| Revision as of 09:16, 24 June 2005 editRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits →Recreation: block← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:04, 24 June 2005 edit undo195.39.170.102 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{protect}} | |||
| {|style="margin:0 auto" align=center id=toc | |||
| <center><big><big><big><big>'''END OF LINE'''</big></big></big></big></center> | |||
| ! style="background:#B0C3F4" align="center" | '''Today is {{CURRENTDAYNAME}}, ], ]; it is now {{CURRENTTIME}} (]/]) | |||
| Misplaced Pages is no longer a credible sourse of information, the "establishment" has seen fit to make me a persona non grata, so i am in the process of taking all my content to other projects that have better adminstrative structurs. I hope in the end this project is show to be the failure and sham that it is. | |||
| |} | |||
| <br clear=all> | |||
| <div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:blue;background-color:beige;border-width:1px;text-align:center;padding:2px;" class="plainlinks"> '''To Reach Me, Just Leave Your Name, Number, and a Brief Message After the .'''</div> | |||
| ]/]/] | |||
| ==Votes for Adminship== | |||
| Boothy443, thank you for your contributions to ]! In addition, thanks for your interest in ]. However, in ], we usually place a reason for voting oppose to a user. Otherwise, the vote may not be taken seriously by the Wiki-munity (is that a word?). Would you mind either placing a reason for your opposition for every RfA or withdrawing your votes? Thanks very much! ] ] <small> ]</font color> ] <sup> ] 21:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :My apologies, Boothy443, I see you've already expressed your opinions regarding this matter in your archived talk pages. ] ] <small> ]</font color> ] ] 22:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == I don't think ] is ] == | |||
| I believe ] isn't really ] for the following reasons: | |||
| # Dittoboy seems to be trying to get himself '''blocked'''. JoeM is working hard on trying to get himself '''unblocked'''. | |||
| # Dittoboy does his work from ], at IP address 132.70.50.117. (This I know because '''he''' keeps getting it blocked.) JoeM's record DOES have an IP address - 4.247.194.236. | |||
| # I don't think JoeM knows anything about ]; Dittoboy shows some knowledge in the matter. | |||
| # JoeM only has one sockpuppet going at a time; Dittoboy did his vandalism both before and after the sockpuppet ]. | |||
| # Most of Dittoboy's vandalism had '''nothing''' to do with JoeM's POV edits or with him trying to get unblocked. Dittoboy has been trying a few methids of getting blocked, and he finally found one which will work indefinitely. | |||
| # If Dittoboy already had a blocked account, he wouldn't have needed do vandalise from his Dittoboy account. JoeM has several. | |||
| ] 23:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Civility in edit summaries == | |||
| Please refrain from referring to your fellow editors as "morons" and other such forms of incivility in your edit summaries. Thank you. ] 03:23, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :What ever, So now that someone confronts the establisment, we are going to repremand him for stuf that he said in the past, yet daily, the "gestapo" let incivilty run rampid with narry a word, unless it effects them or the establishment, welcome to the double standard. --] | ] 03:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == My mistake == | |||
| Sorry, I did not realise I had posted on your archive page, untill I re-read it this morning. Must have been half asleep last night. ] | ] 07:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *whatever. --] | ] 07:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Giano has drawn it to my attention that may have seemed like bullying. Please be assured that my intent was to help you mitigate the general hostility that I thought I saw. I hope that I have not increased your discomfort and I regret my involvement. It is no accident that "well-meaning" has become a deprecation!—] ] 07:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==B-101== | |||
| Uh, Boothy443, would it be okay if I copy your toolbox tables so I can create my own?- ] 13:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I think there should be a box on the article saying what station is next and one before like the one you put on the ] article. | |||
| :It's an ongoing project, i'll get to them as a find them. --] | ] 00:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I realise you want us to leave you alone about this, but be aware that as you have not explained ''why'' you are voting against all admin candidates (no matter who they are), I would suggest to you that you don't act suprised when people a) message you about it, b) find that your vote is being discounted, and c) feel that perhaps you are disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. In your archives, I also notice that you wrote: | |||
| :Why is is that you, adminstrators specificaly and other useres, only confront users that vote in oppsition, i see a majority of votes for support with no explnation what so ever, yet no one questions them why they voted in support, and when most resons for support are give they are things like "i think he will do a good job", or "i have had no problems with the user in the past", or "because so and so voted oppose". yet an oppsition supporter basiclay is forced to write war and peace to explain why they voted no or else they are basisicaly left to felt like their vote is discounted. So no you dont need to know why i voted oppose, only that i voted oppose. | |||
| Sorry, but we do in fact need to know why you voted to oppose. Voting to oppose implies that you have a problem with that editor's behaviour, or some aspect of his/her actions on this website. If that is the case, then we need to know why this is. Supporting, on the other hand, implies by its very nature that the person voting has no issues with the editor and feel that they would make a fine candidate. This also means that they don't have to justify why they are voting to support! - ] 03:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''First''', i never said that i wanted to be left alone on the subject, i juest perfer that if you are going to you the talk page for may account that you use it to address me and not other useres, and that if you feel the need to convers with other useres that you take it to your or their or a corsponding article talk page, and not converse on the talk page for my account. | |||
| :'''Second''', no i would not be and i was not supprised that i was being msg on account of my votes, or find that my vote is being discounted as it seems to be a valid and established, and very much disappointing and disconcering pratice no matter what level of user that one is, | |||
| :'''Third''',"perhaps you are disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point", so apprently this afferms the ideal of the admins that if you go aginst the grain, no matter how you do it, you are being distrupting, so a simple vote in oppose is distruptive then, well then thats sad that one can not oppose something in a civil way and be labled as distruptive, and as for making a point, what was the point being made other then i opposed their nominations, which seems to be a frowned upon practice, espicaly if i am being lectured by many "admins, without them saying it directly, that it's a bad and fround upon ideal to oppose a "admin" nomination, i find that more distruptive then my actions to express my idea of a canadite "admin". Since i doubt that any person on here can state what point, if any, i am trying to make make, your asseration in a subtle way is no more then with basis and without truth or fact, and i find this "accusation" highly offencive. And considering that daily users, both registered and un-regestered including many "admins", use this system as a way to express their political, religious, social, and other beliefs with little or no action taken aginst them is really the issue that you should focous on, rather then how someone has chose to vote for proposed "admins". | |||
| :'''Fourth''', and no i do not need to give a reason, their is no policy that forces me to givae a reason for a vote, and if their is, or ever would be, i would recomend that all users stop voting on everything. They only person i have to justifiy my position towards is myself, if a canidate wishes to query me on my vote then only they should, as i see no need to explain my vote to any other users other then the ones it is directed towards, and even if they query me i still have every right and reson not to explain to them either. In the same way i dont need to explain how i vote to election authorities or the canidates after voting for my goverment respresenatives unless i feel so. How would you like it if in the next election, assuming that he runs, that John Howard or represenatives of the Labor Party were co call you up and demand or ask that you give a reason to why you vote for or aginst their goverment in the next elections, i dont know about you but i dont know if i would be to happy about it. And to say is that the RFA, among other things is anything less then an "election", though to even call it that is a stretch, is basicaly a joke. Also, assuming only makes an '''ass''' out of both '''u''' and '''me''', the only thing that you infer is that i oppose a users apointment, and to infer any reasons why would just be useless and insulting to the canidate, to yourself, and me. It could mean that i dont approve of their behaviour, or that i dont belive they would be good as an admin, or that they dont have the skills, or they are not ready, or that they dont have ample expericne, or that i just dint like them, or i am voting because some one voted for, (a system that seems to be wildely employed and tolaratd/accepted in the RFA from both approve and oppose sides), or for some other various reason, and to assume the same from those that approve is just as useless. | |||
| I plan no change in my system of how i vote, let alone if i vote for an "admin". No will i cave into this "bully" tatic that is being imposed aginst persons that act differently to the "admins". I m starting to wonder if wikipedia is communisum is correct, and that this system is not run like a communist/socialist, adbet modified, state in the form of it's governance or shal i say non-governance. --] | ] 07:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Jason: Having looked at your edit history I think I understand why you voted oppose on all those candidates at once. I also think that you did so in response to what you consider to be failings by an individual admin and the administrators in general. Would you like me to elaborate my reasoning? This is not a rhetorical question. | |||
| Making your point in that way has distracted a significant number of editors from other aspects of improving the encyclopedia so it seems reasonable for TBSDY and others to deduce that you were disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. They may be mistaken but I do not think that they are being unreasonable. Similarly, it seems to me that by voting against so many RFAs simultaneously without explanation, you create the impression that you are expressing opposition to the process or the role rather than to individual candidates. This is akin to writing "none of the above" on your ballot slip—a spoilt ballot that would be disregarded in the kind of election to which you also allude. In this case, however, the process is not intended as a democratic vote (although the addition of tallies and the simplification of the format makes it look so—and what looks so becomes so) but is intended to be a debate to form consensus. I risk making donkeys of us both (smile) by assuming that you understand consensus. So here is the difficulty: Some people (including you it seems) perceive the process to be a democratic vote whilst others see it as a debate that uses a polling mechanism. The former requires no explanation and most democracies regard secrecy as a key element; the latter requires explanations of oppositions to the proposal so that the proposal can be modified or explained to increase consensus. The argument becomes: | |||
| :"Contribute to the debate." | |||
| :"I need not reveal my secret ballot." | |||
| So, it is no longer a conversation about the same thing. | |||
| I think that you do us all a disservice when you characterise this as a conflict between the admins and the rest of us. There is an existing process here. You chose to use it in an unusual way. A significant number of people asked for an explanation of this apparent anomaly with varying degrees of tact. Some of us have come to see that the initial volume of repeated questions could be seen as bullying even if that was not the intent. Nobody (and I repeat: nobody) has suggested that it is a bad thing to oppose RFAs. Reasoned opposition is to be encouraged because it helps other editors to look at the candidate more closely and enables the candidates to modify behaviours that are seen to be inappropriate. Support votes warm me but each comment and reasoned opposition would cause me to evaluate my behaviour and to seek to modify it. Many past candidates have stated how useful it was to receive criticism from their peers. In my opinion, an unexplained 'oppose' ''should'' attract questions; to do otherwise is to ignore that person's discomfort unless the candidature fails. | |||
| How, specifically, would you like to see Misplaced Pages changed?—] ] 11:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Adminship JoJan == | |||
| Thanks for your support. ] 14:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==The Family== | |||
| I guess it's time to scoop ] and deposit some of the pertinent contents elsewhere. But the most appropriate place? Well, first I'll add your breaking news. The socks are probably all in a twist over Roger Moss. --] 13:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| What about a speedy delete for Roger Moss (sculptor)? This guy is such a nut! He's throwing in Boeing stubs again I see. Yeah, that builds credibility. I haven't checked on Coney's stubs lately. I might go have a look. --] 20:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :omg - for a small chortle, go see Coney's article ]. ] 20:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == re:rfa votes == | |||
| Boothy regarding your RFA votes both positive and negative, I've read your archives and I know how you feel and I feel the same way some days however I think you've made your point and am hoping that you will rethink your choice of not leaving reasons for votes both positive and negative. Leaving explanations helps nominated users see what they have to improve on to become a ""better editor"" {for lack of a more appropriate term of the top of my head) and may help other users in their decision whether to vote for or against the adminship of a user. I can perfectly understand if you disagree with. ] 23:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *If it takes a RFA to improve or crtiique a users edits, then everyone should automaticlay been given a nomination, so that way we can critique each other, but since it is a "vote" to determin if a user is qualified to be an admin, in which many are not, then i am no more compelled to gave a reson now then what i have been before. And i am not out to sway other users opinions in how they decide on if they belive if a person id deserving an "approval" of their nomination, in the same way i would hope, but seriously doubt is the case, that each user conduct their own research into a useres and not entierly rely on the "opnions" of a few users, lest we all are lemmings. So no i will not change my voting, nor will this constant naging of me to will change my opinion, other then it reenforces some of the many problems. As for proving my point, would you like to explain what the oint is that i am trying to make, becaus everyone says i am but no one can say what it is, and why it is such a problem, not that it would change my mind or anything. --] | ] 02:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Correct me if I'm wrong of course but as far as I can tell the point you are trying to make or seem to be trying to make is that you are pissed off at the RFA process and it seems that you are particularly annoyed at the fact that only negative votes are critizized and questioned while positive votes for the most part are not. ] 02:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **No the "demand" for explination just pisses me off, and it goes much further then the rfa. --] | ] 02:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Fair enough, and since you have a long list of edits and are obviously not a spammer or a troll, unless you take a troll transformation spell... You have every right not to give a reason, I just think it surprised a lot of people when you suddenly voted oppose on every rfa without an explanation and that's why everyone including myself reacted the way they did. ] 02:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Well maybe their needs to be more feathers ruffled. --] | ] 02:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't personally care how you vote or if you leave an explanation which you are by no means obligated to do, as long as you have a reason. You don't have to justify it to us but I do still believe you have an obligation to justify it to yourself same as everyone else who votes. ] 02:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Then if thats what you belive, then why are you addressing me on this issue anyway. By the way you address your first post, you put your self in the hands of the "establisment".--] | ] 02:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :you know, I honestly don't remember anymore. ] 03:02, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Maybe your reading to much of what they have to say, and how it such a bad idea and aginst policy, of which anyone has yet to show me how. Propaganda is a powerful tool. --] | ] 03:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know about that, I've never believed it violated any policies ] 03:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You might want to read the comments on ] then. --] | ] 03:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, well that whole nomination was wrought with controversy, you should be flattered though that you were mentioned by name on such a heavily trafficked page :) ] 03:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I am not flattered, more like dismayed by the accusation, which is unfounded, espically by some one who has "privildges" such as reopining a sham "election". --] | ] 03:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :For the life of me after reading everything on the relevent mainspace pages, talk pages, and user talk pages still can't entirely understand what went on with that vote other than the fact that it was a very unusual vote. ] 03:30, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *They way i see it, their trying to force threw his promotion. --] | ] 03:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm abstaining from the revote that they started for Weyes because I've stopped caring at the moment whether he gets elected or not and if he gets elected whether or not users succeed in getting his nomination nullifed. ] 03:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I belive that it's situations like Weyes rfa, that are a small part of a larger problem, that being partly the adminstration of this site. --] | ] 03:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Howard Stern == | |||
| I would but seeing I've been involved in the reversion, I don't think it is a good idea for me to protect the page. ]∴] 04:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I still don't like to protect pages that I've been involved with. And the vandalism on this page although more than most pages hasn't been a continous attack for hours like I've seen on other pages. ]∴] 04:34, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Answer == | |||
| ''I know you have some qualms, if i am not mistaken, about the adminstration here, and if i am not correct you are or were an admin, just wondering what those qualms are if any. Just curious, in reading some of your posts, if we might not be thinking on similar lines. --] | ] 02:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)'' | |||
| : The only qualm I have is with the arrogance and lack of humility of some admins. It's probably a minority, but a vocal one. For them, adminship has become a privileged class, no matter what the protestations to the contrary by this group. They tend to use phrases like "mop and bucket" and "no big deal", but balk at most discussion of any sort of adminship review (including ]). There is a double-standard which also applies to this group -- an unchecked ''laissez-faire'' attitude which unfairly elevates them. I've never used the phrase ''cabal'', since I doubt this is a coordinated organizatio -- I just think that circumstances have put us into this situation over time. | |||
| : Adminship (a bad name for the status, don't you think?) should be more freely given. There are a lot of admins that work very hard, and do some humbly. These are the ideal admins, and I'm sure there are more out there. I also think that an adminship review procedure is necessary for keeping that group's members humble. -- ] ] 06:05, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism == | |||
| {{test1}} -- ] 07:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :No see i am not the one removing artile links, how about we pointout all your sockpupptt and anaon valdaism? But you know it helps when you use both caviler and comcast to cover your tracks. --] | ] 07:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::What are you talking about? The article was deleted. End of story. I am just going to ignore you and your ramblings. ] 07:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Nope--] | ] 07:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I see you have a thing for this Vince DeMentri guy. Why the hell didn't you put the damn article up in the first place before you started all this nonsense? ] 07:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Because i like pissing off biased vandals that dont play by the rules like you. --] | ] 07:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **I am starting to think you created these alleged sock puppets to discredit me because I called for Vince DeMentri to be deleted in the first place. 07:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **right thats why i voted to delete the article, thats usuing your doggie brain. --] | ] 07:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Recreation == | |||
| You should not ignore the procedure of a VFU that you started yourself. Please stop adding material to Misplaced Pages that was removed by consensus. This is a subtle form of vandalism, and may lead to your account being blocked. If you must save the content, do so in your userspace. The page has now been moved there, ]. Finally, stop falsely accuse people of abuse. ], ], ]. ]]] 09:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Hey retard this is not the sam article that was deleted,, unless some one went into the future and copied my txt word for word. And you are abusive and a liar to, so i am only calling a spade a spade.--] | ] 09:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **You have been blocked for 24 hours for persistently recreating material deleted by VFD process. The VFU is in progress, wait for its results. ]]] 09:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:04, 24 June 2005
Misplaced Pages is no longer a credible sourse of information, the "establishment" has seen fit to make me a persona non grata, so i am in the process of taking all my content to other projects that have better adminstrative structurs. I hope in the end this project is show to be the failure and sham that it is.