Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:Huh? I see no indication that I'm involved in the above diff, but I see my name on your big list, with no explanation of how I'm involved in this case. I don't see that I am involved in this case. ] ] 15:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 15:38, 26 February 2007
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)
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)
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)
User:Destin
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages. This isn't the Family Guy Wikia, is it? Mr Spunky Toffee19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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! —Lantoka04:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
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! —Lantoka05:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
PS thanks for realizing I didn't remove your comment intentionally - I will leave the other editors accusations as templates. AbeoPaliurus21:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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? Betacommand16:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages articles and some fanboy blog- these are not proper sources. Friday(talk)16:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
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. Betacommand16:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I would basically try to study their ways on Misplaced Pages, 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)
Temple garment
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Rider20:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 Rider00:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Ref desk cleanup
As a user who has expressed interest in dealing with misuse of the reference desk, you may be interested in my comments at Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
Really?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages. I'm more comfortable people who's focus is the actual project, not some chat room. Friday(talk)05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
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'm confused by your repeated use of the word "drama". Is there something inherently dramatic about redirects that I'm not seeing? Friday(talk)21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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 Misplaced Pages, 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.
Rather than clutter your page, I have moved my reply to Quadell. I will state, for the record, that the above reply is patently untrue. Tvccs02:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope this works out peacefully. Sorry for my lack of input- I've got other controversies I'm already in the middle of. Friday(talk)02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Light current block - a suggestion
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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: Misplaced Pages: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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
Friday - I have another suggestion, which I hope you will take in good part. Your recent posting 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)
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)
Posts
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
re: ouch
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 :) --froth06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Not how we do things
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Nudging
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)
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)
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)
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)
Friday is always welcome
Thanks, Friday. It's quite vicious, though, and a form of attack I thought was contrary to Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)
How many times does he need a "last warning" on his page to be blocked? They're empty threats if we don't act on it. — Chris5351621:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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. — Chris5351622:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
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: It appears as if he then logged out and continued to make the same edits. This needs to be dealt with. — Chris5351622:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages. Thank You for your concern in this matter. Duke53 | 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Light current
Hi Friday.
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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages: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)
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)
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)
Yes, I've seen some serious questions on the Ref Desk from him since then. And, not all trolls require blocking. StuRat20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
We own our edits
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)
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)
Please recuse yourself from the Ref Desk
As we are now aware that you still have the goal of destroying the Ref Desk , 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Then why didn't you "change the page to reflect your current thoughts" when you edited that section 4 days ago ? StuRat21:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Misplaced Pages 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
Sounds like borrowing trouble to me. It's not clear to me that I was helpful for Fetofs, so I'm not crazy about volunteering again. Friday(talk)19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
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)-Patstuart14:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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.
Harassment
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 Misplaced Pages, but in life. -THB03:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
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
Refdesk and RFC
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)
Recent Comments to Talk:Ilikefood
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Unfortunately, for badlydrawnjeff it is personal. He and his ED buddies have gotten MONGO desysopped, now it seems to be my turn. User:Zoe|(talk)19:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Even with the ticktocks removed, I have to say this is by far the most immature, mean spirited thing I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages. 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)
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)
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 . 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. 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. AuburnPilot21:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages.
Following are our reasons:
1) His initial statement that he wanted to delete the reference desk, later
repeated on his own hidden page:
.
3) His endorsement of the RfC against inclusionist StuRat:
Misplaced Pages: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: . Here is where the sock was permanently blocked by Admin:HappyCamper, then unblocked by his buddy Friday, then permanently reblocked by the HappyCamper: .
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): .
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 Misplaced Pages or a Misplaced Pages project:
He has since continued to do so, at least twice:
,
.
9) Friday often "speedy deletes" articles which fail to met the required criteria. (This point added by StuRat16:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC))
Here is some evidence: , : "...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.", . (Evidence added by StuRat13:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC).)
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 :) --froth05:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
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. AuburnPilot05:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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. AuburnPilot04:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Does "mainspace edits" exclude the Ref Desk ? If so, how ironic, many Ref Desk regulars are excluded automatically. StuRat03:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Yes you're technically right but what a terrible way to say it! NO FUN IN THE BIG SERIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA (that anyone can edit...) --froth08:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Laughable, except for proof that admins open to recall is failed and that the supporters are unwilling or unable to act like humans. Hipocrite - «Talk»15:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
This petition is absolutely pathetic. Even worse is the petitioners' campaign for endorsement of the recall (There are many more examples of this). There are proper places for dispute resolution and recall is not one of them. AuburnPilot17:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 JPS15:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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. Patstuart18:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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. --physicq (c) 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. HighInBC18:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
No consequence
None of the above opposition is of any consequence in the Recall motion:
These administrators are willing to stand for re-confirmation of adminship if six editors in good standing request it.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages because they don't like the old ones. -- SCZenz22:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Comments
Hipocrite deleted the petition three times ( even though he himself has requested an administrator's recall: . -THB13:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. KillerChihuahua14:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
In that case, Friday would be defined as an "Admin in bad standing", since he is under an ArbComm warning. StuRat16:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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. KillerChihuahua17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Clerking
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)
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)
Deletion question
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages community has made them bear down and become more disruptive. Time for them to go. Hipocrite - «Talk»12:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
No, he is not bound, contrary to your assertion. He does have the power to declare the petition void as he sees fit. --physicq (c) 03:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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. --physicq (c) 03:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
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. --physicq (c) 03:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Well, if the criteria for standing are cut and dried, it needn't be all that inflammatory, really. ++Lar: t/c05:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
User:Johnpedia
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)
RD
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)
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)
Welcome back to the world of Adminship. I hope we have all learned lessons form this little excursion. Happy patrolling. 8-)--Light current01:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
File:1953 S Novym Godom.jpgHappy New Year! (Template:Lang-uk, Template:Lang-ru). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Misplaced Pages. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Misplaced Pages space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen
Confederacy of Dunces
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)
I'm confused
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)
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)
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).
I was in the process of creating an article on a band, Legion when you deleted it. I am not a part of the band, and I do not know any of the Members personally. I dont understand why they are not allowed to have an article when other bands are.
You warned this editor earlier. He has now received five warnings, ans persists in adding articles about his NN band. I posted into WP:AIV, but nothing happened. Would you take a look, please?--Anthony.bradbury23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Friday,
I am foolishly new to the Wiki world, and know only that my roomate and good friend swears by the Misplaced Pages and turns to it for resolution of many issues. I thought that it contained anything added to it, pending peer revision. i don't know anything at all about programming or submissions, so it took me a good part of the day to put up the "Ben baumer" entry. Still can't figure why I missed the capitalization in his last name, but as I've said, new to all of this. You cited vanity as one of the reasons for dismissal, and i suppose that is valid, though it was not the subject who posted, but I see your point. I guess all i want is to be able to save the text so I don't feel totally wasteful.. How can I do this?
thank you for your time, but one question remains: how famous does someone have to get to warrant a page? Ben certainly contributes more to the world than all of the video games so often included, FEATURED even, in the Misplaced Pages. Anyway, thanks for your time,
Frank
That's some unhelpful editing, to be sure. However it looks like the last was about an hour and a half ago- so it's apparently already stopped. We try to be conservative about IP blocks, due to the risk of collatoral damage. Friday(talk)17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
As you've been warned many times now, your continued use of your Admin powers to block Ref Desk inclusionists is a conflict of interest since you remain opposed to the inclusionist viewpoint at the Ref Desk. What specific incident(s) do you use to justify your latest block of User:light current ? Also, why is there no mention of this action at AN/I ? StuRat16:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The block was explained on his talk page, as is standard procedure. The block was also reviewed, and upheld, by a not-previously-involved admin. It's there on the talk page, unless he's deleted it. Friday(talk)16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at WP:MALL to which you have contributed, with respect to proposals to merge it with WP:LOCAL, to continue developing it, or to go ahead and implement it as a guideline. Thanks. Edison21:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge?
I'd advise against making seperate articles for minor characters in a manga. If there's little chance the article can evolve past a small stub, you might consider merging this content into the main article. Friday17:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Created pages for each of the sections at Minor Characters of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure that already contained any information regarding a character and did not already exist as another page
I don't see this as any kind of major problem- I was just makin a suggestion based on what I saw at the time. Thanks for the reply. Friday(talk)18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
RD
There is no point in going to the RD Talk page any more than there is to go to the en mailing list. Both are cesspools of vitriol. User:Zoe|(talk)19:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
dude, its called alittle school rivalry...let it go.
so its alright for them to put stuff on their own stuff about our school being "stupid as shit"
joke?
does it look like a joke?
i mean... i know its a little slopy, its still a work in progress.
i know it says hes an actor and all that, but its cause im not finished yet, i coppied the shell of the artical from brad pitts, just so i'd have a template to work on.
Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Undeletion of article Bad Flirt (band)
Hi - I am contacting you regarding the article Bad Flirt (band) that was recently speedy deleted. I believe this article was inproperly speedy deleted and I am wondering if you could restore it. As stated in the Misplaced Pages:Notability (music) policy, notability cannot be used as criterion for speedy deletion. The admin who deleted the article claimed it was deleted because it was not about a notable band. I notice you have contributed extensively to the musc notability discussion so I was hoping you might see the problem here and help to address it. I am prepared to re-write the article to ensure it meets Misplaced Pages quality and notability standards. Many thanks. Iradub17:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how an image, with no associated caption, can be construed as advocacy. I removed the political caption. What's more, her name is linked to her biography. If I had wanted to be sneaky, I could have made an invisible redirect to her campaign article. I have reduced the size, and any political connotations. That is as far as I am prepared to bend. There is no policy about this, only a guideline. There is a very big difference. If you wish to see guidelines changed to policy, feel free to campaign for that here. Jeffpw20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What? Why do we need "rules"? Isn't a shared understanding of the goals of the project enough to guide us in this case? Your purpose of political advocacy is very clear from this version of your page. It's simply not credible for you to deny any intent of political advocacy under these circumstances, despite the changes you've made. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Friday(talk)21:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind having a look at Tanga (website). I think it should be speedied for G11 - Blatant advertising. It has already been speedied once today. It's proponent keeps removing the speedy tag. Thanks. --Tagishsimon(talk)
Ah. The moment has passed. RAHaworth got rid of it. thanks anyway --Tagishsimon(talk)
I just issued THB a rather strong warning, not so much on personal attacks as on that rubbish argument about how "you can't prove that I was alluding to what I was obviously alluding to." I'm of the opinion that we don't have to tolerate much more behavior like that, but please do let me know if I was too harsh or if my comments ought to be further reviewed. -- SCZenz23:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes I really do wonder if I've gone mad and become a troll; but I figure a respected and experienced member of the community would tell me if I had. -- SCZenz23:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't wonder, it is clear who is trying to kiss the boundary of the guidelines. The fact they even resort to the "you can't prove that I was alluding to" along with the crocodile tears and indignation seems to suggest they are trying to bait. It seems like tag team wrestling and i expect they'll just keep coming back for more. Frat boy humour and free speech on a reference desk seem like a silly cause to martyr yourself for. Their choice I guess. David D.(Talk)00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that this article was recreated with a bunch of crap. However, I never noticed the original article get deleted (it had been on my watchlist) in December. I am assuming it got speedy deleted, or was there an AfD for it, i can only find one from 2005?
The last time i saw the article it was in pretty good shape and certainly not advertising; so i disagree with the edit summary written by the admin that last deleted this article. Could you check the deleted version in the history and give me your unbiased opinion? It's main problem is that being a high school site it gets a ton of vandalism (as can be seen by the content of the recreated article). Personally, i think this is a very significant web site for the sport of track and field. Thanks for your help and opinion. David D.(Talk)23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, looking at the most recently deleted version, I can sorta see why it'd be deleted as an advert. It contained a bunch of links to various pages on that website. No sources, no assertion of significance. But it wasn't the kind of blatant advertising we sometimes see ("Come visit the BEST website around!!"). Anyway, it looks like it was a speedy- given the history here, I'm not sure I'd have speedied it myself, but then again I see no immediate reason why it's encyclopedia material, either. It's easy to read this and think, "Alright, some guy is trying to promote his website". If it's really significant, there ought to be sources talking about it- and I really doubt any of the people deleting it would have done so if it were sourced. Friday(talk)23:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I am not that interested in keeping it, other than the fact I had to keep reverting the vandalism. Might be best to protect it against recreation. Still, I'll see if there are sources, I'd be very surprised if there are not. David D.(Talk)23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
That didn't take too long. Using google news there are five independant sources, which does seem to establish it as a credible source at the national level. Of course five is not that many, I'll continue to dig. David D.(Talk)00:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you do understand notability. You probably think I don't understand it. We have a difference of opinion- that's allowed. Sorry if my remark offended you; I was just giving my opinion. Friday(talk)19:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a problem. Opinions are fine, but that was a bit beyond what's necessary. And if it wasn't one of many similar comments, I probably wouldn't be bothered, but this is getting to be ridiculous. --badlydrawnjefftalk20:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You're not aware of the history behind this, so perhaps you should change that before trying to get another one of your digs in? Not going to spam Friday's talk page any further with you, either. --badlydrawnjefftalk12:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
First I'm dragged over to the RefDesk talk page, accused of disruptive and inappropriate behaviour. Later on, in my defense, I provide an analysis of this so-called disruptive behaviour, including, as an example, the whole Vichy France issue.
How is this off topic? The topic was my alleged inappropriate behaviour, and my response was my defense against this accusation. It's got nothing to do with redebating the Vichy France issue, and is directly related to the topic under discussion.
Is this how things work here? An accusation is on-topic, yet a defense to that accusation is off topic?
I'm not saying accusations are on-topic. Generally, user conduct issues should be discussed on user talk pages. The ref desk talk page is for talking about the ref desk. Friday(talk)22:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Book?
Greetings,
Thou have taken what I said wrongly. I would have had accurate information, since I know the future author personally. Not "personal knowledge or opinions", it would be the truth
That's exactly the problem - the "truth", based on your own personal knowledge rather than on a source. And, did you say future author? Certainly a book that's not written yet is unlikely to be covered in proper sources. Friday(talk)17:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
DUDE. Don't you get it? He's Alexander the Great!! Visiting the year 2007 just as if Bill and Ted themselves (may they party on in peace) had picked him up! That's why everything happening "now" is "the future" to him! Or maybe we're all high(what on earth am I really trying to link here??) and you should never edit Misplaced Pages when you're high. V-Man73721:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You must be referring to this message I left for you. This is a collaborative project. When other editors bring a concern to your attention, please don't just blow them off. It's rude and counterproductive. Friday(talk)22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Bah. Thanks for the pointer. I have opinions but I can't shake the feeling that discussion of this issue only makes it worse, not better. Normally I'd never suggest simply refusing to engage an editor who seems to want to, but reasoning has been tried many times by many editors and hasn't lead anywhere useful. I'm out of ideas. Friday(talk)16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I am indeed. In fact, I have two... as part of a transition towards selling the older one and hopefully getting a CX-7. At least, that's what I am telling myself is my intention. :) How are you liking the Mazdaspeed 3? I haven't seen one yet, but they look pretty slick from the reviews. -- Renesis (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Two?!? Damn. Can adults really fit in the back seat? I've been drooling over the rx8 since it came out, but needed something a bit more practical. I really like the speed 3- I'm not used to fwd (a 96 miata has been my daily driver til now) but its a great car. Reasonably roomy but still feels tight. Of course the roads here have been cold and salty and I'm still breaking it in, so I haven't been hitting it too hard yet. Even in third gear, traction can go away in a heartbeat when you accelerate hard. I'm going to try to snap a good picture of it or two and put it in the Mazdaspeed 3 article. It looks mostly like a normal 3- which is something I like. No cop will give this station wagon a second look, but the strong engine makes it very easy to speed ridiculously. Friday(talk)15:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Tough call
What do you make of all this?
I can't figure out if this is socketry or impersonation...
Funny thing just happened to me...! an IP posted on my talk page, signing with a user name. I asked the user about it. Apparently the user sometimes edits without signing in. Hm. V-Man73700:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Your message
Hi Friday. Thanks for your message on my talk page. On principle, I completely agree with you. You are right that if he makes an unconstructive edit - at a very basic level - it is entirely correct you should change it. If he can't deal with that civilly, it is his problem, not yours.
I guess I just naturally try to avoid conflict, and so would not have made those edits simply because I knew (as I'm sure you did) how LC would react. I get distracted from improving the encyclopaedia enough by LC's behaviour, without getting involved in another dispute that I consider to be avoidable.
I have no sympathy with his complaint, though, and am aware that attempt to focus this issue on a meritless "stalking" claim is merely a distraction from LC's behaviour. Thanks again for your comment. Rockpocket20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand, and this is always a tough call. Part of me was thinking "the more we're willing to let things slide, the more he'll calm down" but then again part of me thought "If he requires being tiptoed around in order to not fly off the handle, this cannot work". Normally I'd warn a user against edit warring when doing such a revert (he had previously been reverted by someone else, and he'd put back the same unhelpful change), but I knew that communicating with him directly would only make things worse in this particular case. Obviously in retrospect, I could have chosen to do things differently and it might have helped. Or, it might have just been someone else he blew up at, who knows. Maybe it's better that he attracted a lot of attention and got himself a long block- we already have seen that short ones don't tend to help. Hopefully the one month + talk page protection will give him the idea that he really does need to change his behavior, rather than expecting Misplaced Pages to bend to suit his needs. Friday(talk)20:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know this wasn't your intention, but in the end the course of action that resulted - LC bringing his behaviour to the attention of the community via a complaint about you - was probably the best result for thr project. When I said your actions were "regrettable", I meant from LC's point-of-view. But thinking about it, what is really regrettable is that he was unwilling or unable to forsee how this would play out - even after he had been warned time and time again. We have all spent way too much time trying to find a way Misplaced Pages could accomodate LC. Perhaps too long. Anyway, please rest assured that I have no problems with your interactions with LC, and that I wouldn't have done it myself is not a criticism (infact, it probably says more about me than it does abou you!). If LC can take advantage of his last chance, then great, otherwise this can be put to bed and we can all move on. Rockpocket21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Kingdom of liberta
I was looking at that article for a while now, I stumbled onto it while new page patrolling and was for once stumped. I assumed that what you did was what should have been done, but paused for a moment, when is that kind of thing notable? 'Cause there are other articles on these micronations around. Presumably that was deleted as it was purely an internet one? SGGH19:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There were no sources- to me that's a huge reason. Only subjects with nontrivial coverage in multiple independant sources are candidates for articles. As it was, it's basically just a website. We can't do articles based solely on some random person's website. Friday(talk)19:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
my petition
you might as well delete the article for me since i dont know enough about wikipedia code to put the link to it on the community portal with a different name
i mean its obvious "User:Mishke/petition" wont draw many hits
by the way,you an admin or something?id like to know so that i can decide whether to think of you as a freindly or not
there is one big reason i dont like admins,they always turn out like politicians,you might get a few good ones,but most end up hoisting themselves high above the striking distance of intelligent people like me
oh by the way,blue cheese,rice cakes,and licorice ARE food,youll find out easily if you look them up in the dictionary
and you do know that cultural change on a wikipedia scale cant occur unless you change the minds and hearts of people,which inturn cant be done unless freewill is severely squashed,which is largely agasint a good few laws here in the united states,and my own religion
laws against running around abd beating up people to your hearts delight (as a blunt yet informative example,) were created so that actions by other people out of freewill would be penalized if they harmed another person`s right to freewill
for example,law basically says "no tying up of people" "no kidnapping" etc.
ive noticed often (maybe its just from being the victim of admin target practice) that in some forums and places much like this that admins will often use there powers to assassinate people they dont like,especially users that validly threaten there position with complaints of misconduct
FWIW, I find Friday to be polite and responsible; whether or not a person is an admin shouldn't prejudice one's attitude toward them. I agree that sysops of forums sometimes usurp their "power," but that is something that is closely checked in Misplaced Pages; in addition, the way the admin system works is in such a way as to try to minimize the separation between admins and "regular" users. Really, being an admin is no big deal. V-Man73722:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, by the way, and I absolutely agree that we shouldn't worry about who has the admin buttons or not. We're all just editors. Friday(talk)16:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishke, are you talking about things that have happened here, or on other websites? I see only a small number of edits in your contributions, and no sign of any trouble with other editors, admins or not. But, if you need help with something, let me know and I'll do whatever I can. Friday(talk)22:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Our mutual friend
I agree with your most recent post on AN/I. The flip side, if I might be so bold, is that any utterly non disruptive account that someone may come to suspect... should, can I controversially suggest, be tolerated? --Dweller15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree. The benefit of the project generally outweighs concerns involving a single editor. Wise folks have already looked the other way when he's made useful contributions while blocked. Friday(talk)16:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree here too. The positive contributions have always been significant and if any new account focuses on that aspect of editing wikipedia will benefit. David D.(Talk)19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
What's the deal? Seems like we have a specialist on our hands, but I have no clue what to make of (or do about) all this. Perhaps if she got her dog back, everything would calm down? V-Man73713:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC) PS - thanks for being patient with my constant rattlings for your administrative opinions.
Note
The issue about WP:BIO and such has ended up on arbitration. Since I recall a comment by you that the changes the issue was about really weren't all that sweeping, perhaps you'd care to comment on this. Thanks. >Radiant<10:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Googlegate
Yes, there are people talking about it. Its on Gizmodo.com for example, as well as various other blogs.
It might only be the laptops. You can add memory I think, but most of the parts are in a sealed compartment that can't be opened without obviously damaging it. I think they also use evidence tape. --froth23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
are you bored like me sitting,in the house doing nothing?
from unknown name person
Anonymous Users
Perhaps my words were overly harsh, but I was understandably angry that an entire question of mine was removed by this anonymous user because s/he took it upon him/herself to deem it inappropriate, and only meant to get into an argument. It clearly wasn't inappropriate to anyone but that person. The question sparked an entirely civil and enlightening discussion among a great deal of users. One actually called it "the RefDesk at its best". Being that it was a completely appropriate question, and restored within minutes of its deletion, this anonymous user was obviously in the wrong, and should have apoligized. Instead, s/he made further negative comments about me. Keep in mind also that according to WP:WHY, anonymous users are restricted to a certain degree with regards to editing. Deleting someone's question along with a lengthy friendly discussion on the topic is a rather severe thing to do. I doubt you wouldn't have been as irritated by it as I was. Yet will this anonymous user even be left a message that it was wrong to have deleted my question? Of course not. Without a user ID, there's no talk page to even put it on. Loomis20:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Having looked at some of the talk pages where some controversy has erupted, I have some ideas on what may help resolve the dispute. First, stop trying to promote yourself as an expert here on Misplaced Pages -it's irrelevant. There's a whole internet out there you can do this on, just keep it off Misplaced Pages. Also, you say you're not editing Schiavo-related pages, but you're still arguing on their talk pages. Why? Wouldn't it be better to just drop it? The alleged conflict of interest is a very serious issue. If there's ample evidence that you're here to promote yourself and your own opinions rather than being here to produce a neutral encyclopedia, the ban becomes a very real possibility. If you're here for the good of the project rather than for self-promotion and soapboxing, you need to start working much harder to demonstrate this. Friday(talk)19:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions; Like I said: While I don't edit as much nowadays as in the past (I don't get paid to edit), I usually don't have much argument over my edits, or, if I do, we usually get over it. Sometimes my suggestions gain concensus -sometimes not, but see my edit history on those links near the last paragraph on my RfBan page -the ones that 10 of trades sought and that Orange Monster allege existed; I posted a few links. That should answer your questions; As long as people don't poke at me, I won't answer back, and even if they do, I might not answer back.--GordonWatts19:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You said on the community ban discussion of User:GordonWatts, "why are people talking about how other editors have been rude to him?". That would have been me. I was just showing that User:Calton (who submitted the community ban request) is very rude and often incivil. By that, I was showing that some of the comments made by User:GordonWatts were responses to User:Calton and at times defenses of his (User:GordonWatts) statements and that the back-and-forth between User:Calton and User:GordonWatts was instigated by User:Calton by his rude and incivil comments as it has in many, many other occasions.
Eh, no big deal. And it's true that GW has been treated poorly. If the only problem with him was him fighting with Calton, this would be understandable. I see the conflict of interest as a major issue, though. Friday(talk)19:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
PlayRadioPlay!
It appears we work from opposite ends. I've closed the debate and went to delete it and you'd done it already. I've salted the page. Steve blockTalk19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Friday...my name is Floyd Bowman, and I would like to ask a question concerning my article I posted named "Ryan Bowman." I would like to ask why it has been deleted, for it has just as much importance as half of the articles posted. It is a big story, one that has been around for a few years...and it is very important to get it out to the general public. You see, Ryan Bowman is my brother, and he's been missing...and I thought it would be my duty to get the story out there, Misplaced Pages preferably. Misplaced Pages, as you obviously know is the main source of many individual's information, and I would find it an insult to Ryan's memory to delete this very important article. Please get back to me with a response.
You may want to have a look at Misplaced Pages:No original research. Since this is an encyclopedia, editors must use sources, not be the source. Phone calls you've had are irrelevant here. Keep in mind that talk page discussion should conform to our core content policies- original research isn't appropriate on talk pages. Friday(talk)15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I was not advocating using my phone call to another editor AS a source. (As a news reporter, if I wanted to use MYSELF as a source, I need not go to another editor -I myself, as a first-hand witness to many Schiavo event AM a source myself -no different than any other of the hundreds of writers who canvassed/visited that Terri Schiavo's hospice that month.) Rather, all I was trying to demonstrate, Friday, was that the other editor was kind enough to speak to me on the phone -that's all -no request on my part to use our phone call as any source of source here. I know it's been getting thick lately, but, please don't read into my writings something I didn't actually say. No offense meant.--GordonWatts16:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to be snide at you, but when people are in strong disagreement it becomes easier for things to be seen that way, I suppose. The merge suggestion was meant to be funny, but to make a serious point too. I was half tempted to make the page into a redirect, but this would have interfered with your editing of it. I have no ill feelings toward you, but I do think you're being way too fanatic about this at the moment. Friday(talk)21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I was actually trying to be funny with the "Dear Vile Dark Lord" stuff too, in hopes of diffusing any ill feelings, but I see that I failed. I'm sorry. Friday(talk)21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If you hadn't had a history of it, maybe it would have diffused it. It's difficult to see it any other way, but perhaps that's why I'm so "dangerous." --badlydrawnjefftalk21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The notion that "Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy" isn't going to go away. I think it's best for everyone if you stop fighting that particular battle. Friday(talk)00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I think it's in everyone's interest if we start a renewed focus on it. It's obvious it's causing problems. Would you like to be part of the problem or the solution? --badlydrawnjefftalk00:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, obviously we're all here to help. I dunno, I think maybe we're too far apart on too many things to have much meaningful discourse. But the eternal optimist in me always likes to think everything can be solved by talking it out. I'm at a loss for what else to say at the moment, though- I can't see how more bureaucracy could possibly help the project. Friday(talk)01:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
What part of the word vandalism don't you understand?
What part of the word vandalism don't you understand? Somebody marked an article for deletion; and when the page is updated to answer the criticism by supplying external links to justify the article's retention, the pertinent information has been destroyed.
I responded again, thank you for the debate. What Jimbo did may have been in good faith, I cannot peer into his soul just by his words and actions on that instance, but irregardless of his motives, Misplaced Pages has lost a valuable contributor due to his actions and lack of moral leadership. If Jimbo acts unequivocably as the "head wikipedian", what kind of example is that for us lowly peons? If it were up to me, i'd start some kind of P2P Misplaced Pages, similiar to what Kazaa tried for music, but I don't have the technical or legal expertise, so there's not much I can do other than voice my dismay at Wales' occasional tyrannical actions like these. Just H03:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I follow you. Why would you say Misplaced Pages has lost an editor? A desysoping is not a ban. If Yanksox choses to leave, that is his choice. Don't you think the overall good of the project is more important than whether any one editor currently has the sysop bit or not? It's no big deal; nobody's even saying he can never have it back. Jimbo made a temporary solution and referred the matter to Arbcom for longterm resolution- what's wrong with that? I can't see why you'd use the word tyrannical in this case- Jimbo was reasonable, explained himself fully, and things like this very rarely happen. Where's the problem? Friday(talk)04:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
A butterfly is just a caterpillar with wings when you get down to it. But, if you rip the wings off a butterfly, he doesn't revert to being a caterpillar again, he just becomes a deformed butterfly. People are no different. I've seen it in real life, and I saw some of the signs with Yanksox (the page blanking). What makes me wonder why Jimbo acted in good faith is how he could so callously just rip off the wings of that butterfly rather than trying to figure out why he's sick.
Yanksox is likely never going to get back his "wings"(adminship), we both know that, and if the person behind him truly did invest a part of themselves in this website as it seems many do, there's going to be an emotional scar there caused just because Jimbo felt lazy and decided to "turn off the sysop bit" rather than try to do what a Wikipedian is supposed to do according to all the wiki-propaganda(discuss, compromise, empathize, etc.) Just because it's rare doesn't change the fact that it's wrong and that someone was harmed here and that Jimbo seems to have no worries about that. Just H13:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Emotional scars? Wings being ripped off? This is just too dramatic and over the top for me. If Yanksox was behaving erratically, this is more reason to remove the bit for now, not less. It's just about harm reduction, but you're taking it as a personal insult. Personalizing things that aren't personal causes a great deal of wasted time. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. We don't need to make it personal. Friday(talk)17:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I see no indication that I'm involved in the above diff, but I see my name on your big list, with no explanation of how I'm involved in this case. I don't see that I am involved in this case. Friday(talk)15:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
