User talk:Bdj/Archive11

Arbitration case

I want to publicly express my strong support for you in the totally unjustified case that's been brought against you. You are absolutely right to fight the circumvention of process by those admins who seem to think that "BLP" means "when in doubt, delete". Although I haven't always agreed with your stance, I'd like to also repeat the statement I've made at the RfArb talk page:

I firmly support Jeff's stand in this case. BLP is not an excuse to ignore process and other users' opinions, nor is it a call for a crusade to censor Wikipedia. The only reason for having BLP at all is to avoid the spread of false and libellous information; it isn't to protect people from the spread of the truth. If the truth hurts someone, then so be it. Any article in which all controversial information is sourced and verifiable, and multiple independent sources are cited, should not be deleted. Nor should process and consensus be circumvented by the few admins who seem to regard themselves as a kind of BLP police. Unfortunately, a number of the admins involved in this case seem to believe that "consensus" consists of arguments which they agree with, and trot out the "voting is evil" line as an excuse to ignore other people's opinions.

If the ArbCom makes a judgment against you, I may well consider resigning from Wikipedia in protest. I don't like the way the encyclopedia is going. Walton^Assistance! 18:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for the support. It's early to say what will come about, but the evidence page has been predictably telling. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, looking at the evidence page, several admins seem to share our broad stance on this issue. At the very least, it looks as if some of the BLP Police will be reprimanded for incivil edit summaries (I doubt ArbCom will let a certain admin get away with "F**k process. This will die.") and unilateral deletions. Walton^Assistance! 19:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Re [1] I was curious just how long it'd take you to fix that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I swear, I think my typing is getting worse as time progresses. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You think maybe we should start a new team to track down people with these dubious BLPs written about them and ask them what they think of their articles? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? I don't care that much. If they get deleted through AfD, they get deleted through AfD. I'm just sick of one person thinking they know better than the rest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious how the "This must die" crowd would react to a person who says "yeah I like that article" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably that they can't be expected/trusted to protect themselves from themselves. After all, they go after self-promoting entities as hard as any other. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, please reply to my e-mail

You promised to get to it by Wednesday night. You clearly have no shortage of time, given your posting here. The way, the truth, and the light 20:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not where my e-mail is right now. If I don't get back to you tonight, I authorize you to release the hounds. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh snap

Oh wikidrama (see my talk and WP:ANI) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw, tough break. Are you going to add it onto my case (it is related) or start a new one? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's not worth it, just an amusing misunderstanding. It felt like FCYTravis was out to get me though. (since he said "email her!" and then "OH NO YOU'RE GONNA EMAIL DESYSOP") Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I just opened an RfC on my conduct and actions during the dispute surrounding the Gary Weiss article. You participated in the AfD for that article. The RfC is here and I welcome any comments or questions you might have. CLA 23:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

man

I'd give you a barnstar but I'm too lazy to dig up an appropriate picture, so accept this star as a token of my appreciation for your respect for Wikipedia's principles and your own:

[ * ]

Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Best barnstar ever. Keep on keepin' on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Spyware Terminator

HELP WANTED : hi jeff, the article is under debate for AFD - 2nd nomination. there is consideration for G4 & G11 deletion posted in the debate. it is still said it is not notable. would be grateful if u could have a look at it , explain others point of view about the article and consider pariticipating the AFD 2nd nomination debate. thanks a lot

DYK

On 3 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Adventures of Lucky Pierre, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Sean William @ 03:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tori Anthony

Do you see any problems with this article? Centrx said the sourcing was bad, but I'm not sure how much better it could get. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Dunno how anyone could say the sourcing's bad - that last part about UCLA could probably use something, but that's about it. Other than that, it's simply too bad it's so short. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just left off an inline reference because pretty much all of the articles report it, so one would be redundant. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Entirely sensible. Did Centrx explain what was bad? -badlydrawnjeff talk 21:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Wyatt

I've protected Charlotte Wyatt (expiry time of six hours) to allow for discussion on the talk page. Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I know, wrong version and all, but protecting the redirect isn't really going to do much for discussion on the article itself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

I am not going to explain 3RR to you, I am sure you understand this rule already. Please follow it, I don't think a block is needed at this point, but please do not violate this rule(it applies to us all). ^(H) 15:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not dumb. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Stokke

DRV has endorsed the removal of the meme information per WP:BLP. I know you don't agree - but there it is. Don't reinsert it, or you will be blocked.--Doc^g 20:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV has done nothing of the sort. There's nothing to block me for, as my edits are well within the BLP guidelines. Do not make false threats, do not make false statements. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you really need to play it cool here. Don't use the article as yet another forum for argument about whether the 15-minutes-of-fame stuff should be in there. Friday (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I need to play it cool when I'm threatened with blocks for following policy. You want to be helpful? Reign in the guy who's being quick with the trigger and rollback buttons. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg

As so ordered by DRV, Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg is again nominated for deletion. Please see the debate at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 23	4 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, banned	Admin restored after desysopping; dispute centers on suitability of certain biographies
Controversial RFA suspended, results pending	Dutch government provides freely licensed photos
WikiWorld comic: "John Hodgman"	News and notes: Another Wikipedian dies, brand survey, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you've gone a little over the top here

Hi, I know we have our differences, but I hope we can discuss them with respect. One or two of your most recent comments in discussion cause me particular concern, because they don't sound like you at all. I think if you think about them a bit you'll agree that they don't show you in your best light.

The particular statements I'm concerned about are as follows:

• "And let's start blocking people for multiple reverts when they lie about BLP issues. And blocking them for civility/NPA when they make blatantly false statements about other editors." 13:49, 5 June 2007 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop
• "When your counterargument is dishonest, we call it what it is. I've been lied about enough already." 13:48, 5 June 2007 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop

In those comments, you overstep the line, calling those who disagree with you "dishonest" and saying that they "lie" about you and other matters, and that they make "blatantly false statements". This kind of behavior isn't right for Wikipedia, is it? --Tony Sidaway 14:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, lying about people and situations to gain a upper hand or demean others certainly isn't right for Wikipedia. I find it incredibly telling that you come to me with concern, rather than the folks who are actively making the false statements. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't be the only one who saw this

• "Does somebody have a bucket handy?" 5 June 2007 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (second nomination)
• "ever met someone who converses in English, but the way?" 5 June 2007 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (second nomination)

Seriously. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If I've interacted uncivilly, mea culpa, I'm human. However to point to my incivility is not very productive, when we're discussing unrelated cases of pretty personal attacks by Jeff on other editors than myself. Feel free to address those issues on my talk page in order to leave this discussion uncluttered. --Tony Sidaway 14:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, go pester the people who are lying to gain advantage and leave me alone. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

All editors should interact in as civil a fashion as possible. Newyorkbrad 14:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's OK to disagree strongly, and it's even OK to use strong words. But from a purely utilitarian perspective, Jeff, surely you can see how it damages your case to go around calling people liars instead of recognizing that there's an actual difference of opinion. People can interpret things differently without one of them having to be dishonest, and, no offense, but you come off sounding like a crank sometimes with your rabid, everyone-but-me-is-wrong style of communication. You come off sounding like someone who's here for the fun of arguing, rather than someone trying to present their position in a persuasive way. Friday (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't especially care. I've made my persuasive argument, people lie in response, and the lie gains traction, so you must respond by demonstrating where the lie is. That's what I have done. Now, if you want to be productive, fix the lie and don't go after the person trying to do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that's all well and good, but can't you see that you can demonstrate that an assertion is untrue without assuming that the person who holds that position is doing so dishonestly? It's unnecessary and, as a personal attack, it detracts from your point by turning the focus on your conduct. --Tony Sidaway 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I already have. Numerous times. Tony, go bother them. Doc just accused me of trolling, what are you doing here? My conduct isn't the issue, so stop trying to make it one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, can you cede Tony's point, whether or not you agree with his method? By your approach, you give people (especially those neutral or predisposed against you) a reason to oppose you. Whether or not it's bad behavior, it's bad tactics.

And Tony, perhaps the time has come to see that your particular interaction with Jeff may be unproductive, based on past history and whatnot? It's not that what you're saying isn't correct; I just suspect that your saying it to Jeff isn't helping.

Although I default to inclusion, I have no particular opinion on the underlying issues in this matter. I'm just hoping I can interject a perspective that might help you both. If it doesn't, that's ok, too. --Ssbohio 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to bow out on this occasion, though I have to say I'm unaware of any past history until the latest kerfuffle. It should be pretty obvious now that those whom Jeff has tangled with lately share one thing in common, and it isn't anything to do with Jeff. --Tony Sidaway 15:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Further evidence that you don't get it. Bow out, immediately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ssbohio, Tony has no point other than to try and crank me up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot to be said for being calm here. Let me propose two hypotheses:

1. TonySidaway is well meaning, just has his mouth run away with him occasionally.
2. TonySidaway is evil incarnate, and is specifically trying to discredit you.

Don't you see that under either hypothesis reacting as calmly as possible is the best action? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point that others haven't articulated as well. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce

Hello, I've just discovered your GA review. I was wondering what you'd like more citing for? There's very little information on this topic, due to the fact it was one of over 100 episodes produced that year for Sesame Street, and it never aired. As such, there's not many public records to cite. -- Zanimum 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just cited some of the stuff at the top of the article, about their death, adoption, marriage, and birth plotlines, but of course that's not terribly related to the article itself. -- Zanimum 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Benchley

Nice job with Benchley. Sorry I couldn't pitch in. Real life and such.--Silverscreen 03:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, please expand where you can. I got on a roll, hehe... --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Stokke DRV

Hi Jeff,

I'm not sure where on the talk page you wished me to comment, so I'll do so here. I closed the DRV with the intention to validate the BLP concerns as they existed at the time. My conclusion wasn't just about sources; but also, about the spirit of moral rectitude BLP is intended to require in cases where someone's fame is neither of their own making, nor desired by him/her. (This is the all-important distinction between Stokke and QZ -- I still maintain that QZ deserved an AfD on the question of whether BLP concerns were quasi-estopped by QZ's alleged attempt to profit from his fame.)

Having said all that, consensus can change, and no DRV can serve to bar discussion of an issue forever. I think it would require really powerful evidence for the AfD's closer to take account of meme-notability (in light of the DRV), but it is not impossible, especially if circumstances have changed through the production of a large number of new sources. I leave that issue in the hands of the AfD closer, and will very likely support whatever conclusion s/he comes to. Incidentally, since I have !voted "delete" in opening the nomination, I am disqualifed from closing the AfD. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant for you to comment at the talk page - essentially, did your DRV close invalidate any mention of the internet notoriety? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My first reply answers that question about as well as I am able to. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The best you're able to is "yes" or "no" in this case. Your reply really doesn't answer it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, but..." or "No, but..." are equally valid short-hands for my answer to your question, given in fuller form above. ;) Sorry, but sometimes there is no simple answer. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

blank and protect

Hi Jeff, Have you seen this type of blank and protect strategy before? See Carla Baron. This seems like overkill to me and but it is a wiki policy area that I think you have a lot of experience in. For reference Psychic profiler (talk · contribs) is Carla Baron and she was complaining that the article had links to a web site that was critical of her role in the non-fictional TV show she hosts as a 'psychic profiler'. David D. (Talk) 19:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Only with {{deletedpage}}, but this was an m:OTRS issue, which is usually a bit more problematic. I'd say that if you're interested in seeing the article created in this case, do the userspace thing. The OTRS stuff is problematic, and is almost always justified, so I'd suggest getting what detail you can from the deleting admin and seeing if it's fixable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds more trouble than it is worth. I'm not even sure how i got involved now. The criticism itself is the usual from skeptics, in this case James Randi, hardly libelous. It just seems like a bad precedent especially with politicians etc. trying to cleanse criticism from their respective pages. Would m:OTRS do the same for them if they just whine enough? I would hope not. David D. (Talk) 19:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right - it usually is. I don't know what the rate of action/ignore is with OTRS, but I've only run into one that I've noticed and said "well..." --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

If my memory serves me, you are/were a part of the ATT working group. Is anything happening with it? I'm getting kind of tired looking at the big question mark on the policy page. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If anything did, they didn't fill me in on it. I've obviously been a little distracted, so I haven't followed up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I found the project page and saw that nothing has really happened for over a month... do you think it would be inappropriate to re-establish ATT as a policy rather than a proposed policy? Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I do, because I think the poll raised a bunch of questions that were never answered. I'm honestly not married to either side of the dispute at this point, but I'm not sure people are accepting of the change as of yet - I hardly see ATT referenced anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I should stop referencing it. I'm just getting sick of pointing new editors to ATT, only to be told "that's not even a policy..." IMO, if nothing is going to happen with it, we should at least change it to say so. But then again, I guess I'm not in the group. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke

Am I doing something wrong here? Why am I being targetted? Any input you can provide would be appreciated. McKay 15:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The only suggestion I can give you is not using the blog as a reference. Other than that, you simply walked into a shitstorm, and, eventually, we can hope the people causing the problems will be dealt with accordingly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. Viridae^Talk 16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tanya Kach

I really don't like the current climate of "Admins can do anything as long as they claim BLP". Especially when interpretations of this vary. Here's a turn of events that will probably piss you off, I lack the time and energy to properly follow this up though to a satisfactory conclusion though:

• Tanya Kach is speedily deleted
• Tanya Kach DRV ends in overturn
• Tanya Kach is speedily deleted again
• WTF?

You can catch up with some musings here and here. - hahnchen 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, so this is the article this is about. Was it sourced? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. - hahnchen 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm adding to the ArbCom case in the meantime. Someone should really just reverse him in the meantime. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I fixed a few typos in your evidence. Meanwhile, another article was also nuked today in a bizarre way, but this might have been a simple mistake (redirect was blanked and the page was tagged for CSD A3). Prolog 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks. That's...uh...interesting. I wonder what prompted the salting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Input appreciated

I've jotted some thoughts down at User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP and I'd be interested in what you think about them. JoshuaZ 03:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave some comments later on today. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 02:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be looking for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My e-mail's apparently down at the moment. If it's semi-urgent, <redacted>. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeffree Star

Odd, I removed the protection a minute or two after the DRV, so I can't see why it's currently still treating it as protected. I'll look into it. --pgk 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems ok now, guess it must just be the job queue or something. --pgk 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks! And an edit conflicted thanks x2. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How to make and win an argument

I've been following your actions through the whole Stokke mess. When I saw you brought it to WP:DRV a second time, I was tempted to give you a lecture about disruptive behavior, but I think I'll try something more positive and give you a few hints on how to be a more effective debater.

Your debating strategy seems to be based on the idea that more is better. You respond to virtually every statement that somebody makes. I count 39 comments from you between the 2nd AfD page (13), its talk page (7), and the article's talk page (19). That does't count who knows how many comments on the first DRV, and random user talk pages. Now you've moved onto trying another DRV, and when that was nipped in the bud, arguing your case on WP:ANI.

All of your comments said pretty much the same thing. After a while, people get sick of it and stop paying attention. You will be much more effective at winning people over to your side if you say less, and make each thing you say be worth listening to. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, you could preach to the people who don't know policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of people would disagree with you on this point. Just because you say you're right doesn't mean that you are, and you should notice that you end up facing off against an awful lot of old-timer Wikipedians — you know, people who have been around longer than you here and really know what's going on. Wikipedia is not about policy for policy's sake or process for process's sake. It's not an experiment in governance. It's an encyclopedia. And a lot of people think you forget that all too often. --Cyde Weys 15:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If they disagree, then they're free to prove it to me. If people instead want to be dicks about it, I can't stop that, but it doesn't mean I need to stand for it. Preach to them, not to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to explain to you why you perpetually seem to be in conflict with the people who "run the place". --Cyde Weys 15:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in conflict with them because I dare challenge them. If they spent even five minutes doing things even remotely properly, there wouldn't be a problem. They'll get their comeuppance eventually. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The irony is smothering me. --Cyde Weys 16:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I've felt the same way since you've commented here the first time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

personally, just show this doesnt look to one-on-one, I think this particular article, where nothing but praise about the person is said, and where the person is legally an adult, and where there will almost inevitably be an article from the further career, was a very good one to make a stand on. -- a much strong case than the ones on embarrassed or nasty or criminal people, or involving children. The closing just now surprised me, but you might look at the top of the closer's talk page.

Clyde, my feeling about building an encyclopedia is that deletion of articles like this gives WR and the like the perfect opportunity to attack the encyclopedia in a harmful way. DGG 20:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. I thought Brandt and the WR crowd most often scolded us for keeping intrusive biographies. However, I don't really care what they think. Do you?--Doc^g 20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

William A. Brady

On 9 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William A. Brady, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

I just realized that this edit could have been taken the wrong way. I was commenting on the general idea of calling a spade a spade, whereas we often pussyfoot around too much. It was most definitely not directed toward you specifically. I apologize if my wording was not clear and you or anyone else gathered a meaning I did not intend. Raymond Arritt 00:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I just assumed it was par for the course at this time. Thanks for stepping up, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF?

I know there are philosophical differences and quite a lot of heat here, but what the hell kind is statement is that [2]?? That's stepping over a line you should not cross? And frankly, I'm surprised at you - you are normally quite civil even when you are brisk and bad tempered. You 'can't wait' for someone to get hurt? Please consider retracting that remark. I'll assume your temper just got the better of you, but I think an apology is in order. Don't you?--Doc^g 00:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, stop already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You think that's a reasonable remark?--Doc^g 01:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[3]...what's that about pots and kettles?

--JJay 01:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an awfully restrained remark, and i could have a few choice words for you, too, given how you again misstate my remarks in an attempt to besmirch me further. Do you have anything useful to say, or are you done pissing on me? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm not infallible. If there's a good faith way I should have interpreted "I can't wait for the day you piss off the wrong person, Tony" as a helpful remark, then tell me and I will apologise immediately. Seriously. I can see no reason for our sharp disagreements about wikipedia to descend into the gutter, and if it is my failure to assume your good faith, then I really am truly sorry.--Doc^g 01:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How's this - first take back the accusation that I've made any insinuation that I want harm to come of anyone, and then maybe we can talk. Maybe. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

KISS AND MAKE UP. (messedrocker • talk) 01:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Step up to the plate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm offering a full apology here, if I've failed to assume good faith.--Doc^g 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And why should I believe this for a second? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I retract my previous accusation. Sorry. I genuinely don't understand what you remark meant - perhaps you just typed something foolishly in the heat of it - I do that sometimes. I get things wrong. Did you? Or, if not, what did you mean?--Doc^g 01:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant it. I can't wait until he pisses off the wrong person. The fact that you automatically assumed violence of any type is incredibly telling of your pathetic attitude toward me as of late. Par for the course at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, Chairboy did nothing of the sort. He asked you what you were hoping would happen when he pisses off the wrong person. That was not assuming anything at all. Sean William @ 02:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to Chairboy. See if some of your IRC buddies can parse the conversation for you next time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Jeff, leave the computer and come back a few hours later when you've cooled down. Sean William @ 02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You should be very glad an edit conflict killed my previous statement. Otherwise, maybe you would have a reason to conspire again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well what happens when he pisses off the wrong person? And why would it give you joy? Isn't it easier simply to admit the remark was foolhardy - as my assumption you meant violence was. Why do you find it impossible ever to admit you are wrong?--Doc^g 02:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Like Jeff, I'm articulate enough to answer the question without being trapped. And if I had been beating her - I'd apologise. Would you?--Doc^g 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. In fact, I'm not sure I understand the question. All I was trying to point out is that "Why do you find it impossible ever to admit you are wrong?" is not a helpful thing to ask. You can choose words that raise the temperature, or you can choose words that will lower it. What do you choose? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, the remark wasn't foolhardy. It was serious, it was deliberate, and I'd say it again. When will you admit you've been an absolute world class asshole to me for the last month? When will you stop misrepresenting me? When will you stop making shit up? Answer those questions, maybe shell out a couple of apologies of your own, and then come preaching to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have said many fool hardly things. I ask you again, since you stand by this remark to explain it.--Doc^g 02:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you an answer when you get around to actually owning up to the bullshit you've been spewing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Badlydrawnjeff just meant by "pissing off the wrong person" a situation similar to the on that caused him to resign under a cloud of controversy. --MichaelLinnear 02:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You're getting there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he can explain it for himself. I'm still waiting.--Doc^g 02:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside view

I hope Jeff doesn't mind my posting here. If my observations are unhelpful, then please remove them.

I think I can understand where Jeff's coming from. Tony is a pretty disruptive guy. In my interactions with him, I've seen very little indication that he's open to adjusting his approach. I've suggested ways to him that he could generate less drama, and he's indicated that he thinks I'm asking him to coddle people's irrational fantasies and that "Wikipedia is not a mental hospital". Apparently, what I see as basic communication skills, he sees as "coddling".

I'd love it if Tony were to somehow learn that it's possible to be just as effective as he is - no, much more effective than he is - without pissing off so many people. If it takes "pissing off the wrong person" to wake Tony up to that reality, then I guess the best a friend could hope for him is that he do so, and soon. What's the best way to teach someone who doesn't want to learn?

To be fair, most of what I just said about Tony also applies to Jeff. They're both incredibly stubborn, and prone to poor communication when dealing with perspectives that differ from their own. They're also both very smart, very committed to Wikipedia, and quite often right, although they both manage to undermine a lot of what they attempt. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I no longer think Tony is committed to this project. At least not the goals of this project. Let's get that straight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Another outside view

For God's sake, what is the matter with you all? This whole situation is ridiculous and, frankly, I think both sides know it. We have a lot of Wikipedia's most experienced contributors slinging mud at each other like petulant children. As an outsider, I see the following (in no particular order):

• Jeff being immovably stubborn
• Doc being equally stubborn and somewhat supercilious
• Tony making a mixture of valid and dubious points, most of which lose much of their intended weight because he phrases them harshly or is downright uncivil
• Assorted other editors taking sides (seems to be IRC vs. others) and dropping in at random to stir the shit
• In the mean time, any half-sensible person who dares to say "shut up the lot of you, calm down, come back in a week and compromise" gets ignored or told they're "missing the point".

The whole BLP thing (which, in my opinion, is being made far too black and white) is getting lost in the noise. Yes, we need a policy to cover rapid deletion of unsourced attack articles. Yes, we need to take "do no harm" into consideration. No, we don't need to use BLP to do that if the articles are sourced and neutral - doing so undermines valid uses of BLP. Maybe we need a separate policy on ethically-inspired deletions... but nobody seems to be proposing that, you're all too happy to yell and stamp your feet and pick up on every little thing that your opponents say.

So, I won't expect this comment to make any difference whatsoever (in fact I fully expect everyone will either claim they're blameless, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, or point out the vital thing I missed that makes it all justifiable).

Fine, I probably regret wasting 5 minutes writing this... I'll leave you all to get on with it now. Just bear in mind that you are, collectively, kicking up a ludicrous fuss which is likely to do more harm and reduce Wikipedia's credibility far more than the presence or absence of an article about a high-school athlete or a fat Chinese kid. Your bickering is very visible, very distasteful and very offputting to people who just want to write a decent encyclopaedia and give it away. Think about it, please. --YFB ¿ 02:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The project's credibility is already going down the tubes. I'm trying to fix that, but those with the actual power to do so don't seem to care. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, how do you see this project's credibility suffering? I don't think I've seen that, and it sounds like something I'd want to know about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Charity

Jeff, I have to admit that I don't understand the dichotomy you are drawing, at all. Newyorkbrad 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I might; his comments are not too divergent from those on my own user page. Raymond Arritt 01:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think we're actually here to build an encyclopedia. Or, well, maybe most people are, but certainly not the people who appear to be running the show. You've busy with board elections, I'm not going to get you involved in this nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, wasn't that nice

And I was just about to notify you. I shouldn't have to explain, but your incivility lately has been beyond what would normally be tolerated from most users. I have therefore blocked you for a week. --Coredesat 02:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. Which is why I've had to put up with much worse with absolutely no repurcussions. Typical. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If the blocking admin doesn't remove your block, I will ... rediculously inappropriate block. --BigDT 02:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will do the same. I cannot fathom how this block is preventative in any way. Coredesat, please remove the block or justify it here, or I will be lifting it in 15mins. As much as I disagree with Jeff on many things, and believe he should tone some of his comments down, this won't help a bit. Daniel 02:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. --Coredesat 02:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Good. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Should be un-autoblocked now. Friday (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

(copying from ANI) Civility blocks rarely help. Civility blocks for a week have even less chance of being effective. Civility blocks for a week on experienced and established contributors achieve the opposite to the desired effect. If this block was for twenty-four hours, I would still object, but I wouldn't see it as such a pressing problem. One week is ridiculous.

However, Jeff, can you please just tone it down a tiny little bit? I know you're annoyed, angry, or what not, but Wikipedia won't die if you take a couple of hours off, away from the PC, to calm down. I actually find you much more convincing when you are rational and calm, and I'm sure others do too.</pleads> Although you didn't bring the one-week block upon yourself totally, you did contribute to it a little bit. Daniel 03:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No. The continued preaching to me about the problems when I get no backup from anyone for the bullshit I put up with is what's stoking this. You want it to get toned down? Start getting as frisky with the people causing the problems as you people get with me. Get to the root of the goddamn problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Who are "you people"? Daniel and I both expressed displeasure for the block and would have unblocked you, but wanted to give the blocking admin a chance to correct his own error first. To be perfectly honest, when you use abusive language and make accusations about people trying to help you, you don't make it easy. --BigDT 03:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that people are still here preaching to me is exactly why I'm entirely fed up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't need a grand drama, with everyone being either a hero or a villain. People instead tend to be somewhere in between. Jeff, the reason people keep "preaching" to you is that you should change your behavior. Yes, other people should change theirs also, but this doesn't excuse yours. Friday (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My behavior, tonight notwithstanding, is not and never was an issue. It's a red herring to avoid talking about the real issues. Fuck that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone who's word you'd take, if they said your behavior was an issue? Friday (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That assumes there's many people left on this project to trust. Maybe someone who took five seconds to actually address the root causes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, want to talk? I know we haven't always gotten along but I'm sort of on the outside looking in on this one, and having been in these guys' shoes before, maybe I can explain some things to you that would help defuse all of this. --Cyde Weys 06:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be helpful, maybe you can actually get them to understand why this is reaching the tipping point. I really have nothing more to say on the amtter - until certain people are seriously reigned in, it's likely to happen again, and I doubt I'll be the only person to react. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing though — it is getting reined in, but it's your name on the chopping block, judging by the way the current RFAR is structured and named. You can't just keep saying everyone else is wrong and you're totally right. You're seeing where that road leads with every unfolding second. --Cyde Weys 15:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. My name has been on the chopping block for a year (you helped put it there), and the evidence doesn't suggest much of any wrongdoing on my part save last night. I know I won't get a fair shake, because those things don't exist for me. And you're still feeding into it. If you're looking to be helpful, this isn't the way to do it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not keeping it there; notice that I haven't participated in this current arbitration case. --Cyde Weys 19:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I'm agreeing with Cyde here, but anything I can do? I admit I've been staying the holy hell away from the RFAR for my own sanity, but if I can be a sounding board, you know where my talk page is. -- nae'blis

Well that made me smile anyway

[4] - love the edit summary. Never mind, we all lose it sometimes. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Query

Did you post this? Although the anon addresses you, he also signs off as you; see the second comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not me. Also, I connect from New Hampshire, that IP's from Scotland. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if Badlydrawnjeff was using any sockpuppets. --Cyde Weys 19:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hello Bdj/Archive11, I just wanted to thank you for giving your comments at my recent RFA. While it didnt pass (I withdrew after it became apparent that the RFA was "sinking like the titanic" =]), I will try to focus on and build upon your comments, and the comments of all the other Wikipedians who participated. Thanks again for voicing your opinion, and I wish you very happy editing! Anonymous Dissident Utter 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Award

At a time of great wikistress for you, I figured you deserve this:

		The Dessert of Merit
		Awarded to badlydrawnjeff for continuing to be a hardworking Wikipedian, despite high levels of recent wikistress over the ArbCom case. WaltonAssistance! 16:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also raised a point here on BLP that I hope will generate consensus. I'm not sure whether to propose it as a principle, I want to sound out opinion first. But I hope it gets to the heart of this issue. Walton^Assistance! 17:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand how you feel, but please don't leave. Lots of us appreciate your contributions. I agree with you about the whole QZ/BLP thing, as I said before, but please do appreciate that the people on the other side are acting in good faith. Although I think some admins abused their tools in unilaterally deleting various articles out-of-process, they were doing this because of their ethical principles, not to harm Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I know you've suffered a lot of abuse and discourtesy from various users, and I sympathise. But we need you on Wikipedia. Walton^{alternate account} 12:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you ignoring me? Did I say something wrong? I'm trying to help. Walton^talk 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not ignoring you as much as really not into this at the moment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 24	11 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement	Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?"	News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility block

Jeff, I'm blocking you for civility problems. Comments like this and following it up with [5] are not acceptable and frankly hurt rather than help your cause. JoshuaZ 03:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those were remotely incivil, as you fully know. Whatever, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bdj (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Obviously false. Hardly worth it.

Decline reason:

Upon reviewing the diffs, I am in agreement with the blocking admin that those remarks were less-than-civil. I am endorsing the block and declining your unblock request. — ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bdj (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'd prefer someone who hasn't called me a troll in the past to review this

Decline reason:

A.) I have never called you a troll. b.) you know better c.) give it some time, cool down and come back refreshed. — -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For diffs: [6] [7] [8]

Incivil? Probably. But good grief, we see worse than that from certain administrators frequently. JoshuaZ, I really don't think this is a great idea. And as for the first diff supporting the block, I wouldn't call that incivil - I would call it a correct response to a patently incorrect close. --BigDT 03:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest all admins participating in this block may wish to add themselves to the list of parties involved in the Arbitration Committee case on badlydrawnjeff, as they appear to have strong opinions about his behavior, and may wish to put money where mouths are vis a vis positions of authority and inherent responsibility therein. While you're at it, please consider blocking my ass proactively as I'm about to be just as skeptical about your (ab)use of power as badlydrawnjeff was in the comments that apparently got him blocked for incivility. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(a.e.c. with BigDT, with whom I concur) Although I'm happy, at least, that this block was imposed by an administrator situated on the same side of the debate as Jeff (lest this should have been a truly untoward situation), I must suggest that this is a grossly inappropriate block, one that I urge Joshua to reverse straightaway. There was plainly no disruptive character to Jeff's remarks—even if they are to be understood as incivil, they surely aren't personal attacks, and in any event they are, though suboptimal, not at all dissimilar from those that one encounters with great frequency here—and a block here serves absolutely no preventive purpose (it would be exceedingly bad even as a punitive block—which, of course, we don't do—inasmuch as Jeff's remarks, unnecessarily abrupt and frank though they may have been, really commented on contribution, albeit rather vituperatively, than on contributor). Joe 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

BigDT's point, which really should control here, ought to be emphasized to anyone evaluating an {{unblock}} request: comments as those made by Jeff are (probably unfortunately) everywhere here (one probably encounters twenty per day); I cannot recall one occasion on which an editor was blocked for putative incivility as insignificant as this. Joe 03:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Those editors aren't people they want to see gone by any means possible. That's the difference. It's simply more IRC fawning, it doesn't affect things one bit. I was told I should try to get unblocked, so I did. We move on, and we see the true colors of even more people in the process. We all win. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. It's not like I'm actually editing anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess, but doesn't it interfere with your ability to contribute to the Arbitration Case against you? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically, but I have nothing more to say there, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's 8 hours, no big deal. Friday (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's absolutely a big deal if other users are not being blocked for the same or worse. We don't want to start that arms race though, do we? Please unblock, Joshua. -- nae'blis 03:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) Although I find the tone of Jeff's comments to be well below the standard I would like to expect from an editor of his experience, I do not believe they require a block, nor that the block is likely to be helpful to the overall situation. I will not act unilaterally, but my input is to reverse. Newyorkbrad 03:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I read: Comments like this and following it up with [9] are not acceptable and frankly hurt rather than help your cause. I have no comment on the second half of this (starting "and") or the motivation for this block. Of the two diffs, the former strikes me as entirely acceptable: Jeff's complaining about an idea, not a person. The second strikes me as arguably ever so slightly uncivil, in an infinitesimal kind of way: nowhere near the kind of mudflinging ("moron", "nazi", "asshole", etc.) that rightly prompts blocks. -- Hoary 03:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The diffs given were not the best examples in my opinion. Stuff like this is not helpful in any way, and Jeff ought to know better. Not blocking him hasn't worked; so it's possible that a block might. Friday (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, certainly the troller and not the trollee are at fault there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to take that attitude for everyone who uses profanity and other incivil language on AN, ANI, and DRV on a regular basis? I'm all for cleaning things up, but I doubt there's much consensus for it. --BigDT 03:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

With Jeff it's been an ongoing problem. I'm not saying there aren't other problems also. I just wish he'd get the idea that he needs to change his approach- so far nothing seems to work. Friday (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the continued belief that it's my approach that's a problem. Yeah, I'm fed up and stopped giving a shit - when do you plan on addressing the root causes of that? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could talk you into the idea that there may be several root causes here. I don't think the situation is really as simple as you seem to see it. Friday (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You really can't. The situation on my end is amazingly simple - a few bad apples have spoiled the batch. Those problems disappear, and there's nothing for me to rail against. The cabal's simply too strong, so I wave the white flag. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This block seems sufficiently controversial at the moment that I'm going to unblock. As to the first dif, it would not have been a problem but for the repetition which could only be described as not civil. Indeed, I agree with Jeff that the close was a bad idea, but the way it was expressed was at best poorly thought out. However, editors who have in the past both agreed with and disagreed with Jeff seem to think that this block was not a good idea and I'm therefore unblocking. Jeff, I will however repeat that you are in many ways your own worst enemy when you engage in this behavior. You are not helping either civil discourse or any form of inclusionist cause simply due to peoples reactions to your undiplomatic phrasings. JoshuaZ 03:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Inclusionism is dead. Thanks for doing the right thing, regardless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll be happy to know your autoblock is gone too. --BigDT 03:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I strongly endorse Joshua's observations. As for inclusionism, it isn't dead just because in a relatively small number of cases we also must be sensitive to other considerations. Newyorkbrad 03:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's pretty much dead. "Sensitive" is being used exactly as I predicted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hate to say it, but this was one of my easiest predictions. [10] When WP insiders want something done, it gets done. Welcome to the real world. Casey Abell 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't always get what you want

I think most anyone who's been around a while has had several things not go their way - probably even things they felt strongly about. This doesn't mean we have to quit or lose confidence in the project as a whole, this just means there's lots of people involved who have different opinions on things. Whenever there's a difference of opinion, someone's not going to be happy. Friday (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree per Friday. Newyorkbrad 18:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's what Wikipedia is all about. --Tony Sidaway 18:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you need to learn to differentiate between, That person's opinion differs from mine and That person is wrong, or That person is lying, or That person is stupid, or That person doesn't understand the issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but to be fair Jeff is not remotely the only person who has trouble with that at times. Friday (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on, folks. Everyone knows that there are a disproportionate number of people who are total dicks to Jeff. Yeah, you can't always get what you want, but when people turn off their brains and just start kicking blindly whenever Jeff enters a conversation (esp. a deletion or BLP-related conversation), you've got a problem. I think Jeff's decision is completely respectable. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, but again, this is hardly one sided. Jeff gives as good as he gets. Friday (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Jeff. This is a two-sided dispute, but one side is considerably larger than the other. He gives it out, yeah, but when he gets it back, it's at a ratio of 10-1. The difference is, when he gives it out, he gets blocked. When others give it out, well, nothing happens. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to get into an argument, but "what Wikipedia is all about" is a small group of insiders centered around Jimbo running the place. You didn't have to be a genius to see how, say, Danny's RfA or the Brandt stink were going to turn out. If somebody doesn't like this state of affairs, a.k.a. "reality", they can always walk. I'm still here, so I don't find reality unbearable. But let's not pretend that reality doesn't exist. Casey Abell 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there was a time when it was common for these insiders to think "I'm an insider- I can be as big a dick as I want!", and we all see where that got us. I think, and hope, that this is changing. I haven't seen that Jimbo is willing to publicly step in to protect his insiders when they run afoul of the community, and that's a good thing. So, do such insiders exist? Probably. Can we ignore that and get on with the project? Absolutely. Friday (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't encourage these fantasies. --Tony Sidaway 19:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I ignore that every time I edit an article. I also ignore sunspots, belly button lint and dandruff when I edit. Doesn't mean they don't exist. Anyway, the ball was rolling as soon as Jimbo unblocked Brandt. Then came the tinkering with WP:BLP and the deletion of the article. Salting and expunging of every reference to Brandt will soon follow. Hey, Wikipedia Review says this may be the dawning of a new day on Wikipedia. Shows their keen powers of observation. Guys, it's the same old day it's always been. And that's it for me on the grousing. Back to my exo self and those little old things called "articles." Casey Abell 19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We're seeing a new trend in the Wikipedia community, as evidenced by the increasing tendency of BLP deletion of harmful material to be endorsed by the community in the face of a diminishing rump that opposes it. To dismiss the BLP changes as simply a plot by a bunch of people centered around Jimbo to expunge the Brandt article is rather missing this evidence that the Wikipedia community's feelings as a whole are shifting.

There are undoubtedly several groups of people who consider themselves to be allied with Jimbo Wales. They do not control the community, except insofar as they tend to be persuasive. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

General note

Right now, I'm seriously reconsidering my place in this project. It's one thing to get angry about Brian Peppers and take a couple days off in a less-than-mature fashion, it's entirely another to feel completely unwelcome because of the influence of, frankly, some of the most horrible human beings I've ever had the pleasure of encountering. I don't need respect, I don't need to be well-liked. I do, however, deserve some basic courtesy. I've earned that much. When a random asshole can troll an entire project to kingdom come in a blatant power play to try and retrieve any "glory" he had, and he's applauded for it, there's a problem. When we completely lose sight of this project in favor of shunting good data off to sites that pay the two people who control it, or start actively catering to trolls because of some warped, unrealistic sense of "dignity," it makes me wonder if this is really the project for me. This will never be the project it can be, I resigned myself to that fact a long time ago. But for it to not even come close to the project it should resemble? That's a crime. I fear the latter, and I don't know if I want to be on board for that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to have your little meta discussions, spam someone else's talk page. I don't need to be drawn back here by people sending me e-mails to see the bullshit I saw. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

your userpage

The large font style squishes the letters of multiple lines together so they overlap. I tried different browsers and they all did this. SakotGrimshine 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be because of multiple overlapping big tags, rather than using relative font sizes (i.e. <div style="font-size: 150%>). hbdragon88 00:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought he used font size=7. SakotGrimshine 02:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's because there was no paragraph tag. Fixed it -- Jeff, hope you don't mind. Raymond Arritt 02:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the content at the header of the user page

I'm starting this discussion here because it seems that recent edits regarding the state of this user page have been in disagreement and the solution to that is to achieve consensus. I suggest removing the content at the head of the user page as it doesn't contribute to the goal of producing an encyclopedia. Sancho 19:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Jeff thinks that certain recent actions actually work against the goal of producing an encyclopedia (rather than merely not contributing). By pointing this out, it does contribute to the goal of producing an encyclopedia. Got to say I think he makes a good point. Also (not doubting that this is a good faith effort on your part to alleviate a problem) to try and change his user page could be perceived as another attack (I say another because I've been watching this play out for a while now on ANI and with the ARBcom case. And while it's been going on so long that I have no idea how it started, he has been attacked, imo. Especially that IRC block fiasco.) This is not a good idea. R. Baley 20:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the reason for this vulgarity is irrelevant. It is not acceptable, and sets a poor precedent for the project, especially when this user's link is all over the place and new users are likely to find their way here. Per Wikipedia:User page:

Inappropriate content (section)

There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense. Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but remember: don't be a dick about it. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor.

Sadly a volatile personality like Jeff's is being encouraged as though he were a martyr for some obscure cause. This behavior should not be tolerated or memorialized. --Kevin Murray 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Unbalanced personality" is precisely the sort of attack to which Jeff objects. While I disagree with Jeff on many things, your characterization is uncalled for. You would do well to withdraw it. Raymond Arritt 21:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and amended. The message at your user page is constructive and appropriate dissention. --Kevin Murray 21:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reposting earlier comment "This is not a good idea" -R. Baley. Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner! 2 comments in on this discussion and we have jeff descirbed as an "unbalenced personality" with a disorder (and by implication, from the quote by Murray above, a "dick". Which personally, I find Personal attacks offensive. This is still not a good idea. R. Baley 21:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The quotation above is from a WP guideline [[11]], which references an essay by that name. If you find it offensive, please edit the guideline and remove the essay. I have amended my comment, which was not meant to give offense. --Kevin Murray 21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we stick to discussion about content rather than discussion about an editor? ... It's hard to discern what arguments above were for or against removal of the material at the head of the user page. I think, I see one argument that says, "a good point is being made", and another that says, "the user page shouldn't make the point in such a way that is likely to bring the project into disrepute or give widespread offense...". The other arguments are not related to the content being discussed it seems. What about this: "Are we here to write an encyclopedia, or are we here as a charity case while we fawn all over eachother? Apparently, charity case. Nope, we're not an encyclopedia anymore." Sancho 06:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)