User talk:Bdj/Archive9

WP:AI

Hi, just telling you that I opened a strawpoll on this proposal at WT:AI. I proposed a poll earlier and no one seemed to object. I hope you don't mind - probably I should have asked you specifically first (as it's your proposal originally) prior to opening the poll. My own vote is Neutral, as I can see both advantages and disadvantages to the proposal compared to WP:N. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Man, I really wish you had waited. Ah well, chiming in there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; when I opened the poll I didn't realise you were taking a wikibreak. In retrospect, I realise it must have looked rather aggressive of me to open a strawpoll in your absence. It wasn't my intention at all to come over like that. In any case, it hasn't killed off the proposal by any means, just provided (I hope) constructive feedback and a wider range of opinions. But if there's anything I can do to make amends, I'll do it. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No no, and I didn't think you had any real nefarious schemes in place, haha. Just don't give up on it, and that will be "amends" enough. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Have a wonderful honeymoon. Durova^Charge! 00:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. Hbdragon88 05:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

All my best wishes too. --VirtualDelight 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

I wish you two the best of luck and happiness!

>Radiant< 08:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Another congratulation for the pile: Good luck with the rest of your life, Jeff. Enjoy your time off, and try not to even think about us for the rest of the week. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We may disagree a lot, but congratulations and best of luck! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone above!

it was a great ceremony and honeymoon, I'll post a link to pictures soon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	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 04:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

huge change in policy language

Hey there, I have seen you in many afd debates, and in WP:MUSIC, WP:BK, WP:N, and so forth. From what I've seen so far, you are one of the Wikipedians that I deeply respect. You fight for what you believe for, and you don't let the politics of others get in the way of your judgment. That being said, you probably already know of a merger proposal of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS being merged into one article WP:ATT. Since this is huge, I think it would be good if you would weigh your thoughts in on the discussion at WP:ATT/P. Even if your neutral on the debate, you should add your thoughts and opinions under the neutral column, it might add more light to the debate. Thanks -- RiseRobotRise 02:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thank you for bringing The Turk to FA status. Mr. Barnstar 07:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at the main page!

Not that you don't have better things to be doing right now, but if you get back in the next 13 hours, take a look. Congrats!  :-D And on getting married, while I'm at it. Milto LOL pia 10:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Egads! Too bad I won't get to enjoy it, but hey, cool! --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Won't get to enjoy the front page or being married? Hearty congrats on both, but rather more on being married. Likely we'll see more of your stuff on the front page, but weddings should be a once in a lifetime thing! Best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, congratulations.--Doc^g 23:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes, enjoy the main-paging. We're still moving, haha. But married life is fun, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, the true secret of The Turk is about getting a very skilled little man in a cramped box where he can slide back and forth, so people can't see him, but can be amazed at playing with him. While the true secret of being married is... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying to stay hidden in a box where your wife can't find you? d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on both! Kla'quot 06:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

pnc

You are very wrong on this and acting like a spoiled child. Save your energy for constructive efforts to compromise. --Kevin Murray 03:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice response. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am distressed at what has been happening, because I usually find myself in general agreement with both you and Kevin in practical discussions of individual articles. Jeff, just what do you think is actually wrong with the template? DGG 02:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The template itself? It doesn't reflect consensus wording at WP:N (because none currently exists), and because its creation is based on false pretenses. The use of the template? Because people erroneously think that a consensus at WP:N (assuming it exists for the sake of discussion) is a consensus at every notability guideline, which is patently false. The attempts to force a wording that lacks support or consensus on a guideline is simply wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I am still confused. I am not concerned about the process for getting the template---the simultaneous discussion of everything on 5 or 6 pages has made a hopeless mess out of process in any case-- I am concerned about whether you think it will make any difference in terms of the practical decisions about keeping and deleting articles.DGG 08:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the wording misunderstands what makes something notable and confuses notability with verifiability, two separate concepts. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, will it make any practical difference?DGG 02:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. It changes the discussion, it changes the attitude, it changes the entire culture away from useless source counting and toward a better discussion as to appropriateness and source quality. Any net loss will probably come from fewer articles sticking around due to actual discussion occurring regarding these issues, and it's a lump my inclusionist heart is willing to take in order for our policies and guidelines to reflect reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Gary Numan

Hi there, A user has started off creating a series of stubs on individual Gary Numan songs. I get the impression that you know a lot more about music than I do. I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether it would be possible to properly source these stubs under the current rules and if so, where we could go to do this. Youy can see what I'm on about here. Thanks, oh and I believe congratulations are in order as well. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I mean, I think it's possible, but I don't know for sure - I'm not familiar with Gary Numan's works, so...my thought - give 'em a little time to formulate, if we can't do anything with them, keep the released singles and merge the rest into the album articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my thought as there seems little point having bits and bobs floating around if all the information can be better retained in articles on the album. I'll give the articles some time, and the user some help and if it doesn't work we can redirect and merge to the album articles. Thanks. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comment about my contributions. It really meant a lot. Danny 16:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's true. I get frustrated with you, but you're a hell of an editor. Contribution-wise, you get it, and you're one of the reasons I've written two FAs so far. So keep that up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

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 07:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

MySpace Events

I do not understand why MySpace Events was deleted it has more than enough of everything to be a valid article.... Martini833 19:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, because it was deleted in an AfD once. We may have to restart the DRV for the proper article, since some people decided to work around the page protection. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Regarding the DRV, List of MySpace Events was nearly the exact same article as MySpace Secret Shows with just a slightly different intro. MySpace Events was a much more expansive explanation of the concept of the Events than existed in MySpace Secret Shows; it was basically a completely separate article. That is why "List" was speedied and "Events" was at AfD. In my opinion these should have separate DRV's as well because the deletion reasons were different. List was recreation, Events was apparently deemed deletable as poorly sourced advertising (at least it looks that way from the closer's notes).--Isotope23 20:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I don't disagree with your logic, and I don't want you thinking I meant that I did. Separate DRVs are fine, this is just really confusing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think people are thiniking that List was to recreate Secert Shows when it was just an aid for MySpace Events. It was not another attempt at it as others had said. I only made it when people complained that the list on MySpace Events was too long that i made list so thts why i dont think it shoud be deleted its just another list out of the many lists on Wikipedia. And the ad tone and sources were all taken care of (more than necessary) so i dont see why anyone is complaining (much less deleting it)! Martini833 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion

Hello Jeff, welcome back. I was wondering if you could join the latest discussions on this page? There's talk now of combining this page and Wikipedia:Straw polls into one page called Wikipedia:Polling. Perhaps you could express your views on this idea? Thanks. (→Netscott) 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take a look and chime in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Democrazy (film)

Just FYI, deleted again. - Denny ^(talk) 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake; I've restored it. —tregoweth (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

arbitration requested - you are named

User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Wikipedia:Attack sites at this address. We are named parties. - Denny ^(talk) 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why my whopping two comments constitute a "key role," but I've left my statement regardless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Icy Hot Stuntaz

Hello! I noticed you removed the prod from this page, as it has survived an AfD before. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think that previous AfDs granted immunity from later prods? There might be legitimate reasons to keep the article, but a 12-month-old AfD result doesn't seem like one of them. Can you find some policy that supports your position? (Oh, and I re-nominated the page at AfD, in case you're curious.) - Chardish 07:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does give it immunity, but I would have removed the prod anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me what policy or guideline states that? I prod a lot, so I'm really interested if there are rules for prodding I'm not familiar with. - Chardish 16:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No prob: Articles that have been previously proposed for deletion or undeleted, or discussed on AfD, are clearly contested and are not candidates for {{prod}}. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I guess lack of sleep makes me less observant. - Chardish 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you

I saw your comment about the Wales co-founder nonsense over at the Essay article. In my opinion, this issue is THE most important one since if wikipedia can't even keep is founding straight, then WHAT article is really safe from this type of bastardization? Thanks again! --Tom 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the desire to want to be accurate from how Jimbo claims things to be, but verifiability is the most important thing we have here, and I don't think we need to dispose of it. Do yourself a favor, though - you're not alone on this one, so don't act like you are. No one's going to be able to force anything on such a high-profile page, I don't want to see you get blocked over it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see that there are other folks that agree about this. Also, I am done over there...for now :) so hopefully no block. I already got a month block from Jayjg awhile back so I am defineately trying to avoid that. Cheers! --Tom 17:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

DRV page

I got deletion-happy and baleeted the DRV page you requested so that you may start fresh. The Vile Dark Lord of Verifiability 00:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Good humor. Thank you, sir. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. No matter what happens in these deletion pissing matches, your contributions are beyond excellent and in the end, that's what really matters. A pleasure to be of service. FCYTravis 01:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Same. We're all just passionate about what we do here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment!

I enjoy finding sources for potentially-notable articles (like this one and the one on which we just interacted), so let me know if you ever need help on that sort of thing (especially if, as you mentioned, the Spanish-language barrier becomes an issue). JavaTenor 16:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you may have inadvertently become my go-to guy on Spanish stuff, haha. No, thanks again - I'm all about content preservation, so you've made my day. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

M&D ce

Hi jeff—regarding Mom and Dad, copyediting requests have really picked up lately, so I can't guarantee anything. I'll keep it on my list though, and if no one else has got to it by then, I'll take a look! –Outriggr § 07:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for even considering it! --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Darvon Cocktail

Sigh. Sorry, more of the anti-process crowd showed up to be counted. Truth be told, I can't entirely ignore the idea that the application of IAR to an "unsourced suicide method" is reasonable. Personally, I disagree with that view. As a DRV closer, though, I must acknowledge that it had greater support; it isn't so plainly wrong that I'm going to go out on a limb and reverse, despite its greater support. Of course, anyone is welcome to repost the information with sources. WP is not censored for the protection of minors, or suicidal people.

I think the use of IAR "because people might die!" is foolish, but it is one of the more rational uses of our "policy" (as opposed to, say, "because I don't like the content!") If the thing had been sourced, I probably would have ignored the head-count and relisted (of course, were it sourced, the head-count would have been different.) It didn't, though; per Uncle G, such sources don't seem to exist. I can't over-rule a majority on that basis, though I am most certainly not happy with the deletion log. Apologies, Xoloz 15:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Userified MySpace Events for you as requested. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. At some point, DRV has to get with the frigging times. It's not a goddamn vote count. Why can't you override the majority on a clearly improper rationale (i.e., lack of sources isn't a reason for speedy)?--badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I can over-rule a majority if its reasoning is clearly improper. This majority's wasn't. Personally, in the grand view of things, I am very reluctant to over-rule a majority; if that became common practice, other admins could use the principle to prevent the success of justified reviews. Being "out-of-step with the times" at DRV is a good thing, since DRV is often the stop-gap for fairness against admins who would prefer to do deletions quickly and quietly. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what can be more clearly improper than this? It has to become common practice if DRV is going to be worth anything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I will be monitoring DRV and will speedily close any new nominations of Darvon cocktail that contest the previous two DRVs. Sam has it right here - DRV is not a court of infinite appeals, and just because you disagree with one closure (that had a clear consensus, mind you) doesn't justify renominating it two days later, especially if others endorse the closure. This just bogs down the process, and your incivility does not help. --Coredesat 21:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The only disruption was, as usual, Sam Blanning. You want to stand up for him, very well - I know who not to count on in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedily closing a DRV nominated two days after a previous one is not disruption. It's procedural. --Coredesat 22:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. But thanks for your continued support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, everyone who replies on your talk page is wrong. I'll stop talking about it, then, there's no point. --Coredesat 23:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not, not at all - just on this issue. I fail to understand why you feel the need to defend disruption. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments on User talk:Samuel Blanning. Newyorkbrad 22:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-process bloc power and what to do about it?

Hi there. Thank you for taking process seriously.

You clearly have a lot more experience with Wikipedia from start to finish than I do/can have. I am a process/policy idealist (as is probably already clear to you from what you may have read of my comments on DRV).

I've asked User:Xoloz for eir thoughts, but do you also have any suggestions on what kinds of measures in-Wikimedia can be taken to try to defuse the bloc's power in majorities? Clearly Wikimedia was founded with an eye toward consensus, but just as clearly, that's starting to be reinterpreted as voting majority. Do you know if there is anything that can be done by a relative newbie to try to refocus us back on meaningful consensus?

It seems like this has been a cause for you too in the long-run. I'm here to lend a hand/draw fire if need be. Please let me know if you want my help, or if you have any suggestions for me to strike out on my own. Thanks. --MalcolmGin 16:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks. Obviously, DRV needs a major reform. It's the only route for appeals for deleted content, so that's the first step here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocs? That's interesting to me. Do you want people to follow process at all times, do you want them to follow consensus at all times, or do you want them to follow the majority at all times? These overlap, and are actually (theoretically) supposed to be identical, but in reality they differ subtly and sometimes not-so-subtly. --Kim Bruning 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If we have an appeals area where people are supposed to focus on the process, then it should be considered with process in mind - if 6 people say "this deletion was fine," and 3 say "no, it didn't meet the criteria," the arguments are obviously on the side of the latter and the deletion should be overturned. Someday, as a community, we'll be mature enough to handle processes and follow them and have some structure. We're not there yet, as this DRV showed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you choose process. Not policy, not consensus. Is that correct? --Kim Bruning 17:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, policy and process are the same. Those are reached by consensus, so I'm choosing all three, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Process is what we do, policy is what is written, and consensus is what has agreement. I agree: in theory they are the same. However, in practice they are not.

In case of conflict, which has primacy? --Kim Bruning 17:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Process is what we do to work with the policy that consensus has brought us. There's no conflict between them - in the event that people are somehow attempting to endorse a result that's at odds with what's been reached by a much larger consensus, the larger consensually-reached policy should be what's enforced. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any concept of thresholds in your theory?

Traditionally, processes actually form by consensus, and then get written down after a while. So in my semi-ideal situation: consensus, process, and guidelines are all constantly slightly shifted relative to each other, with Consensus in the lead pulling the train forward, and written guidelines following behind at some distance.

In non-ideal situations:

• lacking consensus or guideline data, some people will substitute common sense for consensus, and then try to pull that way. This can at times cause minor frictions, but is often better than doing nothing. One group that admits to doing this are the so-called rouge admins, who often deal with WP:POINT-violating trolls, and such.

• Lacking consensus or sufficient data and when all else fails, some people will synthesize what is best for the encyclopedia from scratch as best as possible, even checking old guidelines, multiple discussions, and sites and documents outside wikipedia (including relevant corpus of law, and sociological research) if all else fails. They might even try to predict consensus ahead of time. Groups that do this are the Arbitration committee to an extent, but more in general: "The Core Cabal".

• Currently, some sets of people are overloaded (especially admins), and they are starting to cut corners. I think we all agree that that's probably bad.
• Ways to solve this are to simplify our process as best we can, and to make more people admins.

So I think that covers theoretical discussion. Makes sense? --Kim Bruning 17:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one, "common sense" is an oxymoron, as sense is more often than not not common to a large amount of people. I don't disagree with anything else there at the moment, but there's something to be said about strong opposition to a person or small group of people attempting to move the bar semi-covertly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

When all else fails, common sense is at least some approximation and better than nothing at all, I guess. :-/

Note that the "core cabal" is not so much a cabal by way of being covert, but rather by way of some sort of failure to communicate what they are doing. In part, perhaps this is because the core group are rather stable, while there is a constant coming-and-going outside that group. (So the same ideas need to be communicated over and over ). --Kim Bruning 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay...--badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is, from my reading of Wikipedia policy/guidelines/essays, far preferable over majority here. --MalcolmGin 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So having mentioned roughly the groups that I know about... who is the "anti-process bloc". Are they some set of the blocs mentioned, or is it some different/new bloc? And where are they active? --Kim Bruning 17:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't name names yet, but they pretty much ignore the consensus and do as they please. On the rare occasion they get called out, they use the abuse charter IAR to justify it. And so it goes. Short of dragging them all to ArbCom or convincing Jimbo to wake up and realize that IAR is killing the project, I'm not sure how to solve it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear me. That's interesting. Generally I follow only the trifecta, (plus consensus, but that goes without saying). Do you feel I am part of the problem? --Kim Bruning 18:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think IAR in its typical use helps the project, probably, I'm sorry to say. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how others use IAR. Here's how I use it:

In all situations, I explain what I am doing carefully, and will try to follow existing consensus as best as possible. In emergency situations I may at times need to predict consensus upfront and make a leap of faith. Afterwards I do post-mortem and try to learn how I can do better in future.

These days, ~99 out of 100 times, the actions I take based on IAR are almost identical to actions other people take by following the guidelines.

Note that I document much of what I do. Unlike many people, I this means I also (re)document guidelines whenever I do things that are in line with those guidelines.

Is this a problematic way of working?

Are there people who work in different ways?

--Kim Bruning 18:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's problematic because you're shooting first and asking questions later - include other people in the decision making process, that's what they want! It's certainly less problematic than how it's normally used, where people act, move on, and (I assume) hope no one notices. And then, in the off chance they do notice, simply say "nah, just did it, deal with it" and cause larger scale problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, making sure I'm in the clear myself first ;-)  : I try to maintain a running conversation with all involved at all times, using as many different means of communication as is necessary. In these conversations, I try to learn where consensus lies, and I try to stay as close to that consensus as possible, even ahead of time, where practical. Does that cover (most of) the rest of your issues with my personal pattern of behavior? --Kim Bruning 18:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Also note that I'm talking with you right now. So I'm not shooting first. :-P

Most, sure. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. :-) You'll be glad to know that that is the spirit in which IAR is intended at least <phew>.

Now as I understand it, you're saying that some people aren't working in that way. Can you expand on that, and/or provide examples? Perhaps we can work with those people to improve their performance. :-) --Kim Bruning 20:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the spirit of it - i.e., how Sanger envisioned it. It simply doesn't work that way anymore - it's a charter to do whatever the hell you want when you want if you can somehow justify it benefiting the encyclopedia. It's an immature outlook on cooperative building. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may jump in with an observation: Unfortunately, the major use of WP:IAR is to "Ignore all reasonable measures of consensus," such as in the last five months of large-scale wrangling over the huge enormous change of policy from Verifiability, ReliableSource, and No original research to WP:ATT. The idiosyncratic deletion of crucial pages is only one example of the long-term pattern. The people are fine; the system needs fixing. --Rednblu 03:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So... can we do anything about IAR, or is Jimbo's approval of it insurmountable? --MalcolmGin 03:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just my opinion: We need to put everybody through a "wilderness training" to develop a consensus about how to deal as a community with those who misuse IAR. IAR creates incredible opportunity for creativity, would you agree? --Rednblu 03:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's mostly an acculturation issue? We should teach people to use IAR properly. (though oddly, new users sometimes seem to get it right intuitively. I wonder what happens, after a while?) --Kim Bruning 04:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes. If we could just keep the new users from being surprised and hurt when the "rug is pulled out from under them" when IAR is misused against them. If they could just say, "Oh. I know what this is; it is just one of those 'acculturation issues that happens to old duffers' I saw in bootcamp. It is nothing personal, and nothing to be alarmed by." --Rednblu 04:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's tough to say, in any case. These days, there is no proper use of IAR, though, which is part of the problem. It's antiquated in current use, and current use doesn't reflect what Sanger (who created it) intended anyway, so it's not even close to the spirit. Best to junk the whole thing, but people need their disruption charter, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

People need their disruption charter? What do you mean? --Rednblu 05:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(re-indent) - it's disruption coded in policy, a way to allow anyone to do whatever they want and get away with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Could it be something like the necessity for mutation in order to get natural selection to work? Each one of us human beings is an incredible experiment in respinning the combinations to find what will open the lock, are we not? That makes for a lot of disruption. There is a lot of churning in Wikipedia pages. Is it for the best? Should we do away with the mutation machine of WP:IAR? --Rednblu 05:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Coming here fairly recently, I learned that the rules are sometimes taken seriously and sometimes not, and that this depended on the subject, the mood, and the people. I like firm rules if they tend towards good ends; if revisions will make it harder to write good articles in things I care about, I can stick with the present chaos & learn to function as suits the prevailing mood, learning to work around what I can't change. (Depending on how you look at it, this could be called either empiric or devious.) At present I think the main problem is rigidity, people who have the rules rigged to support things I do not care about, and individual bad decisions. IAR as I see it can be invaluable at times.

There will always be bad decisions. The only way to prevent them is to have a very elaborate review process--much more rule-driven than the present, and this only shifts the problem, for then there is no way around a bad high-level decision. But the way to decrease them is more open operations, more participation, and some way of dealing with the occasional temporarily erratic individual. And of course there are specific changes each of us has in mind for each.

To get down to the issues of the day, Darvon cocktail is not an ideal choice for a full scale community fight, because the article is too problematic. further, other articles on the same subject to the same effect can be written, and they can be better articles & thus easier to defend. The comparison of songs list was a good list. It makes a better fight. My idea of tactics is to wait for really good situations, and to temporize till then. (However, my previous experience is with change on a year to year scale, not week to week) Now on an immediate basis, is there any individual deciding so consistently badly that it is worth following? But to go that route, the challengers conduct and articles must be impeccable. Is there any specific rule that should be concentrating on?--and if so let's concentrate on getting the rule, not a 10 steps remote arguement aboutf how we are going to discuss the rule. DGG 07:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is the perfect article because it's so problematic. 1) It was apparently speedied on censorship grounds (it was "dangerous"), which is a really firm no-no among the community, 2) It was upheld due to lack of sources (which was a proposal not too long ago and soundly rejected, 3) the same group of editors who think the rules don't apply were some of the most vocalin temrs of keeping (an ongoing problem), and 4) It outlined in a perfect way how broken DRV is. I can't think of another article that can intersect so many of the issues this project is facing than this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps what IAR is trying to say is that Wikipedia is (supposed to be) an Adhocracy? --Kim Bruning 23:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not intentionally? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As a past admin of OTHER large and small collaborative internet-hosted communities, the only good use for a policy like IAR is during actual emergencies when time is of the essence, and afterward, those decisions should be reviewed properly and according to established policy and procedure to see whether there are any loose ends that need tying up. --MalcolmGin 13:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the big problem with policy and procedure is when they rust. Famously, during the Weimar republic era, the German army started devolving power to officers and soldiers in the field. Instead of rigorous procedure, people were allowed to take responsibility, act on their own, and make decisions on the spot in the field, provided their actions helped the entire war effort forward. When war came, the German army proved itself to be th most effective fighting force in the field, literally sending other (then) superpowers running. During world war two, the Germans were eventually subdued by a combination of superior numbers of their enemies, and party bureaucracy eroding their effectiveness from within.

A similar trend is also found in the us armed forces. During WWII, American adaptability allowed them to eventually slow and stop the Japanese advance in the pacific, but people were already starting to add layers of bureaucracy. By the time of Vietnam, it was in large part this bureaucracy which crippled the ability of the us army to efficiently wage war. After that defeat, the generals licked their wounds, learned their lessons, and evolved the armbed forces back away from bureaucracy, back towards what Alvin Toffler calls adhocracy, putting responsibility and decision making back in the hands of the mechanics, pilots, and soldiers on the ground. By the time of the Gulf War in 1991, Desert Storm sent the Iraqis sprawling. With the current US administration, bureaucracy is creeping back into operations, and you can see reduced effectiveness of the US armed forces as a result.

I've also seen some bureaucratic systems myself. Most recently I was detached to $large_company, to a division where people had procedures for everything. Sure, it was a quiet, safe environment to work in, where people hoped to stay until their pensions came around. But the main company was not so pleased with that division, since efficiency was not so high, and reactiveness to new situations was very low. So just as I was leaving, the main company announced that they were going to (effectively) lay off the entire work-force and rebuild the division from scratch.

So my view of bureaucratic systems is that they are symptomatic of large organizations with too much fat.

People on wikipedia think it's ok to waste huge swaths of volunteer time. I don't think so. In every hour that someone donates to wikipedia, they could have also been out working and earning $50-$100, so that's what an hour of work is worth, donated to us.

Like any other charity, we shouldn't throw that time/money away on endless "paper"work. We should use it to advance our mission. And our mission is to provide the world with an encyclopedia. :-)

So the question I work on every day is not: "How do we get people to follow procedures". My question is "How do we get the procedures out of people's faces, so that they can write that encyclopedia".

If we have to have procedures for things, let's teach the computers how to do those tasks, computers are great for following procedures. And then we should let Humans work in ways that they do best: let them use their Experience and Creativity.

--Kim Bruning 14:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim,

I think you and I fundamentally disagree about the usefulness of policy/procedure. I see it as a godsend to help control and ameliorate the damage that willful and self-directed folks with strong opinions can do to others of the same bent, especially when there's a power disparity. You see it as an obstacle to be got around.

Also, you seem to see Wikipedia as something like a charity that's involved in a war, whereas I see it as a non-profit that's involved in responsible creation.

You also seem to be worried that we'll lose good volunteers due to too much red tape (via delays generated by having to follow what seems like unnecessarily complex rules), and my primary concern is that not enough red tape will exist to assure (via the stability and assurances provided by consistently enforced policy/procedure) any new volunteers that their time here will not be wasted.

I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye, but I will still fight for the actual utilization of policy/procedure in daily Wikipedia life. --MalcolmGin 15:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we entirely disagree.

The reason I named the us armed forces as an example, is because they are such a well studied organization. (There are very high stakes involved, so people spend a lot of time and money trying to understand how that particular organization works, and therefore it's easy to get data on them)

If I saw policy and procedure (two very different things) as only standing in the way, then why do I spend so much time working on them? :-)

As for ensuring enough "red tape" exists to ensure continuity, well, that's something that's going in the background already. This is an internet based organization. Computers are key participants in that organization. Even if the entire current community somehow went crazy today, the mediawiki software is robust enough to allow a single person to recover all of the work done up to date.

As I said before, I think procedure should follow the KISS principle, since that is simply solid engineering, and it should be devolved to our servers and robotic compatriots as much as possible, as that is their forte. It's not that there isn't any procedure. The fact is that much of our procedure can be automated and taken out of our hands. (And in fact, a lot of it is!)

Us humans can then concentrate on our own strengths and skills.

Does that make sense? Are you sure we don't see eye to eye? :-) --Kim Bruning 15:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

On this point, we do have a lot of common ground, but I will see it before I believe it that policies can entirely be machine-implemented/machine-enforced. There will always be judgment calls, which is why I think IAR should stand, but be defanged.

On other points, like whether there is or is not a bloc or two, and whether we are or are not or should be actually achieving consensus or consistently enforcing policy, I think you and I don't see eye to eye.

I also philosophically don't agree that humans are for creativity and machines are for automata. As a computing professional, I've been at the wrong end of that equation (forced to try to implement ill-considered and self-conflicting policy as autoamted procedure) too often. --MalcolmGin 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the things we still disagree on are earmarked as inherent to online communities, so this might mean either or both of us still have to do some reading. Other than that, I do think we have enough of a basis to cooperate on rationalizing wikipedia policy and procedure. --Kim Bruning 16:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually feel pretty strongly that some of those things we disagree on are not inevitable with good and consistently enforced policy (if it's agreed upon by consensus). That said, I plan to bring up the issue of language and terminology on WP:CONSENSUS (where not consensus but majorities and supermajorities are suggested where consensus is not seen as possible or not seen as timely enough for decision-making purposes and priorities) and on DRV_talk, where selected- or qualified-majority often substitute for actual consensus, because a lot of my background is grounded in consensus decision-making and it grates at me that majority/supermajority is used interchangeably in policy/guidelines that surround Wikipedia decision-making process. If you'd be inclined to help, I'd love that help. If you have other suggestions about where I can profitably put my time/energy I'd love to hear them as well. --MalcolmGin 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait wait, I help you with getting consensus processes written out properly? Yeah, right, I was there first! :-D --Kim Bruning 19:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, give me time to get caught up on the history of discussion of the two articles/processes, and then I'll ask you where you think I can best be helpful. --MalcolmGin 20:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just BE BOLD. I'll see you on my watchlist! :-) --Kim Bruning 20:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Probably anything would be an improvement for DRV, so go wild. As far as consensus is concerned, well, I've been scratching my head over it too, so give me a yell when you're thinking of working on it, and we might disagree in places. Hmm, and maybe review Bold revert discuss too. Did anyone mention "descriptive, not prescriptive" to you yet? ;-)

MySpace Events Project

I am interested in helping you bring back MySpace Events. If you would like yoou could look into another myspace event called the list myspace.com/thelist. Also me, you, and vendetta (from the deletion review) could make this article top notch. Contact him please and refer him to your talk page. Thanks Martini833 19:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

right now, I'm simply concerned with getting it in a condition to be in article space. We can get the rest of it cleaned after. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it's been such a tough day. Thanks for being you.

Kla'quot has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Kla'quot 05:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd what we find

Looks like this guy likes you almost as much as he likes me...[1]--MONGO 07:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I was really hoping to be a government operative, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In order to that, one must do more for their country than just pay taxes. But if interested, one can always work along side me at this covert agency--MONGO 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that will conflict with my work at Mathnet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought

I've seen several edit wars recently related to {{pnc}}. If that template causes so much trouble, perhaps it ought to hit the bitbucket? >Radiant< 12:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought about it, but I can't come up with a legitimate justification to delete it. It would be strictly on "i don't like it" grounds, and that's not appropriate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You could make a case for "divisive and inflammatory" :) seriously though, I believe templates aren't intended to contain article text. >Radiant< 12:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Even I couldn't say that with a straight face. I'll look into the article text thing, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I could do you a favour and rid you of your turbulent template.... how does this sound?:

13:34, April 16, 2007 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Template:Pnc" (Jeff doesn't like it) (Restore)

:) --Doc^g 12:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

hah! --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Djmckee1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Query

It says on your userpage that you would like PROD and CSK to be expanded. Could you give me a brief idea of what you had in mind? >Radiant< 16:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For prod, think along the same lines of the way we can use it for userpages, except across all namespaces. For speedy keep, think WP:SNOW with actual community approval, and expanding to end the death-of-1000-cuts style of AfDing repeatedly to get a desired result. I've got a few policy irons in the fire right now, but Speedy keep is the next one on my list once I solve an ongoing issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hm, that sounds like it could work. I'll keep an eye out. >Radiant< 08:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article S. S. Millard, 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.

--Carabinieri 18:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

On a recent reversion at WP:BIO

Hi, Jeff. So you don't think it's a good idea to give non-notable people an alternative when they are flagged for deletion?

I think it's a great idea, I just know that advertising it here isn't going to fly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply. I didn't know how I should go about getting the word out to those people who are being frustrated by that criteria, so I added it to the discussion page on noteability. I'm not sure how else to get the word out. I created the website partially for the people wiki are turning away. It's free and nonprofit. If you want to call it advertising, we can just call just about any communication from the community advertising as a way to just flag it as spam.

Here is an extreme example to demonstrate there is a line between 'advertisement' and 'trying to help out the community.' A guy is dying of cancer. I just invented a pill to cure cancer. I'm offering it to him free of charge. There's a forum on a cancer website for people to post their comments about cancer. I post my website address and offer free pills to the community to cure their cancer. Someone removes my post and says, "No, that is spam." No one gets word that I developed a cure for cancer, so all those with cancer continue dying.

Point being, I think there is certain criteria which a committee can come up with to determine whether something is just an 'advertisement' versus a member of the community trying to help out. I know in our society it's very easy to always assume the worst about a person who displays their link for everyone to see. 99% of them are probably selling their services for profit... so we all get into the habit of just flagging people as spam as soon as we see a link. However, links are like guns, they don't in themselves kill people. It's how they are being used which is where the damage is being done. If the link is going to cure your cancer, I don't think it should be flagged as spam. Yes, I'm using cancer as an example to show you that there is certain criteria which spam needs to meet in order to be considered spam. If there weren't criteria, this would sufficiently inhibit helpful communications from getting out to our community.

On that note I would like to read more about what the wikicommunity considers the criteria of spam or advertisement, so I can modify the website in a way where it won't meet those criteria. Or is the criteria, all external links are bad regardless of what their content?

Well, here's the problem - if you're coming here only to pimp out your site (and it's a noble venture, don't get me wrong), no one's going to listen to you. A lot of the Wikipedia community frowns on any kind of self-promotion, so it's not something you'll be able to get a word in edgewise about. I want to have an answer for you, but I don't, and I'd like to think that you're okay with the Wikipedia model, but simply dislike how we handle "non-notable" biographies. Maybe try User:Angela, who runs Wikia - maybe there's room for you through that avenue, I'm not sure. Just be careful, I don't want to see you get blocked if the wrong people get the wrong idea. And feel free to let Angela know that I referred you. I don't know if it will help, but at least she'll know you're not approaching her without someone recommending it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do, Thanks! This is the first I have heard of Wikia. I think it should be linked at the top of the noteability discussion page, so people know you have created an alternative for people who don't meet the noteable criteria. No one told me about it when my autobio was flagged for deletion last year. I guess no one else knew either.

Glad to help. Good luck in your endeavor. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Angela suggested I try adding to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets and then linking that page on the noteability discussion page, so people know where to look for other options. I hope that's ok with you.

Of course! I wasn't aware such a page existed, so that's good stuff. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Field guide to proper speedy deletion

I have made soem comments on your "Field guide to proper speedy deletion". It looks like a good idea to me, in general. DES ^(talk) 01:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and input! --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	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 05:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 18 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Is Your Daughter Safe?, 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.

--`'mikka 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Morgan Wooten

Do you think a high school basketball coach is really so important that we need an article about him?--eskimospy^(talk) 02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

He's in the Hall of Fame! I mean, AfD it if you really think it should be removed, but dude, he's been recognized as one of the most important coaches in the history of the game, and the only one who's career is entirely in the high school ranks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your vote on my RfA

Not that I'm challenging your vote or anything, but you seem to have misunderstood what I was trying to get across when it comes to A7 and deletion of content. I certainly wouldn't speedy-delete things on my own authority if there was any question as to their deletability; I'd send them to AfD and let the community decide, as per process. I was only trying to clarify to some of the other users that I wouldn't practise "process wonkery" either. Unfortunately I seem to have inadvertently contradicted myself, and am now drawing opposes from both inclusionists and deletionists. Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to oppose, but I just don't want you to think I'd go around indiscriminately deleting content. Anyway, I would have thought you'd be quite familiar with my deletion/inclusion stance (which is very middle-of-the-road) from our discussions on policy. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I got accused of "process wonkery" by some voters because I said I wouldn't speedy anything that didn't meet the CSD criteria, even if it was obvious junk. I was trying to address those criticisms. Unfortunately, I seem to have dug myself into an even bigger hole, having annoyed both the inclusionists and deletionists. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. d:-) No, my comment is more that I need some time to look at it again, I have a busy afternoon ahead of me, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I'm on the verge of withdrawing my RfA, because the opposes keep mounting up. But given that I've had several opposes for being too inclusionist (particularly when it comes to MfDs), I just think it's a cruel irony that I've also drawn an oppose from the self-styled "Dark Lord of Inclusion". Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 07:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(Note: The above comment about "Dark Lord of Inclusion" was a joke, obviously. But my point still stands; I'm opposed by the deletionists for being too inclusionist, and the inclusionists for being too deletionist. This doesn't seem fair.) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, man, and sorry if I've made things inadvertently worse for you... --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's OK, things seem to be brightening up now. And anyway, there's no need to be sorry - you're entitled to oppose, as per the RfA procedure. If I couldn't take criticism, I wouldn't have gone to RfA in the first place. But I just want to make sure that my actual views are clear, and that you're not opposing based on a misunderstanding of my views. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 12:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You seem to be in good shape going into the final stretch, too, so good luck. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I might scrape through. It's really up to the closing bureaucrat at this stage. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 12:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You're way above the 70-75% threshold, and there are at least two opposes that shouldn't hurt you in the least if the bureaucrats have any sense (which, depending on what happens, is a crapshoot). I think you'll be fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

IAR Watch

It seems there is no consensus for deleting, renaming or rewording the IAR policy. What's left to be done is try and keep an open eye on the way this policy is used in practice. I'm considering starting an "IAR Watch" project whose mission is to do just that. Would you be interested in joining such a project? Itayb 21:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You know what, forget about it. I spend too much time in Wikipedia already, mostly grinding water. I think what i really need is a prolonged WikiBreak. So long. :) Itayb 23:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Subverting policy, are we?

Heh, well, could you inform me as well? I might not always agree with your ideas, but in situations where we do, cooperation might be most effective. :-)

--Kim Bruning 15:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am doing something like this at User:MalcolmGin/Tracking_the_weird but it's mostly just thorough notes of such happenings from my own perspective right now.

If you think it would be helpful to try to turn it into a process page, I can do my best to try to formalize and neutralize it and put process around it. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is odd

I never knew that albums weren't speediable — can you explain why, cause I think I'm missin' something here-—arf! 05:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Albums aren't bands, groups, organizations, or people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I do my best. I really try hard to avoid "no consensus" closes when it's at all possible, especially in a heavy debate like that. I think a lot of other admins might have closed the debate that way... which would lead to the same result (not deletion) but which would also leave the issue unresolved. Mangojuice^talk 19:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

a hypothetical in re IAR

I've been wondering some time about the issue of the consensus of a small population overriding the consensus of something larger--policy, guidelines, etc.

This came up for me recently when two gaming articles changed their names. They had been using English translations, and were now using transliterated names for titles. One got changed back per WP:ENGLISH. The other did not.

The prposed move to move Dōbutsu no Mori (film) back to Animal Forest (film) failed, with a 2/2 split. The archived discussion is located here--it's long, but the final opinions of the two opposers are as followers.

• "That would work in your favor if I agreed with the guideline. But I don't. To assume that any entity at Nintendo would use it is original research and I won't encourage that."

where "assume that any entity at Nintendo would use it" means:

"Nintendo has never once said that the English title of this movie could be Animal Forest."'

• "The only official release of this film is under "Dōbutsu no Mori". It was never released as "Animal Forest", nor is this specific film ever referred to as that in official sources."

These two opinions completey ignore WP:ENGLISH guidelines--in fact, the first person admits that they don't agree with the guidelines.

This and other moves and Afds have had me thinking a lot recently. These discussions net a very small pool. If one person votes to follow __ policy, and ten people vote the other way, without citing policy or guidelines or even without explaining why the first persons policy doesn't apply--then the move or deletion or whatever shouldn't be closed in the favour of the 11 who showed up, but in favour of the community consensus that already exists within the policy or guideline that that one person cited. I'm seeing a lot of moves and closing discussions where people won or could have won without citing any policy, and against the people who did cite policy, because they either disagreed with the policy in question or because they just didn't like whatever was at stake.

Which means I think we should make some changes to the consensus policy. But wouldn't IAR be useful in these cases? Unless I'm mistaken, the rules say to close in favor of whoever shows up, even if there is overriding consensus elsewhere. But that doesn't benefit Wikipedia--that just makes sure that policies and guidelines are ignored, and it doesn't benefit what consensus really means either.

I wouldn't just close in the favour of minority and say--IAR hahahah! But I'd say ignoring closing rules per IAR as no valid objections to simply policy ____ were made.

What do you think of that?

Btw, it's not possible to search for edit summaries is it? Because usage of IAR in edit summaries would really give a good understanding of if IAR was used for more than vandalism excusing and how. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a more complex answer, I think, but no time at the moment to offer it to you. I'm not ignoring you, I'll give a proper response tonight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no link to your RFA from your talk page. Is that on purpose? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   06:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm not an expert, but I seem to remember some folks saying (on other folks' pages I can't recall) that linking to your RfA is against canvassing policies, but that discussion could have been limited to linking to your RfA on other users' talk pages. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Walton's RfA and other things

Hello. I just left a note on the talk page of WP:BK. Incidentally, I happened to go there because I was checking your contribs to see if you were around. Not that I care deeply about the whole thing but I was coming here to ask you to reconsider your oppose on Walton Monarchist's RfA which I believe came from a simple misunderstanding of his actual position on speedy deletion. (A position, I might add, that's probably much closer to yours than mine.) Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I got busy tonight, but I promised myself I'd look at it again and I plan to, so you have my word as does Walton already. I'm glad to see, on a quick glance, that he's doing okay so far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I just have to ask

Since you're almost symbolic of oddball article deletion (oddball articles, not oddball ppl), what're your views on "common word" afds? I just started one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quite - and was curious. Feel free to ignore this though if you're, like, busy, or... whatever ^_^ Milto LOL pia 05:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that it's ridiculous how we handle word stuff, but I'm also in a completely small minority on the issue, so yeah. Even I'm not sure there's anything to salvage at this point on that one, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A real deletion abuse

Please help me check the contribs of User:Owski - he/she/it tagged a bunch of legit software articles as "db-spam" and lemmings just clicked delete, without actually checking the articles. I've blocked him but I'm trying to make sure the legit stuff gets restored. Thanks. FCYTravis 06:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If BDJ were awake, he might point out that a straightforward interpretation of CSD-G12 says that it can never be used to delete things based on notability, and only applies if the article is entirely unsalvagable, if it would need to be completely rewritten. So that makes untagging pretty easy. (even though though in practice, some admins judge {{db-spam}} articles also based on notability and/or guessing at the original author's intent) --Interiot 07:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. Deletions you describe are very problematic. I'm not sure how I can help at this stage if the articles have already been deleted since I can't see the deleted edits. I generally trust your judgment on this, Travis. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Wild Law (book)

Thank you for your comments on the AfD page for this book. I was happy to establish the notability of the book but I am perplexed by some the other comments left there and would appreciate your advice on how I might improve the article further. The comments I refer to are:

"The article reads like an advert for the book, which is not what WP is for."

"until the "spammy" feeling can be dealt with, I have to go with weak delete"

"It needs cleanup"

"too promotional in nature"

Thank you for your time, if you are able to donate some to this. If not, thank you for your previous contributions. --Lesley Fairbairn 08:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the problems lie in the third overall paragraph and the full paste of the critique. At this point, with notability clearly established, once the article is kept it's not outside the realm of possibility to stub it and start fresh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

I've voted Support on your RfA, obviously. However, you might have been better-advised to wait a little while - yesterday I was thinking of nominating you myself, since I just found out you weren't already an admin. (I always assumed you were one already.) The problem is that, as a self-nominee who's well-known for your strong views on policy, you're going to draw knee-jerk opposes from the deletionist wing. If you'd been nominated by a third party, your candidacy would be safer in that respect. I hope your RfA succeeds, but if it doesn't, wait a few months and I'll nominate you for another attempt. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I could have "waited a while" if I saw adminship as some achievement, but I don't - I saw the horrific backlogs today, saw that we don't have enough people working on them, and just figured "why not?" I don't think timing was ever going to be in my favor, anyway - I don't edit with adminship in mind, and my reputation speaks for itself. I go into this assuming at least 25 opposes, and so far, I've only had a few surprises in either direction, so if it works, it works. If it doesn't, oh well, I keep doing what I'm doing. *shrug*. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you will be surprised how many of your 'opponents' support you. Good luck. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I had surprises both ways in my RfA. I think you have proven worth to the community so far so hope for a positive outcome. Agathoclea 18:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got my fingers crossed for you, Jeff. A Train^talk 19:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's going better than I expected early. Very few surprises. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI - I'm trying to keep track of the IAR-like/hostile users/abrupt admin behavior I'm seeing

Here it is. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that. For the record, though, the Briefism thing is a long-term trolling issue that we've been dealing with - it's generally assumed that there's no good faith review of it, so treating it as trolling/vandalism is pretty standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the information. I'll add that note to it. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Added a summary of the Darvon cocktail incidents to the same page, but couldn't be arsed to track it all down. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this will make you chuckle

..or maybe you'll even feel like answering or maybe it will annoy you (but hopefully not). But I thought of a question for you, but I'm asking here instead of on your RFA. Where in the rules does it say you're allowed to request limited adminship? Aren't you playing a bit fast and loose with proper procedures? It seems unlike you. :) Friday (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm not even requesting restricted adminship in a sense, because there's no way to get it. Instead, I'm making a pact with people that I'll use it in a limited way. A gentleman's agreement, per se. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that this gentleman's agreement is what you're trying to do, but I still can't find anything in the rules about it. Are you suggesting that if you think you're being sensible, and you explain yourself, that it's sometimes ok to do things differently than what the rules say you should do? Why the sudden change of heart? You're the last guy I expected to see ignoring the rules. That was the one position of yours I had thought I understood, but now I have my doubts. Friday (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Where rules say little admins required to use all tools? Have tools, yes. Use tools, no. Only biggest admins use all, also ROARing tool and atomic deathray flamethrower tool. Zilla comfortable with dinosaur's agreement with the little jeff. Go support now. bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not really sure what you're trying to do at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You are even impertinent enough to question a 'zilla. Hell, you're brave.--Doc^g 21:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, I understand the 'zilla very well - after all, I'd like to keep my meaty self intact. I just don't get the shit that Friday's attempting to stir. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh take that is good spirit, she's just trollprocess-wonking you ;) --Doc^g 21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was half-joking. But I had a half-serious point in there too. If there were two of you, and one of you invented a new procedure for limited adminship, the other one of you would have objected to it as being out of process. I'd thought I'd unerstood your stance, but this was really out of left field. To me it seems like you're simultaneously against anyone else "applying IAR" but you're perfectly happy to do it yourself? Bizarre. Friday (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

And people say I'm the one who doesn't understand IAR. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick withdrawal statement

Reposting it here, I'd prefer people not post with a "you'll get 'em next time" message or whatever - I'm not the least bit discouraged as much as disappointed in the usual suspects. It was an attempt at something different, and it didn't work - we move on. Here's the statement I left at the RfA talk page:

I had an inkling this wouldn't work regardless - i figured that the typical people would come out and oppose, and I had very few surprises through the first thirty or so. What I didn't expect was a repeat of the dishonesty that I received the first time around, and combine that with the fact that someone on Wikitruth decided to spoof my name is being held against me makes it fairly clear that I'm incapable of getting a fair hearing here, so I'm out. No need to distract myself from other, more important things at this point. Perhaps if I had kept going and been a little more aggressive about challenging the worst of it, I possibly could have made up the gap over the course of the week, but I'll pass, it's an effort I don't want to make for an outcome I had to talk myself into to begin with. Thanks for a lot of the surprising support, and I hope I can prove myself worthy to the honest opposition in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see this, Jeff - better luck next time... Majorly (hot!) 12:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had planned to support, although I was having a little trouble coming up with the right phrasing of what I wanted to say. I hope to keep seeing you around fighting to keep useful content in, just as I hope against hope for a more nuanced view from you on certain matters. Newyorkbrad 12:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I liked your style in trying to develop policy by offering yourself as a test case for innovation. Actually, I think that's the way to change things that need changed - a reasoned exception to the current rules, which if accepted effectively changes policy without a discussion about policy changes in the abstract. It is both consensus-driven and pragmatic - meeting both our requirements, I suspect. If you are game for round three, I'd suggest you wait a month then try the following:

1. Find two or thee people who vigorously disagree with you - but who command both your respect and that of the 'oppose camp'
2. Ask them to be 'mentors' - with the right a) to reverse any of your admin actions that they deem 'unreasonable' (i.e. not just wrong, but improper) b) to require, as a last resort, your desysopping if they find your use of the tools to be damaging or contravening any assurances made at your nomination.
3. Find a steward who is willing to indicate in advance that he will desysop you if the mentors request it.

If you are willing to try something like that, I'm willing to help. I make the offer because I'm quite confident the mentors would in fact have little or nothing to do; I think you could do some useful admin work; and I think it would set a useful precedent for a 'probationary admin' model, given the tools easily, but easily removed.--Doc^g 13:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a poor idea - maybe I'll revisit it. Thanks for the thought involved, anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see your RFA withdrawn, as I was sure you'd have made a great admin. I hope you'll stick around here, because we definitely need at least one of you, and if you left I'm not sure quite how we'd find a replacement. Certainly some of the opposes seemed nonsensical - oppose based on associations with a website you'd quit contributing to ages ago? Huh? Anyway. We're usually on opposite sides of deletion debates, but I have great respect for your work here. Keep on asking the questions that need asking. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 14:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, not going anywhere. I'm simply more disappointed at the dishonesty, not at the pretty inevitable outcome. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

you'll get 'em next time. (Sorry, I just had to.) —AldeBaer 15:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what dishonesty are you disappointed with? You don't seem to qualify that statement... Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the most repeated one that got my goat the most is that I'm somehow outside the mainstream or fail to understand policy, which is patently false given my actual record. That's like saying someone who wants to change the 3RR policy is outside the mainstream on 3RR because they think it could be improved - it's flatly false and shows a lack of attention to my record. I found the most interesting ones to be the ones where I'll cause various policy violations while/because I'm such a "process wonk" or whatever - I mean, either you simply don't get it or you're actively making something up, because it's one or the other. But, again, I can't say I'm completely shocked by it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it makes sense from a certain point of view. If I believe that you are mistaken about your interpretation of policy, then I can validly believe that you will violate that policy (from my perspective)without meaning to (from your perspective). The part that gets me is the bits about how you'll wheel war and cause the downfall of the project due to your controversial beliefs about some other policies... -- nae'blis

Well, just because a certain POV makes for the best movie in a series doesn't mean that the POV has any actual valid interpretation. Of the most vocal of that group, I can point out exact instances where they're completely wrong about our policies and guidelines in their own application - they can't say that about me, which is what's interesting about the whole scenario. It's as if they see themselves in me, except it doesn't make any sense as I try very hard not to be them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The inability to see that you might be incorrect in your interpretations of policy is one recurring theme that I can agree with in your RFAs, Jeff. I'm not saying you are wrong in any given situation (mostly because you've written volumes at varying times in varying subjects), but that would be a valid point of concern for me if it continues. You are not infallible. -- nae'blis 18:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't believe I'm infalliable - I just need a little evidence. I'm more than willing to change my behavior toward something if there's reason to - people's incorrect perceptions are not reason enough, though. Yes, I'm pig-headed in that regard, and no, I'm not going to change that to placate people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to you withdrawal statement

I don't want to make you change your username (the tragic case of RandyWang → Daveydweeb is still fresh in my mind), but I was thinking that if your name is getting satirised on other websites, maybe you could have it edited. Now I myself personally think it is a hilarious username, but unfortunately easily given to satire. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  15:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I don't care all that much. The WikiTruth one isn't the worst of what's out there, actually. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Were lots of opposers *fD regulars? --Kim Bruning 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of them. Many were folks reliant on IAR, others were ones I either worked hard to get them demoted when they abused their tools or have made suggestions that it should be an option, and people hate accountability. A few were people I don't recall encountering, so maybe they are and I just pass by the names. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh well all rather inevitable - onwards and upwards and never look back I always say. Wikipedia gets the admins it deserves, today has been no exception. Giano 20:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

About the confusion of redundant articles:

Yeah, Jeff. About the redundant: The article I tagged was "The Greatest Adventure: Stories From The Bible". There is already an article called "The Greatest Adventure: Stories from the Bible." The one I tagged offers almost nothing. The other one has almost everything on the show. The differences consist primarily of just the capitalization of certain words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CormorantEnt (talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for that. We crossed paths a few times, I've replied at the talk page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Panama (drinking game)

It does meet criteria for speedy deletion - it doesn't assert it's notability. It's a non-notable drinking game. - hmwithtalk 19:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Check the criteria for speedy deletion, most importantly under articles #7 - games are not part of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack Plank Tells Tales

I was about to leave an outraged message asking how you dared create for a book that clearly fails WP:BK since the only source is Publisher's Weekly, but I must confess I was afraid you'd think I was serious. But still, I am writing about Jack Plank Tells Tales. Of course, you might intend to expand the article but just in case: could you add precise non-stub categories when you create articles? As I've been doing quite a bit of categorisation recently myself, I've become very aware of the plight of stubs lost in stub neverland. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have chuckled, then smacked you. d;-). I'll tell you why I don't do categories - I inevitably add the wrong ones, and I never know what exists and what doesn't, especially for books. If you have a couple of suggested ones, I can add them to my arsenal for when I go on my little streaks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 17	23 April 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator goes rogue, is blocked	Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself
Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized	Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
Canadian politician the subject of an edit war	Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence
Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time	WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"
News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	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 06:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Jeopards DRV

You, of all people, should know to be civil in matters such as this, regardless of your feelings on the subject. This is one of the reasons why I opposed your RFA; an admin candidate (or a former one) should know better than to badger users and disrupt process (even if you claim it is for the sake of process), but you do this a lot and you've never been warned about it. Consider this your warning. --Coredesat 15:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you come here to bitch at me after you accuse me of trolling you? Get a grip. How's this - you stop disrupting the DRV process with your unhelpful commentary, and retract this nonsense, and we'll be fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Me Too.

Thanks. And I'm sorry that I have lost my temper with you, and been rude. Cheers, to better times! Kevin --Kevin Murray 01:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD and DRV

I think I'm beginning to agree with you. The processes, as they stand, are pretty fucked up and probably broken. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. What happened? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't everyone know this? What happened to you this time? --Kim Bruning 13:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's actually a variety of things, though I think I'm coming at it from a different perspective (more of a deletionist angle than you, probably). But I definitely see the merits of your arguments both about the broken processes of AfD and DRV, and the overuse and abuse of IAR in arguments. I'm seriously sick of the whole "This page flagrantly violates policy but let's keep it because of common sense IAR," which then convinces the whole moroinic masses and the discussion snowballs. What really pissed me off was there was a TfD, with a consensus to delete, but the deleting admin decided to keep the template because he "agreed with the keep voters." Consensus be damned. If consensus isn't going to be used in discussions for deletion, and then people are going to bring up IAR as an excuse to keep (or delete) pages, then the processes has gone to hell. Why have them at all? Sooner than later I'm going to go over to the inclusionist side because deletion voters are arguably more moronic than inclusionists, and tend to abuse IAR more often. God damnit. I apologize if this was incoherent but I just woke up. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Based only on your description, I'm not sure IAR is supposed to be used like that. As long as guidelines in some area are sane, IAR should be used only rarely if at all. It's no wonder it's getting a bad name if it's getting quoted incorrectly very often.

Even so, you never know. Can you link? --Kim Bruning 15:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly how IAR has been used for as long as I can remember. This is why it's so dumb. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(Except for cases of extreme emergency/duress), use of IAR is moronic (in this community that obviously has enough policies/guidelines and processes to not need IAR). I'm about to get into a pissing contest with one of any number of people about it. I am honestly surprised except because there's already WP:POINT that there hasn't already been an IAR war between folks who abuse it and pissed off and burned out people who don't, but are so pissed off that they use IAR that one fight to be just royal assholes to each other. I'm certainly tempted. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea how many times I've resisted that temptation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. Well, we always could restrict people to one use of IAR a month. But then they could ignore...-scratches head-. In reality, I find that with the best applications of IAR, no one even notices you did, because what you're doing is so obviously in keeping with the spirit of the rules that no one notices you very technically violated the letter. If a lot of people are arguing with a given application of IAR, very likely, what you did is actually known as "screwing up". On contentious topics, or topics that are going to be contentious, it's extremely important for people to know that some defined process was followed. Really, that applies even if the process outcome is clear-if letting the process run prevents hurt feelings and disruption, it's not a formality, it's important! I think IAR is something we need to have around, because, well, trolls will always find loopholes. But at the same time people need to read the first sentence-it's "If the rules stop you from improving the encyclopedia...", NOT "If the rules stop you from getting your way or doing whatever the fuck you want...". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. IAR, when used properly, goes unnoticed and does, theoretically, improve Wikipedia. It's one of those things that is individually- and not community-based in application. IAR as an excuse or as an argument is foolish, silly and plain invalid, especially in the setting of a deletion discussion or review. The only way IAR could work (and I'm still trying to figure out if it can work) is if you know that the community consensus will back you up if it comes under scrutiny. But then again, you shouldn't be using IAR if it might create an issue. Anything less is an abuse of IAR. But if you try to point this out to the fuckheads who use it all the time to get what they want, then they say "I don't give a shit. I'm ignoring the rules." Morons. This is pissing me off. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I follow just 3 rules, as opposed to the over 300 pages published. ;-) (see the trifecta) Most important of those is ignore all rules. Been here since 2001, not even an RFC to my name! (knock on wood) --Kim Bruning 21:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC) And it would make me rather displeased if it turns out that other people are "fouling up my own nest" here.

You're famous

Did you know you had an Urban Dictionary entry? [2]. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Pissed off the wrong LJ'er in the b0st0n community at some point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you add an entry for that LJ'er too? ;-) --Kim Bruning 21:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who did it, I just recall the back-and-forth. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What can I say? I'm highly opinionated! --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say: there's no such thing as bad press. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing speedy deletion tags

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand speedy deletion tags, then - the author of articles cannot remove the speedy tags, but anyone else can. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please show me where it says that. My understanding is that those tags are there for the attention of administators and that a non-admin's removal of these interferes with this process. Please do correct me if I am wrong. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem: Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page. I apologise for crossposting at your talk page, I wasn't sure if you were paying attention here any further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I found articles about the play on a fair number of independent sources, coast to coast, so the article itself, Holes (play), should be saved. But do feel free to keep arguing the fine details of the process in the meanwhile. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not my fault he keeps tagging them when I'm at a terminal not-as-condusive-to-research-as-I'd-like. d:-P --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A stageplay, here Holes (play), by a notable author adapted from a notable book for which there is a notable screenplay (movie) is likely to have sufficient WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic and generally do not make good speedy delete candidates. -- Jreferee 19:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to your nomination and acceptance

Would you object if I opposed your acceptance of and those who nominated you to remain uninvolved in the attribution merger? -- Jreferee 17:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a dumb moment right now - what's going on? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a desire to form a bipartisan working party to develop a compromise to merging WP:V, aspects of WP:RS and WP:NOR into WP:ATT. Someone nominated you to remain uninvolved in that bipartisan working party and I think that you should be involved so I am interested in opposing the nomination. -- Jreferee 17:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the "uninvolved" is because I wasn't involved in the initial discussion or voting, not that I wouldn't be involved in the working party. That's simply the label put on me for the purposes of the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

IAR sniping

Just wanted to say that I think you handsomely won the latest round of sniping at WT:IAR - thanks for making me smile. Haukur 18:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take what I can get, haha. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we can get some sort of add-on to the page that says "Never use IAR in deletion discussions?" That would be handy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about your inclusionist ways vs. policy

Do you ever defend articles on the basis of policy if they're up for DRV after being kept in an AfD or XfD? Something like this seems to be right up your alley in the whole policy/common sense debate, but I haven't seen your name pop up. Is that because it is a DRV to overturn the TfD and delete the template? Just curious to see how far your inclusionist view goes when it comes in conflict with your views on the necessity for policy. By the way, I'm quickly moving away from the deletionist viewpoint, but I don't think I'll ever be an "inclusionist," per se. Probably end up somewhere in the middle, arguing policy over everything, whether it's delete or keep. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? I don't do enough template work to really get involved in those discussions. Same with categories - I don't know the ins and outs of how the consensuses work enough to cause a stink yet. As a whole, though, content is largely #1 on my list, followed by accountability, so templates and categories and the like don't matter as much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the answer. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I know you didn't ask me, but for the record, I'm staying out of Template/Category discussions too. I don't feel like I really understand the fundamental information architecture/taxonomy in Wikipedia comprehensively enough to be able to weigh those very important factors in the DRV/CfD/TfD discussions. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, my question wasn't necessarily meant to be a "why aren't you doing this?" sort of question, but rather an attempt to figure out where Jeff's priorities stand. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but content comes before policy in Jeff's world, right? Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

For me, progress in writing attributively/verifiably about the totality of Human Knowledge is what's most important to me. I can't really answer for Jeff - I honestly don't know him outside of Wikipedia. But I personally argue policy because I feel that solid policy (and consistent enforcement) is what allows me to feel like I'm helping make that progress without a 2 steps forward, 2 or 3 steps back issue when editing with other editors who may or may not agree with my editorial viewpoints. The reason IAR sticks in my craw so badly is that I just cannot deal well with the idea that IBeatAnorexia, Guy, or my own mother (who might also edit on Wikipedia and might not have told me) could override all other community rules (i.e. guidelines, policies, essays, etc.) and blow my edits away if they felt like my contributions were crap. It's one thing to agree with the "edited mercilessly" type text on entering the text, and an entirely other thing to deal with the idea that my efforts can be deleted if any single person feels like it, especially Admins. Honestly, I'm still evaluating whether I feel like making meaningful contributions in this kind of environment. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia's environment can be pretty toxic at times. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Raconteur, Pennsylvania

Speedily deleted. Process is not important. What is important is not lying to our readers with 5-month-old entirely false articles which are shown to be made up with 10 seconds of Googling - not leaving the article up for another week to mislead God knows how many other Wikipedia users. Jeff, you are an excellent contributor, but your attitude toward the accuracy and reliability of our content is contemptible. How on God's green Earth is the encyclopedia helped by leaving a lie up on it for another 7 days? The answer is, it's not, no matter how interested in "process" you are. IMO, you have a bad habit of picking the worst and least-worthy articles to defend, and it helps your cause not a bit. FCYTravis 17:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Let the prod run its course, please. And to say that I have some contempt toward accuracy and reliability is what's beoynd contempt - what an assholish attack to make, really, let alone baseless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And I just noticed your other deletion of what I moved to prod, too - this is my official request for you to stop doing what you're doing. I'll drag 'em all to DRV if I have to, and take it further if you refuse to stop this nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you wouldn't do something disruptive like that just to make a point.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What would be disruptive about challenging an improper speedy deletion. I hope you're not supporting a disruptive deletion... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop improperly removing the WP:CSD tag from articles which indisputably and inarguably should be deleted. I have zero problem with you patrolling WP:CSD and making sure good or salvageable articles aren't deleted. In fact, I think by doing that you're doing a service to the encyclopedia. I have a huge problem with you needlessly and pointlessly delaying the removal of out-and-out lies from the encyclopedia. Drag me to DRV if you want. As for the "contempt" remark, it's perfectly accurate. Otherwise, you wouldn't have removed the speedy deletion tag from an entirely and clearly false article just to push your point about speedy deletions. That's putting your personal Wikipolitical goals ahead of accuracy, reliability and truth. That's ass-backwards. FCYTravis 20:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop improperly speedying articles. You want to speedy possible hoaxes? Get consensus for it - there's a reason we don't. And I'm glad that you have contempt for people trying to improve the ability of us to be accurate and actually change the culture. Real classy, Trav, I thought you were better than that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And I thought you were interested in improving the encyclopedia, not trolling for Wikipolitical points by arguing over completely fabricated articles. Guess we were both wrong. FCYTravis 21:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Taking something to DRV that you don't believe should be on the encyclopedia is a WP:POINT violation. Actually, worse, it is seeking deliberately to re-insert nonsense and lies onto wikipedia. We call that vandalism. And please don't resort to calling people assholes - you are better than that.--Doc^g 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In defense of Jeff, he didn't call Travis an asshole. He called his attack assholish. Furthermore, it's not POINTy to contest an improperly speedied article. Period. It would be disruptive not to allow him to bring it to a DRV. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

?So if I called your defence of Jeff moronic-juvenile stupidity that only an idiot would agree with, that wouldn't be a personal attack, since I'd be referring to your comments and not you? Give me a break.--Doc^g 20:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not a personal attack on me. The was a personal attack made, however, when you referred to Jeff's stupidity. That would qualify under WP:NPA. Maybe I should report you. Or maybe I don't give a shit. Jeff's mindset, however, isn't moronic, juvenile or stupid, and the most offensive part about all of this is that he's right. CSD is worded narrowly for a reason. If you don't like it, discuss changing it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have just lost all credibility with me. (And adjectives I chose weren't aimed at jeff anyway.) I will waste my time debating with you no longer. You may have the inevitable last word.--Doc^g 21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Good talk. I now see why you lost the vote in ArbCom elections. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

For the former one he deleted, I don't know if it belongs. As for the latter, I don't know if it belongs. the fact that they were improper speedies didn't help a bit. And, for the record calling my attitude toward reliability and accuracy contemptable when I nominated it with the proper tag is assholish. It's even moreso given my record on the matter, and I do not take that sort of slagging of my reputation lightly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

At least you weren't just told that all your credibility had been lost with someone. ;) Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

True. It's a liberating feeling when it happens, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing improper about my speedily deleting an indisputably completely fabricated article is the fact that the article managed to exist for five months to begin with. Every millisecond that article existed was a slap in the face to all of us who work on Wikipedia. Its mere presence on our servers screamed "We can't maintain this encyclopedia, because we can't catch faked articles about cities which don't exist. We're not interested in accuracy, at all. You can't trust what you read here. Even this. It might be made up by some kid in school one day, like this putative city." Jeff, you've done great work in catching many, many CSD-tagged articles which shouldn't be deleted. Even I've recognized that. But you should have used your judgment in this case - and you didn't. You simply blindly adhered to your rigid definition of what should be deleted and what shouldn't be, regardless of the fact that the article made patently false claims and brought disrepute to the encyclopedia by its mere existence. See, this is what WP:IAR is about. Wikipedia is not governed by bureaucracy or policies or rules or guidelines or anything else. It's governed by good judgment and common sense. Good judgment and common sense demands that patently and indisputably false articles go away, now. Is it a perfect way to govern? Of course not. But it's superior to anything else, because it assumes good faith of our contributors. Please, Jeff, keep up your good work to make the encyclopedia better - but don't aid and abet those who have made it worse. FCYTravis 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough bullshit. Unless you're apologising for your bullshit condescending commentary above, I no longer want to hear it. Until you stop implying things about me or my motives, you're not doing any favors to anyone. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's true, we could do without speculation about your motives. However, your behavior is very clearly disruptive, so we have no need to worry about your motivations. Surely you're already familiar with Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? Ned Wilbury 16:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This comment seems more disruptive than any attempt one could make to keep admins from abusing the speedy deletion criterion. Nice to meet you, by the way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Association

Are you in any way associated with this account>> Baqdlydrawnjeffgp53 cause both the usernames are similar(without the extras)..--Cometstyles 18:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks..it has been tagged and blocked(Vandalism and Odd Imposter)..--Cometstyles 19:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Black Lab

Hi, I was considering advancing this article for GA soon, and I wondered if you could take a quick look at it if you have the time and tell me if there's anything you can spot that needs improvement. The one thing I know it needs is a picture! - working on that. Otherwise, I'd appreciate any comments. Thanks. Chubbles 22:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, didn't mean to put this off (I bought a Wii and got distracted yesterday). I think it's in GA shape (reminds me a bit of The Reputation), but I'd try to expand the pre-formation stuff a bit more into its own section, and consider some paragraph breaks within sections for readability. I'll make some changes and you can feel free to revert any of them you dislike. It's good, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll put some time into those changes this week. Chubbles 19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes at BIO

Jeff, Sorry. I could have been more tactful in my comments. I would like to work toward a solution as I think that you do have some good ideas, and I am somewhere between you and many others on inclusion. Can we start by working on the "PNC" to make it palatable and then figure out where to place it? --Kevin Murray 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have this discussion there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Working Group - Trying to start a discussion

I've suggested getting the Working Group together at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group to start talking about any potential compromise on the attribution policy issue. Perahaps you can add the page to your watchlist. I have also mentioned this page in the community discussion, so there is public awareness of this discussion. Hopefully you will be willing to participate. Thanks. zadignose 19:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll be in contact. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you snagged me

Inclusion really does seem to be more logical than deletion in the end. That and 99% of deletionists are absolute morons. Even the admins. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh! Well, uh, welcome to the club! We have all sorts of cheeses on a spread in the back. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully you have goat cheese. I've been craving that recently. Anyway, all that said, I'm sure you and I will have our spats in the future (esp. things like IAR), but from what I've seen, I do think that you are one of the best Wikipedians around. Or at least you have one of the clearest pictures of what WP should be. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And the same. I like people who keep an open mind. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for incorrect template move

Hey Jeff. Very sorry for moving the "Disputed section" tag on WP:BIO in a manner that was not indicative of what you intended to communicate. When I saw it popping up before the TOC, I thought it was just a formatting oversight on your part, but I obviously should have checked with you first. Sorry again, and have a good one, Satori Son 20:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No prob, it happens. Any input you can provide would be great, BTW. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)