User talk:Dorftrottel

My RfA

Hi AldeBaer. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 22:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: suppressed?

It's quite a strong allegation to say another user "suppressed" your comment, esp. when that comment was a) clearly too long for the RfA page and more suitable for the talk page and b) simply moved there for the convenience of all participants. —Alde Baer 23:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Convenience" of those who don't want anyone reading it, certainly. You'll note it was dumped in a section labelled "Moved from talk page" with absolutely no indication of which comment I was replying to, and no indication was made in place of that comment that I had actually replied – Gurch 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"those who don't want anyone reading it" is simply renewing the assumption of bad faith, you realise that, I take it? If you want to make it clear which comment you were replying to, why not simply insert that info on the talk page? —Alde Baer 23:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A 40-user pile-on oppose initiated at the whim of a few users? Sorry, I'm well past assuming good faith now – Gurch 23:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

Hello, AldeBaer. Thank you very much for your kind support on my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I feel thrilled and hope to live up to your expectations. If you see me doing anything inappropriate, please do let me know. ~ Best regards, PeaceNT 11:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Many thanks for your support at my RFA. It ended successfully and I am now a glorified janitor. If I can be of any assistance please don't hesitate to contact me through my talk page. Happy editing! —Ocatecir ^Talk 18:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was DennyColt a sockpuppet?

It was obvious from the start that DennyColt was a sockpuppet. What wasn't clear was whether he was a sockpuppet of a user who had been harassed or, as now seems more likely, a troll who wanted to discredit the MONGO ArbCom ruling by exaggerating an interpretation and forcing an implementation.

We don't normally tag sockpuppets unless we have an identified suspect for the puppeteer. Even checkuser requests are supposed to have a suspected puppeteer. "I think X is a puppet of Y because . . ." is far more likely to be accepted than "I'm sure X is a puppet, and I want to know whose puppet it is."

We also don't block sockpuppets just because they're sockpuppets (unless they're sockpuppets of blocked or banned users). There would have to be some evidence that the puppet and puppeteer together took multiple reverts or double votes, or otherwise tried to give a false impression that there was greater support for something than was actually the case.

What can't be denied is that his proposal caused great harm to the people that it was ostensibly supposed to protect. Many of them fell right into the trap, if it was a trap, and supported, in the hope that the proposal, with necessary modifications (and there would have been a lot of necessary modifications), could help them. Now, it seems that those who care more about the rights not to have censorship than about the plight of the victims will do what they can

Hope that helps clarify the situation. Musical L inguist 01:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Thanks so much for supporting me in the RFA. I am grateful for your response, and it really means a lot to be appreciated. Thanks again! hmwith talk 04:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was upset to have lost your support in my RfA. To which replies are you referring, so I can know how to improve in the future? I appreciate your responses, and thanks for your constructive criticism. Happy Wikying! hmwith talk 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment indenting

thanks. I tried doing a few things to cancel the # but they mostly ended resetting the counter to 1 at the next post. Gzuckier 17:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

thanks for the vote for my RfA, didn't work out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munkee madness (talk • contribs) 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks for dropping the note on my talk page. I will come back, but not soon. What rises up my stress is the type of editors you come across, one who has a bad approach and makes unilateral edits where things get to the tip of the iceberg because no consensus is made at first. This makes me feel somewhat dismayed with Wikipedia's limitations. I do not expect anything to change, but I would make these observations based on my time here:

The Wikipedia community has excellent processes for rooting out vandals, trolls, shills, and blatantly useless edits.

Unfortunately, we have very poor processes for rooting out good-faith mediocre edits.

A huge proportion of the edits are, in fact, mediocre. The relatively small number of excellent editors spend a disproportionate share of their time repairing the mediocre.

With the time remaining after rooting out bad-faith edits and mediocre good-faith edits, even excellent editors tend to spend a disproportionate share of their time on what is fun, rather than what is useful.

According to Wikipedia:Good article, just 0.1% of the articles in English Wikipedia are "good articles." This appalling statistic illustrates the magnitude of the problem.

According to Wikipedia:Featured article, just 0.1% of the articles in English Wikipedia have been "featured articles." This would seem to be a reasonable quantity, until you consider the extremely high percentage of low-importance topics that make it to Featured status.

Wikipedia's structure of barely-controlled anarchy is an excellent way to generate a ton of mediocre content, and occasionally very good content. It is not a very good way to generate an excellent encyclopedia.

I wish you the best of luck editing WP, and I will see you in the near future. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About unilateral changes: Users are asked to be bold, but I can only largely agree with your observations. They aren't new ones, by the way, and you are in good company. But I also believe these issues can and may be resolved by-and-by. The question is, are we willing to work on it? It simply requires some team spirit. —AldeBaer 01:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)