Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:55, 6 September 2006

If I leave a message in your talk page, reply there, I'll keep it on my watchlist. If you leave a message here, I'll reply here. --badlydrawnjeff 15:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Archives

• /Archive1: All of 2005.
• /Archive2: January 2006 -> April 2006.
• /Archive3: May 2006 -> June 2006.
• /Archive4: July 2006 -> August 2006.

DRV on Axe Murder Boyz

Hi,

That's an interesting reading. I took King of Hearts' comment to mean that something new had to come forward in order for his opinion to change. I'm aware that you believe notability was unconditionally asserted in the first place; however, KoH (the deleter) clearly disagreed. Although you did comment beneath him reiterating your view, he did not concede the point. Thus, I read his comment as "keep deleted" (in favor of a rewrite, maybe?) If I have misread, simply have KoH contact me, and I will reverse the closure. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you've misread it as much as I don't think he's reading what constitutes nobility for an A7 properly. I'm more surprised that you took it that way than him, honestly. If someone says "assert nobility," and nobility is asserted, how is it supposed to be taken? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As I understand my role as a closer, I have a duty to abide by the intent of the commenter; it is not my job to super-impose my judgment (or yours) over someone else's words. I care about what KoH's meant, not about whether or not he's "right." I believe in consensus, so, by default, the consensus is always right.

So in events that there isn't a consensus? In events that KoH only wants the article restored if notability is asserted, then there shouldn't be much interpretation here - notability is asserted, thus the article would be restored in his mind. Perhaps he doesn't agree with the assertion, but that's not for him to decide by rule.

Incidentally, I've heard your view that DRV is broken somehow. Obviously, I disagree. DRV is, remember, only a forum for deciding if discussion should begin again. Parliamentarily, DRV functions as forum only for deciding cloture. This is why majoritarianism is a fine form of consensus in DRV only. If a majority wants to discuss, then discussion opens; if the majority is finished speaking, the matter is closed. The alternative, to require a 70% consensus to reopen discussion, is more draconian. Note that matters always come to Deletion Review only after discussion has closed (unless somebody makes a huge mistake in procedure.) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, and with all due respect to you, as you're only doing your job, this is an excellent example of how broken DRV truly is. The fact that we can overturn based CSD policy on a majority vote for one article based on the actions of one administrator is really rather shocking to me. The alternative on DRV is not 70% on anything, but rather a simple view of the arguments as to whether the deletion processes were followed properly. In an actual discussion on this DRV, as an example, we have at least two editors showing that the process was not followed, and no one having any good argument about it. That's how it was broken here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, we trust admins. The alternative to majoritarianism at DRV is requiring a 70% consensus to overturn admin discretion. There is no other reasonable way -- requiring 70% consensus to ratify each speedy is truly "process-hell" as newbies and garage band members would flood things endlessly.

I understand that you're frustrated that your view (seen by you as objectively correct) is often outnumbered, but appeal to a larger group is the mechanism available for a check on admin power - if "bad" admins are routinely ratified in making "bad" decisions (hypothetically... I don't think that has happened here, but you do), then the problem -- it seems to me -- is RfA, where we make admins, and the lack of De-RfA, where we could fire them. My thoughts on this matter are not surprising, as I have long felt RfA standards are generally a tad low. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, my frustration stems only from the point that we have a venue that's specifically for process-related decisions, and even when the process is so obviously ignored, we still let it slide. There's nothing correct about that, and it shows that our appeals process in these matters, the things designed to protect from admins overstepping their bounds (which, whether we trust them or not, happens) simply don't work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There will never be an appeals process which divorces the human element from its choices. It is true that, by the strictest possible reading of CSD A7, one could see an assertion of notability; however, there is no requirement that A7 be read this strictly. It is, in my view, impossible to write anything which by its nature is limited only to one interpretation. Any forum applies the given text to a given instance by interpreting, and that application will not always be the strictest. I cannot imagine any way to change that. Short of repealling A7 (a practical impossibility, I think), I still think your best shot is get more thoughtful admins, who don't delete so quickly.

As an aside, so there is no confusion, I admire what you (and other committed "inclusionists") do. I believe in balance, and I know this place would be very paltry if some editors weren't dedicated to defending articles that most feel are unimportant or marginal. I'm only making my suggestion because, objectively from my POV, it seems a good way for you to focus your efforts. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Invite to Misplaced Pages:Libel-Protection Unit

Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Misplaced Pages:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 16:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's see how the noticeboard works out, first. BLP is rushed and flawed enough without expanding to some sort of "protection unit." --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Drini and the CVU deletion

You, like so many other Wikipedians, seem to have felt that Drini's actions in the CVU deletion proccess were wholly inappropriate and did not follow policy. As a result, I'm forming an ad-hoc group of sorts composed of people interested in removing Drini. If you'd like to be involved, just drop me a note. ShortJason 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty disheartened by it, but not to that point. Drini's wrong about IAR, but Drini's also one of the good eggs around here. I don't think this is the answer at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

I was wondering if you've had a chance to take a gander at the above essay. You have reversed a few actions claiming it didn't fit a speedy criteria. When the vast majority of editors vote to keep or speedy keep, the discussion may get closed early to let the article get back to its normal evolutionary process. Is there any particular reason you felt Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/A Poet's Life might end up in a delete consensus? Shell 20:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it will or not. I can't predict the future, and since an early close was already contested once, it seems completely inappropriate to do it again. As for the essay, it's one of the worst parts of Misplaced Pages, and I discourage its use and citation whenever possible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also quite obviously wrong to invoke SNOW in the face of diverging opinions on an issue. "In dubious or contentious cases it is best to settle it through the full process." SNOW is not a tool to suppress the minority's right to voice their opinion on an issue within the allotted time frame, not to mention that early keeps can still turn into no consensus, which create quite a different precedent for later nominations. On the other hand Jeff should've sent this to DRV rather than just revert the closure. ~ trialsanderrors 08:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In this specific case, an early closure had already been to DRV once. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, it's one of those cases that cause eye socket inflammation from too much eyerolling, but reverting an AFD closure will never stick. There's enough people around to protect the process itself, no matter how flawed the decision itself. You'll always get re-reverted and possibly weaken your position in a DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 18:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

IAR

I've been interested in your various comments on IAR. Are you saying you would you prefer people to obey innappropriate rules even if this made the encyclpaedia worse? Stephen B Streater 22:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that we have processes in place to change inappropriate rules. I can't think of any that are grossly inappropirate to the point of significant opposition, of course, but we have ways of working with our established way of doing things whereas we don't need to ignore rules. IAR is just carte blanche for people to do what they want because they think it's right, never mind if it actually is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly. IAR is in place so that editors can do what they want because they think it's right. It works very well, in practice, since when someone IAR's and is heinously wrong, they tend to get reversed in short order. Nandesuka 02:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"keep for the hell of it"??

I've noticed that you spend a lot of commenting on Articles for Deletion, and that you invariably vote "keep" on every single one of them. Is there anything you've ever voted "delete" on? Your edit summary on your keep vote for How to Write Haiku was especially disturbing: "k for the hell of it". It's one thing to be an inclusionist, but that doesn't mean you're supposed to ignore policies and guidelines and say "let's keep it for the hell of it", especially after many other editors have already pointed out it's a direct violation of WP:NOT and a copyvio, to boot. Furthermore, the speed at which you are voting (you voted "keep" on Katatonia/Primordial Split 10" and Waynehead within seconds of each other, for example), indicates that you don't even seem to be actually looking at the articles you're voting keep on. wikipediatrix 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice what the keep vote on Haiku was for? I wrote a keep Haiku for the hell of it because there wasn't one and there's no chance it's going to be kept. It was a joke, sheesh. As for the "speed" of the Katatonia and Waynehead ones, dunno. They were quick? I know both articles deserve to be kept - one's a record by two notable bands (and I did look it up first), one's a notable TV show. Not too much question there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it a bit contradictory that you are always so rabidly insistent about following process, yet when you participate in process yourself you often don't take it seriously. Do you actually care about process at all, or do you just like griefing on admins? --Cyde Weys 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

One light-hearted joke becomes often? I find it a bit contradictory that you'd even bother commenting on it, given your complete disregard for any processes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord, Jeff gets enough flak for being an inclusionist (lover of reality show participants he), but even I recognize this as a little joke at the end of a fairly lighthearted AfD that was headed for (speedy) deletion. Your comment reads very mugh like "I don't like this guy, now I'm clutching at straws to accuse him of disruption". ~ trialsanderrors 18:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, god, I'm already "bizarre sex acts" guy, I don't wanna be "reality show guy," too... --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We allo have to sleep in the bed we made... ~ trialsanderrors 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

He's voted delete ~9 times? On the other hand, the latest vote was rescinded, and one was for WP:SNOW, so maybe "~7 1/2" is more accurate. --Interiot 19:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Neat list! I'd likely take back 3 of those, and I recognize the mistake in the Cap't Underpants one. So it's closer to 5? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment here

I have noticed that an admin's propensity to cite WP:IAR is directly proportional to their justification of actions as per WP:SOME ESSAY. Someone needs to write Misplaced Pages:Ignore all essays. -Nscheffey 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

SNOW is grounded in IAR, and IAR is definitely policy. So just substitute IAR in your mind whenever SNOW is mentioned. Voila, problem solved. --Interiot 09:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was also thinking of other essays. My point was the disconnect between Ignoring All Rules and then citing essays as unchallengeable justifications. --Nscheffey 10:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know many of us aren't mature enough to work within processes and instead feel we have to ignore the rules to get our way. Acceptance is unacceptable, or something. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

DRV Encyclopedia Dramatica

I'm blocking you for 1 hour for disruption. Do not reopen debates that have been debated endlessly and have no chance of changing. You are trying the community's patience at this point. The consensus is very clear. You are acting against it. You are also an interested party as an editor on that encyclopedia, so your actions constitute POV pushing. --Doc 10:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're disrupting DRV by closing things early out of process. After all, you've even said yourself that the beauty of WP:SNOW/IAR is that it can be reversed easily - I did just that.--badlydrawnjeff talk 10:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock reviewed|reversing an out of process close is not disruption, blocking by an involved party is also wrong, for that matter.|continual provocative campaigning like this is disruptive}}

Isn't the continued out of process lunacy the disruptive part? I'm actually rather disappointed that you're the one who came over here. What happened to "easy to reverse?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've also reviewed the block and would decline to remove it. This crusade you're on to balk the consensus of the community isn't going to end well. You'd be much better served by discussing the areas you have issues with. Shell 12:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What consensus? The block is expired anyway, but it's not disruptive to challenge disruptive closes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Block

I have temporarily blocked you for disruption on WP:ANI. Tom Harrison 14:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on already. Now this is simply absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again

Bdj (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Discussion isn't disruption. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Discussion isn't disruption. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Discussion isn't disruption. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Misplaced Pages is not about Misplaced Pages. I suggest you take some time off and cool down. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't about you, but thanks for the input. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock