Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:18, 21 June 2008

Template:Werdnabot

I am currently: User:SynergeticMaggot/Status

AfD

. The perils of going by both Dan and Daniel. ⇒SWATJester 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't think to look. Thanks for the link. — _Maggot 17:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Larry Torres AfD

Sorry I'd gone to bed before I saw your message. I'm happy to work on the article some. Will try to do so this morning between meetings and what not, but I find it hard to source from home. Wikicite doesn't work on my Mac :( _{TravellingCari} 13:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

ETA, done. _{TravellingCari} 14:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. Thanks again, Cenarium 01:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center

I have re-opened this debate. Two and a half hours was insufficient. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) It's a good enough reason, I think. Misplaced Pages has contributions from editors who contribute from time zones all over the world. And two and a half hours is, frankly, a joke: I was at dinner the whole time that this debate was (briefly) open. You need to give these things more time. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) This is not a frivolous MfD. If someone else closes as keep after there's been time for discussion, so be it. But you need to have the discussion first. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you've noticed, but there was a discussion already. What happens now is even more reasons to keep. — _Maggot 08:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)save, for those out there who delete per nom :)

Again, there was a discussion for 150 minutes. Or to which other discussion are you referring? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion in which no one thus far has agreed with the nominator, and has asked that it be closed. Its a good faith project, and I consider it poor form to go to MfD a third time, especially when the last nom is arguing to keep it. — _Maggot 08:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent and copied over from my talk page:) My opinion, as an editor (not as an admin) is that there is indeed a serious problem here. It may or may not be that the answer to that problem is to delete Sharkface's award center; I recognize that it's well-intentioned. But there needs to be further discussion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I agree that there needs to be more discussion. But MfD is not the venue for a discussion other than to delete it. Discussions on how to change or reform is already ongoing on the talk page, and bringing it to MfD while changes are being made is in bad faith. Also, I was asking your opinion as an admin, not an editor. If you were acting as an editor, I would have reverted you and told you to go to WP:DRV. So again, if I can have your opinion as to the articles fate. — _Maggot 08:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion as an admin is that you were too quick to close the debate. Hence, I reverted. Regarding the page itself, all that counts is my opinion as an editor, not the fact that I'm an admin. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, so you don't want to answer. Thats fine too. I don't want to pressure you or anything. :) — _Maggot 08:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have given my opinion (a preliminary one, to be sure), as an editor, at the appropriate place. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, I retorted already. But that wasn't what I was asking for. Still, no pressure, but what I was asking (in an effort to make myself clearer only, as sometimes I'm not :) was as an admin, would you delete it? Not how would you vote, but how would you have closed. — _Maggot 08:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why "retort" rather than reply? I'm more and more surprised that you chose to close this debate, as you are clearly so invested. Meanwhile, as for your question, I have answered it: as an admin, I would not have closed the debate at all after a mere two and a half hours. Is that clear enough? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, because its a form of reply, and it was to a comment you made, technically not a !vote. And no that wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean would you close as fast as I did, since my style of closing is not a norm and I can clearly see you don't like it. What I was asking, is if you would have clicked that delete button on the top of your screen. Is the userspace page that damaging? You don't have to answer though. I can see your a little rattled right about now. It was nice chatting with you though :) — _Maggot 08:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) Look, I'm not "rattled." I am puzzled by your question. I'm not sure what you expect of admins. As admin, I would not have deleted the page; as admin, I have not deleted the page. That's clearly inappropriate. There needs to be discussion first. Laser brain has (re)opened this discussion--the fact that this is the third MfD is simply a sign that the unease that this page causes is ongoing. And as an admin, again, I would not have closed the MfD after two and a half hours. Hence, as an admin, I re-opened the debate. And look: giggy (an Australian who, if my sense of time zones is anywhere on track, should by rights be asleep) has now had the opportunity to comment. Let's not even mention those who are on EST. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually thats more of a sign that one or two people think this should just be deleted, which holds little water. If 12 people instantly showed up saying delete, now that would be a sign that there is unease from the community. Giggy showed up because I asked his opinion in private since he was a past nominator. His concerns are not my own. I am of the breed that feels that one or even two editors are not the whole of a small community, and nor should the community bare the brunt of their mistakes, mishaps, or whatever you wish to call them. By asking your opinion, as an admin, I wanted to know more about where you were coming from (sort of like from all angles). What I expect from admins is accountability, reasoning, and explanations (calm as a gentle breeze, sorry, possibly a bad joke?: guess we'll find out). This lets me know more about who I am talking to (even though I supported your RfA, meaning I should already know you). With that said I think I'm going to be off to sleep soon and may not be more prompt in my editng. :) — _Maggot 09:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Where I'm coming from, as an admin, is as follows: admins don't get to decide what happens on Misplaced Pages; their responsibility is to ensure that the community can decide such things with the minimum of rancor or bad feeling. I'm happy to be fully accountable about that. Hence my reasoning: the debate about the Award Center should take place; it's not a frivolous nomination; it shouldn't be closed after two and a half hours. It may well be that at the end of a full and thorough debate, the conclusion is that the page should be kept. That is fine. It will make it less likely that a fourth MfD comes along in a few weeks. Anyhow, I should also be off, as I have to pack for my flight in a few hours. Good night! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your attempt to close an MfD that you clearly have an opinion on after very little debate is completely inappropriate. Speedy close per WP:SNOW? Interminable process wonkery intrudes on serious debate about a serious issue. I did not go looking for this page; its disruptive effects reach all over WP. You should at least leave something open for 24 hours out of respect for people in different time zones before assuming that all critical thinkers have already shown up and commented. Appalling. --Laser brain (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Laser_brain: That has to do with joining in on the discussion. I did this after it had been reopened, and not before. Contorting the situation to suit your needs is the only out of line thing thats been done here. Once again, that section is for closing a discussion in which you have participated in. My opinion is that the article up for MfD is rather lousy and is in need of reform; I don't like it, but thats not a reason to delete. — _Maggot 21:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Frankly if I weren't out the door, I'd be tempted to open up a thread at ANI or an RFC on this editor. The close was clearly inappropriate. And yet, having been told this, he almost immediately put the following text on his user page:

I believe that if an XfD is found to be frivolous, out of place, out of order, or in bad faith, it should no longer take place. I frequently close them on this basis, but not on this basis alone. If others can delete pages, that are not backed by current policy or guidelines, then others can keep based on good old fashion rationale.

Extraordinary stuff. This editor shouldn't be closing debates at all, if this is the way in which he goes about things. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to link rationale to WP:COMMONSENSE Jb. — _Maggot 20:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh but it does make a difference. I would just like it more if I wasn't misrepresented on my talk page, or any other page for that matter. — _Maggot 21:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A request

After reading your user page notice about your XfD habits and observing several of your closures (including, obviously, the most recent one), I request that you no longer close XfDs unless they have completely run their course and are obvious "keeps". I urge you to review Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions, which lays out guidelines for you. Of particular interest should be the following:

• "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator.";
• "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided."; and
• "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as unambiguous as you thought."

The last bit is important, and the subsequent discussion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center after you closed it "per snow" should make it clear that you should not be "speedy" closing anything at all.

Hopefully the matter will be concluded with your agreement. --Laser brain (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to reread what you just posted here. Not one of those bullet points reflects how I closed, at the time of closing (besides the fact that an admin reopened, and I was fine with that: its an afterthought bullet point;it deals with post closing). You're differences with WP:SNOW make no difference, XfD's are closed this way everyday. Also note that I just added that to my userpage before I logged off. But thank you for your concerns. — _Maggot 20:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you seriously just use Twinkle to rollback comments about your MfD closing that didn't suit you? --Laser brain (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You accused me of wikilawyering, which I wasn't. I've had a full conversation about this MfD already, and can communicate rather well when not subject to accusatory remarks, such as the ones reverted. — _Maggot 21:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You had a full conversation, but I still don't get impression you understand how inappropriate your actions were. I apologize for accusing you of wikilawyering—it was out of line. --Laser brain (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. What appears to have happened is that I've gone against a norm and not a policy here. I don't find it inappropriate in the least and my reasons are thus: I don't like that userpage, but not liking it isn't a reason to delete; this whole project appears in good faith and should have some help in the way the do things yes, but does deleting it really accomplish this?; if its true that newcomers will benefit from this type of project, then deleting it will more than likely discourage them from the start. I exercised my option to be bold and ignore things with good reason, not just to do it for the sake of doing it. — _Maggot 21:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not your contribution to the discussion; it's the fact that you tried to close down the discussion before it had hardly started. That was inappropriate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If I might interject here a bit, I think SynMag "gets" that his actions weren't well received. Continuing this in two rather large threads is nothing short of flaming at this point. He gets it. Can't this energy all be refocused at this point? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, I don't think he does get it... Not least because he added the paragraph above to his user page after much of the discussion had gone by. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah don't mind me, I'm new to the pedia. — _Maggot 21:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree here jbmurray. synmag has been here for years. He understands that others disagree with his premature close. Time to move along for all parties? White flag? Truce? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Keeper: More like an RfC. — _Maggot 21:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with your snow close Syn, and while I support deleting said page, I would strongly advise to all parties that an RFC would be way overboard/overkill. Let it die. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an RfC accomplishing anything here other than taking more of my time away from building the encyclopedia. --Laser brain (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

SM, I think the message is just ... please don't do that again :-) Laser had obviously put a lot of effort into writing up the MfD, and it was closed while some of us were sleeping. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's Friday and almost 6:30 in my neck of the woods. Everyone should seriously be drinking a beer right about now. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Its 6:30 here too and yes, I'll be going out tonight possibly for that purpose (but then again I have to go by the bookstore also). — _Maggot 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. I had one or three too many. My head is pounding today. Didn't help that User:SonofKeeper decided to play with his toy bowling pins at 6 this morning. Grooaan...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)