User talk:Mackensen: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:30, 21 May 2007

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

That sockpuppet issue

Hi. The arbitration committee didn't accept the case, so I'm going to try some other recommended avenues. But I haven't heard back about the sockpuppet stuff I brought up -- is that being checked or should I go through the more usual channels now? -BC aka Callmebc 12:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a follow-up -- I want to move on, but I need to first know if that sockpuppet stuff is being looked at by the appropriate folks. Thanks for any info. -BC aka Callmebc 11:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise: Special:Contributions/HappyInGeneral

I read your notice [1], and I agree that there is a revert war going on, which I don't like, so please help me clarify a few things by commenting on my contributions.

The Suppression_of_Falun_Gong page:

- I think that this contribution is essential: [2] because it's well sourced and very relevant to the page. Please review and let me know what you think.

Also the tags are necessary because the current version of Suppression_of_Falun_Gong [3] is hijacked by the POV of Special:Contributions/Samuel_Luo a Falun Gong critic who is proposed for being banned [4], also you may observe that the contributions of Special:Contributions/Pirate101 and Special:Contributions/Yueyuen are only imitating Samuel Luo's behavior.

A few questions:

Is the information well sourced?
Is the information relevant?
Do we have consensus on that page?

My opinion regarding these questions, and please let me know if I'm wrong.

+
Basically if the material is well sourced and relevant it should be in that article.
If the article is not on consensus than there should be tags presenting that.

As far as I see it, I'm acting according to the wikipedia rules and spirit, where Samuel is not, he is even removing tags that show that the article is disputed.

Also please note that there was a legitimate section for this on this page [5] however this was deleted: [6]. Abusively and repeatedly [7].

Also please review this section of the evidence page: [8]

PS: Note that this is question is here for more then a month now: [9]

I would really like more input on this issue, which would be also very much appreciated. Thank You.

--HappyInGeneral 14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[10] Question

I know you have already dealt with this case before and determined that it was a "likely" violation of Wikipedia policy via checkuser but that you also provisionally overturned that result. However, you also said the issue could be revisited. My question is, what types of behavior would qualify this case for another look? I'm not an expert of the vagaries of account abuse but have sucessfully uncovered several sockpuppets via other checkuser cases. These "two" editors behavior seem problematic. The evidence I have this time is: 1) User:Komdori's last edit was 27 Novemeber 2006 and did not start editing again until 16 April 2007. [11]. 2) User:LactoseTI's last edit was on 24 October 2006 and this user did not start editing on Wikipedia again until 9 April 2007. 3) Komdori had only 12 edits after LactoseTI's last edit in October of last year and both began suddenly editing again April of this year. 4) There is one single message left by LactoseTI on Komdori's talk page urging his/her participation in a debate on the Port Hamilton article. [12]. However, there are no other messages between the two editors but they happen to edit in a similar manner in both the Goguryeo and Turtle ship articles. The previous checkuser complaint also notes that neither editor left messages on eithers' talk page but yet remarkably the two editors were editing the same articles and sharing the work of cleaning up problematic image licenses.

I was not a party to your private communication overruling the checkuser result but I trust and defer to your judgment. However, it would make me, and I assume several other editors, more comfortable with this/these editor(s) if a reasonable explanation is adduced specifically addressing why both editors' edit gaps correlate so amazingly well (as shown in both the previous checkuser and recently), why both editors' substantial edits are on the same topics only, and why both editors' personal opinions are almost always the same. This is not the type of subject I want to spend my time but I did feel that if this is some kind of meat puppetry that something should be done to end this matter conclusively. I appreciate your help and time. Tortfeasor 06:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Metropolitan

I was ust wondering. Do you think you could change the s-rail template so that towards London it is "towards Baker Street and Aldgate" as the majority of trains terminate at Baker Street. However, there is stil about 2 tph going to Aldgate or something.

Separately, on the Amersham Branch, it should really only read "towards Amersham or Chesham" between Moor Park and Chalfont & Latimer. The other branch is the Watford Branch which is fine. Between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Moor Park it should read "towards Amersham, Chesham or Watford" on the main branch, obviously with "towards Uxbridge" on the other. Finally between Aldgate and Harrow-on-the-Hill it should read "towards Amersham, Chesham, Watford and Uxbridge". However, the layout of the termini etc should not change at Chalfont.

I hope i'm not confusing Simply south 08:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed up the changes to the north end of the system per your suggestions; I'm less sure about changing Baker Street/Aldgate. If there's more than one train an hour going through to Aldgate that might be significant enough to leave things as they are. Still, the change can be made if you think it would be more consistent. Mackensen (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McConn on revert parol for a year?

I've just noticed that this is the conclusion you've come to, and I'm quite surprised. I doubt that there is anything that I can do about your decision, but I still feel the need to defend myself. It's true that I've engaged in edit warring, but rarely have I ever reverted without discussion (in fact using the talk pages to explain each of my edits is something I make a priority of), and rarely have I ever participated in a revert war that wasn't over edits that were quite clearly inappropriate. I believe that I've also been regarded by most other users as very reasonable, including by those that are on the opposing side, such as Firestar and Tomananda. It's rare that people rationally complain about my editing behavior. I also make a point of using the talk pages to discuss content without pushing my opinion about Falun Gong. And because of these things, I haven't felt any warning or threat that some action might be taken against me. I appologize for the fact that I haven't been following the arbitration case or participating in it. This is mostly because I was away from wikipedia for about two months, and only really came back after the pages were opened up to make some edits that I thought were rather straightforward. (I understand now that this was probably wrong and that I should have waited for the arbcom case to finish before making such content changes). Anyway, were I to know or have been warned that my editing behavior has been a problem I would change immediately; you don't need to put me on any kind of restricting parol to do that. I respect your position and understand that you've done your homework, but from my perspective this kind of decision without any warning seems like jumping the gun. Thanks for listening. Mcconn 16:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wiki Rules applied inconsistently? Seeking clarification

Note about this query in this section: This is more of a question seeking clarification from arbitrators / similar ranked persons on Wiki about Wiki rules rather than a complaint. I wanted to keep the query to the ArbCom decision talk page but if I can't get an answer there, please give me a reply either here on your talk page, or preferably, my talk page, thanks!

1. I notice that Samuel has been deemed incapable of promoting a viewpoint outside his activism and has an obvious conflict of interest in that sense, but don't Falun Gong practitioners also have a similar COI? Many of the pro-FGers did not even want to see a Criticism section. Now, they are only willing to see one that is heavily truncated and has been responded to by their Leader or Master. Isn't this an inconsistent application of the Conflict of Interest rule? (If not, pls explain)

2. Moreover, if users like Asdfg (pro-FG) are given a second chance and commended for turning over a new leaf and now appears to conform to Wiki rules, why shouldn't Tomananda be given that chance, and Samuel (who had 3, not 7 blocks btw, if overturned blocks are not to be counted)? I find it once again an inconsistent application of Wikipedia rules that anti-FGers must be banned yet pro-FGers have, at the very most, only been given a year's parole (except McConn). I also note with amusement that despite User:HappyInGeneral having declared a POV war previously on the FG discussion page, he can be found not to merit even a revert parole.

3. Arbitrator Fred Bauder also mentioned that the real flamers have not been sanctioned (e.g. User:Omido) so far so should this ArbCom decision be expanded to include these users? Or are arbitrators bound to only consider the users involved and mentioned in the ArbCom case?

4. I note from Fred Bauder that NPOV does not require excision of POV language. I accept that, but hope that he would expand on this point further, preferably by giving examples in this FG case. Moreover, if that edit I made was objectionable then does that mean Fire_Star's one (the version I reverted to) was also objectionable, or is it my edit in itself that was objectionable?

5. How exactly do we deal with unregistered users who vandalize Wikipedia + Wiki user pages? Note that there have been a series of anti-FG vandalism actions recently, which is curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case, as well as the fact that there have only been numerous pro-FG vandalism actions before. See also the numerous times anti-FG and '3rd-party' users had their talk pages vandalized. So how do we prevent abuse of this, especially when banning IP addresses does little good to an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia? (If you cannot answer this one, that is understandable, but if you have an answer that would be of great use)

Now just one suggestion:

1. Instead of revert parole-ing numerous users, how about simply revert parole-ing entire Wiki entries, namely the FG-related ones here? This would be the best way of preventing edit wars ESPECIALLY by unregistered users (or users exploiting this Wiki weakness), as has been supported by my relatively limited number of edits on the main Wiki FG-related entries (compare the edits I made + content I wrote on the pages' talk pages, compared to the actual entries themselves). Jsw663 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved administrators and probation enforcement

I saw your vote on proposed principle no. 1 in the Zeq-Zero0000 case. As I've observed on the Workshop, a difficult issue is presented. I've taken a crack in the Workshop at some intermediate/compromise wording, which you might want to consider as you formulate your own ideas or proposal. Hope it's helpful in some way. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that helps a good deal. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak rail succession boxes

I noticed that you've been putting succession boxes on stations inside station infoboxes. I'm personally of the opinion that this not only looks terrible, but also doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Was there consensus reached on TWP about this? I'd personally take them all out and put them in the body of the article itself. —lensovet–talk – 17:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no consensus whatsoever, and I don't feel all that strongly on the matter. I know there's a school of thought that argues keeping the succession boxes at the bottom of the article makes the information inaccessible. I'm not convinced either way. Some subsidiary projects (PATH, Washington Metro) have this as their preferred method, which is why I designed the functionality in the first place. Feel free to change the location as you see fit. Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mackensen

The issue as I see it with that arbcom request is not BLP but the constant overiding of discussion by a core group of users. What sparked the request was this, put simply. Afd 1, allegations of an improper close, DRV supports it, open afd 2, closed after 45 minutes as enough discussion on the subject, DRV 2 closes with improper close* again, AFD 3 runs well for four hours and consensus points to keep and then once again is closed citing enough discussion. I reopened the afd and it was again closed.

*I came into that at DRV 2 after some very annoyed people had posted to the administrators noticeboard. Carefully read that DRV, and the two previous afds then carefully weighed up all the arguments in the deletion review (ignoring content arguments apart from BLP - deletion review is about deletion policy, not another afd) decided that there was no consensus on the BLP issue, but there was strong consensus among those who bothered to argue deletion policy that closing a discussion after 45 minutes is ridiculous - especially after it was opened as a result of DRV. As someone pointed out, something sent to afd should never be speedy closed because there is quite obviously consensus not to. So i then opened the third afd. Which ran as best as I thought it could for about 4 hours and then got closed. I don't believe an RfC will work, considering the stifling of discussion that happened to lead this issue to an arbcom request, there are many of us who have no faith in it not happening again. As i see it, this is request is about the flagrant abuse of admin powers to stifle legitimate discussions. These afds were quite clearly closed against consensus, judging by the outcry of all those involved who obviously had their !votes ignored. This is also supported by the fact that when the third afd was closed, consensus at that point was quite clearly in keep territory. Despite this, it was still closed as "enough discussion" from the others.

For these reasons I urge you to reconsider the way the case has been presented. I don't blieve its largely BLP, I believe its a (to use a cliche) "admin abuse" case. All I want is a fair community discussion (afd) closed by an impartial admin. Thats what I was hoping to achieve with afd 3, but once again the communities voice was ridden rough shod over. Viridae ^Talk 22:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think my initial reading stands. Regardless of process concerns, the only important issue is the proper interpretation and application of BLP. Administrators are rightly conservative on the question, since it's information regarding living persons that regularly attracts negative media attention and brings the entire project into disrepute. If process is endangering the project then that process needs to hurled with great force. The Arbitration Committee is not going to step in and conduct a deletion request for you. We will resolve disputes between users if need be, although Jeff's refusal to follow earlier steps in the dispute resolution process suggests that dispute resolution is not sought. You're asking the committee to win a content dispute or take a stand on BLP. Mackensen (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the Arbitration Committee will rightly ask why the initial deletion was overturned, and arbitrators will inquire why the first deletion review was a replay of the deletion debate instead of an evaluation of the close. There's no answer to this that I can see, and I've half a mind to ask Xoloz (talk · contribs) why he permitted such an abuse of process to occur under his watch. Everything that happens flows from the fact that a valid close was overturned by a non-sensical deletion review. This is Jeff's comment from the deletion review: "Strong overturn, and don't relist. When you have multiple reliable sources referring to him as one of the most famous faces in China, it's a done deal. Period." This has nothing to do with the deletion review process. This should have been ignored. That he failed to comment in the initial deletion debate is regrettable, but a debate which ran for eight days surely had requisite participation. You tell me it's administrator abuse; I see administrators doing all that they can under trying circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually neither. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted in the long run. What I want is a fair hearing for those members of the community that DO have an opinion, which thus far has not happened. Circumventing discussion in this way is a ridiculous way of trying to fix a percieved problem. It is the process concerns that have caused my involvement in this case. afds being shut down by those that commented heavily is a BAD THING circumventing further discussion by closing it early is also a BAD THING and it is for those reasons that I urge you to reconsider. You stated that administrators are conservative on the matter of BLP - and rightly enough, but there are administrators on BOTH sides of the BLP debate on this issue, myself included. Mangojuice had some pretty persuasive arguments against the BLP issues raised here, (he is running a website to use the meme for his own advancement, all the facts are properly and accurately sourced) but as far as I am concerned BLP is not the issue. As for other dispute resolution mechanisms, there has been vast amounts of discussion on ANI, the various talk pages etc. As far as I am concerned, an RfC is only going to inflame matters. When those who are supporting a fair discussion are faced with comments and vitriol like [13] and [14] and [15]. What hope is there for an RfC that doesn't inflame matters further. I think magojuice sums up my feelings on the matter well by the way: [16]. Viridae ^Talk 01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not prepared to work with the existing mechanisms then I'm afraid we can't help you. I would prefer that you address my main point: the community did get a fair hearing in the first deletion debate, but unfortunately (for some) that hearing resulted in deletion. I see nothing wrong with that deletion debate, yet somehow it was overturned. Our deletion processes aren't supposed to work that way. BLP goes a good deal farther than adequate sourcing, a point also made during that first deletion debate. Indeed, the discussion on that first debate alone was quite sufficient for the topic, and any arbitration that came of this would focus on why things went so far, and why it was that said debate was overturned. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I'm concerned that you're arguing process over what many if not most consider a BLP matter without having an actual opinion on the issue. Mackensen (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I didn't have a "refusal," I figured that the amount of discussion on the topic regarding people's complete inability to allow any other result was enough. The discussions at AN/I, at DRV, at the multiple AfDs were obvious. Earlier steps in dispute resoltuion should occur, but do not haveto occur, that's hardly a mandate. Certainly, if I felt an RfC would be anything more than an excuse to pile on further, I would have gone through it just to legitimize the process (yet another thing people despise, BTW, but seem to care about when it comes to ArbCom), but let's be realistic - any RfC is going to be a pile-on of a bunch of people ranting and raving how this issue needs to die and that we don't need to discuss it further, peppered with more insults and incivility (as if the crap we're seeing on the Arbcom page isn't enough) and then it gets back to you guys in two weeks anyway. As for your second comment, why would anyone ignore a statement demonstrating why the closure was inappropriate in a DRV discussion? That's exactly what DRV is for - if you really beleive that DRv cannot review erroneous closures, then what's the point? your assertions below worry me, especially when you think the first DRV result was improper - even if it were, wouldn't the second AfD eventually result in the proper outcome if that were the case? This is extremely disconcerting, even if you weren't on Arbcom. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked closely at the DRV you mentioned. I have to say that there is an almost equal run of votes from either side, that are just an afd in the wrong place. However similarly there are a number on either side that do argue deletion policy. That is a tough call, and personally I would not have closed it full stop. But as it was, it was closed, and a new afd was started and as such should have been allowed to continue longer than 45 minutes before it too was closed as a delete. That brings us to the start of my involvement, and I have to ask if you find any fault in my closure [17]. I was simply trying to resolve a touchy situation. I really think that stifling discussion like that seen in this issue of massive detriment to the community. It leads to massive distrust and divisions, as people have their opinions totally ignored. Viridae ^Talk 01:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by a rough count more people wanted to keep the debate closed and article deleted, so by that metric alone I question your decision to close the debate early. Your claim that there are no BLP issues involved is one that I don't agree with, and that you asserted as much without giving substantial reasons, when many commentors clearly thought there were BLP issues, does not do those people justice. You note that DRV overturned the original AfD without reflecting whether this was the correct action, something you've apparently just done now, at my suggestion. You're quite right to state that "DRV is here to review the process of deletion"--can you now apply that to the first DRV discussion, the one that actually matters? Much of this commentary is over whether the correct processes were followed, several stages removed from the thing itself--I want to know why the first deletion was overturned, and I can't get an answer. Mackensen (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rough count was exactly what I was trying to avoid. I closed that DRV as open a new discussion, because the vast majority of the "keep deleted" votes were either not relevent to a DRV (ie afd style) or cited BLP claims. The BLP claims were then answered by quite a number of people, rendering them invalid as a way to determine consensus of the discussion. This just left the "overturn" votes - most of which were proper DRV style ones, which were citing improper closure. Hence why it was re-opened. Viridae ^Talk 03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, BLP isn't a focus of the concern here. It's a sideshow to the real issue of administrative action that stifled discussion, and lead to some unfortunate wheel warring, thus rendering the question of an RFC somewhat moot. Mister.Manticore 01:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it is the focus of concern here. The original deletion debate, that no one seems to want to talk about, ran the correct length of time, was closed correctly, and then overturned by an improper deletion review. That's my reading and no-one's actually told me I'm wrong. The rest of these flows from process run amok. Mackensen (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't see BLP making for the problem here. BLP can be brought up in the discussion. (And I think that there are sources from FOX news, the BBC and other such sources tells us that we can expect to meet the reliable sources requirement.) What's wanted, but being prevented, is the discussion about that. In any case, the original deletion debate was overturned by the closing admin, voluntarily, as shown here so I see no reason to be concerned about that. This was linked to in badlydrawnjeff's initial statement, perhaps you missed it? Mister.Manticore 02:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact I'm capable of reading, but I find the point irrelevant, since the debate was then closed by Drini. Drini is the closing administrator. This close was then challenged at Deletion Review. I've addressed this point below. BLP is at the very center of the deletion debate, which is at the very center of the problem. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you meant that was where you first thought there was a problem, well ok, but I wouldn't have called it the original deletion debate. To me, that was the re-opened deletion debate. There was nothing wrong with asking Daniel to reverse his decision, which was what I considered the original deletion debate. BLP still isn't the issue though, the issue is discussion. Mister.Manticore 02:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you want to question Viridae's early closure of the second DRV and the re-opening, I suggest you also question the numerous previous early closes of that second DRV. Not saying one wrong justifies another, but I think that does show the real probelm. Mister.Manticore 02:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to question Viridae's early closure–he asked me to, so I did so. If this comes to arbitration I suspect I'll have to question a number of actions, starting with the overturning of the first deletion debate. As it happens, I'm not currently voting to accept, for reasons given on the main arbitration page. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a final note, I think the second question I would ask is why Matt Crypto (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) undid Drini's close with the summary "Let AfD run its course." when, of course, the AfD had already run eight days. I can only assume that he didn't read the debate before undeleting. I find it surprising as well that the initial arbitration request did not list him as a party, although he surely was, or Xoloz, whose role was perhaps more important than anyone else's in taking us through this process marathon. That said, I'm not persuaded that the committee should deal with this. If the committee does wind up taking the case, I've given you a good indication of the issues at hand, which ought to be useful regardless. Regards, Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to ask Matt Crypto, but he's declined to participate further so I doubt it matters. Mister.Manticore 02:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost think it might be an idea to take this proposed arbitration, if only to establish that the Biographies of living persons policy has real teeth. But I think that much is already obvious to those who can read the policy, and in any case common human decency would have kept this execrable trash off the wiki even if that policy had not been written. --Tony Sidaway 03:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just choosing to ignore the fact that kid has a website on himself capitalising on the exposure the meme provided? Are you ignoring that all the sources are reliable accurate secondary sources? How about that there were several attempts by various people to refocus the article on the meme not the person - ie to "include only material relevant to their notability". What you think is trash, others think is notable enough to be included and it is the communities voice not that of a handfull of editors that should prevail. Viridae ^Talk 03:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're ignoring all of those, and rightly so. This is an area where we must always tread lightly. Such articles are about real, and quite innocent, people who have been hurt by malicious individuals and we must be careful to avoid becoming a conduit for their further persecution, even if they themselves make unwise decisions. We are not like their persecutors. We are not callous. We are Wikipedia. The community spoke and the article died. That you objected is not a reason for the community to change its mind. --Tony Sidaway 03:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the community spoke and many believed the article should not have died. Your consistent attempts to shut us up do not demonstrate the community's actual desires. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An eight-day Articles for deletion (AfD) debate is more than enough to decide such a matter; most AfD debates last for just over five days. Moving to stop abuse of process isn't the same as shutting people up. The community spoke and subsequent attempts to stick a microphone up its fundament and make it say something else have failed. --Tony Sidaway 03:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV felt otherwise. Your lack of acceptance of the community's wishes is not my problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're turning this into a ping-pong game. The article is dead, so it's hard to argue that the community felt otherwise. --Tony Sidaway 04:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is dead not because of the will of the community, but because of administrators who decide that the will of the community does not matter. Your consistent revisionism regarding this topic is not tolerable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I hesistate to use another editor's talk page for this discussion, I believe you're mistaken here. The community did not actually decide anything, but rather, individuals acting within said community did. That those individuals may be mistaken in their actions is very much in question by other individuals. Mister.Manticore 04:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've both been Wikipedians long enough to know that administrators are responsible for determining the will of the community within the narrow context of the views of individual Wikipedians and the broader context of Wikipedia policy as determined by community consensus. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and when they get it wrong, as they did with this article, you've been around long enough to know that's where DRV comes in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think you missed the point, which was that said administrators were considered by other people to be mistaken. Since being an administrator does not give a person absolute infallibility, that is quite possible, don't you think? If you wish to convince me, and perhaps others that said administrators were not mistaken, but instead correct to make their decision the method to do so is not to deny the questioning, but to answer it. Sadly, that only worsens the problem. Mister.Manticore 04:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why rightly so? If the kid is capitalising on the exposure to hopefully make himself a buck, then how is not fair to him that we have a perfectly balanced, inoffensive, accurately sourced article on the situation (meme) that gave him the notability in the first place. I would also have to say, the community HASNT been listened to is exactly how I became involved in this situation. If in a fair and balanced afd, the community decided the article did not need to exist then I would be quite willing to have it deleted - it would delight me that such a discussion finally occurred. However every single one of the afds has been marred with claims of misconduct. If people were so pissed off by the results of the DRV on the first one, then they should have taken up the situation then and there with the person who closed it - open an rfc if necessary, discuss the matter. You don't just shut down a discussion after 45 minutes and claim that it was valid. Circumventing discussion has pissed off a lot of people. To further amplify the issue, the third afd was shut down as delete with a consensus to keep. How hard is it to have an open discussion on the subject without trying to force your opinion on everyone else. If consensus among the community was to have the thing deleted, then why force the third afd to close. It just inflamed things further, as any person experienced in the ways of wikipedia should know it would. If you so strongly think it should be deleted, go and have your say at an afd on the thing - aregue your point long and hard, cite everything you can to back yourself up and if the community indeed agrees with you it will obviously be deleted. But to stifle discussion and ignoring peoples opinions just pisses everyone off. I have to ask, if you truly believe that the community supports deletion - why don't you open a new deletion discussion on it yourself. You might thing it process wankery to go through another afd when as far as you are concerned the right decision has been made, but it WILL satisfy a lot of people and it WILL defuse the situation. It is also a show of good faith for a community divided and would maybe restore some shattered faith for many people who see this whole situation as admins pushing people around to get their own way. (Mackensen, your views on this suggestion would be appreciated as well). Viridae ^Talk 04:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to rerun the deletion debate until you get the result you want. There was consensus to delete and the article was deleted. --Tony Sidaway 04:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the first DRV found that the consensus wasn't there. But that is imaterial to my suggestion. My suggestion was, that if you so strongly believe the community thinks the article should be deleted, why not , as an act of reconciliation and good faith, open another one and make sure it is closed by someone unbiased and uninvolved. You believe the community belives the article should be deleted - if you are right you end up with the article being deleted, but with the added bonus of finishing this mess. If you had read all that I have said here correctly, you will see that the result I want is a fair hearing for the communities views - i honestly have no care in the world wether it is deleted or kept, as long as it is done honestly and fairly. So in this situation I guess you do have to run the discussions again untill you get the rsult I want. Viridae ^Talk 04:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mackensen has already adequately covered the various deletion reviews. As I've said before, I don't believe that it's right to rerun deletion debates over and over again until you get the result you want, so it would be wrong to rerun this one. We're all trying to build a good encyclopedia here, but this proceduralism has no part in it. It's a means to an end, no more and no less. The end has been achieved and attempts to subvert that end have failed. The case has been taken to arbitration and looks like it will probably be rejected.

Suggestions that Jeff or whoever take their concerns to Requests for comment don't seem to have been taken seriously, which I think is a bit of a shame. But if you're really committed to the will of the community this is what you, and Jeff will do. Write up and RfC about the conduct of the various parties, and where you think they've conducted themselves poorly, and we'll discuss it. --Tony Sidaway 04:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Far quicker and cleaner to follow my suggestion. Also an act of good faith an attempt to restore the faith of the large subset of the community who feel themselves wronged by a blatant disregard of their views. Viridae ^Talk 04:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sympathetic to those who feel disenfranchised, I don't think it's really Wikipedia's problem. We have processes for a purpose, and that purpose is to construct an encyclopedia. When the deletion of something blatantly unsuitable for Wikipedia is wrongly challenged by people more concerned with following process than doing the right thing, there is a conflict that can only be resolved by stating flatly that process has an end. So while I'm sympathetic to those feelings I feel that they stem from a very grave misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia and the place of our processes in the scheme of things, which is pretty low down. If the process is leading to people repeatedly trying to get an obviously unsuitable item undeleted, then the process is the problem and should be stamped on very, very hard. --Tony Sidaway 11:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an increasing number of people who disagree that it's unsuitable, Tony. Again, you are not the arbiter of what is and isn't suitable, and your continued misrepresentation of the facts concerning this article do not indicate a true understanding of what's going on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of trying to raise this article from the dead, you have made numerous allegations of misconduct, primarily by administrators but also seemingly by anyone who disagrees with you. The article is dead, but you could do something about the alleged misconduct by following the dispute resolution process. Please do so. --Tony Sidaway 11:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been misconduct on both sides, it has nothing to do with who agrees or disagrees with me. And trust me, if the arbcom case does get declined, it will go to RfC, and then it will end back up at Arbcom for the same reasons. The article is not dead, thankfully, that much is sure. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to wait for the arbitration case to be finally removed to pursue other avenues of dispute resolution. You can start now. Please do so. --Tony Sidaway 12:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but I think Arbcom should accept the case with or without an RfC. There's too much misconduct to willfully ignore. Besides, you're only asking me to do that to delay the inevitable, why would I ever take that advice? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take my further responses in this discussion to User talk:Badlydrawnjeff and (where relevant) other user talk pages until such time as an RFC is created for centralized discussion on this. --Tony Sidaway 12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're better off keeping them to yourself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackensen. – Steel 12:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
 ::::I could, but I think Arbcom should accept the case with or without an RfC.  There's too much misconduct to willfully ignore.  Besides, you're only asking me to do that to delay the inevitable, why would I ever take that advice? --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 12:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 ::::: I'm going to take my further responses in this discussion to [[User talk:Badlydrawnjeff]] and (where relevant) other user talk pages until such time as an RFC is created for centralized discussion on this. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
+::::::You're better off keeping them to yourself. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 12:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 Hi Mackensen. &ndash; [[User:Steel359|Steel]] 12:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)