| Revision as of 06:17, 5 July 2006 editSamir (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators14,174 edits No consensus← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:47, 6 July 2006 edit undoHipocrite (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,615 edits RFMNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| Really sucks. I think you'd have done a good service to balance the deletionists among us -- ] <small>]</small> 06:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | Really sucks. I think you'd have done a good service to balance the deletionists among us -- ] <small>]</small> 06:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == RFM == | |||
| I am filing an RFM regarding our interactions. You are one of three named parties. ] - ] 16:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:47, 6 July 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
Something for your todo list? Macbeth (band)
AFD was closed as a deleted. I saw it as a repost on the CSD category, I removed the CSD because previous votes referred to the article as being a contentless substub. The repost has some meat to the article, but if its to survive an AFD it's still probably going to have to be cleaned up. Reads like a press release, and might actually be one. Note that if the heading is a redlink, it'll have been speedied. - Hahnchen 00:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was messy. It certainly meets basic requirements, but I've stubbed it and gave it some basic stats anyway. Thanks for the heads up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Your RfA
I am sorry to inform you that your Request for Adminship (RfA) has failed to reach sufficient consensus for promotion, and has now been delisted and archived. Please do not look upon this outcome as a discouragement, but rather as an opportunity to improve. Try to address the concerns raised during your RfA and, in a few months' time, resubmit your request. Thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity! Redux 00:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- A damn shame, too, considering how many falsehoods were uttered during the course of it and ignored. Ah well, should have expected it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- It was perhaps unfortunate that a RfC was still ongoing. I found it encouraging that you had support from JzG, which shows that people can appreciate edits from someone with a different point of view. Looking at some previous debates, if we ever have a disagreement it may take a long time to conclude as I like resolving things. Stephen B Streater 21:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nah, the problems really had nothing to do with the RfC - I actually expected more opposition BECAUSE of that. I'm more disturbed by people who outright lie, and then aren't questioned on it when it comes down to the final decision, but I'm not terribly surprised. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- At least all the edits are there for people to see. If it's any consolation, I think some of the opposers were genuine ;-) I had a look through some of your edits and could see frustration building up in your adversaries, but in the time I had available didn't come across anything devastating, I think the bureaucrat was right to close the way he did too. Perhaps you can take his advice - it looks like you'll only need to change marginally to succeed next time. Stephen B Streater 23:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, there's certainly enough opposition that didn't come out of the woodwork for me to not be too fazed by it. But it's refreshing to know that my conduct and contributions are widely respected by members of the community who are in good standing, so I'm not letting myself get down about it. Maybe i'll give it another go in a few months. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please do. You having buttons would make my editing go more smoothly, and that is my main concern when doing RfAs. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, there's certainly enough opposition that didn't come out of the woodwork for me to not be too fazed by it. But it's refreshing to know that my conduct and contributions are widely respected by members of the community who are in good standing, so I'm not letting myself get down about it. Maybe i'll give it another go in a few months. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- At least all the edits are there for people to see. If it's any consolation, I think some of the opposers were genuine ;-) I had a look through some of your edits and could see frustration building up in your adversaries, but in the time I had available didn't come across anything devastating, I think the bureaucrat was right to close the way he did too. Perhaps you can take his advice - it looks like you'll only need to change marginally to succeed next time. Stephen B Streater 23:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nah, the problems really had nothing to do with the RfC - I actually expected more opposition BECAUSE of that. I'm more disturbed by people who outright lie, and then aren't questioned on it when it comes down to the final decision, but I'm not terribly surprised. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- It was perhaps unfortunate that a RfC was still ongoing. I found it encouraging that you had support from JzG, which shows that people can appreciate edits from someone with a different point of view. Looking at some previous debates, if we ever have a disagreement it may take a long time to conclude as I like resolving things. Stephen B Streater 21:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bummer. Please don't take it personally - like I said before, some people are not willing to separate philosophical disagreements from te issue of fitness to perform janitorial work. Give it time, you will be promoted. I thought many of the Oppose votes unnecessarily harsh, and many appeared to be based on a false perception (votign keep does not mean you will be any more or less likely to block a tendentious editor). I am disappointed your RFA failed, I am also disappointed that Brian Crawford saw it as symptomatic of some problem with WP. I simply don't understand how giving the mop to poeple who are inclusionist can have a downside. Maybe I'm the one with a distorted viewpoint, who knows. Just zis Guy you know? 23:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Like I said, I'm not the least bit discouraged by the result - I expected different opposers who never showed up, and I'm viewed overwhelmingly positively by those in the community in good standing. I'm not too concerned, I understand completely why it worked out the way it did. Thanks for the attempt, though, maybe round 2 will go better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I voted against you, not because I think you are a bad person, but because of the controversy surrounding you - because you are an individual. The outspoken maverick is not supposed to become the neutral admin! The quiet dull people who can see things both ways are the ones who should become admins. The people with an opinion are the ones who shake and shout and make sure that alternative views are heard. Do you really want to stiffle your opinions just to get hold of a button that you don't actually need? This admin proposal was like trying to get a Top Gun into a desk job. SilkTork 12:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why should the outspoken maverick not become the admin? Many admins are decidedly not clones. Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am not talking clone - I'm talking balanced. Seeing both sides of the argument. As far as I see it, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, the admin role is mainly to make balanced decisions on events in Wiki - like AfD, disputes, etc. Admins do not decide policy or the direction of Wiki - that is for the body of Wikipedians. And when policy is being created people with views need to be heard. The admin function at such a point is to count the beans, not to materially influence the decision. A person who wants their views and opinions to be heard and felt would need to stand back so much from doing admin functions that there would be no point in having the admin role. SilkTork 13:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well then. I never thought people actually bought into that bizarro "how to become a Misplaced Pages admin by not rocking the boat" document, but there you have it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- If SilkTork's is a true representation opf what admins are supposed to do, then most of us will have to stand down. Just zis Guy you know? 13:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you had won would you be able to maintain a neutral pov about Afd, Cfd, Tfd your political pov, I do not think so. It all passes the way it should no. You did not need it anyway. Go away little fry cook
- Of course I could, and plenty of other people do, as well. Hell, a good look at my contributions would have borne that out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you had won would you be able to maintain a neutral pov about Afd, Cfd, Tfd your political pov, I do not think so. It all passes the way it should no. You did not need it anyway. Go away little fry cook
- If SilkTork's is a true representation opf what admins are supposed to do, then most of us will have to stand down. Just zis Guy you know? 13:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well then. I never thought people actually bought into that bizarro "how to become a Misplaced Pages admin by not rocking the boat" document, but there you have it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
No consensus
Really sucks. I think you'd have done a good service to balance the deletionists among us -- Samir धर्म 06:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
RFM
I am filing an RFM regarding our interactions. You are one of three named parties. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)