| Revision as of 16:17, 14 August 2005 editSplash (talk | contribs)33,425 edits →[]: d← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:58, 31 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page. | |||
| <!-- | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the VfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result of the debate was '''Delete'''. ] 04:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Created and solely used by {{User|-Ril-}}, this is a place where non-admins should be able to discuss issues with and inappropriate behavior from admins. As such it is entirely redundant with ], ] and the village pump, and we really don't need another page such as this. ]]] 08:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC) | Created and solely used by {{User|-Ril-}}, this is a place where non-admins should be able to discuss issues with and inappropriate behavior from admins. As such it is entirely redundant with ], ] and the village pump, and we really don't need another page such as this. ]]] 08:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :: Why not? ] | :: Why not? ] | ||
| *'''Delete''' - unilateral creation by -Ril-, totaly redundant (and I'm not an admin, so I've no axe to grind here) --] ] 12:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' - unilateral creation by -Ril-, totaly redundant (and I'm not an admin, so I've no axe to grind here) --] ] 12:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| Line 6: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Delete''', the purpose of this page is purely destructive. Why would you make a page to discuss your problems with people and then ask them not to edit? ] ] 15:19, 2005 August 14 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', the purpose of this page is purely destructive. Why would you make a page to discuss your problems with people and then ask them not to edit? ] ] 15:19, 2005 August 14 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''', vindcitiveness is best kept in one place. -] 16:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', vindcitiveness is best kept in one place. -] 16:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' the board isn't for my complaints. If you read it you will see that I haven't used it for that purpose once. I note that of the 4 editors voting delete above, 4 are people who have engaged with me before, particularly concerning the noteworthyness of individual Bible verses. It would be nice if people voting weren't those with an axe to grind against me. ] ( ] | ] | ] ) 16:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''', -Ril- this is just getting plain silly - stop trying to pick fights - and don't come with the self-righteous paranoia. I, for one, have better things to do with my time that persecute you. But this is a community - and unilateral actions, crusades, and attempts at management will always be unwelcome. When the whole world seems to be against you, then perhaps it is time to take the hint and consider your own position. Enough, just stop it, please. --] ] 16:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::This really has nothing to do with "the whole world seems to be against ", I had been thinking about this for ages. Admittedly the timing wasn't so well planned, but sometimes ideas just bug you so much that you need to put them onto paper. ] ( ] | ] | ] ) 23:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::] paper! :) ] 01:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you read that clause it specifically points out that by not being paper, there is no need to worry about how much space is occupied, or partial redundancy, etc, so that supports my argument, rather than yours. ] ( ] | ] | ] ) 16:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And if you had read my comment in conjuction with yours, you'd have realised it was a joke. A joke. Not wikilawyering and ruleswhining, but a joke. Not a funny one, evidently. -] 16:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' redundant as stated above ] 22:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :To paraphrase ]: why? ] ( ] | ] | ] ) 23:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete,''' there are already quite a few places to complain about bad admin conduct (as you yourself know, having exercised that ability many times). This merely promotes pointless sectarianism and gameplay instead of co-operation and conciliation. ] ] 23:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' as per previous arguments. ] 01:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''', although it looks like this will be another case of tyranny of the majority. Wouldn't it be nice if things were decided in Misplaced Pages through ], per Misplaced Pages ], which would insure that "meeting everyone’s needs" is the rule, rather than tyranny of the majority, where the minority is told to go take a hike?--] 01:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ** I thought this was '''votes''' for deletion. Excuse me if I have misunderstood this concept. ] 01:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***Which is one of the serious cultural problems with VfD. -- ] 06:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. I am increasingly sick of these efforts to use the deletion process to shut down alternatives. I doubt if this page can go anywhere, but it should be given time to show its potential (or lack thereof). The page certainly is not interfering with other Misplaced Pages processes, redundant though it may be. -- ] 06:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **By being redundant, it is interfering with existing process. If there are two redundant processes, then any interested party must watch ''both'', and new users may end up confused, and people may end up not noticing an event because they were looking at the wrong page. This is a ]. Also you should take into account the ] against -Ril- and the suggestion that creating this page may have been a simple way to make a ]. Look at the issue, not the principle. ]]] 12:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***What existing process exactly? Oh, and that WP:RfAr comment is a completely irrelevant personal attack argument. ] ( ] | ] | ] ) 16:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ****That was already pointed out - RFC and AN. Also, that there is presently a RFAr against you is verifiable truth, so it's not a personal attack. ]]] 08:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *****It is a personal attack because it has no relevance to the discussion. See ]. ] ( ] | ] | ] ) 20:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *The purpose is to "''discuss administrators''"?! This may have something to do with Ril's recent RFC against Uninvited Company and his ongoing arbitration case involving me and some other admins. This sounds like Witkacy's Black Book to me, and I don't like it one bit. The funny thing is that non-admins, indeed Ril himself, frequently comment on the Administrators' noticeboard. I'm not sure it would be appropriate for me to vote here because of the arbcom case, but it is obvious to me that Ril's disruption is getting worse, not better. ]·] 08:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, this has nothing to do with the RFC against UninvitedCompany or you, the timing is purely co-incidental. The page was planned for the last month. ] ( ] | ] | ] ) 09:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah... right... oops...? ]·] 20:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. I don't necessarily have a problem with a non-administrator's noticeboard, but I do have a problem with one that's sole purpose is to second guess administrators' actions. If you notice a trend of misuse of administrator privledges, then file an RfC. This page could easily become a soapbox for anyone who disagrees with any administrator action, as well as an unnecessary source of dispute. -- ] ], ] 19:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **<small>I also feel I should disclose that I am a party to the ] for ], the author of this article. However, this has no influence on my vote. -- ] ], ] 19:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Merge''' with ]. --<span style="font-family:monospace"> ] </span>] 17:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Delete'''. Having yet another discussion venue serves no purpose. ] Co., ] 02:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Delete'''. Serves no purpose. Based on Ril's history, this is simple trolling. ] | ] 01:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div> | |||
Latest revision as of 07:58, 31 March 2022
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Non-administrator's noticeboard
Created and solely used by -Ril- (talk · contribs), this is a place where non-admins should be able to discuss issues with and inappropriate behavior from admins. As such it is entirely redundant with WP:AN, WP:RFC and the village pump, and we really don't need another page such as this. Radiant_>|< 08:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Why not? Erwin Walsh
- Delete - unilateral creation by -Ril-, totaly redundant (and I'm not an admin, so I've no axe to grind here) --Doc (?) 12:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. An attempt to apply a thin veneer of respectability to Ril's complaints. --Calton | Talk 14:23, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, the purpose of this page is purely destructive. Why would you make a page to discuss your problems with people and then ask them not to edit? Christopher Parham (talk) 15:19, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
- Delete, vindcitiveness is best kept in one place. -Splash 16:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the board isn't for my complaints. If you read it you will see that I haven't used it for that purpose once. I note that of the 4 editors voting delete above, 4 are people who have engaged with me before, particularly concerning the noteworthyness of individual Bible verses. It would be nice if people voting weren't those with an axe to grind against me. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment, -Ril- this is just getting plain silly - stop trying to pick fights - and don't come with the self-righteous paranoia. I, for one, have better things to do with my time that persecute you. But this is a community - and unilateral actions, crusades, and attempts at management will always be unwelcome. When the whole world seems to be against you, then perhaps it is time to take the hint and consider your own position. Enough, just stop it, please. --Doc (?) 16:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- This really has nothing to do with "the whole world seems to be against ", I had been thinking about this for ages. Admittedly the timing wasn't so well planned, but sometimes ideas just bug you so much that you need to put them onto paper. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- WP:NOT paper! :) Splash 01:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- If you read that clause it specifically points out that by not being paper, there is no need to worry about how much space is occupied, or partial redundancy, etc, so that supports my argument, rather than yours. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- And if you had read my comment in conjuction with yours, you'd have realised it was a joke. A joke. Not wikilawyering and ruleswhining, but a joke. Not a funny one, evidently. -Splash 16:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- If you read that clause it specifically points out that by not being paper, there is no need to worry about how much space is occupied, or partial redundancy, etc, so that supports my argument, rather than yours. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- WP:NOT paper! :) Splash 01:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- This really has nothing to do with "the whole world seems to be against ", I had been thinking about this for ages. Admittedly the timing wasn't so well planned, but sometimes ideas just bug you so much that you need to put them onto paper. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete redundant as stated above Soltak 22:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- To paraphrase Erwin Walsh: why? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, there are already quite a few places to complain about bad admin conduct (as you yourself know, having exercised that ability many times). This merely promotes pointless sectarianism and gameplay instead of co-operation and conciliation. Slac speak up! 23:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per previous arguments. Hamster Sandwich 01:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, although it looks like this will be another case of tyranny of the majority. Wouldn't it be nice if things were decided in Misplaced Pages through consensus decision-making, per Misplaced Pages policy, which would insure that "meeting everyone’s needs" is the rule, rather than tyranny of the majority, where the minority is told to go take a hike?--172.197.4.144 01:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- I thought this was votes for deletion. Excuse me if I have misunderstood this concept. Hamster Sandwich 01:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Which is one of the serious cultural problems with VfD. -- Visviva 06:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- I thought this was votes for deletion. Excuse me if I have misunderstood this concept. Hamster Sandwich 01:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I am increasingly sick of these efforts to use the deletion process to shut down alternatives. I doubt if this page can go anywhere, but it should be given time to show its potential (or lack thereof). The page certainly is not interfering with other Misplaced Pages processes, redundant though it may be. -- Visviva 06:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- By being redundant, it is interfering with existing process. If there are two redundant processes, then any interested party must watch both, and new users may end up confused, and people may end up not noticing an event because they were looking at the wrong page. This is a bad thing. Also you should take into account the WP:RFAr against -Ril- and the suggestion that creating this page may have been a simple way to make a WP:POINT. Look at the issue, not the principle. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- What existing process exactly? Oh, and that WP:RfAr comment is a completely irrelevant personal attack argument. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- That was already pointed out - RFC and AN. Also, that there is presently a RFAr against you is verifiable truth, so it's not a personal attack. Radiant_>|< 08:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- It is a personal attack because it has no relevance to the discussion. See Ad hominem. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- That was already pointed out - RFC and AN. Also, that there is presently a RFAr against you is verifiable truth, so it's not a personal attack. Radiant_>|< 08:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- What existing process exactly? Oh, and that WP:RfAr comment is a completely irrelevant personal attack argument. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- By being redundant, it is interfering with existing process. If there are two redundant processes, then any interested party must watch both, and new users may end up confused, and people may end up not noticing an event because they were looking at the wrong page. This is a bad thing. Also you should take into account the WP:RFAr against -Ril- and the suggestion that creating this page may have been a simple way to make a WP:POINT. Look at the issue, not the principle. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- The purpose is to "discuss administrators"?! This may have something to do with Ril's recent RFC against Uninvited Company and his ongoing arbitration case involving me and some other admins. This sounds like Witkacy's Black Book to me, and I don't like it one bit. The funny thing is that non-admins, indeed Ril himself, frequently comment on the Administrators' noticeboard. I'm not sure it would be appropriate for me to vote here because of the arbcom case, but it is obvious to me that Ril's disruption is getting worse, not better. Dmcdevit·t 08:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't necessarily have a problem with a non-administrator's noticeboard, but I do have a problem with one that's sole purpose is to second guess administrators' actions. If you notice a trend of misuse of administrator privledges, then file an RfC. This page could easily become a soapbox for anyone who disagrees with any administrator action, as well as an unnecessary source of dispute. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- I also feel I should disclose that I am a party to the RfAr for -Ril-, the author of this article. However, this has no influence on my vote. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with WP:AN. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Having yet another discussion venue serves no purpose. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Serves no purpose. Based on Ril's history, this is simple trolling. Carbonite | Talk 01:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.