Misplaced Pages

Thank you very much! Horologium (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

DRV on Category:Rouge admins

Regardless (and I agree with you it almost definitely will be kept), the DRV will be most interesting. As you are aware, by all recent precedent, it should be deleted. By consensus, it almost certainly should be kept. That suggests (and I'm trying to approach this from a calculated, NPOV) that the consensus is that the precedent should change. However, I'm not at all convinced that this is true. (I hope you're able to follow what might at first seem self-contradicting.) Ben Hocking 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not just numbers, as you are aware (remember the Brights category?), but this is a case of a bunch of admins who never participate in UCFD finding out that we have nominated a category for deletion, go into "ZOMGWTF" mode without understanding that it's only about the category, not the (funny) essay or the (cute) userbox. As I said, only two users even acknowledged we're discussing only the category, and neither had a particularly strong rationale (the better of the two was Alison's, and that is essentially WP:USEFUL). Horologium (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not just numbers, but while I'll admit it's not clear there's a consensus to keep humorous categories, it seems clear (to me) there's suddenly a lack of consensus to delete them. (I doubt you'll be surprised to hear that I still think the Brights category was a travesty of consensus. Whether there was a consensus to keep is debatable, but there was most definitely not a consensus to delete—not that I see any value in saying anything other than we'll have to agree to disagree. I do respect you, After Midnight, jc37, Black Falcon, and others who I regularly disagree with.) Ben Hocking 21:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I often disagree with you, I respect you because you at least try to cite policy or explain how a category can be useful, without resorting to hyperbole or a chain of dubious probabilities. As I said in my rant (and here I fully agree with Jay Henry) it is inexcusable that this category is being treated as sacrosanct simply because it's tied to an immensely popular and well-known essay. It shouldn't have been tied to it in the first place, and I am going to go tilting at windmills in a quixotic attempt to remind everyone about the way things are supposed to be. Horologium (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

One area we seem to agree on is consistency. This category is definitely not being treated consistently, so I will support your DRV, even if I have conflicting feelings on it. (Of course, with my feelings, it might end up sounding like "damning with faint praise", although it will not be my intent.) I still think it might be deleted, if After Midnight is the closing admin. Although I disagree with him often as well, he seems quite consistent, and the logic he applied to Brights would seem to dictate that this be closed as delete as well, if he closes it. Ben Hocking 21:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Another way to look at it

As shocking as it may be to someone else who commented above, I would also have closed it as "keep". (Though, I might add, I intentionally didn't close it.)

I know that many see the category as humour and others as oppressive (among many, many other descriptions), but I think that it's best described as an "editor's philosophy", though in this case, referring to a group of editors we call admins.

Now I would like to "hope" that we don't get carried away with numerous variant editor's philosophies, but I think "Rouge admin" ranks up the with inclusionist, and exopedianist, and all the rest.

This wasn't always my opinion on this (I'll note that I nominated it last time : )

Anyway, just thought I'd share that thought with you : ) - jc37 10:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Much as I hate to back down on a (very public) announcement, I have decided that I am not going to run this through DRV. At this point, it appears that doing so would be perceived as a violation of WP:POINT. While I abhor the blatant double standard that was revealed by the UCFD for this category (and the rather pathetic showing by the admin corps, who can't be bothered to participate in UCFD unless one of their sacred cows is under attack), I realize that running a DRV at this time would be counterproductive. I remain seriously disillusioned by the reaction exhibited by many of the current admins, though, and wonder if I even want to be associated with them (re: Jc37's suggestion in November). I never imagined that so many admins would disregard precedent and policy over a category that is, at its core, a joke category. I have decided to retreat from UCFD discussions, because admin preference overrides policy, which means that my participation (as a mere peon) is irrelevant. Horologium (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

While I understand and empathetic (especially in light of my own recent experiences), I am disappointed that you will be "retreating" from WP:UCFD. Please know that (obviously) you're welcome to re-join in the discussions there at any time. I hope you have a great day : ) - jc37 02:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The outright disregard for the closure on Category:Misplaced Pages administrators open to trout slapping only reinforced my resolve. Administrator will clearly trumps any other result, and consensus be damned. I'm certainly not among the whackjobs that have run amok on the wikien.l mailing list, but admin abuses such as this don't reassure the non-admins and the outsiders.

I wasn't joking when I stated that I was going to remove UCFD from my watchlist; it's gone for now, and I don't anticipate it returning in the near future. While I don't plan on making a dramatic exit from Misplaced Pages (the drama queen gene is a recessive trait), I can't see expending a lot of effort on something that is exempt from the normal protocols on consensus. I'll stick to wiki-gnoming stuff for WP Florida and occasionally reverting vandalism, but I will be cutting back my involvement in the project. Horologium (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ransom Everglades

Thank you for removing Jean-Baptist Colbert and Erwin Rommel from the Ransom Everglades Alumni list. However, I must inform you that Anthony Cannoli, a well known international mobster, did attend Ransom (class of '93). Also, I forgot his name, but the founder of Jews Against Cheapness Stereotypes also attended Ransom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.223.72 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Jews Against Cheapness Stereotypes" returns zero Google hits. "Shlomo Weinberg Goldstein" (the alleged founder of the group) also returned zero hits, as did "Shlomo Weingberg Goldstein", which was the spelling in the article. (You'll have to take his removal up with IP editor 136.167.196.194, who deleted him several hours before I cleaned up.) "Anthony Cannoli" returns eight Google hits, all relating to "Anthony's Cannoli Kit", sold by a Philadelphia coffee retailer; no mention of a mobster. No Google hits for "Anna Brekenpeps" or "Joseph C. Klintinheight" either. As for "Stevie Ramen", the inventor of Ramen noodles, I'm at a loss. (All of those were redlinks, BTW). Regarding Erwin Rommel and Brian Griese as alumni, I don't think so; Rommel would have graduated prior to the school's founding, and Griese is an alumnus of Christopher Columbus High School. For a school that is allegedly filled with the best and the brightest, its students and alumni have wasted an awful lot of free time to stuff this article full of nonsense. Horologium (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks, I look forward to getting through the training process, and getting to work!  :) --Elonka 10:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)