User talk:BM: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
::::Brian, thank you for your reply, and for the above. My understanding is that an admin may delete a redirect if it is offensive, not merely if it counts as intentional vandalism. Two points here: first, what is the motive of the anon IP who wants to have that article as a WP title? It's silly, childish, offensive, and if it should exist, it should be an article about the website, which is quite well known, and not as a redirect. (Someone almost certainly will create such an article soon, which means we're all wasting our time here anyway.) It seems to me that the original motive was childish POV pushing, pure and simple, by someone who couldn't even be bothered to log on, so why should any one us waste our time with it? (And certainly, we shouldn't allow ourselves to fall out over it.) Second, about the admin thing in general. Before I became an admin, I often heard other admins say that non-admins had no idea how depressing it was to be constantly criticized; and sometimes I'd think: "yeah, right, good excuse." But it's true: it can be a thankless job. If you don't take action to help people who complain to you, you're a useless idiot; if you do take action, you're abusing your admin powers and people threaten you with RfCs. I've just spent two hours trying to educate myself about proxy IPs so I can help an editor who keeps being blocked inadvertently when a certain IP address (not even his) is blocked for vandalism. That time and work doesn't show up anywhere, yet it will benefit Wikipedia more than time spent deleting, keeping, or arguing about Smirking Chimp. My point is: please do take the complexities of the job and human nature into account when you feel an admin may have overstepped the mark over some issue, because the decisions that have to be made are not always black and white ones, and the people making them are fallible human beings. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 21:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) |
::::Brian, thank you for your reply, and for the above. My understanding is that an admin may delete a redirect if it is offensive, not merely if it counts as intentional vandalism. Two points here: first, what is the motive of the anon IP who wants to have that article as a WP title? It's silly, childish, offensive, and if it should exist, it should be an article about the website, which is quite well known, and not as a redirect. (Someone almost certainly will create such an article soon, which means we're all wasting our time here anyway.) It seems to me that the original motive was childish POV pushing, pure and simple, by someone who couldn't even be bothered to log on, so why should any one us waste our time with it? (And certainly, we shouldn't allow ourselves to fall out over it.) Second, about the admin thing in general. Before I became an admin, I often heard other admins say that non-admins had no idea how depressing it was to be constantly criticized; and sometimes I'd think: "yeah, right, good excuse." But it's true: it can be a thankless job. If you don't take action to help people who complain to you, you're a useless idiot; if you do take action, you're abusing your admin powers and people threaten you with RfCs. I've just spent two hours trying to educate myself about proxy IPs so I can help an editor who keeps being blocked inadvertently when a certain IP address (not even his) is blocked for vandalism. That time and work doesn't show up anywhere, yet it will benefit Wikipedia more than time spent deleting, keeping, or arguing about Smirking Chimp. My point is: please do take the complexities of the job and human nature into account when you feel an admin may have overstepped the mark over some issue, because the decisions that have to be made are not always black and white ones, and the people making them are fallible human beings. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 21:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) |
||
:::Well, I think the anon is most likely a sock-puppet or someone who has a lot more experience on WP than the typical anon. Also, he may have created [[Smirking Chimp]] to make a point, which is a violation of the [[WP:POINT]] guideline. But, you know, even though one shouldn't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, once someone has, other people aren't obliged to pretend that the point was never made or that it was not a good point. In this case, if the anon was actually trying to make the point that [[Slick Willy]] is a POV article, he succeeded. We should either have both [[Slick Willy]] and [[Smirking Chimp]], or we should have neither. There are as many people -- well, nearly as many -- who find disrespect for President Clinton to be as offensive as there are people who feel that way about disprespect for President Bush. [[Slick Willy]] is pretty disrespectful. Given the "anything goes" philosophy of Wikipedia where we revel in having articles about every imaginable sex practice, complete with helpful illustrations, no matter how weird or offensive they might be to some people, it is hard to argue that [[Slick Willy]] should be deleted because some people find it offensive. Therefore: enter all the |
:::Well, I think the anon is most likely a sock-puppet or someone who has a lot more experience on WP than the typical anon. Also, he may have created [[Smirking Chimp]] to make a point, which is a violation of the [[WP:POINT]] guideline. But, you know, even though one shouldn't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, once someone has, other people aren't obliged to pretend that the point was never made or that it was not a good point. In this case, if the anon was actually trying to make the point that [[Slick Willy]] is a POV article, he succeeded. We should either have both [[Slick Willy]] and [[Smirking Chimp]], or we should have neither. There are as many people -- well, nearly as many -- who find disrespect for President Clinton to be as offensive as there are people who feel that way about disprespect for President Bush. [[Slick Willy]] is pretty disrespectful. Given the "anything goes" philosophy of Wikipedia where we revel in having articles about every imaginable sex practice, complete with helpful illustrations, no matter how weird or offensive they might be to some people, it is hard to argue that [[Slick Willy]] should be deleted because some people find it offensive. Therefore: enter all the notable nicknames for politicians, including nicknames that some people find offensive. By the way, in the RFD votes, it looks like [[Slick Willy]] is going to be kept as a redirect to [[List of U.S. Presidential nicknames]]. For me, that means [[Smirking Chimp]] comes in too, unless we want to change the tag-line in the logo to "Wikipedia, The Free Right-Wing Encyclopedia". Perhaps you are right that [[Smirking Chimp]] should be an article about the web site as well as the term, rather than a redirect to [[List of U.S. Presidential nicknames]]. But that would entail keeping it also. --[[User:BM|BM]] 22:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 22:06, 11 April 2005
Archived Versions of This Talk Page
I am archiving this Talk page by blanking it periodically. In order to facilitate the reading of old conversations, here are pointers to the versions in the page history just before each blanking of the page:
Images and media for deletion votes
- I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion ~ Achilles † 21:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Inevitably, I suppose, our opinionated anon has started deleting my addition to the Pantheism article. I wonder if you'd like to look at it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
216.45.221.155/Paul Vogel
It's been determined that 216.45.221.155 (talk · contributions) is in fact Paul Vogel. I've banned 216.45.221.155 for an initial period of 24 hours until I can ascertain the proper procedure with an IP-address sockpuppet of a banned User. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Smirking Chimp
BM, please don't recreate Smirking Chimp. I believe there's a vote going on. I don't know its current status but when I last checked, there had been no decision to recreate it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:54, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
- This title has been deleted by several admins. As there's a vote going on, the vote will decide what to do with it. What I don't understand is why, in the meantime, you keep on recreating it rather than just leaving it alone. The other problem with having this as a redirect, apart from the childishness of it, is that it's better known as the name of a website which, notwithstanding that the name derived from the insult, is now in more common currency that the insult itself, so if the title is to exist, it should probably be as an article about that site, not as a redirect. If you can't see that Smirking Chimp is more offensive, and not as well known, as Slick Willy, then I don't know what to say to you. The impression I'm getting, Brian, is that anything an admin does is by definition wrong in your view. I apologize if I have the wrong impression. I'm not going to interfere with this anymore by the way, so you can do what you want with Smirking Chimp. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:52, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin
I feel that User:SlimVirgin has abused her administrative powers in both the Smirking Chimp redirect deletion and in several other situations. (For example, she once accused me of "vandalism" for making a page move that she personally disagreed with.) I feel that she is unable to separate her personal opinions from the use of her administrative powers. If this behavior continues, I am going to open a RFC on these actions. Since you have also had encounters with this administrator, I will notify you if this is done. Firebug 21:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with you in this case, but I'm afraid I won't support you on the RFC. SlimVirgin is a nice person, a good editor, and a relatively new admin, who is still feeling her way in that role. I haven't seen her making a lot of mistakes as an admin. I think she should get a little heat on AN/I and on her Talk page over this Smirking Chimp incident, but I think that should be the end of it. --BM 21:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That's certainly your prerogative. If this does go to a RFC, I will include your perspective via the comments above. Firebug 21:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No Firebug, don't threaten and insinuate. If you feel I'm abusive enough to open an RfC on, please go ahead and do it. The behavior will continue, because I don't feel I'm abusing any admin powers, so that admission should save you some time. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not threatening anything at this point, SlimVirgin. Since a RFC requires two users, I am attempting to determine whether I can find another user who shares my view of the seriousness of these actions. I respect BM's decision to refrain from participating in that step, but I have a right to communicate with other users on these matters. Firebug 21:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Firebug, you very precisely did threaten me on my talk page. Or were you contacting me only to ask whether I'd be the second signatory? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Brian, thank you for your reply, and for the above. My understanding is that an admin may delete a redirect if it is offensive, not merely if it counts as intentional vandalism. Two points here: first, what is the motive of the anon IP who wants to have that article as a WP title? It's silly, childish, offensive, and if it should exist, it should be an article about the website, which is quite well known, and not as a redirect. (Someone almost certainly will create such an article soon, which means we're all wasting our time here anyway.) It seems to me that the original motive was childish POV pushing, pure and simple, by someone who couldn't even be bothered to log on, so why should any one us waste our time with it? (And certainly, we shouldn't allow ourselves to fall out over it.) Second, about the admin thing in general. Before I became an admin, I often heard other admins say that non-admins had no idea how depressing it was to be constantly criticized; and sometimes I'd think: "yeah, right, good excuse." But it's true: it can be a thankless job. If you don't take action to help people who complain to you, you're a useless idiot; if you do take action, you're abusing your admin powers and people threaten you with RfCs. I've just spent two hours trying to educate myself about proxy IPs so I can help an editor who keeps being blocked inadvertently when a certain IP address (not even his) is blocked for vandalism. That time and work doesn't show up anywhere, yet it will benefit Wikipedia more than time spent deleting, keeping, or arguing about Smirking Chimp. My point is: please do take the complexities of the job and human nature into account when you feel an admin may have overstepped the mark over some issue, because the decisions that have to be made are not always black and white ones, and the people making them are fallible human beings. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I think the anon is most likely a sock-puppet or someone who has a lot more experience on WP than the typical anon. Also, he may have created Smirking Chimp to make a point, which is a violation of the WP:POINT guideline. But, you know, even though one shouldn't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, once someone has, other people aren't obliged to pretend that the point was never made or that it was not a good point. In this case, if the anon was actually trying to make the point that Slick Willy is a POV article, he succeeded. We should either have both Slick Willy and Smirking Chimp, or we should have neither. There are as many people -- well, nearly as many -- who find disrespect for President Clinton to be as offensive as there are people who feel that way about disprespect for President Bush. Slick Willy is pretty disrespectful. Given the "anything goes" philosophy of Wikipedia where we revel in having articles about every imaginable sex practice, complete with helpful illustrations, no matter how weird or offensive they might be to some people, it is hard to argue that Slick Willy should be deleted because some people find it offensive. Therefore: enter all the notable nicknames for politicians, including nicknames that some people find offensive. By the way, in the RFD votes, it looks like Slick Willy is going to be kept as a redirect to List of U.S. Presidential nicknames. For me, that means Smirking Chimp comes in too, unless we want to change the tag-line in the logo to "Wikipedia, The Free Right-Wing Encyclopedia". Perhaps you are right that Smirking Chimp should be an article about the web site as well as the term, rather than a redirect to List of U.S. Presidential nicknames. But that would entail keeping it also. --BM 22:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)