depend on admins to do it for me, like I would have to do in 4chanpedia. Worst of all, if only chanAdmins can see IPs/pseudonyms, then (#1 below) a rogue chanAdmin will be *extremely* powerful... and that very fact guarantees that (#3 below) such rogue chanAdmins will arise, because the stakes on top-ten-website-in-the-universe wikipedia are tremendously higher than on 4chan. There is no #4. I'm not sure I really understand what you essay proposes, see #0 below. Here is the delicate-stone-archway-of-text equivalent:

Beware thee, an embedded wall of text shalt reveal itself, should ye dare click 'show'......
0. Define 4chanpedia. Zeroth of all, I'm really getting confused about what your essay is proposing. It says right on the tin, NOUSERS. Later, you say there are still admins. In response to one of my questions, you say there will be the ability to login, just nobody except admins will know you have logged in. So, to be perfectly clear, here is what I'm criticizing. When I speak of wikipedia, I mean wikipedia now, with 1m+ invisible readers (only webserverSysadmins can see their IP reading-histories), 100k anonymous IP editors like myself ('everybody' can see my edit-history), 10k pseudonymous editors like yourself (your IP is screened from non-admins), 1k wikiAdmins, often with real names as their usernames, like Jimbo Wales and wikimedia foundation employees and such 100 webserverSysadmins with physical access to the wikipedia hardware What I think you are advocating is this, which I will refer to as 4chanpedia, please correct me if I'm wrong: 1m+ same 100k reallyAnons, screen out the IP-as-a-username, replace it with 'editor' in all the edit-histories, make talkpage -- if any -- invisible except to admins 10k formerPseudonoms-now-reallyAnons, screen out the uid-as-username, replace it with 'editor' in all edit-histories, make talkpage invisible except to admins 1k+ chanAdmins, can still see 'usernames' and talkpages, can still see IPs, can still ban users, but in some way have less powers than wikiAdmins 100 same 1. chanAdmins will become an aristocracy of pull. In 4chanpedia, the only people who 'know people' are chanAdmins. This asymmetric information makes chanAdmins way more powerful than wikiAdmins. If a rogue chanAdmin decides they want a certain article to say a certain thing, they can make it happen -- any reallyAnon who gets in the way will be banned. You claim there will be less personal attacks between reallyAnons, because nobody will know who to attack... but you fail to see that, if you and I are working on article $foo together, both of us reallyAnons, and I start to disagree with your edits, I can get you banned simply by calling in a favor from my friend $admin, saying ban the editor who made $diff. Who would ever know you were gone? With no open user-to-user communication channels, and no open personal edit histories, you would disappear without a trace. Asymmetry of information will lead to corruption, even if we assume all admins are angels, and no reallyAnons are friends with any admins, at the start. Sooner or later, devious reallyAnons will corrupt at least one admin, and once you have one rogue admin, you are in really big trouble, unless the other admins notice. Who will guard those selfsame guardians? I suggest, on the other post, the only way to overcome this guarding-the-guardians problem is if you hide IP addresses from everybody ... including webserverAdmins with physical access to the wikimedia server farm ... a very difficult proposition indeed. See the hyacinth paragraph for blow-by-blow details. 2. Bad-guy-fighting is not impossible, just much harder. Besides corruption of the ban-hammer, leading to corruption of article-content, there is also the difficulty in recruiting wikiAdmins to overcome. You claim that handling vandalism will be easier... based presumably on your assertion that chanAdmins will be far more plentiful than they are now. But I did not catch how chanAdmins will be made more plentiful, exactly... what is the draw that will motivate more people to become chanAdmins, than are currently motivated to become wikiAdmins? If as you say, chanAdmins will be weaker, and purely janitors, then power is not a draw. If, as I explain above, chanAdmins will become arbitrarily powerful aristocrats of pull, well then that is no good either. But just look at my criticism like this: for every wikiAdmin we have now, fighting vandalism takes a fixed amount of work, on average. There are plenty of ways anons and pseudonoms can help fight vandalism, on wikipedia: if we notice a vandal or a spammer, we can revert their change we noticed, and with one click check their edit-trail. I've done it myself; why report something I can clean up without help? On 4chanpedia, chanAdmins will have more work on average: they have to read vandal-alerts from reallyAnon editors, delete the wild goose chases, investigate the rest, and hunt slash patrol. Lots of time spent reading 5000 vandal-alerts, which all turn out to be about the same 12.34.56.78 address... but the chanAdmin has to read those messages one by one, cause otherwise they might miss the 5001st message, about a different reallyAnon vandal. 3. *chanAdmins will* crack under these two new pressures. Under the assumption that corruption is already growing wildly (see point#1), and that vandals and spammers are already winning more often (see point#2), we come to the endgame for wikipedia: some PR firm or spyware firm will bribe one of the admins, successfully. They will probably already have a corrupt relationship with some admins, as part of the aristocracy of pull outlined in point#1. Microsoft once offered to pay some guy in Australia to edit the winword article for 'fairness' ... now they'll be able to do it more easily, as long as they can find just one admin willing to ban a few reallyAnons that get in the way. Readers will never notice, and neither will the other reallyAnon editors, because without pseudonyms, how can you tell who you are editing with, and who has been banned? 4. That is all. I tried to stay concise here, hard as it was, and badly as I can see I failed. "I regret that I did not have time to make this message shorter" -- Pascal p.s. Community-to-protect-n-serve-content now trumps just-content-only. The colorized usernames is a pet peeve of mine. When I see glowing blinking lovingly-crafted usernames, with Dolby-stereo sound-effects, I think of all the time spent, that could have been devoted to articles or to science or to bringing up children properly. But only for a moment. Those awesome usernames are badges of pride -- worn by people proud to be wikipedians. I'm proud of them for being proud of that. So I don't criticize the hours they spend polishing their sig, any more than I would criticize the hours they spend arguing about whether to use infoboxen or not (unless such arguments hurt wikipedia by making it a toxic place to work). Sigs make wikipedia a better place, even though I won't make one personally. Taking away usernames, and taking away userpages, and taking away user-to-user talkpages, hurts wikipedia because it makes it less attractive to potential editors. Look at all the barely-encyclopedic articles we have on television shows and bands and videogames. Those are crucial** articles, because they attract new blood. Some of that new blood eventually edits, and then eventually branches out. That was what the colorized sigs was about; I figured, since you were trying to get rid of usernames, you thought time spent on colorized sigs was Time Wasted That Would Better Have Been Spent On Improving Articles. (You do seem to have that opinion about talkpage yammer, so I'll end my comments really soon now. :-) My counterargument to your overall philosophy, which is that we should eliminate everything that does not directly support polishing articles, is simple. If you take away stuff people enjoy, like luminous artworks as their uid, then you are not giving them more time to contribute to wikipedia -- you are driving them away from wikipedia. If they weren't wasting time on a colorful sig, they'd waste time waxing their car, watching teevee, or some other pursuit. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, sustained by her community, and although the community could rebuild wikipedia if all the articles were gone, the encyclopedia herself will die without her entourage. So we better make sure any changes -- like getting rid of usernames -- actually increase the number of active editors, proud to be wikipedians, ready to defend her.

Beware thee, an embedded wall of text shalt reveal itself, should ye dare click 'show'......

0. Define 4chanpedia. Zeroth of all, I'm really getting confused about what your essay is proposing. It says right on the tin, NOUSERS. Later, you say there are still admins. In response to one of my questions, you say there will be the ability to login, just nobody except admins will know you have logged in. So, to be perfectly clear, here is what I'm criticizing. When I speak of wikipedia, I mean wikipedia now, with

1m+ invisible readers (only webserverSysadmins can see their IP reading-histories),
100k anonymous IP editors like myself ('everybody' can see my edit-history),
10k pseudonymous editors like yourself (your IP is screened from non-admins),
1k wikiAdmins, often with real names as their usernames, like Jimbo Wales and wikimedia foundation employees and such
100 webserverSysadmins with physical access to the wikipedia hardware

What I think you are advocating is this, which I will refer to as 4chanpedia, please correct me if I'm wrong:

1m+ same
100k reallyAnons, screen out the IP-as-a-username, replace it with 'editor' in all the edit-histories, make talkpage -- if any -- invisible except to admins
10k formerPseudonoms-now-reallyAnons, screen out the uid-as-username, replace it with 'editor' in all edit-histories, make talkpage invisible except to admins
1k+ chanAdmins, can still see 'usernames' and talkpages, can still see IPs, can still ban users, but in some way have less powers than wikiAdmins
100 same

1. chanAdmins will become an aristocracy of pull. In 4chanpedia, the only people who 'know people' are chanAdmins. This asymmetric information makes chanAdmins *way* more powerful than wikiAdmins. If a rogue chanAdmin decides they want a certain article to say a certain thing, they can make it happen -- any reallyAnon who gets in the way will be banned. You claim there will be less personal attacks between reallyAnons, because nobody will know who to attack... but you fail to see that, if you and I are working on article $foo together, both of us reallyAnons, and I start to disagree with your edits, I can get you banned simply by calling in a favor from my friend $admin, saying ban the editor who made $diff. Who would ever know you were gone? With no open user-to-user communication channels, and no open personal edit histories, you would disappear without a trace. Asymmetry of information will *lead* to corruption, even if we assume all admins are angels, and no reallyAnons are friends with any admins, at the start. Sooner or later, devious reallyAnons will corrupt at least *one* admin, and once you have one rogue admin, you are in really big trouble, unless the other admins notice. Who will guard those selfsame guardians? I suggest, on the other post, the only way to overcome this guarding-the-guardians problem is if you hide IP addresses from *everybody* ... including webserverAdmins with physical access to the wikimedia server farm ... a *very* difficult proposition indeed. See the hyacinth paragraph for blow-by-blow details.

2. Bad-guy-fighting is not impossible, just much harder. Besides corruption of the ban-hammer, leading to corruption of article-content, there is also the difficulty in recruiting wikiAdmins to overcome. You claim that handling vandalism will be easier... based presumably on your assertion that chanAdmins will be far more plentiful than they are now. But I did not catch how chanAdmins will be made more plentiful, exactly... what is the draw that will motivate more people to become chanAdmins, than are currently motivated to become wikiAdmins? If as you say, chanAdmins will be weaker, and purely janitors, then power is not a draw. If, as I explain above, chanAdmins will become arbitrarily powerful aristocrats of pull, well then that is no good either. But just look at my criticism like this: for every wikiAdmin we have now, fighting vandalism takes a fixed amount of work, on average. There are plenty of ways anons and pseudonoms can help fight vandalism, on wikipedia: if we notice a vandal or a spammer, we can revert their change we noticed, and with one click check their edit-trail. I've done it myself; why report something I can clean up without help? On 4chanpedia, chanAdmins will have more work on average: they have to read vandal-alerts from reallyAnon editors, delete the wild goose chases, investigate the rest, and hunt slash patrol. Lots of time spent reading 5000 vandal-alerts, which all turn out to be about the same 12.34.56.78 address... but the chanAdmin has to read those messages one by one, cause otherwise they might miss the 5001st message, about a *different* reallyAnon vandal.

3. chanAdmins *will* crack under these two new pressures. Under the assumption that corruption is already growing wildly (see point#1), and that vandals and spammers are already winning more often (see point#2), we come to the endgame for wikipedia: some PR firm or spyware firm will bribe one of the admins, successfully. They will probably already have a corrupt relationship with some admins, as part of the aristocracy of pull outlined in point#1. Microsoft once offered to pay some guy in Australia to edit the winword article for 'fairness' ... now they'll be able to do it more easily, as long as they can find just one admin willing to ban a few reallyAnons that get in the way. Readers will never notice, and neither will the other reallyAnon editors, because without pseudonyms, how can you tell who you are editing with, and who has been banned?

4. That is all. I tried to stay concise here, hard as it was, and badly as I can see I failed. "I regret that I did not have time to make this message shorter" -- Pascal

p.s. Community-to-protect-n-serve-content now trumps just-content-only. The colorized usernames is a pet peeve of mine. When I see glowing blinking lovingly-crafted usernames, with Dolby-stereo sound-effects, I think of all the time spent, that could have been devoted to articles or to science or to bringing up children properly. But only for a moment. Those awesome usernames are badges of pride -- worn by people proud to be wikipedians. I'm proud of them for being proud of that. So I don't criticize the hours they spend polishing their sig, any more than I would criticize the hours they spend arguing about whether to use infoboxen or not (unless such arguments hurt wikipedia by making it a toxic place to work). Sigs make wikipedia a better place, even though I won't make one personally. Taking away usernames, and taking away userpages, and taking away user-to-user talkpages, hurts wikipedia because it makes it less attractive to potential editors. Look at all the barely-encyclopedic articles we have on television shows and bands and videogames. Those are crucial articles, because they attract new blood. Some of that new blood eventually edits, and then eventually branches out. That was what the colorized sigs was about; I figured, since you were trying to get rid of usernames, you thought time spent on colorized sigs was Time Wasted That Would Better Have Been Spent On Improving Articles. (You do seem to have that opinion about talkpage yammer, so I'll end my comments really soon now. :-) My counterargument to your overall philosophy, which is that we should eliminate everything that does not directly support polishing articles, is simple. If you take away stuff people enjoy, like luminous artworks as their uid, then you are not giving them more time to contribute to wikipedia -- you are driving them *away* from wikipedia. If they weren't wasting time on a colorful sig, they'd waste time waxing their car, watching teevee, or some other pursuit. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, sustained by her community, and although the community could rebuild wikipedia if all the articles were gone, the encyclopedia herself will die without her entourage. So we better make sure any changes -- like getting rid of usernames -- actually increase the number of active editors, proud to be wikipedians, ready to defend her.

Thanks for reading; hope this is clearer. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If a rogue chanAdmin decides they want a certain article to say a certain thing, they can make it happen -- any reallyAnon who gets in the way will be banned.

No, anyone will be able to see the changes performed by a chanAdmin. Whoever gets in their way and gets banned will be shown in a log. We would still have the same mechanisms we have today to contact our admins when you are banned. For example, I was banned but I was still able to contact WP:ARBCOM and appeal my ban.

I can get you banned simply by calling in a favor from my friend $admin

How would you know who is an admin? How would you know how to contact said admin? Nobody knows who the 4chan admins are for example.

Who would ever know you were gone?

Logs. Bans would still be logged for other admins to see.

Sooner or later, devious reallyAnons will corrupt at least *one* admin, and once you have one rogue admin, you are in really big trouble, unless the other admins notice.

That happens today already. We would still be able to do the same thing as admin actions would still be shown. We just wouldn't be able to know WHICH admin did it. But we would still be able to report the action. Enough reports = bad decision by an admin = removal of admin powers. Same as today.

You claim that handling vandalism will be easier... based presumably on your assertion that chanAdmins will be far more plentiful than they are now.

Once again, anyone can fight vandalism. You don't need to be an admin to fight vandalism.

But I did not catch how chanAdmins will be made more plentiful, exactly... what is the draw that will motivate more people to become chanAdmins, than are currently motivated to become wikiAdmins?

There's a big difference between been a known admin and an anonymous admin. People will still have the same motivation they have today, except fame.

No more energy to read the wall of text after this.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

federal politics in PR

Do you have any interest in these topics, either as real-life stuff, or as articles? (Sometimes a fine line.)

Puerto_Rico_Republican_primary,_2012 , and later years. Republican_National_Committee_members namely Luis Fortuño, Zori Fonalledas, Carlos Méndez

Puerto_Rico_Democratic_primary,_2008 , and later years. Roberto_Prats (hmmm, does not seem to be an article listing all superdelegates but as 'state party chair' he is one of them) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't manage primaries nor biographies but there's a guy that does. User:Thief12 manages primaries while User:Pr4ever manages political biographies. I focus more on entities and bio stubs of decision makers. Have you checked Template:WikiProject Puerto Rico participants? If you need help just ask in WT:PUR; someone will hopefully give you a hand. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)