Afternoon Friday, I was the one creating the Heavy Heavy Low Low page, and if you could not tell it, is my first. I have read through the rules and I was about to add some more information but I was too late, and the page was locked. I see your comment about needing more media sources and I understand that, should those be posted on the wiki page? Or maybe posted in the discussion? Please help out a newbie so I can get my first wiki page started and pop that wikerry. Thanks so much. User:Itchy-Finger
It was just a protection- is there some reason it's a big deal? If I'd found any existant discussion of why it was protected, I'd certainly have read it and perhaps commented there instead of unprotecting. I guess one man's "unilateral" is another's "common sense". I don't see that anyone was acting in bad faith in any way at all- sorry if I gave that impression. Friday(talk)18:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a big deal when a wheel war has the potential of breaking out when you undo an admin's actions without discussing it with her. User:Zoe|(talk)01:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zoe, it would be impossible for you and I to have a wheel war between the two of us - I use the 1 revert rule. I noticed you even commented at User_talk:Zereshk#Unprotected that you werre going to undo this yourself, which makes your reaction utterly puzzling to me. Why on earth would you get upset that someone did something you were going to do yourself? Is it possible you're trying to own your actions too much? And yeah, I know, ownership and 1RR are aimed at article edits, not admin actions, but I've put a lot of thought into this and so far I've concluded that it's best to apply the same principles to admin actions that we do to edits. Also, I'm very concerned that you feel you were owed an explanation here, yet you did not even bother to tell the editor who's page you protected that you did so, or why. Surely, of anyone involved, he was entitled to an explanation? Anyway, I'm not sure where you're coming from with this, but it'd be very easy for an outside observer to attribute your response here to an elitist attitude- the notion that admins deserve special deference not accorded to mere editors. This attitude is utterly poisonous and does much harm to the project. I really hope that's not how you see things. Friday(talk)15:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am upset that action was taken without consulting me. This is how wheel wars break out. Admins do deserve special deference from other admins when it comes to undoing administrative actions. I'm not saying that your actions were wrong, just your failure to consult. User:Zoe|(talk)02:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this may be getting more heavily into our individual wiki-philosophies than we need to, but first let me apologize. I still don't believe that undoing an action without prior consulting is automatically wrong, but I see that my doing so upset you in this case, and I'm sorry for that. If you're interested in not having wheel wars, the simplest most effective thing you could do is stop owning your actions. Do what you will, and let it go. If someone undoes something you did, don't just redo it. This will prevent you from ever wheel-warring. If someone disagrees strongly enough to undo something you'd done, maybe they have a good reason for doing so. I'm not saying we should run around undoing things lightly, but to say it should never be done is way overstating the case. And, if I must be prefectly frank- you frequently don't respond well when people do try to discuss things with you. Just because somebody did something once, we should not automatically assume it was the best thing to do. Saying we should never override another admin is basically saying that whatever happened to get done first is automatically the right thing, by definition. And that's insane. Friday(talk)17:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been receiving e-mails from editors who are concerned about User:Mccready's behavior on articles they are editing. I've taken a look, and it seems he's mostly reverting and using aggressive edit summaries. I recall that a couple of months ago you suggested all he needed was some time to establish a proper track record; would you mind looking into this further and seeing what you can do to help? Thanks. Jayjg (talk)19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed this too. It does seem at a glance that he's continuing with problematic behavior, so my hope that he could reform may well have been unrealistic. I'll help out however I can. Friday(talk)19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah17:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I think wikipedia articles should have some degree of encyclopedic quality. This means removing original research, unverifiable information, and (sometimes) cruft."
Just wondering why "I think wikipedia articles should have some degree of encyclopedic quality"? I was just curios. Feel free to ignore this. Thanks --Aminz05:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, why do I say "some degree" rather than, say "lots"? I'm an eventualist- having a mediocre but accurate stub is preferable to no article at all, as long as the subject is appropriate. I'd love for every single article to be FA quality but obviously this can't happen in real life unless we delete most of our content, which would be a silly thing to do. Friday(talk)14:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Friday. Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I have been pleased to see that he has been contributing positively with little conflict since I unblocked him. I understand your initial skepticism, as it is often easier to think 'this person is a trouble-maker, let's just get rid of them'. However, in nearly all cases the person is actually doing what they think best/helpful and thus will view such treatment as extremely unfair and insulting... which tends to create something of a self-fulfilling prophecy as they complain about the 'unfair' treatment and others say 'see, I told you they were disruptive'. It is just a bad dynamic all around. Thus I feel that even in cases where it seems clear that a user will never 'get it' or has an 'inherently disruptive' personality scrupulous fairness and restraint in regards to blocks is the best policy... sometimes they will surprise you and turn out to be better than you thought, but even when they don't it causes less bad feelings and disruption all around. It's just difficult to always remember that when the obstinate #@$%^*! is messing in your playground. :] --CBD12:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I think these guys are up for deletion (not up to music standards) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eppiphane. I don't know how to do it so I thought you could. Cheers.
Yeah, I know, I really dislike protecting things. Sometimes I use {{deletedpage|| and then just come back later and delete- I'm not crazy about leaving a potentially harmful protected page sitting there. But, thanks for the reminder, and feel free to protect and/or delete it yourself if you think that's best. Friday(talk)00:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining; I don't like those sitting there waiting to be linked from google searches, either. I'm not an admin, so by both necessity and desire I leave the decision to you.--KchaseT00:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I'm talking about - ever move controlled by robot sysops. According to 'Pedia, you are violating my rights to blank my page. IPs cannot do that, but registered users can.I want my usertalkpageerased16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that it benefits the project to blank it- but, I don't see that dramatic conflict helps either (see Don't be a drama queen). I was actually interested in hearing what you had to say- I asked about it on your talk page, and you didn't reply. Constructive criticism can only be good for the project. However, ranting and raving and acting like a child are not good for the project. Friday(talk)17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The situation could be helped alot if he actually showed some remorse, he goes on about these rules yet he can not stick to them him self.
If he was sorry he violated it (three times!) it would be better. But as as he is a role model im compelled to be "annoyed and disgusted" at his behaviour towards the situation, he did call his block absurd. MatthewFenton (contribs)18:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you've been getting my e-mails or not, but you really need to unblock User:Acadamenorth. I keep getting the autoblocked message because he is blocked. It's about the 952th time I've been autoblocked this year because either the IP or a user on that IP (Cogeco IP - shared, I guess) has been blocked Mad Jack19:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the collateral damage- looks like the autoblocker strikes again. I have removed what it said was a remaining autoblock- this should fix you up. Sorry for the inconvenience. Friday(talk)19:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mad Jack has just e-mailed me to say that, after nearly a full day of no problems, he's been hit with the autoblock notice again. He'd be much obliged if this one ever gets figured out ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c)17:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It works at the moment, though it autoblocked me about half an hour ago. Thanks for passing on the message, RadioKirk. Mad Jack17:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, dunno if it will help much, but sure. As for #1, certainly a month is a long block. I would expect a block of such duration only in particularly egregious cases, or if there has been a pattern of disruptive behavior. When people are persistantly disruptive, we generally apply blocks of increasing length in hopes of getting the message to sink in. As for #2, well, that's a tricky situation, isn't it? I'm in favor of admins stepping away from situations where there could be a reasonable suspicion of a conflict of interest. On the other hand, you can't say an admin is automatically tainted from getting involved in a situation if there's a past history there. Also, the "history of dislike" may be questionable- if I warn a vandal, perhaps even sternly, do I have a "history of dislike" with that editor? I dislike vandalism, sure, but I try to avoid disliking any particular editor. Of course, we're all human, and it happens. This is where plain old human judgment comes in, and this is why admins are checks on each other. Any good admin should always be ready to tell another admin if they think a mistake was made. Another comment I have on this particular case is that JFAS was given a few opportunities to change his tune- Nandesuka even offered to reduce the block signficantly given a show of good faith. Rather than taking that offer, JFAS chose another path- perhaps wisely, perhaps not. Friday(talk)15:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well i've already crossed off AN/I and 3RR as its pretty clear i am not welcome there, however i will not just stand back and let people talk about me on a page and not at least defend my actions as i acted purely in good faith and find the accusations pretty silly tbh, no one has produced any evidence of uncivility yet or bad faith and i doubt they will. MatthewFenton (contribs)14:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the userbox has an relation to this RfC thing. Eitherway if the userbox is so precious why not make it so only admins could transclude it? MatthewFenton (contribs)15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like to know why you blocked me. You should have the courtesy to give the reason for blocking me. Did I do any illeagal edits? What? When? Where?--Nmj18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no indication that I or anyone else has blocked you. But if there are problems I'm willing to try to help sort them out. Friday(talk)21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why Zoe thinks {{user computer administrator}} is an impersonation of a WP admin, it's a generic UBX under the professions list. o_O
There's a completely separate UBX for a WP admin that has the WP logo, not a generic computer monitor logo and certainly doesn't link to article space about a generic computer administrator. {{User wikipedia/Administrator|English Wikipedia}} would have been completely inappropriate for me to use and would have justified a block, but that wasn't the UBX used.
Torinir is not a good faith editor, but besides that, PLEASE stop undoing other admins' actions. It's turning into an edit war that I'm about to unleash. User:Zoe|(talk)02:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are other issues going on here, please present them in the appropriate places. I have no opinion on Torinir as an editor. As for the rest, I already left you a message about that. If you're going to war, that's your choice, but I choose not to be involved. Friday(talk)02:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel you have to make emergency reversions without first discussing things? If this were the first time, I would probably ignore it, but it's turning into a pattern with you. User:Zoe|(talk)02:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are very rarely emergencies here. I didn't see what I was doing as an emergency, I saw it as common sense. I think there's tangible harm done by blocking an editor unjustly. Of course, maybe you feel the block wasn't unjust- but, for what it's worth, I wasn't the only one who thought the block was inappropriate. All admins should act as a check on each other- that's an important part of what makes the system work. Friday(talk)02:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And all admins should discuss things in a collegial manner instead of repeatedly seeking out attempts to undo others' actions behind their backs. User:Zoe|(talk)03:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one should falsely claim to be an admin. And I have no problem with you at all- however I reserve the right to disagree with your actions. But, I promise I'll try to disagree in as civil a manner as I can. Friday(talk)03:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think you are to be commended for If anyone disagrees with what I've done here, I invite them to adjust the situation as necessary. Zoe- I apologize for reverting your action. In my defense, I saw what looked to me like a compelling reason to do so, not only because it was altogether consistent with your user page profession that you are not infallible (and, of course, that no admin ought to think him/herself infallible) but also because it was rather inconsistent with that which often happens at WP:AN, a page on which those in whom the community has reposed some trust ought ostensibly to resolve issues civilly and with encyclopedic purposes in mind but where, as often as not, discussions over small issues devolve into grand fights.
Relative to the substantive issue, I'm not sure that I've much of an opinion—I'd likely say that your unblock was appropriate and that this wasn't a situation in which ex ante consultation would have been propitious, inasmuch as the issue is a simple one, but that I'd probably have left a note prior to my unblocking (or, at worst, concomitant to my unblocking)—but it should be said that you've handled the situation exceedingly well (as, on the whole, has Zoe). Joe06:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I have edited this page in excess but someone keeps posting wrong information. I explained under the talk section why it is wrong and still they come back and add the same misinformation. There was the floating criticism section which thankfully has not popped up again and someone keeps adding a sentence here or there in the middle of a paragraph that is a different subject. It makes the article look wierd and some of it is vandalism. I did another edit today because the information was wrong and the spelling was atrocious.Welsh4ever7619:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm not Cotter Ellis. I'm Paul Klein. Also, I can see what you might disagree with about the page on Cotter, but what's wrong with the band page? Paulk617:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Paulk6[reply]
I got a message saying that I was creating a page on Wikipedia for myself instead of using the UserPage. This is not true whatsoever! The information that I researched hard and long for (just for Wikipedia to look good) has been deleted because someone assumed that I was writing about myself which is absolutely untrue. I want my information back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsr93 (talk • contribs)
That probably is not the reason. Many pages about people get deleted after being tagged with Template:Db-bio on the grounds that the person is not noteworthy enough to list. --Brat3221:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. You all did not give me a chance to continue editing the site. I was just putting about a paragraph out there so that I could one, make sure it worked and two, go back in 30 seconds and finish editing. But before I could, I get a deletion message.
To save time? If notability is the question, a speedy isn't a good way to answer it. It's not advertizing to say who endorses what- Michael Jordan endorses Nike, but we don't delete his article because of it. If you're still not inclined to undelete, I won't argue over it, or undelete it or anything, but it seems silly to me to spend days in DRV on a case like this. Friday(talk)22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ok. But- you do seem interested in following the letter of the rules here. I thought contested speedies didn't have to go to DRV, they could just be undeleted (and brought to Afd if deemed necessary). If you're interested in the letter of the rules, there is no criteria for speedy deletion that applied to this. If it were anyone else I'd have just undeleted this ;-) Friday(talk)22:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there was mention of a tour in that article, which probably met the part of WP:MUSIC that says "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources." Friday(talk)20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, HolyHell - a band yet to release their debut album - are supporting Manowar. The band may fulfill the national/international criteria for WP:Music notability but that doesn't mean that the individual members do. Perhaps if there is verifiable evidence of Tom Hess touring (inter)nationally as a solo artist then this criteria would also apply to him. No such evidence was presented at the time of deletion. (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites - Detroit Downtown
I didn't intend for Wikipedia to be a directory for anything, other than information. I just thought the hotel was of architectural interest, since i was adding tall buildings to Detroit's skyscrapers category. It was built in 1965...i thought it was old enough to be of interest. :) User:Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk23:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, I'm just one guy with one guy's opinion. If you really want me to, I'll undelete this and if I still think it should go away later, I could take it to Afd. Friday(talk)23:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! that would be nice! i would like to submit a new possible policy of letting a page hang around for 72h before being nominated for deletion, unless an admin sees it's against policy, spam, vulgar, and so on. :) I'd love to at least see this building have a chance to be included. I didn't mean to spam Wikipedia...rather, as i stated earlier, i just wanted to include it for its history and structural/architectural profile, much like the Marriott, which runs the Renaissance Center. User:Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk21:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see a reason for an article here, but I said I'd undelete, so I did. Giving it time won't hurt, I suppose. Note that I can't do much about it, should someone else decide to delete it. Friday(talk)15:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You moved my sandbox, and I think that's *great*! I tried to understand from the wiki article how to do it correctly, and finally gave up. (And also, I didn't realize that stuff on my userpage was in the article namespace.)
It's actually becoming a minor gripe of mine, that I keep having trouble doing wiki things when I am *not* dumb with computer stuff. I don't think the help pages are actually helpful enough and I've been mulling over why - I think one reason is that they tend to have a single approach, but people learn in lots of different ways. And also, there isn't anything truly low-level. (That I have found, anyway. Hasn't anyone done the Dummies book yet?)
I have thought about creating some how-to pages but I'm not exactly swimming in time - first to do the learning thoroughly myself, and then to create the documents. (Does it sound like I do this for a living? [g] I do technical writing of various kinds, and I also do technical training. I get a kick out of working with frightened newcomers.)
Anyway, thank you for your help. I really appreciate it.
It appears that, in the process of fixing something about the Katie Blair nomination, you listed it on AfD twice. Was that intentional? If not, you might want to fix it. - Bootstoots02:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated your article, Rhodell Brewery, for deletion. I see nothing notable about a brew-pub that's less than eight years old. If there is something notable about it, I don't see it in the article. Perhaps this is something can fix. Rklawton02:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for keeping the history of List of YTMND fads. I wanted to look a fad up and since the history remained, I could find it. Anomo14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned about the behavior of some users. As you've noted, MathStatWoman and Harisingh are trying to join ranks to vote for each other's pages. I really hope that doesn't happen. Their pages aren't very good for an encyclopedia. What should we do about this evolving coalition? Chris5351616:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With luck, they'll see from the feedback they get from other editors that this is a bad idea. Also, with luck, when Afds are closed, the closer will give less weight to people who didn't give a good reason for their "vote". I like to think that anyone who shows up and says "We must keep this article because the deletion attempt is undemocratic facist censorship!" will automatically lose credibility in the eyes of experienced editors. Honestly, out of all the coalitions editors have formed or may form, this one worries me very little. Friday(talk)16:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People need to know what these things are,so I just write them.
P.S:I do not speek Englisk very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintei (talk • contribs)
(a) I have been accused of "sockpuppetry". This is totally unjust. I am not the same as any ot the Wikipedia-editors to whom I have been linked. I seek an arbiter who will listen to reason and logic. Contributors named Bioinformaticist, M&M Peace (i think), Philly Student...they are not I, at all --I do not know who they are, I vow as if in court! (b) Why are articles (bios of living people) on Marion Cohen, Roberta Wenocur, Elaine Zanutto, Linda Zhao, and other female mathematicians being held to standards different from male mathematicians like Herbert Wilf, Dennis DeTurck, &c .? (c) What is the problem with the corp, Daniel H. Wagner Associates? (d) All right, maybe articles need improvement, but deletion? and some with prompt deletion? (e) Wikipedia should be fun, not so contentious.
Please help. I want to be nice, but it is difficult when being unjustly accused and bulliied.
I hope you are understanding, and believe me. I am not lying. This is the truth. Wikipedia is not enjoyable for me under these circumstances.
MathStatWoman18:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this has already been discussed. Have you been reading your talk page? It looks like there were a few confirmed sockpuppets a while back, but not with the usernames you're listing above. If you can provide a link showing where these other accounts were mentioned, that might help. As for the gender bias, people have already explained that this isn't the situation at all. I personally deleted Dennis DeTurck for having no indication of significance- all it said was he has a job. As for the Wagner article, it's on Afd- that's the right place to discuss deletion issues, but I'm guessing from the looks of it that it will be kept. I'm sorry you're having a bad experience here, but it does look like there has been some previous bad behavior on your part, and unfortunately many editors lose the ability to assume good faith as soon as they think someone is a problem editor. This isn't right, but sadly it does happen. My best advice to you right now is to calm down and keep making useful edits. Deletion upsets many people- nobody likes to hear someone they admire called "not notable". The best way to prevent article deletion is to make sure you use reliable sources, not your own personal knowlege. Friday(talk)18:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Someone recreated the one I deleted, and there's more info there now. I have no idea how significant he is or whether he meets WP:BIO standards, but it doesn't look so clearly like a "delete on sight" article anymore. See, things do work fairly functionally here most of the time. Friday(talk)18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there. I got your comment on my talk page and realized that you're probably right because that list was getting pretty big. I can create articles for each ESP series and describe all the models of each series in their respective series. That way, the list on the ESP page will only be about 15 to 20 items long. That way I can merge all the small articles into bigger ones. If this is a good idea I would like your answer on this matter so I can get started on it. QelDroma0618:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable- I guess you already saw my comments on the talk page. It's best to keep discussion of this there, so other editors can give their thoughts as well. Friday(talk)18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err, not sure what you mean. But, no, I don't want you or anyone else to stop contributing- if there were no editors I suspect very little editing would get done. I do think you should make articles only on significant topics, tho- just having an address doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. I think you're thinking of a directory, which wikipedia is not. Anyway, if there's something I can do to help out, let me know. Friday(talk)20:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Marion Cohen, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Cohen. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
I think reaching some consensus on which buildings should be included would help- for starters, they'd need coverage in realiable sources. A phone book listing showing that it exists isn't nearly enough. 15 stories is objective, sure, but what makes a 15 story building significant compared to a shorter one? Getting a guideline for buildings might be helpful at this point. Friday(talk)17:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just use the national register of historic places? It's verifiable, and it'll save a lot of debate over inclusion. Rklawton17:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable to me- and I suspect anything actually on the register would have no risk of deletion at all, with or without a guideline saying so. Friday(talk)18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Friday! No, quite the reverse... however, the two most common questions I get (I've even created an FAQ at the top of my talk page to head them off) are:
Why did you delete my article about me/my friend/my band/my friend's band?
Why didn't you delete the article I nominated for speedy deletion?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Both of these can be easily answered, of course, by pointing people firmly at policy. What is less easy to answer is a wikilawyer wanting root-and-branch, point-me-to-the-comma explanations for why things have been done. And both the deletionists and the inclusionists have lots of wikilawyers!
I think the important point here is that CAT:CSD has a backlog. So, why does it have a backlog?
Well, perhaps because admins are reluctant to get into fights with the authors or the taggers (and if you de-tag an article wrongly tagged, the tagger will just re-tag it... and some other admin will come along and delete it out of process. If you delete the article out of process, expect to get dragged onto the personal pillory of DRV or have the user go admin-shopping for an undelete).
Also, speedy deletions should be easy: a glance to say "does this meet the criterion stated?". If the criterion stated is "It's a bit nonsensical in the middle and I think the link is spam and perhaps it's a repost", and you know that if you de-tag it, it will be re-tagged... well, sod clearing CAT:CSD. Who needs the trouble?
If around a third of tagged articles have been tagged with the wrong tag, a non-existant tag, or an AfD argument wrapped-up in a tag, then the process is clearly broken! That's why I say we need better education of users in picking the right tags and sticking by the CSD, and more CSDs to fit user expectations. One system unbroken in two steps. ➨ ЯEDVERS19:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is blatantly obvious, but isn't the solution to get more reasonable people (preferably with the ability to actually delete) doing new pages patrol? I much prefer people using a written-out-in-English justification for deletion than something like "G12" or "A9". Lately I've come to the conclusions that I'd personally prefer we have no specific CSDs at all- what we actually use is the individual judgment of the editors doing the deletions, and having the CSDs written out like they're set in stone enables us to pretend otherwise. Friday(talk)20:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, more reasonable people would be ideal. But how to recruit them? Currently we have the choice between:
admins willing to act out of process
editors who don't understand process
admins and editors who don't care about process
But that leaves some 70% of the community out of the system - those who are unwilling to act out of process, those that understand the process and know it isn't working and those who care (to one degree or another) about the process.
And, of course, we would have no way of excluding those who aren't "reasonable" from the process in the first place. And the ones who aren't "reasonable" are the ones causing a third of the backlog of 350+ articles and 90% of the reluctance in admins to deal with the category... thus perpetuating the backlog.
I have, in my time at Wikipedia, been accused of both deletionism and inclusionism; of ignoring policy and over-following policy; of not understanding rules and not focusing on every dot and comma of rules. Nobody is prepared to say that you can do both. So here's the truth: I'm a deletionist. I want the CSD expanding so I can delete more crap from Wikipedia easier and with less argument about my choices. But, I'm an inclusionist. I want articles that will encourage new editors to expand Wikipedia and get involved with us: incomplete articles they can add to. I want to save those articles from deletion and not have to argue about it. I want those with the power to nominate to understand the power; I want those who create articles to understand what they are creating.
But above all, I want an easy life. And 350 articles to delete, of which a full third will require me to both stand naked of any rules and potentially strap myself to a pillory to defend the right of others to be wrong... well, after only six months as an admin, I can't do it any more. The general user thinks that adminship means either a magic wand that makes an article perfect or a magic wand that makes an article be gone. In fact, adminship just makes it a bit easier to do some stuff that users could do but it's worth delaying them the ability to so indulge... In other words, it's no big deal.
Asking admins to act out of process day in, day out - even under the cloak of WP:IAR - rather than making a better framework for us - is making adminship a big deal. And that's A Bad Thing. ➨ ЯEDVERS20:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. I believe these buildings should stay becuase they look futuristic. The pages i create are not random, either. I simply added pages on the most prominent, most visible, and tallest buildings. These buildings lie on the riverfront, easily visible from Windsor, Ontario, AND Detroit, MI. Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk20:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! What would the criteria be for a "notable" building? Height? architectural style (beaux-arts, art deco, chicago school, and so on...)? maybe even age, or number of floors? I'll gladly scale back my building pages if you and others want. i just need to know what guidelines to follow. :)
Good luck. I am not interested in involving myself further in what will obviously be little more than a tempest in a teapot, improving and helping nothing. JBKramer18:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grr. I sorta wish I'd never seen this either. I don't understand how such a tiny issue could turn into a major dispute with accusations being tossed around. Do people actually enjoy such wikidrama? I've always found it rather annoying, myself. Friday(talk)18:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Friday :-) I reblocked (5 days) after Mccready continued his highly uncivil and disruptive editing. If he does not respond with collaborative editing after this block the next step is a RFAr to ask for article bans. Thanks for being patient with me. I was hopeful that he might respond. FloNight01:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I'm surprised, and your plan seems reasonable to me. Thanks for giving it yet one more effort tho, even if it didn't work out this time. Friday(talk)02:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that's a good idea? I see no useful purpose to the encyclopedia, and keeping content like this arouns is potentially a legal liability. Friday(talk)16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I think there is a good case for keeping and expanding this article, and I was a little shocked to see it deleted with no discussion or opportunity for discussion. I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says: "Even admins should mostly use the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion pages when they think a page should be deleted. There are a few, limited, exceptions, which are given at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion." "The "Speedy deletion" policy governs limited cases where Wikipedia administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media "on sight" without further debate, as in the cases of patent nonsense or pure vandalism."
Are you aware of these policies? Your deletion appears to be clearly in breach of them. Am I missing something elsewhere about deletion? Is there a new policy about "list of..." pages? ntennis23:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are looking at different pages. You can see the article here. What article were you referring to? Attack pages are defined as "Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Citizen is an imbecile")". ntennis23:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely I'm aware of them. Do you disagree that the page should have been deleted for a reason other than your interpretation of policy? I'm usually happy to restore things when there's disagreement, but I want to know if you're concerned about content or policy, because policy is way less important than improving the encyclopedia. Everything the Afd says equally applies here, so I think there's concensus for deletion. I'm open to suggestions, but I'm still not crazy about putting this back in article space. Still, if anyone wants to restore, I won't fight over it. Friday(talk)23:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Articles that are just link farms are still speediable last I checked, if you want to find a way to consider this within policy rather than without. I don't personally see it as an attack unless I missed something, but Rklawton's suggestion would make it in policy also. Friday(talk)23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's two issues here. Firstly, there was certainly no consensus for deletion of this article. I urge you to be follow a democratic process that gives users the opportunity to defend or improve a page before it is deleted. This is precisely what AfD is for. Then you can make your case about the article being a "link farm", and we can discuss it there and on the article's talk page.
The other issue is whether the article is worth keeping and improving, or should be deleted. I'm concerned that you are misunderstanding your role as administrator. I shouldn't have to convince you of an article's worth on your personal talk page. If you are interested in this discussion, I welcome it! Let's have it at the appropriate place. ntennis23:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've restored it for now since you feel so strongly. I still don't think it should be in article space, but, you're right, we can have that conversation in another place and time. Friday(talk)23:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it up for Afd and explained my reasoning there. And I see where you're coming from, but saying you want to follow a democratic process is, well, quite at odds with how things work here. Afd is not a democracy but hopefully it will satisfy your objections. Friday(talk)14:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you're coming off sounding very confrontational and accusatory to me. I know you think I was wrong here- I disagree, but that's alright- but you're telling me over and over what I did wrong instead of focusing on what can be done now to improve the situation. Friday(talk)00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing democracy ("a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a body") with voting ("a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands or by voice"). What I meant was that decisions in wikipedia are made by the community. Administrators "have access to technical features that help with maintenance", and "perform essential housekeeping chores that require the extra access administrators are entrusted with. Among them are watching the Articles for deletion debates and carrying out the consensus of the community on keeping or deleting these articles." They are not autocrats, and should not have more power in determining content than other users. Please read the Administrators' reading list.
You are dismayed by my concern, and think I'm getting hung up on the letter of the law, but I'm trying to say just the opposite. The spirit of consensus and community-controlled decision-making is fundamental to wikipedia. I'd also appreciate it if you'd stop talking to me like I'm a newbie that needs explanation as to how wikipedia works. I've been registered since 2004, with thousands of edits to my name! ntennis00:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S I posted this before seeing your comment immediately above. I've just reread my posts and can't really see that they are "very confrontational and accusatory". How should I have expressed my concerns? Can you rephrase something I've said above to show me what you mean? I will endeavor to follow suit. ntennis00:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, shit. Can we start over? I assumed from what you wrote that you were a newbie, and you apparently assumed the same of me. Sorry. I'll stop referring you to pages you've already read then, if you do the same. :-)
But, to answer your concern, now that I understand it- is there something I did that you thought was contrary to the spirit of consensus and community decision-making? When there was disagreement, I looked for broader input. We do definitely rely on admin discretion in performing some actions, including deletions. The reason I felt you were overemphasizing the letter of the law was that you keep quoting things at me. I edited the best I know how here- there was disagreement (which has yet to convince me, but I'm only one editor) so I undid my change and brought it up in the proper forum. If this is wrong, I'm not seeing how yet. Friday(talk)00:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great, let's start over. :) I didn't assume you were a newbie; it's evident that you are very active. That's why it's especially important to me that you understand the role of the administrator. I appreciate that you have engaged with me and restored the article for now, but the fact that you are unable to see how the speedy delete was wrong makes me worry you will continue to speedily delete articles on your own whim.
Please, don't stop referring me to pages that I may have already read, if you think I could benefit from reading them again. I'm sorry if giving you quotes and links seemed like a bombardment, but it appeared to me you missed the most basic guidelines here. What I'm really looking for is reassurance that in future you will only speedy delete articles that fit the criteria spelled out in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. ntennis02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand anyone wanting me to be more careful here- it seems obvious from the Afd that there wasn't in fact consensus for deletion- so I'm glad you brought it up and I'm glad I undeleted. Maybe I should have even done so the minute you brought it up instead of trying to talk you out of it. I'm still rather amused at the vast difference between the two Afds on similiar articles- to me this is yet another data point in support of my hypothesis that Afd produces rather random results and is best avoided. But, to get to your point: I cannot in good conscience agree to only use the exact criteria spelled out in the CSDs- applying them without individual judgment can produce absurd results. I could probably go on and on about why I think this is true (and I'll happily discuss that point with you, if you're interested). I'm happy to accept that I made a mistake here and should take care to avoid making such a mistake again, but this mistake was easily corrected and I don't see that any harm was caused. I understand you're concerned about what else I might have deleted without an exact match to a CSD, but this is the first time in my recollection that this has happened. I have, a handful of times (some of them mentioned above) undeleted things when there's disagreement and sent it to Afd and this is the first time I ever remember seeing that the Afd did not produce an obvious consensus for deletion. So, I don't think this mistake was so drastic or harmful as to require a complete change of approach- in all honesty, the idea of people trying to apply the criteria for speedy deletion as though they were set in stone scares the hell out of me. Anyway, I value your input (as I do input from any good faith contributor) but I can't agree that exactly applying the criteria for speedy deletion as the sole basis for non-Afd deletion is best for the project. Friday(talk)17:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Sounds like yet another instance of the classic problem: what to do with people who are simultaneously helpful and problematic. Do you know anything more about point b? Is it really just editcountitis? Some people also automatically support longtime contributors no matter how disruptive they are, and some people automatically support their chat room buddies no matter how disruptive they are. I'm personally of the opinion that even if you've done good work in the past, you should still be held to our normal standards of behavior. But, I have definitely seen a small number of disruptive editors (some of them admins, even) who appear to be beyond criticism for whatever reasons. I've been struggling to understand this better for months and months, and I've basically concluded that some people tend to stand by their friends, no matter how poor their behavior. Wish I had a clue what could be done about it. Friday(talk)19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me earlier if my rollback on WT:RfA was intentional. I can assure you it was not. I was simply scrolling through the comments by clicking "Newer edit," while dealing with three phone calls to the wikimedia office simultaneously. I did not see what I was clicking and had no intention to revert that comment. I realize that you may choose to believe that or not, but that is really what happened on a very hectic day when I was alone in the office. Danny01:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as well from me, for clarifying (and to Friday for asking instead of assuming). I figured it was one of those stray clicks. -- nae'blis14:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've been following the discussion on User:Tony Sidaway's talk page concerning way's he could improve his tone. I think this comment pretty well sums it up "You couldn't seriously accuse [me] of being dismissive." Completely dismisses any accusations of dismissiveness as unserious. Just the tiniest shred of "I see what you are saying, I'll work on that" would have ended everything with all parties happy.
I have seen a good bit of this brusque behavior from admins lately and I think it needs to be addressed. I personally think it comes from admins having to deal with argumentative troll after troll, getting harassed and attacked until eventually they throw up their hands and treat everyone like a troll. While this behavior is understandable, it is certainly not beneficial to the environment here, and maybe it needs to be formally addressed. Anyway, sorry to ramble on, just my thoughts. Feel free to disregard. Thanks—Nate Scheffey19:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you- it's understandable how people get this way, but as you said, that doesn't make it any less harmful. I think Luigi30's law applies here too. It's useful to have people willing to deal with trolls, but people who've done it for a long time are sometimes too quick to assume bad faith on the part of anyone who disagrees with them. I think people can disagree without one side having to be unreasonable or ridiculous, but many editors here cannot see that. It's incredibly ironic how rude, pompous, and dismissive Tony is, in a discussion about him being rude, pompous and dismissive. I'd find it hilariously funny if it weren't for the harm he's doing to the project. But what can be done about it? Tony is clearly uninterested in changing his approach or even acknowleging that it's a problem, no matter how many people try to tell him. I'd say he's exhausted the community's patience, but that won't fly- he still does good work here, when he's not busy being disruptive.
Some of what's at work here is Wikipedia culture- sadly, a lot of people here divide editors into "good" or "bad" camps- and once someone's considered "good", anything they do, no matter how disruptive or unreasonable, is considered OK. Well, this is just plain stupid- we need to judge each situation on its own merits, not on the basis of who's involved. I've been told I side with trolls and vandals over admins, apparently because I want admins to act reasonably and not respond in kind to problem editors. Too often, a situation that could have just gone quietly away gets escalated instead by drama-seeking admins on a crusade. This wastes everyone's time and hurts the project.
Another cultural issue is that when people see criticism that they disagree with it, they call it incivility or trolling. This is silly. Constructive, good-faith criticism can only improve the project, never hurt it. I don't know that much, if anything, can be done to change any of this, but I'm surely open to suggestions. Friday(talk)19:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of what you've said here and in your userpage essays mirrors my own thoughts recently. I remember when I first started discovering Wikipedia I was in awe of the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA guidelines. Of course, what a great way to stop the inevitable flame war that every other online forum seems to fall victim to. I loved the idea that even if someone was talking, acting and behaving like an idiot, you still couldn't say "This guy is an idiot." Not only did this policy prevent unhelpful name-calling and hurt feelings, it helped sharpen my debate technique and really address the meat of arguments. For example, where on a political website I might respond to someone's comments that they "don't know what they are talking about," on Wikipedia I have to stop, consider the points of their argument, and address them from a rational and objective standard.
I personally think this zero tolerance of personal attacks and incivility is the only reason Wikipedia works at all. But I have seen this policy abused. It must be made perfectly clear that someone commenting on one's actions is not engaging in personal attack. Debating an issue civilly, whether it is article content, a contentious RfA, or an XfD, is always acceptable, in fact encouraged. I have also seen blocks lately for "beating a dead horse" or "continued harping" which I can not support in any way. In fact, I have started a discussion about them here, and would love it if you could comment.
In closing, I feel we are in agreement about a lot of things that currently hurt our beloved Wikipedia, and I would be very interested in helping to remedy these systemic and cultural weaknesses. Look forward to discussing this with you in the future. (BTW, i loved your description of drama-seeking behavior, and can't help but think the Ghirlandajo/Sidaway affair is a perfect example.)—Nate Scheffey23:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I don't remember if the people who agrre outnumber the people who think I'm crazy/stupid yet, but every little bit helps. I'm open to ideas, but if it were easy we'd have already fixed the problem, right? Friday(talk)00:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great discussion going on here. I've been here just over a year and would like to think I have made some positive contributions. Yet, invariably I find that some admins can be dissmissive of all editors whom dare to criticise their opinions or actions. I have ignored it for a while, but I will call out bully editing if I see it. Tony almost drove me off in my early days here with his dismissive and argumentive style. As a volunteer editor the last thing I want to deal with is that condescending attitude. For some reason I am still here but I assume many others have gone due to similar interactions with our admins. i am sympathetic to the fact that these admins are often interacting with real trolls and it must be frustrating. Nevertheless, a troll is NOT someone who happens to disagree with you. I am starting to find the admins who justify their actions by painting all the dissentors as trolls is disingenuous at least. At worst, it drives off the good editors who are need to turn the chaff articles into wheat. The health of wikipedia as it articles go from stubs and B-class article to FA article requires quality editors. We need to be aware that they are often going to be the most suspicious of this envirnoment that from an academic standpoint is continually ridiculed by the media. Heavy handed admins will certainly reinforce such mistrust in a project that should respect its editors. Not label them as trolls. What to do I don't know, but I am glad to hear I am not the only one that feels this way. David D.(Talk)21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the recreated content was more informative than the information that was deleted. As reviews come in about a given artist, their notability includes. I came across an article written about his political adaptations alongside with Oskar Eustis, and thought that it certainly deserved note. That's why I recreated the article. As the artists that I am researching create more work and continue to have articles published about them, I update their pages. If they are deleted, I recreate them. I have no beef with articles getting deleted if they aren't considered notable by the wikicommunity, but if new information is added it should be tested the way any article is tested and not indiscriminately deleted before a discussion can be had about it.
There's no need to get snarky about it. "However this isn't really the point- an article about my dog or car could be informative but this doesn't make it encyclopedia material". I don't think your dog or cat has written plays that have been performed by professional theater companies. I think if your pet were to write political satires that garnered enough attention to be performed in Central Park and eventually inspire an annual festival in New York, then they should be included in wikipedia. In Defense of the Artist16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting that I need not leave Wikipedia, but this is what happened, and I am intimidated and frustrated:
I had truly planned to stop editing Wikipedia. Yet due to some kind words and encouragement from Wikipedians like you, I tried, timidly, to return.
This is what transpired: I always sign in, even when reading articles. I had been reading articles on the Riemann hypothesis and the zeta function, when I was alerted that there were messages on my talk page. There were several messages advising me not to stop editing and an offer to discuss the content of proposed new articles with other editors. Therefore, I decided to attempt to contribute again.
The response was that User: Chris53516 vandalized my discussion/talk page and sent me at least two messages (and I quote) that I was guilty of "dishonesty" (this was posted on a vandalized version of my discussion/talk page) and was a "liar" (posted on User: Chris53516's own page), simply because I had decided to contribute to Wikipedia again.
Moreover, I am not a "sockpuppet" nor a "sockpuppet master". I always sign in, and I always use the same user name. I do not at all appreciate this nomenclature on my user page; it is an insult, implying that I am using underhanded, sneaky means of editing via aliases. I do not do so. I share a computer and a network. Strangely, I have been accused of being the "sockpuppet" of people who have different IP addresses, whom I have never met. On Wikipedia, is it standard to be assumed guilty without proof? to be assumed guilty until proven innocent? to be assumed guilty without an attempt to be proven innocent?
Hence, it seems, that I am truly disliked on Wikipedia and that the way to settle disputes, for me at least, is to leave. If you think otherwise, look at what happened to my discussion/talk page, due to User: Chris53516 who was aided by User: Chan-Ho Suh in restoring my talk/discussion page. This is ironic since User: Chris53516 urges Wikipedians to "be nice". Hence, in my attempt to contribute to Wikipedia again, I have confirmation that it is indeed an unpleasant and frustrating experience, and ruled by those who have a different concept of "being nice".
However, I would like answers to my questions above, so I truly understand how Wikipedia operates.
To review and summarize, the questions I would like answered are these:
1. Should I not sign in when reading other articles, so that I do not see alerts that I have messages?
2. If it is acceptable for me to sign in when reading other articles, is it all right for me to re-join Wikipedia, even after I thought I would stop editing, after having been encouraged to do so by other Wikipedians?
3. If it is indeed acceptable for me to decide to edit again, am I really "dishonest" and a "liar" as per User: Chris53516?
4. Is it appropriate for Wikipedians such as User: Chris53516 and User: Chan-Ho Suh and others (anonymous) to vandalize my discussion/talk page by deleting favorable comments while adding their own verbiage including terms that, in my opinion, are insulting and, moreover, false?
5. Why am I being accused of "sockpuppetry" when it is not true, and cannot be proven simply because it is not true?
6. Why is the accusation of "sockpuppetry" displayed on my User page? I really do not appreciate this, especially since it is a false accusation.
7. What does "be nice" mean on Wikipedia, as User: Chris53516 recommends ? Does it include calling another Wikipedian "dishonest", someone who intends to "deceive", and a "liar" if that Wikipedian decides to return to Wikipedia and attempt to communicate with others via talk, or to edit an article?
8. Why had so many of my articles been deleted? So many of my edits reverted? Even when I supplied citations? (Some of the articles I started became quite lengthy, although they were intended to be concise, simply because of so many requests to establish importance of the subject, noteability, to provide more and more citations even after having supplied many, etc.)
9. If you do indeed answer my questions, and if I should respond to your answering me, shall I anticipate being called "liar", "dishonest", "sockpuppet" that I "deceive", etc (by other Wikipedians, of course, not by you!)
Again, thank you.
But now you might have an idea why (a) I had decided to leave Wikipedia, and (b) was concerned about trying to re-join and edit again.
I suspect that this experience that I have had on Wikipedia has affected other Wikipedians, probably who are people with valuable information to contribute, but who have decided to stop creating articles or to edit because of similar experiences. This would lead to an incomplete and inconsistent encyclopedia, which is not what Wikipedia should be.
Sorry for the long message, but Wikipedia is an internet phenomenon, and these issues are important, to me and to others, including students in university, grade school, and high school.
Moreover, I had wanted to use my time to contribute actual content and learning more about the markup language: articles about topics in maths and stats, bios of persons, and other topics that interest me; i.e., spend my time on useful endeavors for Wikipedia, not being involved with disagreements nor wasting time on matters such as these.
Argh. For one thing, wanting to know how wikipedia really operates is kind of like asking how the weather works. Even those who've been observing for a long time are still sometimes surprised by freak storms. If you're looking for justice, well, sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree. We do encyclopedia articles here, and justice isn't a required ingredient, so we don't worry about it much. However, letting editors get on with editing the encyclopedia without being harassed is something we're concerned with. I see someone else has already answeeed your specific questions while I'm still in rambling generalities. I'm sorry you'd have such a rough experience here so far. If someone leaves you a rude or harassing message, you may want to just remove it rather than responding. However, use caution- if you're seen as removing legitimate messages, people won't like that much. Not sure what else I can say right now, but I'll help out however I can. Friday(talk)17:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
while blocked the past two days i read through your subpages. things like /admin etc. they are great!
i'm burning out on this project -- editing can be a lot of fun but in the recent past i've received so many hassles from editors following me around and admins interpreting policies liberally in order to block me. i also saw that i'm not the only one who's been on the receiving end of this. i've seen it all but its too long to go into here. i'm not sure if these are new trends or just something i haven't spent the time to look into before.
"mere editors" really have little recourse in this. filing arbitration proved exhausting for me in the past. it required a huge amount of diff hunting and discussion for what seemed to me was a pretty obvious case of an out-of-line editor. filing against an admin would, i assume, be much, much worse. admins seem to behave like inner-city police with their wall of silence.
a lot of your comments show that you've noticed the same happenings. in an ideal world i think you are right -- people would behave reasonably...but i am pessimistic that will happen. i have come to the conclusion that the only solution is to firm up wikis policies. we need to define what something like "disruption" is. when someone is blocked for a personal attack, the diff should be included. that a requirement for including evidence is controversial is evidence that it time for change; we've tried the "trust admins to do what is right". it has failed.
Thanks for the feedback. I don't think that trying to make the policies more specific would help, but I could be wrong. Policies describe what gets done more than they dictate what should be done. We cannot get by without human judgment. I see the problem (well, part of it) as trusting the wrong admins, and continuing to trust them even when they repeatedly demonstrate poor behavior. But you're exactly right- the culture of putting admins in a different class than "mere editors" is very wrong. I'd love it if the project could get by without such distinctions, but that may be unrealistic. Friday(talk)18:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well what would you think of some simple things like creating a template (or something more sophisticated) for submitting "incidents" and for filing blocks. I think a personal attack template that required a diff would be great. It would be very easy to for others to review. Six months down the line no one would wonder what caused the block. It could be developed further but this would be a first step in preventing illegitimate blocks. Justforasecond02:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was voting on this AfD from today's log and when I submitted the vote, the whole nomination vanished from the log, although the AfD nom is still present and open. I don't know what happened. I didn't receive an edit conflict warning, nor did I notice anything unusual when I voted on the AfD. The AfD notice remains on the article as well. It's unusual, to put it mildly. Any ideas? Torinir( Ding my phoneMy support callsE-Support Options )21:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno about what happened, but instead of looking into that, I reviewed the Afd and closed it as a delete. Hope this helps, thanks for the note. Friday(talk)21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is with a page I created (Non-oficial regions of Spain) that was deleted but doesn't even figure in the Deletion log list ([1]) - at least I haven't found it.
I created the page starting from Lists of informal regions and thinking that Spain needed one. Some have seen it as POV (apparently, nobody told me) but I think it was correct. Basically I listed the nationalities that go beyond official regions and Castile (can't say for sure because I can't read my own creation to check). Maybe I included others like La Mancha or the historical extension of Murcia.
In any case I find no space to discuss the deletion or appeal it. So that's why I'm asking you for help.
I'm suggesting a one month community ban of Mccready from all pseudoscience articles. [2] He could edit the talk pages but not the article. Please make your thoughts known on AN/I. FloNight17:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've temporarily moved it to User:Guaka/Trio Mocoto. If you expand it, feel free to move it back. I'm just kind of tired of people (i.e., User:Guaka) insisting that their article be kept and yet refusing to do the work to bring it up to speed. Thanks for jumping in. NawlinWiki20:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No biggie, no problem. I usually check AMG before speedying bands- if they have a bio there, it's a good indicator they've gotten real media coverage. Friday(talk)20:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The edit you made here was reverted as it removed some newer stuff from the talk page. Looks like the thread you were trying to reply to was already archived. Not sure why people like to archive so agressively, but people do it. If you have a comment to make, you may wish to consider posting it again under a new heading. Friday (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Find something better to do than wikistalking admins you disagree with and questioning their every move. I've already warned you about this before, but you've just been doing more of the same. It's certainly not productive. --Cyde Weys04:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What every move? I disagree with you on one thing in particular- you were quick on the block button there. You escalated the dispute needlessly and then blocked the person you were in a dispute with, and such actions are harmful to the project. Friday(talk)05:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What it looks like here is your prior disagreements with admins getting the better of you. You never miss an opportunity to question or revert any admin action of a certain subset of admins you seem to have grudges with. I bet you login multiple times a day just to check our logs and see if there's something you can complain about. Trust me, it's not going unnoticed. And as for this account in question; how is it anything but a troll account? That's all it's been used for. If it was a valid user they wouldn't need to use a non-established "alternate" account to ask me a simple bot question. This is a sock account of a banned user, plain and simple, and it's really sad that you let your disagreements with me cloud your judgement so much that you would unblock a troll account just to try to get one over on me. --Cyde Weys05:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this a bit more. First off, Cyde, whatever I have done to offend you in the past, I apologize. It's not my intent to offend other editors. Second, I'm fairly amazed at your attitude here. Instead of discussing the issue at hand, you launched into a tirade against me as an editor, complete with veiled threats about me being watched by some unknown watchers. Third, you have yet to demonstrate where and how this user was trolling, despite my asking. You've just asserted that it's obvious. Is this really how you treat other editors? Maybe you need a break or something, I don't know, but you have to find a way to change the way you interact with other editors. Friday(talk)21:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine211200:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I have, I believe, someone that knows nothing about a subject in question marking an article for CSD. Any help you can provide in removing it would be apprciated.
Hey, thanks for taking a look at my case. You mentioned that "Any editor can and should make their opinions heard, in project space", but are you really saying that editors should change guideline to reflect their views? Just curious, thanks for the input. Fresheneesz05:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a tricky one. Guidelines and policies are a slippery thing here. Many editors assert (and I'm usually inclined to agree with them) that the true policies are what actually happens, not what's written on a particular page somewhere. Of course, this can go both ways- some editors have an almost religious belief that whatever happens is consensus, by definition, and that's usually wrong too. Sorry for the probably useless generalities here- I'll have an more specific opinion relevant to the case at hand in time. (Disclaimer: I am in no way involved in arbitration- I'm just giving you one editor's opinion.) Friday(talk)05:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That too, certainly. We need to get people out of stressful situations when we see that it's affecting them in this way. For the good of the individuals, sure, but even more importantly, for the good of the project. No one is indispensable. Sadly, I feel that the IRC culture is responsible for a decent chunk of the problems I see here. No accountability, no transparency, no expectation of civility - I'm reasonably confident that I'm on a few IRC-folk's "enemies list" myself. (check out WP:OOB for some random thoughts on this). I think Geogre has explained this better than I can, and, since he's a known oldtimer, not just some random editor with with a blatantly inauspicious record, maybe people will listen to him. Friday(talk)21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contradicting the misstatements that you have mistakenly made
You don't have bottoms? Maybe your wikipedia is broken. When I got promoted to admin, I noticed a few extra asses along the top of the screen. For more of Friday's greatest hits, see here. Friday(talk)14:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that will accomplish anything especially having the section on the Kappa block. The Kappa block was almost ok. In general this seems to be just fanning the flames of a dispute which is being very destructive and wasting many good editors' time. JoshuaZ21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of that- this is why I'm sorta ambivalent on this issue. Then again, any RFC can be seen as fanning the flames, yet they're an accepted (if widely considered unhelpful) part of dispute resolution. I think there's an ongoing pattern of unacceptable, disruptive behavior on Cyde's part, but then it's easy for me to think that when I'm the one he's accused of stalking. Thus, I considered seeking broader input on this question. I'm too close to this one to be considered impartial. Friday(talk)21:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely an ongoing issue. See my comments in March and another from May. Since there is no learning curve one can only assume it is willful. I agree that the blocking problem is not RfC material but at some point an RfC on the bigger picture might be worthwhile, if for no other reason than to convince cyde these are legitimate concerns. On the other hand, these types of RfC's can be huge time sinks and nothing was ever achieved by doing this sort of thing for Tony Sidaway (cydes mentor). For this reason, I believe little will be achieved with this either. From my perspective these things are normally best resolved on the user talk pages. However, clearly cyde is tuning out comments from many people such as Slim Virgin and yourself, (probably me too). If enough people keep chiming in I expect a reasonable balance can be maintained such that the dark cyde of weys is seen less often. David D.(Talk)21:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the normal way to deal with a disputed block is to bring it up at AN/I. However, I think Cyde has made it clear that he'll view it as harassment if this is done. So perhaps the relevant question is: is it worth the pain of disputing a block? I personally feel that improper blocks do cause actual harm to the project. Of course, fighting on AN/I causes harm too. I see no clear solution, and several ways to stir up ill feelings while accomplishing nothing useful. Simply doing nothing will likely produce bad results also. Maybe King Solomon could see how to fix this, but I can't. Friday(talk)15:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a good chance that Cyde listens to criticism. He may not act on it now, possibly to prove a point, but I suspect he does modify his behaviour in the long term. It's a fine balance between forcing his hand which I'm sure would escalate into a huge battle (and waste a HUGE amount of time) or just chipping away hoping that something is taken aboard. Even Tony Sidaway has changed since I first arrived. It is a slow process though. David D.(Talk)03:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "everyone needs to just stop" I meant griping and bitterness and baiting and everything else that was going on. I've seen more than enough attacking going on wiki and nobody seems to be immune. Cyde blocked someone hastily, but this discussion was about the merits of the block of Kappa, not Cyde's overall adminship behavior. There are a lot of hurt feelings going on, and people right now need to take extra care not to insinuate things. We're all working toward a common goal. Bastiq▼edemandez21:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and sorry for misunderstanding, and sorry for looking like I was putting words in your mouth. I do feel it's important that we don't simply ignore problems out of fear of hurting someone's feelings, tho. I realize, this is a tricky issue - there's a right way and a wrong way to air grievances, and reasonable people can disagree on which is which. Friday(talk)22:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friday:
I saw on the .45 ACP article discussion page were you requested input last year concerning technical aspects of the round. It's a bit after the fact, but I wrote a few comments and I thought you might like to see them here:
.45 ACP check the discussion page.
Best Wishes. --NDM07:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno if it was sudden- sometimes I go thru periods of more or less activity. Certain controversies have been somewhat fatiguing lately too, so that's probably part of why I took a bit of time off. Anyway, I'm around, just not very active there for a bit. Friday(talk)21:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, besides the AMG pages, there a yahoo music page on her. It implies records but I don't know if they're really out yet or what. Her own website asserts coverage by Billboard and USA Today. No opinion on whether she really passes WP:MUSIC yet or not, gotta do more research, but from what I see, she's by no means a speedy. Friday(talk)19:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to read this as I was leaving you a comment - this stuff is really getting absurd - why not spend the energy creating (as I did, even though I'd never heard of this woman before two hours ago) rather than deleting. Is it just me, or is Wikipedia loaded with college kids and admins run amok who have little or no actual contributing and writing experience themselves who have appointed themselves editors. It's like having the president of a company who has no actual experience but memorized the mission statement. Bizarre. Tvccs13:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, some of your criticisms are on the mark. However, it's important to remember that we're all volunteers, so we shouldn't go around casting asparagus on volunteers for not having sufficient expertise either. I'm no great writer myself- my main contribution here is checking new pages- I delete the obvious junk, sometimes turn things into redirects, add categories, or whatnot. This requires only a bit of common sense and no real writing skill. Sure, it'd be better for people who don't have knowlege and aren't willing to do any research to pass things along to someone else- but we have no effective way of doing this. If people are sometimes too quick to delete, it's probably because we get tons of junk articles. Still, I wish people would focus on the obvious junk and take a more cautious approach with articles that might have value. In this case tho, no useful content was actually lost. Friday(talk)14:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A piece I've worked on about Joseph Byrd appears for whatever reason to have been dragged into a flame/sockpuppet, etc. war between folks User:Timmy12 and User:Ekajati and others that I have no whatever with. Timmy 12 and its associated names appear to have a rap sheet a mile long. Any counsel would be appreciated - I'm beginning to wonder about becoming an admin to deal with this stuff more easily, etc., but I also am finding more issues with Wikipedia as time goes on. In any case, thank you. Tvccs11:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Help with Type of Publications to Establish Notability
Friday, thanks for the taking the time to ensure the quality of article on wikipedia. You have been involved in a deletion discussion for an article on a P2P company. This was an entry that I posted and there was a request to establish notability by showing articles written about the company. What is considered a valid article? There was a newspaper article written, an posting by an editor of TMCnet, and well as mentions in online publications. Some are blogs, but not all. The wikipedia requirement for notability does not establish how many articles are needed to warrant notability and what kind of publication is considered notability-worthy. I asked you to check the links again and still tell me if you don't think it's enough. Perhaps you can also give us guidelines on more specific requirements for notability (like what kind of publication is considered good enough). Thank you. blue.einstein
Im not trying to promote anything, these are links to sites that have specific Forums that can help diy guys work on their cars on here. I spent the last 3 hours making that list, and i need to work another 6 for it to be completed. So, i'd appreciate if it wasnt deleted yet.
How do you think people would find such a list? Isn't it far more likely people would google for the forum they want, rather than going to wikipedia and typing in "List of Car Forum By Maniufacturer (A-I)"? Such a thing could never be an encyclopedia article, and we're not trying to be a web directory, so I just don't see how it belongs here. Friday(talk)14:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually I thought it would make a good article to be honest. I've been around a while so I know certain jokey things aren't really suitable for Wikipedia, but I've seen other articles on here with the same kind of half funny/half informative feel to them. Articles that would normally be tagged with {{humor}} which I forgot to add. One that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. If you don't mind I'd like the matter to be discussed further, as I wrote the article with the intention of people actually reading it. Thank you for your message. Damien Shiest23:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have a page I'm having to mess with due to what I find is a far too "rulesy" interpreation of permission - I got specific permission from Mitchel Forman and then had people claim the email I sent them/posted granting said could have been false and other bizarre crap. In this case, I think it's people going totally overboard on protecting against a possible copyright vio which isn't going to be an issue, and now I have to bug the artist in question just to super-clarify GFDL - and my contributions should readily indicate (I think anyway), I'm one of the last people to do a copyright vio. I've got a number of people I want to add images to I can't get a clear license for, as one of many examples. Again, my thanks. Tvccs07:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me! I understood that the Category for surnames was for just that - Surnames - so that hopefully in time anyone of any surname who came to the site could find out about the origins of their surname.
I have used my own name for my user name (I am Polly Rubery - so PRubery hardly seems like a "random username" to me!) and I had set up a set of pages for those surnames which I know a little about, intending to add to them noteable individuals (some of whom already have articles on the site) as time and skill permitted.
But they have all been deleted!
So OK this all encompassing site doesn't really want to be all encompassing at all? Or have I got it wrong?
PRubery
Friday: thanks for showing some common sense and re-creating La Coka Nostra.
Wikipedia needs more admins like you; not admins who delete/ban just like they
want to or stick to stupid guidelines without even reading the articles.
--who-am-i19:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, these guys are considered a legit topic for an article by the very "stupid guidelines" you mention here. Oh, and just because someone does something you disagree with is no reason to act like a jerk. Friday(talk)19:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed two reasons on the talk page which I believe qualify Greg under the Notability policy. Previous deletions may be due to suspicion of article being for vanity purposes, perhaps they were created by Greg himself? Seems to me to be a notable persion in his field. Fourdee21:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much opinion on this myself, I just thought you might want to know it'd been previously deleted. If reliable sources indicate his significance, this would surely help. Friday(talk)21:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my intrusion; as I read the article, they've released no albums, and no sources besides their Myspace bio are offered. Looked like an every day garage band, to be perfectly level. =\ On closer inspection, this was probably in error, per the reasoning you've provided. Cheers for keeping a cool head. Luna Santin22:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intrusion? This is what my talk page is for :) Anyway, yeah this one was definitely atypical- no records plus a myspace page equals delete in probably every case other than this one. No harm done tho. Friday(talk)18:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to finish off the job there? At the moment the page isn't protected or deleted so the personal info and links are still in the history. I was just confused when I checked my contributions list and found that the article still appeared but there was a {{deletedpage}} template on there with no entry in the protection log. Graham8715:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sorry dude. i didn't even put our band up there, someone else did. i just noticed that it was there, and thought i might as well make an article. but thanks for being a dick. maybe try to get a life or something.
hello, i am writing this here since i dont know where to go else and since you showed soem common sense in the La Coka Nostra case. the admin who started all that (deleting the article/blocking my login, etc) has obviously now started a personal crusade against me. is there a place on wikipedia i can complain about certain admins? or are you super-power editors? thanks --who-am-i22:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Everyone I noticed involved in that article seemed reasonable to me. I see no evidence of a campaign against you, but I do notice you've been editing with the rather questionable edit summary of "fixing admin vandalism". You should know that it's looked upon very poorly to misuse the term "vandalism" here. Just because you disagree with an edit does not make it vandalism. If people are removing links to geocities pages and whatnot, this is for good reason. Friday(talk)22:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"just because i disagree" - well nobody ever complained. and now someone comes along and in fact mass-vandalises the pages. and thats ok?! and no, it was not removing "links to geocities pages and whatnot", its removing links to sites that basically expand wikipedia articles. and it was removing to my sites only while letting real unimportant links be. but thanks anyway. --who-am-i23:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It passes some of the tests I looked at on the page you linked, plus I was just laying out the basic of the article. --WestJet21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks for removing the article. I mean, it really did look like a game guide right? I was simply making an article about something that existed in a video game, not a guide on how to play it.
--Treva19:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friday: Bacon Day is not nonsense. It is celebrated by at least 50 Canadians in three countries that I know of, and this will be the third year that I am celebrating it. I myself am hosting a Bacon Day party, and anticipate at least three dozen attendees. I would appreciate guidance on how to correctly post a mythical (and obviously ironic) back story.
Well, the important thing for our purposes here is that you'll have to publicize this on your own website, not here- this is an encyclopedia. As such, we use only information already covered in reliable sources. Friday(talk)22:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Akaneon01:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC) - Dear Friday. Please stop breaking the rules by randomly posting speedy delete requests for EVERY new topic. It is inconsiderate of you to deface the content of other writers simply because you disagree with their ideas. What you should do, in accordance with wikipedia rules, is to edit the articles yourself to make them factual and concise rather than simply proposing deletion of anything you disagree with. You are an editor, not a 'deleter'. Your role is to edit articles, rather than destroying them (in case you didn't understand that, I made them links so you can tab to wikipedia's definitions of edit and destroy so you fully comprehend). Thanks for your feedback though! Keep editing![reply]
It isn't promotional content, it's encyclopedic in the same vein of existing articles and completely factual without slant or bias. It isn't intended to garner new users, it's simply intended to explain the existence of and intended purpose of an already popular networking site. I suggest that you look at the existing List_of_social_networking_sites, perhaps you can request the deletion of all of those as well. - Akaneon01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Popular? The alexa ranking is well over 600K. If this website is being discussed in proper sources, by all means add those sources to the article. Unless there are legit sources, I don't see how there can be an article. But, I'm only one editor with one editor's opinion. I'll put this up for a deletion discussion to get more opinions. Friday(talk)01:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm a little confused - a short while ago I wrote and saved the above article to Wikipedia only to find you had deleted it within seconds, citing the reason 'website with no assertion of significance'. I am new to Wikipedia and I am sure my article was far from perfect, but I did put a lot of effort into it and read through many other articles linked from the Wikipedia 'List of Webcomics' to gain an idea as to the content that is usually included in this sort of page and what justifies adding a new webcomic to the list. The webcomic in question is one of my favourites, published online in three langauges, was the first of its kind in Finland, updates regularly, has a large archive and is quite widely read. I added some background information, plot and character details and linked it from the list of webcomics, (by which time it was already gone,) and was planning to post a link to it on the site's forum so that other fans might edit and improve it if they wanted to - certainly it seemed this comic had as much reason for inclusion on the list of webcomics as many of the others featured there and to have it deleted so abruptly when I had worked on the piece for quite a while was very disappointing. If I did anything terribly wrong, please do tell me, suggestions on what I should have done/could be improved are more than welcome, because at the moment I'm feeling my first experiences of Wikipedia are very negative - to have put some time and effort into researching an article which it is ostensibly acceptable to publish here and to receive barely even a hint as to why it wasn't.
Charlie.
EDIT: Hi, thanks for your swift response and especially for restoring the article, even if only temporarily as I didn't think to save it myself before and now have a copy to perhaps post in the future when the comic is more popular. The problem with sources is that most (citing the start date, reviews etc) are in Finnish and it didn't seem to me they should be linked from an English article. Perhaps this is more something for the Finnish wikipedia, but someone else would have to write that then as I don't speak Finnish. Re:the Alexa ranking, they moved the site less than two months ago, could this have affected it? Also, if not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia yet, would it be ok instead to add this article to Comixpedia, which in being specifically about comics, I would presume has less stringent retrictions on which comics qualify?
As far as I know, comixpedia has no verifiability, sourcing, or notability requirements of any kind. But I really don't know- they're completely seperate and I have never used that site. The article is still up for now, but could be deleted in the future (I decided to just defer that decision to whoever cares to deal with it.) We don't have much in the way of firm rules here, so I can't tell you exactly what would make any given article a keeper. Friday(talk)15:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If you want to email me, the link does work, but it's generally going to be better to contact me here. I'll probably see it faster, and even if I don't (or if I'm away for a few days), perhaps someone else can deal with the issue.
I just happened to trip up on the rest of the Phillippine Idol people that you redirected. Could you please reverse those, as it's only one click for you and there's really no working consensus for such a move anyway? I'll likely reverse it anyway and stub them if you don't, but this wasn't the right move. I'm trying to get a discussion going at WP:BIO, so perhaps your input would be useful there. --badlydrawnjefftalk01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already had this discussion, didn't we? I realize that you don't believe in having notability standards for articles, but this is a fringe view at best. I see no evidence that there is consensus for you reverting the redirects. I won't edit war over it of course, but I'm not inclined to undo what I did- I made those edits because IMO they're an improvement. Why would I undo an improvement? Friday(talk)01:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That said, if there's a way to try to come up with some consensus on this, I'm all ears. I must admit I find your arguments on Talk:Jeli Mateo uncompelling. I see little hope of us coming to any kind of agreement on this - I think we've had this same discussion several times. The best I can figure out is that you think a larger number of articles is always better, whereas I think such minor details are better covered by a sentence in a larger article than an entire article all their own. Friday(talk)02:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there; in deleting that article by User:Sugarwood, did you happen to see any comments by User:Destin? He, with I am sure the best of intentions, has sent Sugarwood a {{test4}} and a {{test5}} message, which of course he is not competent to do. Granted that Sugarwood may well need blocking, if non-admins tell vandals that they have been blocked this undermines the whole wiki structure. I have left Destin a message, but I am not yet an admin. You are. Would you like to review the correspondence and take whatever action you think is reasonable?--Anthony.bradbury18:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You were questioning the article`s notability. I believe an article is required as it an Irish Theatre group and contributes to Irish Theatre in general.
Exiledone19:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, to hell with Family Guy. That crappy show has polluted trivia lists all over this so-called encyclopedia with its useless non-sequiturs. Seth MacFarlane isn't exactly the arbiter of anything but bad taste and bad entertainment. He's no Mario Pei or William Safire. Guglielmo Clintone 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It's written in a belligerent way, but I think the guy's partially right even if I like Mario Pei and don't like Bill Safire. Being in Family Guy doesn't make something worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. This isn't the Family Guy Wikia, is it? Mr Spunky Toffee19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely won't object if anyone wants to put that back- I understand that removing people's comments is controversial at best. I just hate to see things get off-topic like that. Friday(talk)19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at your userpage. It has webhost written all over it. If i had to lose mine, which i might add, was of religious value to me, then you must certainly have to remove yours. Take a look at User Guinnog for example. This also has webhost written all over it. I put it to you, you elitist, authoritarian administrator, that your userpage is not in line with the goals of wikipedia.
What do i have to do to become an admin? I'm told I'd be a great addition to 'the team'.
Many Spanks...sorry...thanks, (Percy Nobby Norton got to the keyboard again).. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silentbob4477 (talk • contribs).
I ran across your name on the list of administrators willing to look up content for deleted articles, and was wondering if you could do just that for me. The article I'm interested in working on is General Mayhem. There's some issue with the sources right now and it's currently up in Deletion Review. A clean copy of the article before its deletion would greatly assist in doing this.
Thanks for giving me access to the article. I went ahead and made a copy of the code for the last good version, so that I can work on sourcing it. You can go ahead and put it back where it belongs now. Thank you! —Lantoka( talk | contrib)04:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not exactly sure how you executed the move/copy of the article to my userspace, but whatever your method, the page at User:Lantoka/gm is protected from editing. If it was a move you can go ahead and move it back, redelete, etc. If you copied it you can go ahead and unprotect it and tag it with a speedy delete tag. Thanks again! —Lantoka( talk | contrib)05:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my personal opinion is that we don't want to be in the business of promoting local groups like this. But, really, that's a matter for the Afd. For what it's worth, you might want to look at WP:CSD, specifically the bit article-7 which says Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. This theater group article would have been a valid speedy, in the opinion of some people who have commented on the Afd. Most editors strongly feel that the mere existence of a thing does not automatically mean we should have an encyclopedia article about that thing. Where to draw that line, is of course a tricky question. Friday(talk)22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there are plenty of people here with a POV - that I openly espouse mine when not editing under AOL - doesn't change anything. Please review my edits for thier content - I think you will see that I edit neutrally while making sure a POV that I think should be represented is not missing or defamed.
Also - there have been no chunks of text edited - and the editor using vandal warnings to try and intimidate me, thinking I am new is exactly why I usually avoid the whole username thing. AbeoPaliurus21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am being attacked by User:Abu badali, who doesn't like the position I've taken on promotional images and is engaged in a wholesale attack on every image I've uploaded to Wikipedia using any criteria possible. If you can assist in opening an Rfc on this, as I have never done one, I would appreciate your assistance. Thank you. Tvccs06:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head, this looks like a content dispute. I'm no expert on images or copyright law, but I know there's been a big push to ensure that Wikipedia is using free content. Sounds like you're taking this a bit personally, which probably isn't helpful. Maybe Abu badali was out of line somewhere, I don't know, but you're saying things like "get a life" and referring to this as harassment- that's not very polite either. I don't know that an RFC is useful as a next step, but as I said I don't know much about this situation at all. Calmly talking about things on users talk pages generally works tho. If he has made harassing comments to you, provide diffs and I'll take a look. It's likely he's just doing what he thinks is best for the project, though. Friday(talk)16:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No bad faith?? I am not sure we are reading the same page. the nom is clearly uncivil and the biased. I am not the only admin who agrees. I am keeping the page and having the writers clean-up the OR. I was thinking of warning the nom with {{civil}} but i don't think it merits that. And how can you call 17 references OR? Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)16:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nom and many of the delete !votes were by established editors with a history of useful contributions. Are you really accusing all these people of bad faith? I really think you need to unclose this- what you've done here is just begging for it to go to DRV, where I'm confident the consensus will be that the early closure was a bad idea. I glanced thru the references and many of them are other Wikipedia articles and some fanboy blog- these are not proper sources. Friday(talk)16:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am stating that the nom was bad faith. Yes there is some OR what is wrong with citing wikipedia? as for the other refs yes one or two might be bad. but the grounds for this AfD are infounded. just because they !voted doesnt validate the nom. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)16:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Beta and Chris seem to be revert warring now over the closure. It doesn't technically involve admin actions but it seems like a wheel-war for all purposes. Why do these happen over the most trivial subjects? I've never seen this sort of thing happen for even an Israeli-Palestinian conflict article but for StarTrek and such we have multiple admins wasting their time. JoshuaZ17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a way to apply social pressure to stop this, please do- it's likely to be more effective than technical means. Thanks for the note. Friday(talk)17:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would basically try to study their ways on Wikipedia, and as soon as they make a move, place a warning on their Talkpage and if you haven't already--revert the vandalism. If it gets out of hand, calmly talk to them on their Talkpage (and give a final warning). Three times and just report them to WP:AIV. The blocking admin should take everything from there. I also see you're an administrator. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment on my page was interesting. I happen to disagree with you. When you go out of your way to make a comment to someone with whom you disagree, me for example, and you so blatantly overlook complete stupidity of those with whom you agree leads me to think you might not be the best judge in this situation. For Wikipedia to succeed and for individual editors to excel, one must be able to work with those who disagree with our particular viewpoint. One must come to an understanding of what is appropriate and what is not.
Your ignoring Duke53's comment of calling a vagina a pussy and stating that we all just need to live with it is a prime example of your lack of judgement. Instead of leaving a comment on his talk page (a person who agrees with you position), you chose to leave a comment on my page and calling my comments "crap". I guess the old adage of beauty being in the eye of the beholder is apropos in this instance. I encourage you to relect on your actions, come to understand that to judge others is fine, but learn to judge from a principaled position and not just those with whom you disagree. In doing so, you will have learned wisdom and fairness. Others might even come to respect you as a fellow editor.
In closing, I will continue to edit those articles that are of interest to me and where I can offer the most expertise. This article is one of them. Cheeers. Storm Rider(talk)20:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize calling someone's edit "crap" is pretty harsh- I don't often do things like that. I just think we should stay on topic and judge each suggestion by its own merits, not by the "stupidity" that we percieve in other editors. My criticism of your essay was not meant as an endorsement of anyone else's edits- it was meant just as criticism of your essay. It's out of place here because it's unhelpful to improving the article. Talk pages are for discussing the article. FWIW, I believe I complained at Duke53 about his editing behavior a week or so ago. I even think several other people have complained at him too. Friday(talk)21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My initial objective was to add humor to the conversation. In reality, whether the picture is included or not is of little interest to me. The more I have thought about it, the more the current status works. I was also poking the supportive group in the eye becuase there was really no reason other than "we want it that way"; no legitimate reason was ever given. I think it was time for those against the photo to move on and I still do. This should not be a major issue.
Duke53's methods are contentious and appear to always have been. If he is on a page he is contending with others; that is a fact that is easily recognizable by reviewing his edits. He is not an easy person with whom to work.
As an aside, I did jump to a conclusion that one of the reasons you deleted the section was because of Duke introducing colorful language like pussy and then stating that it was appropriate and acceptable editing. It may be acceptable, but I strongly disapprove of it. I am serious about my comments on decency; it should not be a forgein concept on WIKI and not be shunted aside in favor of mindless fear of censorship. I am not sure we will see eye-to-eye on things, but I do hope we can work together again. Storm Rider(talk)00:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a user who has expressed interest in dealing with misuse of the reference desk, you may be interested in my comments at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Where we stand and my new strategy for dealing with the problem at User:SCZenz/Reference desk comments. I note you already did this with a comment on StuRat's page, in fact, and I hope you'll help out similarly in the future. It will take assistance from many people in order to make it clear which behaviors aren't appropriate. -- SCZenz02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, your approach seems very reasonable to me. I'll look thru the talk page section too- it does look like we may have trouble with an editor or two who refuse to "get it". The RD is not article space, but it is part of the project so certain norms need to apply there too. If we get cut down on the useless answers, irrelevant conversation, and personal opinion this will go a long way. I'm still not convinced the RD is a net gain for the project, but as long as we have it, we may as well make sure it doesn't suck. Friday(talk)15:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering why you didn't oppose all the other arbcom candidates that use IRC, some much much, more than Kylu. Is it because you don't actually know what you are talking about? pschemp | talk04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reserve the right to not know what I'm talking about. However in this case there was a particular incident I recall that left a bad taste in my mouth about that editor. I have some strong reservations about the over-use of IRC- it's not transparent, and transparency is helpful. Friday(talk)04:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you do reserve that right. Do you think it is fair that candidates who actually do over-use IRC are not being opposed for that because Giano doesn't know it and isn't there making complaints every day? pschemp | talk04:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what situation you're referring to. There may well be other candidates who I'd think the same thing about, but since I don't know anything about them I likely won't vote on them. Friday(talk)04:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't? You don't remember that that "particular incident I recall" was Giano's complaint about a total of 2 lines exchanged on IRC? Interesting. Also interesting that you would characterise that as "over-use". Well, enjoy the IRC over-users we're electing then. I'm only asking you these questions because I respect you as an editor and I'm floored that people would vote based on an incident they weren't present for, and that has been misrepresented by an editor with an obvious chip on his shoulder (who also wasn't present). I happened to be there so I know the truth. Btw, good job dealing with LightCurrent. Sadly he's run out the patience of many an admin. pschemp | talk04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I do recall was Kylu herself saying she'd consulted people on IRC, not someone else claiming she'd done it. It's possible that I am reading too much into one little remark, but I recalled her name as someone who's judgment I wasn't comfortable with. Many of the names in the election are unfamiliar to me- hers wasn't. I really dislike the tendency I see here for people to "take sides" here- I think IRC contributes to this. And, sure, I appreciate the irony in my being on the anti-IRC side in an effort to protest people taking sides, but there's not much to be done about it. I'm a self-proclaimed wikipedian fundamentalist- and IRC is not Wikipedia. I'm more comfortable people who's focus is the actual project, not some chat room. Friday(talk)05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But her focus is the actual project, not some chat room. Your extrapolation that that chatting is her focus from the fact that she once asked for advice from another admin about a block is what disturbs me. Yes, she asked once as a newbie admin. How does that prove that chat rooms are her focus now today? Your position seems to be that if you admit to using IRC even once, that chatting is your focus forever. Don't you think its possible that she learned her lesson? Why make a continuing assumption of bad faith for one action? I can understand opposing for lack of experience, but just for using IRC once months ago strikes me as absurd. I mean I used IRC once, but chat rooms aren't my focus on the project. By your logic, they automatically must be. What I see is someone getting slammed months after the fact for telling the truth about one incident. I know at least one candidate you supported uses IRC all the time. They have never announced this publically however. Which is worse, hiding it or admitting to it? Kylu could have just denied ever asking for advice, yet she chose to tell the truth about it. That certainly sounds more transparent to me than someone who uses IRC but doesn't tell anyone. Well thanks for being a good sport about this. I just get curious as the logic behind people's thinking sometimes. pschemp | talk05:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm assuming bad faith- I'm sure she means well. She strikes me as young and inexperienced, more into socializing than editing. Could I be wrong about this? Sure, very easily. But the recollection I have was that she did something unwise and explained herself by saying her IRC buddies told her it was OK. It's not that using IRC once means you're incompetant- hell, I've been in there before and I'm sure many others have too. It's possible she's become far wiser since then, but the impression I have is the one I have. It's possible I've voted unfairly on her due to my belief that the "IRC bloc" is harmful to the project. But it's the vote I made, and I see little reason to change it. I could be wrong about IRC being harmful, but I can't see how I'd be wrong about her lack of experience. Friday(talk)15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As I said before, I totally understand an oppose based on lack of experience, as it is true that she really hasn't been around that long. I'm not in any way trying to get you to change your vote, but if what you are saying is the IRC thing is a *symptom* of lack of experience, rather than the *main* reason for opposing, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the reply. pschemp | talk16:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IRC is another tool for communication. Since it's not part of the wiki, people use it to try out ideas and get advice before they take official action on-wiki. It's a good way to stay out of trouble. :-)
If I remember correctly, Kylu happens to actually be an IRC expert. It's what she does when she's not on wikipedia too, and it's where she gained most of her experience in online governance, so it's a bit unfair to be negative about her IRC activity.
Unfortunately, it's also a good way for a bloc of editors to agree that something is sensible ahead of time, and the reasoning that went into this decision is then lost to the ether rather than being written somewhere useful. Maybe it's just that I associate a few spectactularly bad editors with IRC and I don't know about all the good ones who also hang out there, but I don't see that it's beneficial to the project. I see that a lot of people have a habit of supporting their friends, not because they're doing the right thing, but because of who they are. This is harmful and I think IRC fraternizing contributes to this. Every action should be judged on its own merits, not on the basis of whether the person doing it is your friend. Friday(talk)16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. (response to the latest) From what I've seen about the way people "govern" IRC channels, this is absolutely contrary to how we handle things at Wikipedia. If we want wikipedia to turn into junior high school, let's bring in those experienced IRC folks. If we're trying to produce a quality encyclopedia, a different approach is called for. Friday(talk)16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nono, iirc Kylu was involved in irc *networks*, not channels. It's a different universe entirely, to do with cooperating on sharing real-world resources.
Note that IRC is explicitly used allow fast real-time communications. Things like dealing with vandalbots would be a lot harder or even impossible without it these days. :-/
We do have a rule that to have things become official, it must be taken to wikipedia. There are many many people on irc, I'm sure there's both good and bad people there. :)
I continue to be very curious at your use of the word "drama" in this case. Are you using this word to mean "something I disagree with"? Friday(talk)17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am an alternate account of a long time editor who does not wish to get embroiled in an issue. It would be reasonably trivial to determine which longtime editor this is based on my statements about asking a question on the RD and getting a lame answer, but I'd ask you not do that. Thanks. RDWarrior18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case you don't recall, Nandesuka blocked me for a month over a content dispute. No mediation, no arbitration, just unilateral, overly long action. Not really the sort of fair arbitrator wikipedia needs. Justforasecond21:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok - if the media picked up on it - I'd point them towards the pictures of cocks, oral sex and various other things like that and scream "will someone not think of the children". that would solve that problem. As for scientology, it's a wacko cult, that's the prevailing outlook of my culture and that's what I'm reflecting. --Charlesknight22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit you were one of those editors I was referring to that I deeply respect, yet over the last month find myself losing that respect, and Jimbo's post to the list jerked me back to reality. We have crossed paths a few times and I have found your comments to be of excellent quality and well considered. --Trödel05:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing individually, as a group I think we have been unproductive - good editors fighting instead of working together to reach concensus - anyway - I am going to step away for a few days - maybe I'll see my comments as stupid when I get back --Trödel05:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you review what's been going on, I have just had dozens of images and many many hours of work simply blown away by said admin Quadell who refused to listen to any argument at all, or provide any examples whatsoever of the so-called reasonableness he professed to have. Not ONE. The odds of me somehow influencing said admin are greater than me hitting the moon tonight with a slingshot. I tried. I was totally ignored. I was told this is the policy and Jimbo Wales supports it and tough sh*t, oh but courteously, of course. What should I do, say thanks? Bullsh*t. I now have page after page I have worked my ass off on that look like hell, and have had image after image deleted when no free image exists. Of course, said admin didn't bother to fix layouts, etc. He just mass-deleted nearly everything he marked. Period. And god forbid he find any of the free images that might someday exist, which is simply asinine beyond all measure at the outset. You're an admin, isn't there anyone that's willing to stand up to this lunacy? Any other suggestions? You're welcome to take this discussion off-line and e-mail me if you wish - I'm going to be writing and speaking publicly about this issue until and unless it's changed, period, and it will affect all I say about the Wikipedia project, which I generally support, until it's modified. I am a member of the real press and I do actually care about this stuff, and my work. Tvccs06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I'm the admin Tvccs is referring to. Many of Tvccs's images were tagged as being replaceable, and he objected to these. (As you may be aware, our first fair use criterion requires that "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" in order for us to use a non-free image, and counter-example #8 states that "an image of a living person that merely shows what they look like" would "almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use".) On some images, Tvccs disputed that a free replacement image could be created. On others, he did not dispute this, but merely stated that no free images were known to exist at this time. Following our rfu policy, after a week those images which seemed non-replaceable were kept, and those which fell clearly into the example of counter-example #8 were deleted. All discussion was saved; feel free to review.
You may be interested to know (if you don't already) that an RFC was previously filed against Chowbok for doing this same work, and Jimbo Wales weighed in to offer support for Chowbok's work. In my opinion, there are many newer users who like using non-free images on Wikipedia, and who really don't like our image use policy. Some of these users, such as Tvccs, seem to take out their unhappiness on the admins who do the hard work of enforcing our policies.
Incidentally, I have to say in my defense that I did not "mass-delete" anything. I reviewed each, and decided based on the nature of the image and how it was used in the article. I listened to all Tvccs's arguments, and did not ignore him. I do disagree with him, but that's not the same thing. It's also not true that I "didn't bother to fix layouts". I edited every article these images were included in, so as not to leave ugly missing image boxes.
Again, thanks for your feedback. It won't, until the way the policy is being enforced is changed. Not gonna happen. Tvccs02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friday - from the text on your user page I understand that you are open to feedback on your admin actions, so may I offer the following feedback, and what I hope you will take as a constructive suggestion. I believe your week-long block of Light current was an over-reaction - I have explained why I think this on AN/I. However, I know Light current can be flippant and annoying at times, and it can be difficult to remain calm when dealing with him. What is done is done, but would you perhaps consider reducing the length of Light current's block to, say, 48 hours ? I think this would show a good example of reasonableness to both Light current and to other observers of your dispute, and will avoid the further escalation of what is, fundamentally, a quite minor disagreement. Thank you for listening to my suggestion. Gandalf6110:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, replied at AN/I. He's been blocked many times before with no noticable change to his disruptive, juvenile behavior. I don't see this as a minor disagreement- I see Wikipedia as a project to build an encyclopedia. He sees it as his own personal playground/chat room. These goals are not compatible. If his goals conflict with the goals of the project, I'm sorry to say he is not welcome here. Friday(talk)15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friday, I fear I've overstepped my bounds a bit, and I hope you can let it slide. I've unblocked Light current, for reasons which I have described here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Light_current (diff). I think that he is generally a helpful Ref Desk contributor, and I hope that he has gotten the message that off-colour and newbie-biting remarks are not appropriate.
I don't think that the block you placed was unjustified, and I think that you're being unfairly pilloried by certain individuals because you asked about the Ref Desk's purpose. In any case, I'm asking all of the involved parties to adhere to the highest standards of civil and courteous behaviour. I have indicated that this unblock should be treated as a parole and not a pardon, and that I or anyone else may restore the block if LC doesn't stay on the straight and narrow. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem like a very reasonable admin and I liked your most recent post on AN/I. Can I make a suggestion? He seems contrite. What if he accepted that any repeat of trollish or grossly inappopriate behaviour on the RD will result in a lengthy (say, 1 month) block? Blocks are supposed to cure behaviour... if LC's recent comments are to be believed, you've achieved your goal. --Dweller15:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friday, I highly value the Reference Desk, so I expect you can understand why I do not agree with your devaluing it as part of Wikipedia. As for the 1 week block of Lightcurrent, I subscribe to the notion of progressive discipline. A 24 hour block is an action which should get an editors attention and may cause him to reflect and reform. If it doesn't work, a 48 hour one might. No good result? Try 1 week. Etc. Since I value Ref Desk, and devote many hours per week to finding info and answering questions in my areas of expertise, I do appreciate the efforts of you and others to remove trolling and inappropriate efforts at humor which degrade the project. Thanks for your efforts in this regard. Edison16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friday - I have another suggestion, which I hope you will take in good part. Your recent posting [3] at LC's talk page does not help to build bridges and could be considered to be provoking LC. Why not just leave the guy alone for a while and see if he improves his behaviour ? I am sure you can trust TenOfAllTrades to keep a close eye on him. Gandalf6116:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I thought I was giving him much-needed advice. He absolutely needs to understand that nobody has to show him a sentence in a rule book to explain why his behavior is a problem. But, I'll take your advice- someone else can easily explain such things to him. Friday(talk)16:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Friday - I just saw your post to THB. DirkvdM was also blocked too - I only know of these two blocking incidences. There are other issues lingering about from a few months ago with other users. --HappyCamper17:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Friday, maybe it was off-topic for the ref desk talk but maybe your reply should be there anyway since it's important to dispel the admin-non-admin thing now that the genie's out of the bottle on the ref desk talk page. -THB17:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
meh, the genie's been out of the bottle and many editors have commented in favor of the ref desk not being used for off topic conversations but certain regulars have ignored or discounted those opinions. pschemp | talk17:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friday - your response to the "Retarded" thread on the Science RD overwrote a previous response by Zeizmic - maybe there was an edit conflict ? Anyway, I have restored Zeimic's response, so no harm done. Gandalf6123:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ... just saw your note on Zeizmic's talk page. So it wasn't an edit conflict after all. Well, I still think his response should be restored - "unhelpful" is not a good reason for deleting an RD response. Don't you think your RD deletions are perhaps getting a bit out of control ? Gandalf6123:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I thought it was out of control, obviously I wouldn't do it. Do you think you improved the quality of the reference desk with the edit you made? You may wish to look at also. Friday(talk)00:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friday - I have tried hard to be polite, civil and constructive in all of my interactions with you, so please do not take that high-handed tone with me. It is not about "improving the quality of the reference desk". It is about treating other editors with respect. Zeizmic is a regular RD contributor and deserves to be treated with more consideration than you showed. Although his talk page shows that some of his RD responses have been criticised, he has also received a barnstar for his RD work. The response that you removed was not great, but there was nothing offensive about it. On the other hand your message on his talk page was abrupt, rude, arrogant and provoactive. If you disagreed with his response, you should have put a polite message on his talk page first, and given him the opportunity to fix or remove his reply himself. This incident, coming on top of your attempt to impose a week-long ban on LC over a minor disagreement, shows that you have a tendency to over-react and take hasty and ill-considered actions. I am suggesting that you take a step back and reflect on how you can carry out your monitoring of the RDs in a less controversial way in future. Gandalf6109:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are very, very wrong when you say "It is not about "improving the quality of the reference desk". That is exactly what it is about. If you think socializing is more important than improving the project, your goals are way wrong. I've said it before, I'll say it again: The interests of the project are far, far more important than preventing minor offense to an individual editor. Sometimes, when people do things others disagree with, they get complained at. We're all supposed to be adults here, so this shouldn't be a big problem. However, if I've been uncivil, it's not intentional, and thanks for pointing it out. Even when leaving a message that says essentially "Don't do that!" we should be polite. I'll be more polite in the future. But, check his talk page- he didn't bite my head off, so why are you? Friday(talk)14:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you made that revert, not because it improved the page, but to make a point to me, this is the wrong way to do things- that's called disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point. Obviously the "disruption" in this case was trivial and not worth me whining about, but next time please: make only edits which you honestly feel are an improvement. If you want to tell me I'm a bonehead, you're welcome to, but that's what my talk page is for. And yah, I get your point- I've been a bonehead here and there with respect to the reference desk. My reason (not an excuse) is to advance the interests of the project, but there are better ways for me to do this. Thanks again for your feedback. Friday(talk)15:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no of course not! Read it carefully- yes it would be unlikely for sex jokes to be mentioned in an article about reference desks, because they've only been one or two isolated incidents. In the same way it would be unlikely for viciously revert-happy admins to be mentioned in such an article because there aren't any. I could have used any example, but one so close to home seemed most potent :) --frothTC06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this page should help: WP:DDV. Unfortunately it's being opposed by quite a lot of people who find it counterintuitive. Your input would, of course, be welcome. (Radiant) 15:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try, but wow: it's a whole different culture over there. There's a set of editors who don't understand wikipedia, but they're wary of someone coming in and peeing on their playground. It's kind of "hey, we know how to run our OWN reference desk, don't come in and tell us what to do." Foolishly, I've been more bludgeoning them in the right direction than nudging them, which is not effective. If anything, it's only made them defensive. *slaps forehead* Friday(talk)15:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I'll keep an eye on it. It's weird how little pockets of people can form who are out of step with mainstream views of the project. BTW I linked StuRat to WP:PPP the other day in an effort to explain stuff- noticed you wrote that somewhat recently. Great stuff. Friday(talk)15:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I think PPP needs some work, or possibly a guideline tag, because when I refer people to it they have a tendency to say I can't do that since I'm the one who wrote it. Weird, indeed. (Radiant) 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good illustration of the paradox of policy and guideline. It's as close to "policy" as almost anything we have, but it's labeled "essay". I was wondering too if I'd hear the objection "Somebody just recently made that up!!" when it's actually very well rooted in practice and tradition. Friday(talk)17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friday, you have to be able to have a productive conversation with someone to nudge them. The air is too thick for that right this second. You don't have to be friends with Light current and StuRat but you do have to be able to work with them. If you all were my employees, you'd be going to lunch together every day whether you wanted to or not.
As far as Vjvenus or Mr. Playmate or whatever, I have reviewed the content of all of his edits, and I don't think he's a troll. I agree with nothing he says, but he's not trying to think up things to say just to get a reaction. He believes the things he's saying. But he's also asking for information. It takes less time to point him towards it than to delete his comments & tag his talk page, etc. -THB16:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right of course- too much assuming the "other side" are hopeless fools or actively out to hurt the project. This goes for me too, of course. Thanks for trying to get people to be a bit more sane. I hope it works. Friday(talk)16:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely will work. It's actually funny in a way because all of the people involved are relatively intelligent. Take 30 points off everyone's IQ and you wouldn't have these problems. Just an observation. -THB16:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True.. smart people are often way too convinced of their own correctness. I'm not this rabid most of the time, but I fell into it this time, like a fool. Friday(talk)16:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Friday. It's quite vicious, though, and a form of attack I thought was contrary to Wikipedia policy. But I am tough, and I will hold out. To be young, female and intelligent, one has no other choice. I now believe user Loomis to be emotionally unstable; and that is merely an observation, not an attack. Your words of encouragement are very welcome at a difficult time. Clio the Muse20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Friday. I've posted one final statement on this business, summing things up as I see them. No more will be said by me, regardless of any further venom. I thank you once again for your words. Clio the Muse08:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I complained at him about being rude. But, geez, if he's keeping his silliness on this own talk page, that's better than elsewhere. I don't see a good reason to stir the pot. Friday(talk)20:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only glanced, but saw only a few recent edits- nothing stood out as definitely blockable. But, if you see something that does, please give me a diff and I'll take a look. Friday(talk)21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the first "last warning" was an over-reaction. These, however, are continued reversions in violation of WP:3RR:
He's a bit obsessed, I'd say. I didn't look through his other contributions for such behavior, but if he's doing it in one place, he's likely to do it elsewhere. Each reversion of the above includes a warning about not changing it again, so the "final warning" on his talk page is appropriate. Either block him or give him another strong warning. — Chris53516(Talk)22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to list this again as I did above, but here are some more at the bottom of this page and on the next: [10] It appears as if he then logged out and continued to make the same edits. This needs to be dealt with. — Chris53516(Talk)22:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this goes back a ways. 3RR (not that I approve of it) applies to 24-hour periods. If if continues to be a problem, something should be done. Friday(talk)22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't add in stuff that I deleted from my talk page. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soccerguy1039 (talk • contribs).
I realize that it's controversial, but it does say that it can be "used sparingly". That was not (under any interpretation) anything but a personal attack on me; it added absolutely nothing to the conversation. Since some admins have allowed it to stand for so long without deleting it I decided that the only action left available to me was to remove it myself. The trend lately by admins has been to delete conversation that is off-topic; I assumed that they all missed seeing that one, so decided to help them out. I do not have to be subjected to personal attacks one tiny bit more than any other editor at Wikipedia. Thank You for your concern in this matter. Duke53 | Talk15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the advice and explanation you gave to Light current was good, I think you can understand that you're not a person that he's likely to want to hear (or listen to) advice from at the moment.
I am sure that there are enough people following what's going on that you don't need to respond to everything that he posts on his talk page. In the interest of calming things down, I urge you to just stay away from contact with him for the duration of his block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. I've commented there only a couple times in the last few days and have no further plans to correspond with him. I seriously considered using an alternate account to leave that last note, so he'd not prejudge, but I figured that would only lead to its own complications. Friday(talk)19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it's complicated- please explain as much as you wish. I see no reason for a block tho- do you? If you can work things out without further disruption, I think minimal harm has been done. Friday(talk)08:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My intention is not disruption, on the contrary. I just do not see a workable way to point out a fundamental flaw with our community.
It actually isn't very complicated. Like the Kelly Martin section on your talk page, incivility has started to even come from our exemplary contributors (such as Kelly Martin). Incivility has became a norm and civil people are almost punished for it.
An example is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elaragirl. Not only were people disagreeing with me (I am not pissed that people disagreeing with me), their defense was counter accusations for things I have done over a year ago and people "endorsed" that.
This isn't just about the RfC but a much more serious problem with wikipedia-wide implications. I do not know where to "discuss" it. I am actualy hesitant to even discuss it because of the number of trolls I am dealing with.
I'm all ears when it comes to people kicking around ideas about how to deal with systemic problems. Discussion by itself is rarely harmful- if you're not sure where it belongs, start here on your talk page and once the idea is more developed, post it somewhere else too. I personally keep a scratchpad of half-developed ideas- that might work too. I agree with you on incivility being a widespread problem- I myself was needlessly rude a few times recently and I'm sure this did not improve my ability to communicate. However I think most reasonable editors realize we're all just human. If we make a mistake, we can always say "oops, I messed up" and try to do better next time. I hope not too many people would hold this against us. Friday(talk)09:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More than one incivility per month makes Wikipe-tan cry. The problem is some people make a habit of it which just depresses Wikipe-tan.
Another reason why we have so much incivility is that several editors (such as myself) are kept on the edge all the time by various trolls. On private discussion people can easily identify trolling but very rarely do they ever react to it when it is staring at them in the face publicaly.
The strategy is to bore off the trolls which is not a working one, wikipedia is too popular for that. Once a troll finally goes away, a new one or ten comes in its place. Its a never ending circle that needs to be disrupted. There are two types of trolls, content trolls and forking trolls. And I am not even referencing to content trolls, those are a different story.
I think there are multiple aspects to the problem. What do you think?
Well, I think you over-reacted again. I don't see how his "news channel" question got him a 24 hour block. It would have been sufficient to change the heading of his question - the rest of it was fine - and to leave a polite note on his talk page explaining what you had done and why. And you seem to have blocked him as a punitive measure, which goes against WP:BP. Finally, if Kjvenus is attention seeking, rather than asking his questions in good faith, then you have reinforced his behaviour by showing him just how easily he can get a reaction from you. Gandalf6122:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Punitive? No, it's to prevent further inappropriate questions. Yes, it's true that maybe some folks enjoy being blocked, but we can do little about this. I see messages on his talk page dating back to 15 November about proper use of the reference desk. If you think more explaining will help him, by all means have a go at it. I did what I thought was reasonable. Friday(talk)22:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Why should we own our admin actions any more than we own our edits?" at WP:AN/I; but in fact every edit even though submitted under the GFDL copyright licence is also fully owned by the contributor so that they can also cross license it as they please. Further, both the law and our Wikimedia lawyer are quite clear that each individual editor is legally responsible for their own behavior/edits with regard to all legal liabilities such as copyright and defamation so We own our edits.WAS 4.25009:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, poorly chosen words. I mean we should encourage collaboration and discourage individuals from wanting to own wikipedia too much. Friday(talk)14:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As we are now aware that you still have the goal of destroying the Ref Desk [11], despite how you earlier claimed to have changed you opinion, please recuse yourself from all future Resk Desk matters. You are clearly not objective, but have an agenda of destroying the Ref Desk any way you can, as has also been demonstrated by your attempts to disrupt building a consensus on Ref Desk guidelines, inappropriate deletions from the Ref Desk and inappropriate blocks of Ref Desk users. This is not acceptable behavior. StuRat18:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. As I pointed out when this same issue was brought up last time, the obvious answer is to fix what's wrong, not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I updated the misc page to more accurately reflect my latest thoughts on this issue. I reserve the right to change my mind. Was there something that lead you to believe I wanted to delete the reference desk today? I don't see that I've nominated it for deletion or anything like that. So, what exactly are we disagreeing over? Forgive me for saying so, but it almost looks to me like you're trying to stir up trouble for its own sake. Friday(talk)19:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You left that statement there, even though you had edited that very section several times since, most recently just 4 days ago, indicating you haven't changed your mind. Then, when we found it, you quickly changed it so as to "hide the evidence". StuRat20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't "hide the evidence"- it's a wiki. Histories are available for all to see. If I was plotting some terrible malfeasance, do you think I'd leave myself notes about it on the wiki? This is just bizarre. Anyway, this issue was brought up before, on the RD talk page, and has since been archived. I see little value in repeating ourselves. Can we please, please focus on what's best for the project, rather than on how evil I am? Friday(talk)20:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You were apparently betting we wouldn't find that bit, and now people will have to search through your history to find it. How exactly do you explain your editing that very section 4 days ago but not removing the bit about wanting to delete the Ref Desk (until we found it) ? StuRat20:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't helping. All I can say is- the points I've had to make that are relevant to the reference desk were made on the appropriate talk page. This exact point was already discussed, remember? I came in and said "Look at all this junk- why do we even bother having a reference desk?" And a few people pointed out that it's also able to be useful to the project, and reminded me that we don't throw babies out with bathwater. Since then, I've been focusing on how to improve the good parts and fix the bad parts- I believe I made a statements exactly to that effect. Friday(talk)20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case you want an answer to your specific question- changed the page to reflect my current thoughts because spending time arguing over an opinion I don't hold anymore did not seem like it would benefit the encyclopedia in any way. Friday(talk)20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Spending time asking me why I don't update it often enough doesn't benefit the encyclopedia in any way, either. Check the top of the page- it's just a scratchpad for thoughts. Some of what's there has probably been wrong for a very long time. I'm very much at a loss for what else can be said about it. Friday(talk)21:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you did update that section, just 4 days ago, and left the comment about removing the Ref Desk, indicating that, despite what you told us, that is still your goal. StuRat21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it's none of my business, I'd be thrilled if the two of you could terminate this thread, because it's taken a very ugly turn and isn't likely to be resolved the way it's going. Wikipedia would not be a pleasant place to work if we chose to interpret every comment ever posted by an editor in the worst possible light assumed the worst possible intentions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But how do you put any good interpretation on this ?
"The various reference desk pages should probably just go away. Unless they serve some useful purpose I'm not aware of, they seem more trouble than they're worth."
Unless they serve some useful purpose I'm not aware of - I believe that he realized that if questions were answered with references to Wikipedia articles or reliable external sources the reference desk would have value. You are literally on the verge of being excluded from reasonable discussion regarding the RD. I strongly suggest you focus on the content, not the contributors. I have almost superhuman abilities to ignore people - I will use them on you if I must. Hipocrite - «Talk»22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been making quite an effort to focus on what's relevant to improving the reference desk, rather than focusing on personal conflicts between editors. I thought we'd been reasonably able to communicate when talking about how to improve the reference desk. I dislike telling other people what to do, but I must ask you to put this personal conflict behind us now. Remarks like those you made at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guideline#Is_there_a_reason_to_make_reference_desk_specific_rules.3F are actively counterproductive, so please keep them to my talk page in the future. I can't promise I'll respond (if I'm wise, I probably won't), but I can tell you I will see them. Friday(talk)01:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm becoming extremely worried about this admin. Yet once again he has misused his position of authority: he blanked an page in an edit dispute, and blocked a user who was in disagreement with him (see here) - and when someone else pointed out his awful history, he called for that person to be blocked as well. It's become quite clear to me that this person does not know how to use his tools responsibly. Do you agree there's anything that should be done? (BTW, I'm not sure if I'll be around, so sorry if I don't respond)-Patstuarttalk|edits14:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right on this "admin's" User page, s/he admits, "I like to be more of an outsider..." "Don't be surprised if you see me not quite following guidelines..." Tragic romance14:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
The article Anshe Chung, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.
If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.
Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
The article Assault rifle, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.
If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.
User:Friday, I couldn't help but notice your remark about feeling harassed at the RD talk page. Don't take this the wrong way, but I assure you that any harassment you were subjected to was a reaction to that which you gave to others. Generally, if you wonder why others treat you a certain way, it's because that's the way you treat them. Not just on Wikipedia, but in life. -THB03:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw that someone had removed the question regarding adult performers, my first reaction was to assume it had been done by a school-marm. However I did re-consider, and I wish to express my support for your decision. As the Reference Desk is for posterity, being archived and all, this sort of question reflects poorly on the entire institution. Cheers. Vranak
Hi - thanks for the heads up, but I'm trying not to get involved in any more arguments at the moment: really, I shouldn't have stuck my neck out on the refdesk. Thanks, also, for your hard work around the desks - I don't necessarily agree with you on everything, but I do support the general move towards enyclopedic reference desk rather than glorified chatroom. Cheers, Sam Clark17:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seriously, that is the only way to stop people from posting bad questions, and he/she asked how we could stop people from posting questions that waste time, so isn't that answering the question? Ilikefood00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're joking. Jokes are better here than on the reference desk I suppose, so I probably can't complain. The point I was trying to make was that the reference desk is meant to be educational. Do you honestly feel your answer was educational? Friday(talk)00:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zoe!! Why are you making this personal when it doesn't need to be?? This isn't about you or me, it's about what's best for the project. I deleted it for having no assertion of significance. For the record, I never said you shouldn't delete it. Friday(talk)19:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have had three (including yourself) people tell me today that I am not trusted to speedy delete articles, and yet two of the ones I have brought to AfD have been speedied after my nominations. That tells me that those who are attacking me are probably wrong, but until I get some agreement on being able to actually do more speedies, I am going to have to bring everything I see as speediable to AFD and clog it up, as the DRV page says I have to do. User:Zoe|(talk)19:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that. I have, in the past, disagreed with you on certain specific deletions. What I said today was that the AFDs seemed POINTish. Just relax. There's no fire. Please, don't take things so personally. Nobody's ever 100% right or 100% wrong. Friday(talk)19:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, I have no idea. But, (as I was rather harshly reminded myself, recently) even if someone gets personal with you, it's no reason to respond in kind. Friday(talk)19:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. I've no desire to get into the middle of this. Please, everyone, take this for whatever it may be worth. I've agreed with you both on many things. And (perhaps you remember these occasions better) I've disagreed with you both on various things. However this doesn't mean that either one of you is evil! We don't need to categorize people in our minds as "all right" or "all wrong". When we do, it becomes WAY too easy to see sinister motives where none truely exist. I'm confident that both of you do what you think is best for the project. I really hope you guys can see each other this way too. Friday(talk)19:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, saw it. You know if the question had been just "Hi, can anyone here help with contact info for Tom Crespo, a reporter on Channel 33 News"; I do not think you would have deleted it. am I right? --Justanother20:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Friday, in future would you be willing to not delete questions that – while perhaps not appropriate for the Ref Desk – are (apparently) asked in good faith? (Believe me, I support a 'shoot-on-sight' policy for any seagulls that appear on the RD.) I don't think that this particular question was intended to be a troll, and it doesn't seem to be an attack; I suspect that the questioner was just misguided.
While it's reasonable to expect the Ref Desk regulars to be familiar with the Desk's purpose and policies (and accordingly to hold them to a higher standard), we don't want to inadvertently bite confused newbies. Particularly where it's an anon whom we have no way of notifying; she'll just come back and wonder where her question went. In such situations, might it be best to respond to the question by explaining why the Ref Desk isn't the best forum to find the sort of help they're looking for?
The polite no-thank-you accomplishes three things for Wikipedia:
It keeps us from inadvertently biting a newbie and helps maintain the friendly atmosphere we're looking for;
It may help to educate the original questioner – and other readers of the Ref Desk – about the type of help we can provide; and
It leaves the door open for someone else to attempt an answer, in the event that you've misunderstood the original questioner (in this case, the question's syntax was pretty tortured, eh?)
Sure, why not. You're right, off-topic stuff that would get removed from any other page doesn't particularly HURT anything sitting there. Obviously, removing it causes its own drama. Honestly, I'm more concerned now about things other than off-topic questions hanging around. There's still an unfortunately poisonous atmosphere there, and I'm at a loss as to what can be done about it. Friday(talk)16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Light current, I assume this is a reference to the "recall" petition below. If so, it is obnoxious and counterproductive. Pushing for the recall of a longtime administrator is a very serious step to take and posts like these undermine any contention on your part that you are doing so in good faith rather than just to harass. Newyorkbrad00:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Light current, I have had no involvement in your dispute with User:Friday. As a total outsider, I am telling you that your posts in this section are not appropriate. Stop it. Newyorkbrad03:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the comments in this section to which I objected have been removed by User:Light current. If this was in response to my observations that is appreciated. Mentioned here partly to say that and partly because without noting it my responses make no sense. Newyorkbrad04:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the ticktocks removed, I have to say this is by far the most immature, mean spirited thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I actually am cringing in shame that a fellow human being could be so spiteful and nasty, particularly with the comments about seasonal olive branches etc that s/he has made. Anchoress04:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well I know you are particularly touchy Anky. So its no surprise to me! But please dont exaggerate everything like that. Any way what is spiteful? Ive asked Friday to admit wrong doings (like what they ask people to do whwn blocked or are going to be blocked) thats all! Meery Xmas!--Light current04:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this user's block log, I noticed you previously blocked him on the 9th of Dec. 2006 for problem editing. He is continuing his disruptive edits, refusing to sign comments, then removing the {{unsigned2}} templates that other users place next to his comments [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Several users have asked him to stop this, yet he continues. I believe he is also operating a sockpuppet by the name Emokid200618 (talk·contribs). Their contribs are identical, including the removal of unsigned templates on Talk:Final Fantasy XIII[21][22][23]. I'd appreciate if you'd take a look at this, as an admin might be able to explain the situation a little better. Our attempts as editors to explain the necessity of signatures has failed to convince him. AuburnPilottalk21:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WOAH, don't drage me into this conflict you've been having with Soccerguy Pilot Person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emokid200618 (talk • contribs).
Petition to recall User:Friday from the position of admin
As per his pledge to run for reelection to the position of admin, should
sufficient numbers of people request it, we submit the following petition
requesting that User:Friday do just that.
We hold that Friday has abused his authority as an admin, and should not be allowed to continue as such. However, as a normal editor, we are hopeful he will be a valued contributor to Wikipedia.
Following are our reasons:
1) His initial statement that he wanted to delete the reference desk, later
repeated on his own hidden page:
[24].
3) His endorsement of the RfC against inclusionist StuRat:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/StuRat, which has been overwhelmingly rejected as an attempt to set up StuRat for a future block.
4) His unblocking of a sockpuppet used to disrupt the reference desk debate.
Here is a comment the sock made to support the deletionist POV: [25]. Here is where the sock was permanently blocked by Admin:HappyCamper, then unblocked by his buddy Friday, then permanently reblocked by the HappyCamper: [26].
5) Attempts to disrupt the supermajority process for determining initial reference desk rules, later to be decided upon based on consensus.
6) His refusal to recuse himself from the reference desk dispute when asked
to do so. This was the final attempt to end the conflict of interest (inherent
in Friday taking sides in a reference desk guidelines debate and
simultaneously using his admin powers to attempt to gain a "win" for his side of the debate). This is also a violation of his own standards for avoiding a conflict of interest (written for AfD, but still applicable to the reference desk): [27].
8) Friday was specifically found to have harassed a user and warned by the
Arbitration Committee not to again suggest to users that they leave Wikipedia or a Wikipedia project:[28]
He has since continued to do so, at least twice:
[29],
[30].
Here is some evidence: [31], [32]: "...people trying to apply the criteria for speedy deletion as though they were set in stone scares the hell out of me...I can't agree that exactly applying the criteria for speedy deletion as the sole basis for non-Afd deletion is best for the project.", [33]. (Evidence added by StuRat13:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC).)[reply]
I retract my vote. A couple of weeks ago my dorm-mates were playing some ridiculous song, Nuisance by John Reuben. The lyrics are eerily applicable to the how the RD debate is going (if you want to listen to it here's the mp3). I just thought of that song and decided that Friday has shown enough of "I'm not trying to be a nuisance" to make up for actually being a nuisance :) --frothTC05:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that Soccerguy1039 has been blocked twice by Friday for disruptive edits. He was blocked for a third time just moments ago by Canadian-Bacon for making personal attacks (against Friday), as well as continued disruption. AuburnPilottalk05:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, your argument is that, once you are blocked by an Admin, you are no longer permitted to comment on that Admin's behavior ? StuRat00:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an argument. My point is that this user cannot be considered in good standing by any stretch of the imagination. Clearly, Soccerguy1039 has no intent to benefit the project. To count his !vote would be even more absurd than his continued personal attacks. Also, we don't even know if the actual person who registered the account made this edit. Read the last post on his talk page. It states that his account is being used by somebody else...somebody whose sole purpose is to vandalize. I suggest an indef block of Soccerguy1039 as a compromised account. AuburnPilottalk04:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to bother you Auburn, but you must have read that post wrong. Soccerguy1039 said that he is the only one that uses his name, but the computer he uses most of the time many other people use.--67.174.128.249
He has 3256 total edits, most on the Ref Desk. This idea that people who edit the Ref Desk are somehow invalid users, because those aren't considered to be "mainspace edits", is absurd. StuRat00:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "teams", and your ongoing flippant attitude about this (see "time" thread above) continues to suggest that you are not taking any aspect of this matter seriously, which gravely undermines your position that this recall petition is a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Newyorkbrad01:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldnt worry. The Admins will probably win again. They usually do! 8-(( They have that certain, um, je ne sais quoit - blocking ability?--Light current02:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you're technically right but what a terrible way to say it! NO FUN IN THE BIG SERIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA (that anyone can edit...) --frothTC08:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll endorse this if independant parties think Friday has been unfair or using his admin tools unwisely. At present the above is a list of aggrieved parties and this has the looks of a vendetta. David D.(Talk)14:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm particularly disappointed that StuRat sees an RFC as a proceeding "against" someone, rather than as an opportunity for both StuRat and Friday to get some outside opinions for consideration. TheronJ15:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't start a section like this earlier, because the administrators open to recall page suggests that a recall is initiated by six supporters, and doesn't seem to give a role to opposes at this stage (i.e., it doesn't say six net supporters). But since the section is here now, I agree there are no grounds for removing this admin, and having him go through a confirmation RfA would be a complete waste of time. Any open issues should be resolved by other means. Newyorkbrad16:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This petition is absolutely pathetic. Even worse is the petitioners' campaign for endorsement of the recall [35][36] (There are many more examples of this). There are proper places for dispute resolution and recall is not one of them. AuburnPilottalk17:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless complaint, made on unsourced assertions. Having an opinion (even to delete some page) is not abusive unless acted upon. Block on Light Current was endorsed by several other admins. Endorsing an RFC is never abusive period. No evidence given that RDWarrior is in fact an abusive sock (note that alternate accounts are allowed). It's not possible to disrupt a "supermajority process" since Wikipedia doesn't have such a process. Not yielding to the other party in a dispute is only disruptive if the other party has consensus. And if the ArbCom wanted Friday demoted (instead of warned) they would have demoted him. Indeed, the complaint is entirely baseless, and this motion is therefore absurd. >Radiant<23:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm not the one who filed this petition. Second, filing such a petition is a normal, accepted way to request that an Admin who has offered to stand for re-election do so. There is nothing disruptive about it, this is the normal wiki process. StuRat03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've had some disagreements with him, in the past, but he's handled them all quite admirably. From what I've seen of this, THB was unrepentantly disruptive and in all probability should have been blocked, and light current's block log unfortunately doesn't inspire confidence. As Radiant said, endorsing an RfC can hardly be considered a reason for desysopping anybody. I'm not impressed by the allegations I've taken the time to investigate. If this will happen at all, let it be done through ArbCom. Is it too much to ask that we all get along, a few days out of the year? Luna Santin02:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be rubbish. There's only two admin actions out of your eight points, and the block seems to be fairly uncontroversial. Unblock, eh. It's not the only time that someone's made a mistake in unblocking a user. The ArbCom point seems to be miscontrued from the actual evidence from the ruling where Friday told Deeceevoice to leave, rather than telling someone what Wikipedia is not. In all, the evidence doesn't seem very convincing, and that most of the supporters have been in direct conflict with Friday(as well one of them seemingly trolling her a few sections up), I have to say oppose this petition.--Toffile04:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that a third admin action has been added on. My question, is "Where's the beef". Certainly if this was such a problem, that I would be able to find some traces of restored pages in the logs. However, on review, I can only find a handful of Friday's deletions that now have actual pages, (Actually, only Chronology of Clue, any other pages are deleted page templates) on a check of her last 1000 deletions. This petition still has no weight.--Toffile22:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, what a ridiculous petition. An admin expressing their opinion that the ref desk "should probably just go away. Unless they serve some useful purpose I'm not aware of" is not a reason to desysop them. Neither is endorsing an RFC against, blocking or advocating for a block of, so-called "inclusionists". If you have issues with Friday, use dispute resolution but don't demand recall on such silly grounds. Please stop wasting good people's time and find something useful to do. Sarah 07:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. A tip: If you want to call for desysoping, you need to provide compelling evidence of abuse of tools. Four of your eight complaints have no supporting diffs! Sarah 07:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally the whole idea of being open to recall is stupid. If you misuse the tools you eventually get desysoped. nuff said. --Spartaz23:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose this is not the way to handle this. If you have a problem with an admin, take it to WP:ANI. Don't throw this petition in their face on their userpage. Cbrown102302:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awful. No administrative abuse alleged. I urge you not to accept this petition - after all it's voluntary - and nobody will blame you for ignoring these "claims" - crzcrztalk13:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience Friday shows good judgement. On a sidenote, I don't see how this would prove that admin recall fails; it just goes to show that by spamming one can gather about five editors most of whom are not in good standing, whereas one of the fundamentals of the recall procedure is that the petition has to be started by editors in good standing. — mark✎14:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is childish victimisation. You can tell it's the school holidays. There are established procedures for dispute resolution, not involving the silly, sensationalist action being propagated here. The JPStalk to me15:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just logged on to my alternate account to check something before I permanently retire, and this is what I see? Strong Oppose — Friday has no reason to be desysopped and is at least more fair than Cyde. Goodbye now, and forever. ♥ Fredil17:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hell no. Friday's a good admin. Opining at an RfC is hardly grounds for desysopping (if it is, then we might as well close rfc down or put up a sign, "don't give your opinion if you don't want people to hold it against you!"), nor is giving an opinion at WP:RD (and then backing down on it anyway). Block of Light current was supported by several others (including most admins) and was hardly grounds for desysopping. If Friday has to give up his desysopping for this, I propose that we altogether get rid of administratorship, as admins can no longer do their job. Patstuarttalk|edits18:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm late to the gathering it seems. If it appeared that the complainants could actually gather 6 users with 500 mainspace edits (or knew what the mainspace is), I would say that I was disgusted with the state of the reference desk the last time I wandered by and I'm delighted that someone has taken on the job of trying to sort things out. Friday, if you want to avoid these sorts of situation, you may want to consider my personal procedure for recall in which only someone in Category:Administrators open to recall can start it off. It hopefully creates a middle ground of peer accountability (only needs one out of the thousand admins!) while keeping it less high profile than ArbCom. - BanyanTree01:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly ridiculous petition built upon watery if not nonexistent precepts and rife with wikilawyering and canvassing, in other words, stupidity. This partisan farce (indicated by its numerous references to "inclusionists"), combined with the already bad reputation of the advocates of this absurd petition, forms not a recipe for disaster for Friday, but an ever-widening window exposing the ludicrous sentiments of the advocates of said petition. --210physicq (c) 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that this whole campaign stinks of a conspiracy by a sordid little clique, which might, I imagine, be construed as a personal attack, so I won't. I will simply confine myself to saying it stinks. Clio the Muse03:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Double checking, you're right. I suppose he's in the Newyorkbrad category, people who I've thought were admins and aren't.--Toffile04:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One way to check what rights a user has is to look up their entry on the User list. This is accessed at Special:Listusers, and to display a single person, add their username to the end of this URL (remembering to use _ for spaces):
In what way is this relevant, anyway? We're not !voting as admins, we're here in our capacity as editors of some standing. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm opposers do not need to be editors of any standing: thier opposition does not feature in the rules:
These administrators are willing to stand for re-confirmation of adminship if six editors in good standing request it.
One of the reason's I strongly disagree with the whole admin's open to recall thing is that it does not take into account opposition. Not in line with consensus. You will not see my name on that list. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)18:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you may disagree with the procedure, but Friday voluntarily placed him/herself into this category presumably as a campaigning plus point to get elected as an admin.
Also this is not the time to complain about the inadequacies of the procedure. That should be done afterwards as a separate process.
I do not agree that opposition views will not be taked into account. They will be when/if Friday stands for re-election. All thats happening ATM is that Friday is being asked to honour his promise to be recalled under the terms of the procedure. This does NOT mean that he is necessarily going to be desysopped or even punished in any way for his actions that have brough about this petition.--Light current19:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I make it two in arguably good standing, one with a history of incivility and disruption blocks, two with fewer than two dozen edits to mainspace and two with fewer than 500 edits to mainspace. Two of the accounts are less than six weeks old. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deem this petition to have failed. See: User:Friday/Recall_Petition. 6 users in good standing, per the definition Friday specified, did not certify this petition. I strongly encourage the petitioners to work amicably to resolve this dispute with Friday. ++Lar: t/c00:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true according to the letter of the recall page, which is a major weakness in the process as it's current described there. But, do you really think makes no difference whether you whether 6 users call for an administrator's recall and no one disagrees, or 6 users call for the recall and 100 oppose it? Newyorkbrad00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Light current, for what's it worth, I've explained my thoughts about this to StuRat in the comments section below... Addhoc11:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And do the rules include the trolling you engaged in above, Light current? Or was that just your own special service to the community? Guy (Help!) 14:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the initiator a member of the "recall" category, I'd like to make some general comments.
It's voluntary. (Red underlines? goodness, we've got integrated spell check now? Huzzah!) Friday can choose to act upon or ignore any request.
Aasking someone to be recalled is disruptive only if we make it so. The very existance of the category means that those on it are accepting that the creation of a recall request is a normal, acceptable thing to do.
Spamming talk pages is not an acceptable thing to do, and in particular spamming the talk page of Friday's ichi-ban fan (that's me by the way.) But the editor has made their request, laid out the facts as they see them, so I suggest that everyone just goes back to what they were doing. This isn't trolling, or chaos, or apocalypse-lite: Just a simple disagreement in a public forum. brenneman22:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this request is okay, or well-formed. A simple disagreement would've used some form of dispute resolution for the above difficulties first. This request may not be "trolling," but it does indicate a very substantial ignorance of Wikipedia procedure for dispute resolution... and the list of rationales given indicates ignorance of what constitutes administrative misconduct as well. It's not the fault of the "recall category" per se, but the initiators of this particular request are using it as an excuse to make up new procedures for Wikipedia because they don't like the old ones. -- SCZenz22:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always hesitant to use someone else's talk page as a discussion forum, but I don't mind when mine gets used that way, so... I agree that the recall request was poorly thought out, and doubleplussgood agree that it shows poor understanding of how things work and how good an admin Friday is. But I don't believe that the best way to deal with the problem is to bring the fire down on the initiators, or to pile-on support endorsements. (Or is it oppose? I'm easily confused.) There are root-cause problems that stem from the reference desk (hard to fix) and some contributors' acclimatisation to wiki-culture (easier to fix.) This is a "heat not light" sort of thing... And I'm never sure when discussing the fact that a discussion isn't useful starts to be performance art. brenneman22:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My first inclination was also to ignore this, but upon reflection I think the "pile-on" comments here are very useful. It illustrates to users who are poorly acclimatized to wiki-culture, who in fact have an ever-widening list of people whose explanations of wiki-culture they refuse to listen to, that nobody in the community except a few of their friends is behind this kind of aggressive and polarizing approach to disputes. How else but by talking will we help people learn what they're doing wrong? (Okay, I can think of other methods, but they're all worse.) -- SCZenz22:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Ok, when framed in that manner, I can concede the point that it may work. Combined with some nice one-on-one chat with the <tongue> litigants </tongue> as well, of course. - brenneman23:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, and in the past I've made an effort to do precisely that. Unfortunately, the "litigants" no longer believe I am acting in good faith, any more than they believe it of Friday. As such, I'm no longer the best person to have further one-on-one chats—if you, or anyone else, is interested in doing so, please do! -- SCZenz01:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never spammed my request, and retracted it shortly thereafter. You both spammed your request and are persistantly uncivil. My request was done by a user in good standing who had never been in conflict with the adminstrator in question. Your request was done by a user in bad standing (you, if you're not getting the hint by now) who was in a current dispute with the adminstrator in question. Need I continue? Hipocrite - «Talk»13:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The petition was spammed. You are both incivil and currently in bad standing, at least in my eyes. Thank you for warning me against personal attacks. Allow me to again warn you about harassment. Hipocrite - «Talk»13:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPA does not apply to accurate statements. It is not a suicide pact. If, for example, a user were to be the recipient of over a dozen blocks by different admins, and those blocks not in the distant past but in the current time period, it would be reasonable to refer to that person loosely as a "user in bad standing." If the user were under ArbCom restrictions it would be clearly accurate. It is, in other words, not a personal attack. It may be more or less strongly indicated, or a subject of some disagreement, but its not a personal attack. KillerChihuahua?!?14:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi StuRat, could I suggest that that your petition has shown the system of admin recall isn't perfect. Essentially, you have very nearly or just possibly, entirely fulfilled the requirements for a recall. However, the problem is that if Friday was required to reapply for a RFA, based on the views expressed above, she would easily pass. Accordingly, there doesn't seem much point in going through a bureaucratic process for the sake of it. Possibly, the wording of the recall process should be changed to something along the lines of "5 net votes" or a "2/3 majority". Anyway, that could be discussed elsewhere. Addhoc16:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friday was cautioned about a year ago. That's not a warning, and its certainly not a prohibition or restriction. Your inflation of an old dusty caution about a specific action is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua?!?17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how everyone gets their panties all wadded up about StuRat telling an old truth just a few posts below three flat-out lies by Hypocrite! -THB20:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what's it worth, I don't think anyone is denying that Hipocrite deleted this petition. Regarding the accusations, the spamming wasn't serious enouh to merit a warning, but possibly reduced legitimacy of the petition. Also, there has been discussion of incivilty at the RfC, which concluded it wasn't very serious. Finally, there is a very sensible discussion of "users in good standing" at User:Friday/recall... Addhoc22:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hydnjo, they're in the second post below the subheading "Comments" just above on this page and then enumerated in my post which is the third from the heading and immediately following his. -THB01:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the whole situation, so i can't vote. however, I hope that no moderators is deleting anyone's no votes. I tried to vote no on one of the chinese moderator on the chinese page, not only my vote got deleted, my comment which explained why I voted no was also deleted! isn't that ridiculous! SummerThunder02:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friday has asked me to clerk this, as I have done twice before for other admins. I will be evaluating, using criteria supplied by Friday, whether those asking for recall are in good standing, and in general trying to assist in having this process flow smoothly. Please stay tuned and be patient. A new page will be created to hold the actual mechanics, in order to make the process go smoothly. 03:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs) An extra tilde there, I think.
Cheers to that, maybe everyone will be too overfed and hung-over to slug it out in January. Now, where's the music and where's that eggnog? ---Sluzzelin14:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the entire site exists only in a virtual world. sometimes, i wonder how many people actually use this site as a reference. lots of editors are getting upset because of what the moderators are doing to them. if tomorrow, internet disappeared. then what will you do? SummerThunder02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I was wondering if you could help me out... A friend of mine wrote a book called "The Dancer and the Clown" and he wanted me to put up a wiki article about it here on wikipedia. I've just recently been told that it was deleted. I can't find a deletion log that matches the time frame my author friend said that he checked it (some time in August); in fact, the last deletion log (the only deletion log) indicates that it was deleted in april, but we brought it back since then. I was hoping that it was still there, or here, rather. I was wondering if it could be undeleted, or, if there is a serious fault, if we could fix the fault and undelete it. Please let me know. Thank you.
Friday - All other happening aside, I've with heavy heart made a section on my talk page where I'd like some additional input. I'd hope for a fluffy-bunny-and-flower filled world where a request for comment is a genial affair. I'm happy to accept that the problem might be me, if I get told so in a convincing manner. Regardless, I value your input as always. - brenneman01:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt at all that this petition is not worth considering. However, if you want to do this kind of in-depth analysis of editing patterns of sometimes- or mostly-good contributors—under which category some, though probably not all, of the above users fit—and recommend they choose between permanent blocking and mentorship as a result, the only place that will happen is at the Arbitration Committee. I don't think that step is called for, yet, because honestly I don't see how it will help. Several of the above users, StuRat in particular, give many helpful answers on the reference desk; cutting them out of Wikipedia for their confrontational (and sometimes disruptive) approach to problems on the reference desk is not in the project's best interest. The good does balance the bad on Wikipedia, to a degree, and the good is more than sufficient to justify making every effort to rehabilitate these users. Patiently making it clear that their views are out of step with the Wikipedia community seems, very slowly, to be helping. I will be the first to admit that it's a most frustrating process, of course, but the alternative is worse. -- SCZenz06:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a completely uninvolved user who has, however, seen a couple of the key participants here and there, I think blocking people indefinitely should be reserved for the worst of the worst. Persistent vandals who antagonise the project get 48 hours or a week and I don't see this as being quite the same issue. (Could be noted, too, that it's a form of double jeopardy in some of the above cases when they have already been punished for the past misdeeds raised, unless the penalty being proposed is for a new offence or instance) I agree largely with SCZenz's post - some people are just inexperienced with these sorts of things and do things they shouldn't that they may not entirely realise they shouldn't, and when the anger dies down and they can somehow see it from a neutral outsider perspective, they see the path to their own enlightenment. That's the theory, anyway. :) Orderinchaos7810:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement to waste arbcom's time for uncontroversial blocks. I believe that trying to make them aware that their views are out of step with the Wikipedia community has made them bear down and become more disruptive. Time for them to go. Hipocrite - «Talk»12:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a note.. I have no intention of doing anything with that info, as I am not tasked with anything other than vetting who is "in good standing" per Friday's criteria. That is it. Not blocking, not chastising, not anything, just determining if this petition succeeds or fails based on the people supporting it and whether they are certified as "in good standing". I think some of this discussion may be counterproductive... ++Lar: t/c13:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you find that an editor should be blocked in your vetting of good standing, will you take appropriate action, or are you declining to do so? Hipocrite - «Talk»14:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My function here is that of a clerk, and to be impartial. I think it would be inappropriate for me, as clerk, to block. I prefer to retain that impartiality. I may choose to give notice on WP:AN/I but I will not be chivvied into taking sides. ++Lar: t/c16:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would comment that Lar's conduct has been very responsible. Also Hipocrite, you have initiated a RfC, which is part of the dispute resolution process. Given the measured nature of the response to the RfC, I don't think you can describe calling for blocks as "uncontroversial". Finally, could I remind you that according to WP:CIVIL calling for blocks and bans is uncivil. Addhoc18:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Let Lar do his thing and then see what happens. More contention now isn't going to help with resolving this thing. --CBD18:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a page to track where this petition stands: User:Friday/Recall Petition. Note that it is in Friday's user space. Friday may approve or disapprove of how I did things and revise or change what I did as Friday sees fit. I await clarification on some matters from Friday. ++Lar: t/c16:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the comment again, and left Bibliomaniac15 a comment suggesting he participate in the discussion on the talk page. -- SCZenz02:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest that you remove yourself from that category, declare the "petition" void, and put an end to this divisive and pointless "recall process." The project needs good, bold, experienced admins and could do without the drama and frustration inevitably associated with any sort of vote on the merits of an administrator. The Uninvited Co., Inc.02:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he does hed look such a prize twit that he'd have to resign anyway. So why did he put his name down if hes not going to abide by the rules. To try to fool the electorate? I cant beleive that! 8-)--Light current03:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What rules? Apparently you didn't read the rules closely enough, as there are no rules regarding recall (other than 500 mainspace edits and the like and the six editors thing). And it seems more like not Friday being the prize twit, but you, so I suggest you curb your enthusiasm. --210physicq (c) 03:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If one enters into an agreement voluntarily, one is going to look a prize twit if one tries to wriggle out of it just becuase one is the loser. Thats all Im saying.
Also, Please dont call me a twit : it is incivil. See WP:CIV and WP:NPA. THanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Light current (talk • contribs)
I apologize for the confusion. Perhaps I should be clearer. If you act so upbeat about a battle that seems to cast you on a losing side, you might look like a prize twit (not that there's anything wrong with that; who has never looked like a prize twit?). So my advice stands despite the preceding comment: I suggest you curb your enthusuasm. And sign your comments, please. --210physicq (c) 03:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Friday were hypothetically to resign now, someone would renominate him for RfA tomorrow, and he would be reinstalled in a week with what, to judge from the contents of this page, would be overwhelming support.
I'm not going to comment on the grounds for the petition having been started (though I think they were thin at best), nor on the process being used (which is flawed), nor on the whole concept of admins open to recall (which is debatable); but the supporters of this petition seem stubbornly unable to grasp that consensus is strongly against them, and in that context, what they are doing doesn't serve a useful purpose. What, simply put, do you hope to gain from this exercise at this point? Newyorkbrad03:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many people who don't think Friday should be an Admin, but who weren't willing to endorse this petition, either (possibly out of fear). They generally haven't commented on this petition here, on either side. I don't think his re-election is as certain as you imagine. And, even if he is re-elected, I would hope he would take away a lesson from this not to use "the Admin stick" against people he disagrees with. StuRat03:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Univited Company, first, I've removed the quotes in the heading, as this IS a recall process, and using quotes isn't appropriate. Second, I'm not sure that your suggestion is likely to be more helpful in resolving this matter than letting the process work through to the end, as it peacefully has before, multiple times. That things are a bit more confused here than the last two times is partly because clerking got started a bit later, but it's also partly because we have more second guessing of the process by those without standing in it. (you are not actually in the category, and you are not yourself asking for Friday's recall, and you are not clerking, so you don't have any actual standing, in my view, to comment, except as an interested observer. Of course this is a wiki and anyone can comment, but some comments are useful and some are not nearly as useful as others) You'd think that as this process works and works well, we would see less disruptive second guessing of it, but that doesn't seem to yet be the case. Friday is the final judge of what will or won't happen (complete, declare void, etc) in this process, unless the community initiates a different process, one that is formally part of the WP:DR process, which this explicitly is not, as it is voluntary. To those of the rest of you trying to disrupt this process I would ask you to stop that as well. ++Lar: t/c04:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone has standing to comment on a process that they think wastes time and undermines the ordinary dispute resolution process. I'm not saying I agree with what Uninvited Company says, but he's sure as hell got standing. I think the best way to deal with this situation is to do so as quickly as possible, one way or the other. The rhetoric grows more poisonous the longer this goes on. -- SCZenz04:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's got rather less standing than either an admin already in the category or someone petitioning for the recall of same, in my view. Coming by and saying "I don't think you should paint this house white, and oh by the way, you're holding the brush wrong" isn't all that useful if you actually do want to paint the house, after all. ++Lar: t/c05:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Light current backflips through the nomic ruleset while Lar calls the tune. Blissfully unaware, Friday returns from holidays astride her Lipizzan while brenneman (in red) tries to look up her dress. The crowd mostly sleeps.
Brainstorming here, how is this any different from a poorly-conceived request for comment? We certainly see plenty of those, and often the instigators are equally unwilling|unable to understand that they are trying to piss up a rope.
Do we suspect that, erm, "the endorsers" were either unaware of or would have been unwilling to start a request for comment?
Would, for example, the greater level of structure there have nipped all this in the bud?
Might it be better that we've had this done quick-and-nasty here rather than countless sections where "outside views" were added saying how the sun shines out of Friday's bumm?
I'm frankly astounded that this has gone on as long as it has, but I don't think that any damage has been done. Sure, we've all wasted a bit of our time: But who are we kidding, we'd probably have found somethinge else to argue over if it wasn't for this.
Among other things, Friday could more or less ignore a poorly-formed RfC without implying that the editors bringing it were in not in good standing. Whereas here, not resigning would certainly make that implication -- which is likely to be needlessly inflammatory. Christopher Parham(talk)04:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified my thinking on recall a bit at User:Friday/recall, but it's a work in progress. I did comment on this particular recall petition over at User_talk:Friday/Recall_Petition. I don't see that any harm was particularly done, other than maybe turning this page into a bit of a circus temporarily. Luckily, I was traveling for the holidays and missed most of it. Friday(talk)04:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying very hard not to get too involved in all these shenanigans, but I'm now sufficiently distressed by the level of entrenched positions some users on both "sides" have adopted, frequent incivility, assumptions of bad faith etc, but worst of all, the destructiveness of all of this, that I feel bound to comment.
Ref Desk "rules"
The way that the Ref Desk works (you may have forgotten, but that's at the heart of this) will remain unaffected by the result of this recall process.
If you throw enough mud... all you get is a muddy mess
This process is being fuzzied by the mix of issue presented. Say a user disagrees with 90% of the accusations thrown at Friday, but
agrees with 10%. Should they support the recall or not? What if all of the 10% is about misuse of admin tools? What if none of it?
If they only agree on certain points, but still think those are sufficient to recall Friday, then they should endorse the petition, and list their reasons. Having 9 different petitions doesn't seem like a good idea to me. StuRat12:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, we should separate out the issues. An accusation of misuse of admin powers is too serious to be muddied by a bad process (that's not a criticism of Lar - currently, he just has to get on with sorting out the mess he's been presented with).
Well, things went a bit more smoothly in the previous ones because there were clear cut criteria to apply. My take on this one is that it's over. As I see it (subject to correction of course!!!) Friday has rejected the petition as not well formed and the petitioners (as a group, without commenting on individuals) as not in good standing to make this petition. Remember: Recall is a voluntary process. Friday (in this case, or the admin, in the general case) gets to decide how to react to a petition, gets to decide what the criteria are for petitioners, and gets to decide what the outcome of a successful petition is. The clerking function is just to carry out the will of the admin in an impartial manner that the community accepts as a correct interpretation. So in this case. the petition is rejected. That's my read. Now what? The community has the recourses it always did.... use the dispute resolution processes. Start an RfC. Raise the issue on WP:AN. Start an ArbCom case. Those recourses are open to you now as they were before, if you are not satisified with this outcome. Also, that this particular process was a bit messier and less structured than the previous two recall processes is due to the decisions that Friday made, not the idea behind recall. Speaking as a clerk, that's all the comment I have, comment on process. I have more comments on the issues raised themselves, but won't make them at this time. ++Lar: t/c18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the issues are totally separated. Leaving aside my personal feelings regarding the recall, if there is to be a recall, it should be based solely on alleged misuse of admin powers and if the Ref Desk "rules" can't be agreed on then some kind of mediation (or even Jimbo's call) would be best.
I don't agree on limiting the recall to abuse of "Admin buttons". Admins should have a higher standard of behavior overall, and those who fail to live up to this expectation shouldn't remain Admins. Petty factionalism is the type of behavior which may be acceptable in normal editors, but not Admins, who should maintain a level of neutrality to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. StuRat12:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And most of all, could contributors please remain civil and not stir things up. No-one gains from accusations, ad-hominem attacks and patently hyperbolic block requests. --Dweller11:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Johnpedia has been vandalizing many scientology related pages for no apperant reason, just wanted to bring it to an admins attention. Joneleth15:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was working just fine until you and the others on your side of the battle decided it wasn't and started deleting things without consensus, discussion or support. That's when it turned into a war. User:Zoe|(talk)17:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought that's what we entered this process for -- to get things out in the open. Yet that too is denied us. "We don't like what you're saying, so you're being disruptive/ making personal attacks/ harassing." 208.103.180.5718:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:1953 S Novym Godom.jpgHappy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen
Friday, I've only just become aware of the absurd and pathetic petition for your 'recall'. My vote in opposition is probably now superflous, but I wanted to record my feelings anyway. I would have done so earlier but for a temporary absence in Argentina over Christmas. My best wishes to you for 2007. Clio the Muse03:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is deleteing content that is not vandalism from Someone elses talk page not be vandalism. Can i start deleteing any text i want out of other peoples talk pages (i won't, thats not a threat to vandalise to prove a point)?Hypnosadist18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is not clear thats why i asked. He deleted messages that five out of the seven have got replys to (in 24hrs) and two people have already reverted the deletion on there own page.Hypnosadist19:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The things you deleted were rumors. Also I believe opinions are allowed under discussion. I don't want to get into an argument and I know you are doing your job, but the things you deleted (most of it) were actual rumors that are going around. Please repost it and I'll edit out the made up stuff.
Thank you,
Saint Jimmy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saintjimmy777 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
