| Revision as of 15:04, 1 August 2005 editAaron Brenneman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,683 edits →Sidebar: does Tony Sidaway interpret delete votes == keep votes in some circumstances?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:21, 31 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (62 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ]<br> | ]<br> | ||
| ]<br> | ]<br> | ||
| ]<br> | |||
| Last archived July 28, 2005. | Last archived July 28, 2005. | ||
| ------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------ | ||
| ==Farewell== | |||
| == Question from Sjakkalle == | |||
| Very sorry indeed to see you go. ] 01:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Ambi. I know you strongly disagreed with my closure of that VFD debate, but I am a VFD closer who sticks fairly close to a "two-thirds" guideline and who declares a "no consensus" result when the debate's delete votes fall short of a two-thirds majority, after discounting sockpuppets of course and I discounted three of the keep votes. I suggest asking a couple of other experienced VFD closers (SimonP and Rossami) for advice, can you please respond to that suggestion? Finally, I assure you that I was ''not'' trying to abuse my position as administrator to keep an article because I wanted it kept. The subject is one which I have very limited knowledge about, and I don't know what I would have voted had I participated in the debate. ] ] 12:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Fare thee well == | ||
| The best of luck to you, and we'll keep the porch light on in back for you in case you ever need it. ] 01:29, August 2, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Ambi. Thanks for the admin nomination, but I have decided to not accept it. I don't think I have the time for the sysop chores and want to concentrate on my article writing and editing. Perhaps at some time in the future I might take up adminship with all the responsibilities, but I don't think I could do it justice at the moment. Thanks again.--] 06:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Chin Up (it gives them a better target) == | |||
| == Elam == | |||
| Don't get too frayed by this mess. I have stayed well out of the "VfD is broken" morass for a long time, so I suppose it's time to put up or shut up. In a day or two, I'll offer up something that I ''think'' will be non-controversial. It was non-controversial the last time it was proposed, so consequently nothing was ever done about it and people forgot about it. I '''loathe''' the "deletionist/inclusionist" mess, but I loathe even more the fact that admin ranks are now supporting people whose views on the matter are such that they will game and lawyer things to be activists. This is not really a Tony comment, either. I think Tony's a bright, engaging, and friendly person, but I also think he believes in his point of view strongly enough to do things that he has to know will be very controversial with standard practice, and, if he doesn't, he has been told by various that such was the case. I'm thinking more of people who go to RfA solely because they believe that no article must be deleted, do some "delete" votes while the RfA is going on, and then tell their friends that the plan is to become the person who closes out all VfD's (for keep, of course). Such a case happened recently, and I was glad to see the RfA fail, because it heralded something most disturbing to me. I'm not Achilles coming out of his tent, because the idea I'm going to offer is actually Angela's, but it would stop all this nonsense once and for all. Meanwhile, chin up. ] 01:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Rebecca, I was surprised by your comments on ] - especially as it represents SouthernComfort's first BC to BCE conversion since the ArbCom - indeed, it was one of his first edits since it happened. To threaten to ban me because I have enforced the ArbCom decision (namely that such changes should not be made), doesn't sit right. I appreciate the page is complicated now, but all the more reason not to jump to conclusions. If you really want the dispute to die down, and I certainly do, I suggest that comments to Sortan, CDThieme and No Account wouldn't go amiss, ] 06:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Please make it "Ja Matta" not "Sayonara" == | |||
| :All my reverts of edits (in this dispute) are because the edits are contrary to policy. The discussion on certain talk pages and on the edit summaries when the reverts have continued, is not just about what policy is, with various editors adding their fourpenn'orth on various issues - I have likewise added my fourpenn'orth - but the underlying reason for the reverts is that they are against existing guidelines. Indeed, on some talk pages I have been arguing strongly that all editors should respect those guidelines in the same way that I have been doing, ] 06:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| What will the other Anti-podians do without you to balance out the bias? I hope I'll see you back in a fortnight,<br/> | |||
| What Jguk fails to mention is that my edits were done for consistency (the article had previously been a mixture of BC/BCE after Dbachmann's rewrites, and prior to that was BCE), and even when other editors have pointed this out to him, and even when Dbachmann (who strongly prefers BC) admits this himself, Jguk continues to make such absurd accusations of "unilateral changes" against me again and again. ] 10:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Aaron (aka ]]]) | |||
| == Very sad to see you go. == | |||
| ==WikiProject Australian sports== | |||
| Best of luck in the real world. ]] 02:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I think you are right. It is better to keep all the Australian sport project info together. The Wikiproject pages on ] and ] should be subpages of ], rather than their own project. I was just following the suggested wikicode like a sheep! Can you move these subpages? as I will probably not get a chance for 24-48 hours--] 07:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Oh, no.... == | ||
| Ambi, I know that given a choice between supporting Australia or Misplaced Pages, we must seem the meager option, but we're worth it, especially thanks to your edits. I hope that you will come back. You are an excellent editor, admin, and arbitrator, and I have always valued your contributions. Take care. ]( ], ] ) 02:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I made several changes to The Age article, mentioned them to the author of the original article and am happy to work through them. I think it's quite outrageous you blanket reverted all of them. Persist in this and I will formally complain. I note you have seniority within the Misplaced Pages cabal, don't think for a moment that will discourage me, quite the reverse. Edit my contributions if you think that's fair but a blanket reversion is just wrong and you know it. Your bias shines through. ] 12:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Argh! == | |||
| Ambi thanks for your support, but please don't revert the Age article again. Some of Newshound's edits are worth keeping, so I will re-edit the article myself. ] 13:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Ambi, I'm sorry if the FAC on GNAA has caused bad blood between us. It's not my intention :-( I'm ''very'' sorry to see you go! - ] 04:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Yes Ambi we don't need you. ] 13:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==...don't leave!== | |||
| I have now edited the article. Feel free to revert any further partisan edits from Newshounder. ] 13:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Since joining Misplaced Pages, and discovering its Australian community, you have been something of an idol to me. Your contribution to this utopian project has been so immense that I cannot even begin to understand how draining it must have been. I am sincerely saddened by your departure, but I recognise that the struggle against the extremist pricks in the Howard Government is one that must take precedence. As a fellow campaigner, I wish you the best of luck in your efforts. Nevertheless, I do hope you decide to return to us in the ''very'' near future. --] | ] 05:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Calvary Christian High School VfD == | |||
| Please see ]. Common sense is remarkably helpful sometimes. ] 01:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm also sad to see you go, Ambi, and I hope you don't stay away for long. We can't afford to lose contributors like you. ] ] 06:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I do understand that you feel that I've somehow done something wrong here. I'm equally convinced that deletion in the face of such a split vote would be the wrong thing to do. You mention common sense here, but the trouble with common sense is that it isn't common--what appears to be sensible to one person may appear quite unreasonable to another. I never, ever delete an article unless I'm sure there is, in fact, a consensus to delete it. I was not sure here, therefore I could not delete. That's how I interpret my duty as an administrator. --]|] 02:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I sense a loss of a good editor. Focus on life, on what you need to do, and come back when things are right. You've left a standard to aim for here. -- ] | ] 07:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == I understand completely == | |||
| ::The issue here is the way you interpret a consensus. BJAODN - as pointed out to you on ANI, is shorthand for '''Delete and BJAODN'''. This is the way it has been always interpreted by everyone I've ever seen in the whole time I've been at Misplaced Pages. If you went around all the people who voted BJAODN and asked them whether they meant that it should be kept, I'd be very surprised if you received even one affirmative response. And yes, it makes me angry if you expect that everyone should have to spell out this or you'll not count their votes. If you really think BJAODN means keep, go ask the people who voted, as I suggest above. If instead you continue to just ignore their votes, I will make sure to scream each and every time you do it. ] 02:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Well, that's about it. ;) But it's Misplaced Pages's and all our losses. Enjoy being away from all the mess here for a while, and come back when you're ready. Hopefully one day I can drag myself away from here too sometime, but we'll see... ] 09:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sure you don't know me, but I've seen a lot of your work (especially on the RfArb pages). You will be missed. --]] 13:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I haven't read anything about this nn ]; it would be an inappropriate forum to discuss our difference of opinion over VfD closing. It is incorrect to state categorically that BJAODN means anything other than "this belongs on BJAODN." The contributors to the thread had the opportunity to state that they wanted to delete; a good VfD closer does not second guess opinions, but tries to interpret all of them and be as scrupulously fair as possible. | |||
| == Heya! And could you still drop by occaisionally to help out?== | |||
| : You resent the fact that I expect someone who wants something deleted to say clearly. I would not be doing my duty by Misplaced Pages if I were, carelessly and through inattention, to delete an article when no clear consensus to delete was evident. An article deleted is gone. An article undeleted can always be deleted at a later date. | |||
| I think I have a bit of a clue about what you're dealing with, what with having been stretched quite as thin. There's folks getting overstressed left and right. We're in uncharted teritory as far as growth:administration costs goes, and we're feeling the pain. I'll be the last one to ask you to come back in full capacity (impossible if you've burnt out ^^;;) but um, well could you maybe drop by a couple of times to help out with figuring ways to get the community to scale better? Your insights would be invaluable, and might prevent other folks from leaving in the long run ^^;; Thanks :) ] 12:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Nooo! == | |||
| : I remain unimpressed by your attempts to misrepresent my closing as malfeasance, and your threats. Please do not threaten me again. --]|] 03:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Ambi, when I first started here you and TPK were two of the people who inspired me most to keep at it. I know it gets tiring after a while .. best wishes with your real life work! Please make it a temporary holiday - come back to say hello! -- ] 02:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Precisely. Look, if you're convinced that there was a real likelihood they meant anything else other than delete, why don't you go and ask them? | |||
| ==RFA== | |||
| :I and others have told you that BJAODN has always been interpeted by everyone else as delete. In all my time on Misplaced Pages, I have ''never'' seen an incident where ''anyone'' - even the most inclusionist of people - has chosen to interpret it otherwise. To continue to assert that there was some likelihood that people wanted otherwise - despite delete being in the BJAODN acronym - without providing a shred of evidence smells like being deliberately obtuse in order to have school articles kept. You've made your beliefs with regard to school articles clear, and this at least makes me wonder if you have too much of a conflict of interest to be closing school articles. | |||
| Thank you for your vote of confidence!--] 06:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Another== | |||
| :Of course, if you continue to insist that BJAODN actually means keep, feel free to ask the people who voted. You might prove me wrong, but I highly doubt it. ] 04:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Ambi, good luck with it all (except with the elections of course, i'm factionally bound there ;),) but I think that something that student politics and Misplaced Pages have in common is that it's a relatively easy matter to spot who the worthwhile people are. And for both it's also important to take breaks once in a while. Frustrations with this project are very often justified, but the problem with volunteer types is they're suckers for punishment :). Peace, and be back some day. ] ] 04:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since I see you haven't done me the courtesy of a reply, I've been reading through other recent contributions. I'm a little bemused as to how ] can possibly be interpreted as anything but merge. Once again, it seems like an idiosyncratic reading of the votes in order to see that the article is kept. ] 04:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == kmccoy's RFA == | |||
| Firstly, you do sound very upset, and I'd just like to ask you not to take it out on me. We have different opinions on certain matters and I think you're being far too quick to assume that I actually *share* your opinion on certain matters but am being deliberately perverse. Please take my word that nothing could be further from the truth. I am as completely and absolutely sincere in my opinions as I assume you are in yours. | |||
| Ambi, thanks for your support on my RFA. I hope that your departure will turn into a vacation, as you're clearly a valued member of the community. ] ] 04:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Secondly, the reason I hadn't replied to your earlier comment was that I hadn't yet read it. Please bear in mind that it is the middle of the night in some parts of the world, that Misplaced Pages editors and administrators are volunteers, and that like many other mortals they can usually only pay attention to one thing at a time. | |||
| == Ave atque vale! == | |||
| Now you say that you "and others, have told that BJAODN has always been interpeted by everyone else as delete." Well now you've met someone who finds that interpretation almost impossible to square with the nature of BJAODN as a quotes repository. If I want something deleted, I say it should be deleted. If not, and the article in question is not trivial in size, the GFDL requires that its history be kept in the database in some form or another. We cannot just paste a copy of the article into a file and forget it. | |||
| Thank you for your invaluable contributions to the project. You shall be missed. --] ] ] 11:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The meaning of the term "deleted" in BJAODN is quite clear when you look at the original BJAODN--these were largely clips from articles such as ] (first submission) and ] (fourth submission), quotations of text that had been deleted from those articles. | |||
| ==Hope to see you around here again== | |||
| You ask: "''if you're convinced that there was a real likelihood they meant anything else other than delete, why don't you go and ask them?''" I had no need to ask. They voted "BJAODN" and not delete. I do frequent VfD myself and I make multiple votes as a matter of course. If there isn't a consensus for my first choice, I still wish to influence the decision. There is nothing particularly difficult about expressing one's point of view clearly, and I'd hate to think that VfD closers (I only do it every blue moon) should have to go around asking voters for clarification of what already look like pretty clear statements. | |||
| Perhaps many Misplaced Pages editors could disappear and find their contributions forgotten in a week, but you cannot be considered one. A week, a month, a year, and more from now, I know that I at least will remember your dedication, your courage, your humility, and your graceful manner that caused so many of us to consider you one of Misplaced Pages's finest. I respect your decision to take a break, but I hope that, like me (a taker of wikivacations in the past), distance from this place will refine your sense of why you loved working here once, and that this will draw you back to us. Perhaps not as an arbitrator (if anyone understands what that did to your happiness here, I certainly do) or even as an active admin. I hope, though, that I will see your fine writing in articles and your well-reasoned and considered thoughts on talk pages sometime in the future. Until then, Godspeed. ] 06:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Ian Wright== | |||
| You write: "''To continue to assert that there was some likelihood that people wanted otherwise''" | |||
| Saw you To-Do list and notice you have Ian Wright there. I created a page on him a while ago.. ]... guess he could be moved to ] if necessary. --] 17:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks for your support == | |||
| I have made no such assertion. I have stated that there was no consensus. Some voted delete, others voted BJAODN. | |||
| Hi Ambi. Not sure if you'll see this, but anyway: Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. Best wishes for the future, --] 02:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| You write: "'' You've made your beliefs with regard to school articles clear, and this at least makes me wonder if you have too much of a conflict of interest to be closing school articles.''" | |||
| ==A farewell== | |||
| You're being very naughty. I had already pointed out to you that I (weeks ago) stated my opinion of the article--that it was a joke article and would probably be deleted. However when I closed the discussion there was no consensus to delete. | |||
| Ambi, I'm sorry that you have decided to take a break. Your contributions and positive influence in our little community were an inspiration to every Misplaced Pages, and I'm sorry to see you go. I wish you well in wherever life may take you, and always know that you will be missed and welcomed back whenever you like. Sincerely, and with my deepest gratitude and respect --]<sup>]</sup> 02:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Ambi, | |||
| :I tend to avoid policy pages to keep my wikistress under control, so only just heard that you had left. I just wanted to let you know that I associate your name with quality contributions, and will continue to do so as long as I edit. I can't even imagine the strain of being an arbitrator, but completely understand your decision. You are sorely missed. - ]]] 15:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Enjoy your time off. I hope to see you back someday soon. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 18:42, August 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| You write: "'' I'm a little bemused as to how ] can possibly be interpreted as anything but merge. Once again, it seems like an idiosyncratic reading of the votes in order to see that the article is kept. ''" | |||
| Damn. Another great editor burns out. I hope you have a nice WikiHoliday and come back to contribute content again soon. Simply ignore the politics here. --] 00:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Well perhaps you ought to do a recount. There are only 9 merge votes out of 15 total. Even those who put a generously low 66% bar on rough consensus would blanch, I should hope, at a mere 60%. Perhaps it is ''you'' who has the conflict of interest. Worse, some of the merge votes are for ] (7), others for ] (3). This was a classic case of "no consensus". In some such cases I will ] and perform what I think is the best merge, in other cases I choose not to. But never, when I make such unilateral decisions, do I confuse my own decision, taken on my own judgement, with my interpretation of the discussion, which I try to do in a predictable, consistent and accountable manner. --]|] 06:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Good luck with your law degree. Don't do politics for politics sake, but for the benefit of others. ] <sup>]]]</sup> 01:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Good luck IRL, and hope to see you again some day. ]]] 09:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Having received no reply and found no less than twenty-five similar incidents of articles being kept despite having few or no keep votes, I will be proceeding with a ] promptly. ] 06:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| There are 3,141,593 better things to do than edit Misplaced Pages, and you'll probably be doing at least 28 of them. Thanks for all your contributions, past and future. Cheers, -] 18:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Again you say you have "received no reply". Goodness, how frequently do you expect people to look at their talk pages? On articles being kept "despite having few or no keep votes", do bear in mind that keep votes are not required to keep an article, but a consensus is required to delete it. --]|] 06:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Ambi, I don't think I ever corresponded with you, but your enthusiasm and hard work on all things Melbourne and Australia were an inspiration to my own wiki-habits. All the best for the future. ] 07:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Signpost spam == | ||
| Let me rephrase. I continue to take issue with the practice of treating delete votes as keep votes where parties are split between redirect or delete - or, in this case, where BJAODN votes were treated as keep votes. This seems to me to be a serious misrepresentation of the voting intentions of those who voted; their votes have been counted as the complete opposite of what they actually voted for. | |||
| My apologies for the impersonal message, but you are one of a number of people who figure in recent events surrounding the deletion of VfD, a story about which will be in the upcoming '']''. A draft of the story is at ]. Please feel free to review it and point out any inaccuracies or misrepresentations you find. I would ask that rather than editing the story directly, if you could please direct any comments to the talk page. Thank you. --] 23:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| But it seems that you honestly believe that someone who voted BJAODN really meant keep, or someone who voted delete on an article would really prefer that it be kept unchanged as opposed to redirected where voters were split between the two options. Such a practice has two negative effects; it leaves people with a choice of seeing their wishes misrepresented, or else having to take time that would otherwise be spent writing articles running around to all the delete voters getting them to change their votes to keep, lest Tony take the opportunity to count them as keep votes. | |||
| == God bless you always! == | |||
| So if you're really serious, anyway, let us settle this. What would you think if I went around each of the twenty-four cases where you've kept articles despite their having few or none at all keep votes and asked every delete voter whether they would have preferred the article to be kept unchanged or redirected? If you're right, then there'll surely be a genuine lack of consensus, with plenty saying they'd rather have the article kept unchanged. | |||
| Dear Ambi, I don't say this often, or in public, but in your case I will: May God bless you in all ways! Best wishes and please don't give up on Misplaced Pages, it needs super-humans like YOU !!! Love, ] 08:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| So how about we come to an agreement - if there is a genuine lack of consensus among the responses, then I'll quit whining, but if it does turn out that the vast majority wanted the articles deleted, then you knock off this practice of discounting votes in closing VFDs. Thoughts? ] 10:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Another "sorry to see you go". == | |||
| When even student politics looks like having less bullshit involved than something, it must be rough. Good luck with your degree, hope to see you back here if things change. ].''']'''. 11:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : You write: ''"I continue to take issue with the practice of treating delete votes as keep votes where parties are split between redirect or delete."'' | |||
| ==Good Bye Ambi and Thank You== | |||
| : Well if you can identify someone falsely counting delete votes as keep votes, I will gladly join you in condemning the practice. A delete vote is never a keep vote, or indeed anything other than a delete vote. | |||
| Good luck on your degree, I know that you have a brite future ahead of you. Thank you for helping me and for always being there when I needed your advice. I hope that you come back someday, until then my friend, farewell your friend ] 07:56, August 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : You write: ''"or, in this case, where BJAODN votes were treated as keep votes"'' | |||
| == And another == | |||
| : There you go again. I specifically counted the BJAODN votes as BJAODN votes ''and nothing else.'' Surely this is the heart of the matter: that I did not count the BJAODN votes as delete votes, nor do I count delete votes as BJAODN votes. I do not do this because I think it would be dishonest to do so. | |||
| Best of luck in all your future endeavors, Ambi! Upon your return, the first thing you'll need to do is archive all of the above. ]←]] 07:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : You write: ''"This seems to me to be a serious misrepresentation of the voting intentions of those who voted; their votes have been counted as the complete opposite of what they actually voted for."'' | |||
| == New ACOTF == | |||
| : Again, the heart of the matter in my view is that I counted the BJAODN votes and the delete votes separately (which in my view is the most correct way to tally such votes) and as a result reached the conclusion: ''no consensus''. Roughly 40% of those discussing deletion wanted the article completely deleted, and an equal number wanted it moved to BJAODN. Neither of those comes anywhere close to consensus. | |||
| Hi. You voted for ] for ]. It is now selected. It looks like I picked a bad time to roll it over, as several voters seem to be unavailable :-( --] <sup>]</sup> 15:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : You write: ''"But it seems that you honestly believe that someone who voted BJAODN really meant keep, or someone who voted delete on an article would really prefer that it be kept unchanged as opposed to redirected where voters were split between the two options."'' | |||
| :PS Sorry to hear you've left us for a time. Good luck in life. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Absolutely not. Those who voted delete indicated that they thought that the article and its entire history should be eradicated from our database (which happens ultimately when the archive table is cleared.) Those who voted BJAODN indicated that the article was , to quote the ] "worthy of saving for humour value." Under our site license, this latter option is generally incompatible with eradication of the article and its history from our database, in the case of all but the most trivial substubs. It is, if you like, a pseudo-deletion. I believe that in practice the article page is moved to a subpage under ] and the link from article space is deleted. It can obviously only be called a keep in the purely technical sense that the article remains in the database (the pages table, which contains permanent content, rather than the archive table, which is regularly purged). Nevertheless, neither is it a delete, and for that very reason. | |||
| == Isn't it ironic? == | |||
| : It really is disheartening that you continue to maintain that I am saying one thing when I am repeatedly stating, in the most forthright and clear terms I can muster, something completely different. | |||
| I followed a conciliatory comment that you left on my Talk page just over a year ago regarding Misplaced Pages's ODP article to find that you had given up the ghost here at Misplaced Pages just a couple of weeks ago. Unlike you, I created boundaries for myself when it came to Misplaced Pages, choosing to avoid edit wars by limiting myself to commentary on Talk pages. Until late May of 2005, Misplaced Pages's ODP article was the last notable exception to that general rule, a case study to see how well Misplaced Pages as an institution could deal with bias and quality control issues. However, that's about the time that I got really busy with paying clients, so (by default) that's when I decided to limit my commentary on that article to my XODP Yahoo! eGroup and leave quality control to Wikipedians like you. Needless to say, I can totally understand your decision to retreat from the front lines here at Misplaced Pages, and I wish you the best of luck in whatever endeavors you are now pursuing. // ] 11:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : You write: ''"What would you think if I went around each of the twenty-four cases where you've kept articles despite their having few or none at all keep votes and asked every delete voter whether they would have preferred the article to be kept unchanged or redirected? If you're right, then there'll surely be a genuine lack of consensus, with plenty saying they'd rather have the article kept unchanged."'' | |||
| ==YAY!== | |||
| : I would regard that as a dangerous attempt to tamper with the autonomy of the VfD closer. Further, I would regard it as an attempt to rerun closed VfDs. If there are six votes for merge and six votes for delete, this is not a consensus and it isn't a good idea to pretend that it is or to try to rerun a VfD when--as is usual in the case of the late closes in which I specialise--those who voted have had a good two weeks to make up their minds, alter their votes, or whatever. | |||
| ] YAY! HURRAH, HUZEE, You're back! (ish) :-) Good to see you! :-) ] 15:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : If people want to indicate their preference in detail in a discussion on VfD, they can already do so. I commonly make votes indicating my first and second preference, or even which I would prefer ''not'' to happen. I have noticed that others do the same. | |||
| : I'm shocked by your proposal, but I'm confident that you'll soon see that it isn't good for Misplaced Pages. Please take the opportunity to examine your document ], to which I have taken the liberty of adding my own annotations. I am confident that I have nothing to fear from a post-mortem on my VfD closing, but do not use this as an excuse for an attempt to subvert the autonomy of the closer. If as you seem to believe my interpretation of my responsibilities--which I assure you I take most seriously--is ideosyncratic and unlikely to find much support, then little harm can be done by taking the case to RfC or arbitration, and if you still have an issue with my closing technique I urge you to do so. But re-opening VfDs by the back door is not in the interests of Misplaced Pages. It's easy enough to renominate any one of the VfD closings I have done, particularly the ones three or four months in the past--one or two of which havent been touched in the time since. --]|] 12:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Six votes to merge and six votes to delete is not a consensus to delete. It is, however, a consensus that the article should not remain as is. I'm not suggesting that the VFDs be re-run, as they're now in the past now, but I am suggesting that we find out what those people wanted. You consistently interpret VFD votes so as to make delete votes = keep votes if there is a substantial number of redirect votes. If that is the will of the voters, then surely they will provided some justification for this perspective. | |||
| You say that a delete vote does mean a delete vote, but when there are six redirect votes and six delete votes, you treat the six delete votes as six keep votes - instead of six redirect votes, which is much more in keeping with the likely intention of the voters. Thus a misrepresentation has occurred. | |||
| You said that a BJAODN vote means moving it out of the article space. But despite the fact that very nearly all the votes were for either BJAODN or deletion, you kept the article there - which was against the wishes of basically everyone who voted. In the circumstances, I cannot see this as being anything other than a misrepresentation of the votes of nearly everyone who voted. | |||
| I'm all for the autonomy of the closer. When I went through your contributions, I saw quite a few borderline calls - some I agreed with, some I disagreed with, but were still quite within the bounds of closer discretion. The only articles I'm concerned with here are the 26 (sorry, I initially miscounted) unforgivable cases - cases where very few, if any, voters wanted an article kept, and yet you kept the article. That, as far as I am concerned, goes ''well'' beyond the boundaries of closer autonomy. ] 13:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Sidebar: does Tony Sidaway interpret delete votes == keep votes in some circumstances?=== | |||
| : You write: ''You consistently interpret VFD votes so as to make delete votes = keep votes if there is a substantial number of redirect votes.'' | |||
| : I know that you have a lot else to say on this subject and I respect your view, but this statement, which you have repeated several times, is a serious obstacle. Could you explain it a bit more? I can't make a sensible interpretation of it, but I know you're a very intelligent person and wouldn't say it if it wasn't absolutely crystal clear to you that this is what I'm doing. | |||
| : Can we at least agree that deletion of an article listed on VfD requires a consensus to delete? If we can agree that form of words maybe we can move on and examine the analysis that leads you to make this--to me--quite inexplicable statement, which I implicitly accept is your honestly held view. --]] 14:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm going to be inexcusible rude here and butt in. (As I raised the initial AN/I, I've followed this pretty closely. Tony's talk page is on my watchlist as I notified him, and this page was on my watch list because I stole some of Ambi's ideas for layout.) The above ("Can we at least agree that deletion of an article listed on VfD requires a consensus to delete") is the sort of Daniel Webster debates the Devil question that leads nowhere. I intend to raise a RfC about the ''other'' pack of VfDs, unless Ambi wants to open it first. <br/>]]] 15:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==I see you're busy, but.......== | |||
| Hi Ambi. Not so many minutes ago when browsing RC I noticed what I think is an elborate circular hoax involving several articles. SheWhoMustBeObeyed is yelling at me right now to come to bed (we are a couple of hours ahead of you Aussies) so I don't want to start an investigation and get totally immersed. Can you have a quick look at ] and links to it. Cheers ] 09:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==RE: Greens South Australia== | |||
| I added it, then saw it didn't exist and removed it. I might get around to creating it tomorrow or sometime this week. Would it be an appropriate category in any case? (I saw ] had ]). --] | ] 15:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==GNAA== | |||
| In reply to: | |||
| :''Please read other people's objections before declaring them unactionable. You've added in big bold letters that no less than three objections were unactionable - when all of them made clear what was missing, and some even in the same sentence. Doing this makes it look like you're either acting in bad faith, trying really hard to be rude, or that you just can't read.'' | |||
| '''This is not a va...''' ;-) I did read all of the objections completely, and almost all of them are inactionable (those that I specified as such) or go against other Wikipolicies. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 00:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Your objection consisted solely of "This is way too short for a featured article", which is what I replied to. I wasn't replying to your other replies. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 01:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| Thank you for your vote of support on my recent ]. I was quite surprised by the amount of support I received, and wish to extend my thanks to you for taking the time to support my nomination for adminship. -- ] | ] 12:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:21, 31 March 2022
User talk:Ambivalenthysteria/Archive1
User talk:Ambivalenthysteria/Archive2
User talk:Ambi/Archive3
User talk:Ambi/Archive4
User talk:Ambi/Archive5
User talk:Ambi/Archive6
User talk:Ambi/Archive7
User talk:Ambi/Archive8
User talk:Ambi/Archive9
User talk:Ambi/Archive10
User talk:Ambi/Archive11
Last archived July 28, 2005.
Farewell
Very sorry indeed to see you go. Hesperian 01:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Fare thee well
The best of luck to you, and we'll keep the porch light on in back for you in case you ever need it. Kelly Martin 01:29, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Chin Up (it gives them a better target)
Don't get too frayed by this mess. I have stayed well out of the "VfD is broken" morass for a long time, so I suppose it's time to put up or shut up. In a day or two, I'll offer up something that I think will be non-controversial. It was non-controversial the last time it was proposed, so consequently nothing was ever done about it and people forgot about it. I loathe the "deletionist/inclusionist" mess, but I loathe even more the fact that admin ranks are now supporting people whose views on the matter are such that they will game and lawyer things to be activists. This is not really a Tony comment, either. I think Tony's a bright, engaging, and friendly person, but I also think he believes in his point of view strongly enough to do things that he has to know will be very controversial with standard practice, and, if he doesn't, he has been told by various that such was the case. I'm thinking more of people who go to RfA solely because they believe that no article must be deleted, do some "delete" votes while the RfA is going on, and then tell their friends that the plan is to become the person who closes out all VfD's (for keep, of course). Such a case happened recently, and I was glad to see the RfA fail, because it heralded something most disturbing to me. I'm not Achilles coming out of his tent, because the idea I'm going to offer is actually Angela's, but it would stop all this nonsense once and for all. Meanwhile, chin up. Geogre 01:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Please make it "Ja Matta" not "Sayonara"
What will the other Anti-podians do without you to balance out the bias? I hope I'll see you back in a fortnight,
Aaron (aka brenneman)
Very sad to see you go.
Best of luck in the real world. Jayjg 02:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, no....
Ambi, I know that given a choice between supporting Australia or Misplaced Pages, we must seem the meager option, but we're worth it, especially thanks to your edits. I hope that you will come back. You are an excellent editor, admin, and arbitrator, and I have always valued your contributions. Take care. Func( t, c ) 02:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Argh!
Ambi, I'm sorry if the FAC on GNAA has caused bad blood between us. It's not my intention :-( I'm very sorry to see you go! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
...don't leave!
Since joining Misplaced Pages, and discovering its Australian community, you have been something of an idol to me. Your contribution to this utopian project has been so immense that I cannot even begin to understand how draining it must have been. I am sincerely saddened by your departure, but I recognise that the struggle against the extremist pricks in the Howard Government is one that must take precedence. As a fellow campaigner, I wish you the best of luck in your efforts. Nevertheless, I do hope you decide to return to us in the very near future. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm also sad to see you go, Ambi, and I hope you don't stay away for long. We can't afford to lose contributors like you. SlimVirgin 06:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I sense a loss of a good editor. Focus on life, on what you need to do, and come back when things are right. You've left a standard to aim for here. -- Longhair | Talk 07:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I understand completely
Well, that's about it. ;) But it's Misplaced Pages's and all our losses. Enjoy being away from all the mess here for a while, and come back when you're ready. Hopefully one day I can drag myself away from here too sometime, but we'll see... Dysprosia 09:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure you don't know me, but I've seen a lot of your work (especially on the RfArb pages). You will be missed. --Deathphoenix 13:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Heya! And could you still drop by occaisionally to help out?
I think I have a bit of a clue about what you're dealing with, what with having been stretched quite as thin. There's folks getting overstressed left and right. We're in uncharted teritory as far as growth:administration costs goes, and we're feeling the pain. I'll be the last one to ask you to come back in full capacity (impossible if you've burnt out ^^;;) but um, well could you maybe drop by a couple of times to help out with figuring ways to get the community to scale better? Your insights would be invaluable, and might prevent other folks from leaving in the long run ^^;; Thanks :) Kim Bruning 12:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Nooo!
Ambi, when I first started here you and TPK were two of the people who inspired me most to keep at it. I know it gets tiring after a while .. best wishes with your real life work! Please make it a temporary holiday - come back to say hello! -- Chuq 02:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
RFA
Thank you for your vote of confidence!--Jondel 06:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Another
Ambi, good luck with it all (except with the elections of course, i'm factionally bound there ;),) but I think that something that student politics and Misplaced Pages have in common is that it's a relatively easy matter to spot who the worthwhile people are. And for both it's also important to take breaks once in a while. Frustrations with this project are very often justified, but the problem with volunteer types is they're suckers for punishment :). Peace, and be back some day. Slac speak up! 04:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
kmccoy's RFA
Ambi, thanks for your support on my RFA. I hope that your departure will turn into a vacation, as you're clearly a valued member of the community. kmccoy (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Ave atque vale!
Thank you for your invaluable contributions to the project. You shall be missed. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Hope to see you around here again
Perhaps many Misplaced Pages editors could disappear and find their contributions forgotten in a week, but you cannot be considered one. A week, a month, a year, and more from now, I know that I at least will remember your dedication, your courage, your humility, and your graceful manner that caused so many of us to consider you one of Misplaced Pages's finest. I respect your decision to take a break, but I hope that, like me (a taker of wikivacations in the past), distance from this place will refine your sense of why you loved working here once, and that this will draw you back to us. Perhaps not as an arbitrator (if anyone understands what that did to your happiness here, I certainly do) or even as an active admin. I hope, though, that I will see your fine writing in articles and your well-reasoned and considered thoughts on talk pages sometime in the future. Until then, Godspeed. Jwrosenzweig 06:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Ian Wright
Saw you To-Do list and notice you have Ian Wright there. I created a page on him a while ago.. Ian Wright (traveller)... guess he could be moved to Ian Wright (journalist) if necessary. --Madchester 17:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support
Hi Ambi. Not sure if you'll see this, but anyway: Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. Best wishes for the future, --MarkSweep 02:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
A farewell
Ambi, I'm sorry that you have decided to take a break. Your contributions and positive influence in our little community were an inspiration to every Misplaced Pages, and I'm sorry to see you go. I wish you well in wherever life may take you, and always know that you will be missed and welcomed back whenever you like. Sincerely, and with my deepest gratitude and respect --Neutrality 02:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Ambi,
- I tend to avoid policy pages to keep my wikistress under control, so only just heard that you had left. I just wanted to let you know that I associate your name with quality contributions, and will continue to do so as long as I edit. I can't even imagine the strain of being an arbitrator, but completely understand your decision. You are sorely missed. - BanyanTree 15:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Enjoy your time off. I hope to see you back someday soon. – Quadell 18:42, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Damn. Another great editor burns out. I hope you have a nice WikiHoliday and come back to contribute content again soon. Simply ignore the politics here. --mav 00:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Good luck with your law degree. Don't do politics for politics sake, but for the benefit of others. Alphax 01:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Good luck IRL, and hope to see you again some day. Radiant_>|< 09:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
There are 3,141,593 better things to do than edit Misplaced Pages, and you'll probably be doing at least 28 of them. Thanks for all your contributions, past and future. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Ambi, I don't think I ever corresponded with you, but your enthusiasm and hard work on all things Melbourne and Australia were an inspiration to my own wiki-habits. All the best for the future. Cnwb 07:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Signpost spam
My apologies for the impersonal message, but you are one of a number of people who figure in recent events surrounding the deletion of VfD, a story about which will be in the upcoming The Misplaced Pages Signpost. A draft of the story is at User:Michael Snow/Deletion deletion. Please feel free to review it and point out any inaccuracies or misrepresentations you find. I would ask that rather than editing the story directly, if you could please direct any comments to the talk page. Thank you. --Michael Snow 23:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
God bless you always!
Dear Ambi, I don't say this often, or in public, but in your case I will: May God bless you in all ways! Best wishes and please don't give up on Misplaced Pages, it needs super-humans like YOU !!! Love, IZAK 08:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Another "sorry to see you go".
When even student politics looks like having less bullshit involved than something, it must be rough. Good luck with your degree, hope to see you back here if things change. J.K. 11:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Good Bye Ambi and Thank You
Good luck on your degree, I know that you have a brite future ahead of you. Thank you for helping me and for always being there when I needed your advice. I hope that you come back someday, until then my friend, farewell your friend Tony the Marine 07:56, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
And another
Best of luck in all your future endeavors, Ambi! Upon your return, the first thing you'll need to do is archive all of the above. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
New ACOTF
Hi. You voted for Snowtown murders for ACOTF. It is now selected. It looks like I picked a bad time to roll it over, as several voters seem to be unavailable :-( --Scott Davis 15:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- PS Sorry to hear you've left us for a time. Good luck in life. --Scott Davis 15:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it ironic?
I followed a conciliatory comment that you left on my Talk page just over a year ago regarding Misplaced Pages's ODP article to find that you had given up the ghost here at Misplaced Pages just a couple of weeks ago. Unlike you, I created boundaries for myself when it came to Misplaced Pages, choosing to avoid edit wars by limiting myself to commentary on Talk pages. Until late May of 2005, Misplaced Pages's ODP article was the last notable exception to that general rule, a case study to see how well Misplaced Pages as an institution could deal with bias and quality control issues. However, that's about the time that I got really busy with paying clients, so (by default) that's when I decided to limit my commentary on that article to my XODP Yahoo! eGroup and leave quality control to Wikipedians like you. Needless to say, I can totally understand your decision to retreat from the front lines here at Misplaced Pages, and I wish you the best of luck in whatever endeavors you are now pursuing. // NetEsq 11:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
YAY!
YAY! HURRAH, HUZEE, You're back! (ish) :-) Good to see you! :-) Kim Bruning 15:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)