User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Per WP:BRD, you should not have re-closed the AN disucssion once I re-opened it. What are your reasons for doing so? It lets people have a little joke, which is what is needed once in a while. If you feel it needs to be closed, I suggest you ask an admin to do so. Regards, GiantSnowman 21:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, haven't we had enough drama?
Light-hearted is fine, but when it starts getting stupid - with lots of pictures of pie - it becomes disruptive. It was a nice, light-hearted moment, sure - but my close reinforced that. Are you aware that a meme about "I LIKE PIE" is one of the most popular forms of trolling?
In 'undoing' me, you removed the comment I'd added. What, exactly, is the benefit in continuing that thread? Why do you suggest I ask an admin? Would you have undone the edit if it were an admin? Why does that make a difference?
You've put in your edit-summary, "please do not close this again". I'll heed that. But, why didn't you heed mine, saying "Discuss it with me". Discuss *then* revert, no? Why did you revert *then* discuss?
Anyway... let's ask someone else to sort this out.

1. I closed a discussion [1].

2. That edit was undone by GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) [2].

3. I undid that [3].

4. GS undid it again [4] and wrote the comment above, in this section.

I've stopped, to discuss. GS seems to think we need an admin.

In my opinion, that AN thread should be closed. Sure, it was a nice thought - "light relief" - but it has already served that purpose. Already, some of the comments (which I'd collapsed) had drifted into dangerous territory, opening further discussion about resignations, with half-true-facts. We certainly don't need that spreading to yet-another-thread. (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

To briefly answer your questions (10pm here in the UK and I am about to log off for the night) - there is no harm in the AN discussion. It was started by a well-respected admin, plenty of editors and admins joined in - so why does an anonymous IP feel the sudden need to close it? Let someone who is trusted (i.e. an admin) make that call. If an admin closes it, then I won't challenge it. Actually, you reverted without discussion. It is B (your close), R (my revert), D (you never discussed it). My re-revert was simply getting us back to the 'R', ready for the 'D', which I instigated. And no, I am not aware of pie = trolling. GiantSnowman 22:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Only on Wikipedia could a bit of light relief turn into an edit war... Let's nip this in the bud, guys. I've nothing against's closure, or Giant Snowman's reopening the thread; both of you had good reasons for your actions and there's no blame to be attached either way. What isn't so wonderful is the fact that it developed into a minor edit war - my recommendation would be to simply leave it as is; no-one's commented on the thread for a couple of days now so it'll auto-archive soon enoug anyway. I'm pretty convinced that no trolling was intended (TP, a troll? I don't think so...), and whilst some editors might be a bit over-enthusiastic on threads like this, no harm comes of it. I'd say chill out and have a slice of pie, but I'm not sure it would be appreciated... Yunshui  09:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


Please cease edit warring over this close. Everyone is welcome to offer helpful comments about matters at AN, but it is primarily a noticeboard for administrators to discuss matters concerning administrators. If you don't like the conversation then you don't have to read it or participate, but please allow others to have the discussion. Basalisk inspect damageberate 23:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd ceased hours before that post - as you can see above.
And I think you've forgotten to warn GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) about the exact same thing. (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
As Basalisk says, it is a noticeboard (primarily) for administrators, and therefore administrators should make those kind of close/open calls. GiantSnowman 10:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, there is no policy or guideline that supports that view - unless you can show me something?
If it is just your personal opinion that admins should make such closures, then I suggest you either keep your opinion to yourself, or open a discussion and perhaps propose a policy/guideline on the subject.
It is entirely routine for non-admins to close discussions on AN and in myriad other places, so qui tacet consentire videtur - it seems to be very widely accepted, and often positively encouraged. (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Please point me to where non-admins are being encouraged to close discussions at AN/ANI? If you read Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closing vs archiving, you will see that it says "discussions may also be closed where someone, usually an administrator, decides that the discussion is irrelevant or disruptive." I would argue - and I would say that many would agree - that while it is "usually" an Admin who closes discussions as a whole, it is almost "exclusively" an Admin who should close them at AN/ANI. GiantSnowman 12:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:BOLD (guideline), WP:DEAL (policy). (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Right, look at it this way - administrators have been elected by the community because their judgment can be trusted; they are therefore trusted to close such discussions. The same cannot be said about you or many others, though there are a handful of non-admins who are able to make such closes themselves because their wise judgment is well-known. Three admins have now given you advice here, please accept it and move on. GiantSnowman 12:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The Beautiful Game[edit]

Is it entirely coincidental that the user pages User:Basalisk and User:GiantSnowman both happen to mention the uncommon phrase "The Beautiful Game"?

Genuine question. (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "the beautiful game" is a particularly uncommon phrase: I even use it myself, and giving a crap about football is about as high on my "to do" list as giving myself a hot coffee enema. So yes, I'd say that was indeed entirely coincidental. I'd have thought (given your location) that you'd have more awareness of footy-related phrases than anyone! Yunshui  09:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It's an incredibly common phrase in the UK / around the world for any football fan. Please stop trying to find conspiracies where there aren't any. GiantSnowman 10:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Very suspicious indeed. Not only that, but we both mention living in "the North". We even have exactly the same admin userbox. A lengthy report at WP:SPI full of evidence is definitely in order. I'll ping the CheckUsers. Basalisk inspect damageberate 10:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Further inspection of Basalisk's uder page - I also have personal connections to South Wales, rugby union, and the medical profession. Clear case of WP:DUCK; can an uninvolved admin please sort us both out? GiantSnowman 10:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Being serious for a moment here -, making silly accusations like the one above (insinuating Basalisk and myself are somehow in cahoots?) will achieve nothing but harming your case. GiantSnowman 10:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I made absolutely no accusation; I just asked a simple question. A simple answer of 'no, it's just coincidence' would have been perfectly fine; there was no need for heavy-handed sarcasm. (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You made an insinuation then, but let's not fool around with semantics - you know as well as we all do what you were trying to say, and such a ridiculous comment merited a ridiculous response. GiantSnowman 12:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I did no such thing. You seem to be incapable of assuming good faith. (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, because you have? GiantSnowman 12:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Aaaand' let's all take a moment to breathe, have a cup of tea and remember that this is, in the grand scheme of things, really not worth it. Gentlemen, hurling accusations and/or insinuations of sockpuppetry and/or bad faith, be they justified or not, is not in any way conducive to making Wikipedia better, and might just go a good way towards making it worse, which I know neither of you want. Arguing back and forth is only going to end up making the bad feeling between you worse, and doesn't make life a happier, sunnier place for anybody., I believe I answered your question above, so let's drop the topic. Snowman, we all know you and Basilisk aren't socks of one another, so any such accusations are baseless - you've treated what you saw as such a suggestion with the contempt it deserved, and there's really no productive reason to carry on the discussion. Everybody chill out! Otherwise I'll have to start templating this page with Wikilove foodstuffs, and we all saw how well that turned out before. Yunshui  13:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
...I've already had lunch ;) - but you make a good point, I'm removing this from my watchlist and will consider the matter over. GiantSnowman 13:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)