AFD was closed as a deleted. I saw it as a repost on the CSD category, I removed the CSD because previous votes referred to the article as being a contentless substub. The repost has some meat to the article, but if its to survive an AFD it's still probably going to have to be cleaned up. Reads like a press release, and might actually be one. Note that if the heading is a redlink, it'll have been speedied. - Hahnchen 00:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was messy. It certainly meets basic requirements, but I've stubbed it and gave it some basic stats anyway. Thanks for the heads up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to inform you that your Request for Adminship (RfA) has failed to reach sufficient consensus for promotion, and has now been delisted and archived. Please do not look upon this outcome as a discouragement, but rather as an opportunity to improve. Try to address the concerns raised during your RfA and, in a few months' time, resubmit your request. Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity! Redux 00:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A damn shame, too, considering how many falsehoods were uttered during the course of it and ignored. Ah well, should have expected it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was perhaps unfortunate that a RfC was still ongoing. I found it encouraging that you had support from JzG, which shows that people can appreciate edits from someone with a different point of view. Looking at some previous debates, if we ever have a disagreement it may take a long time to conclude as I like resolving things. Stephen B Streater 21:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the problems really had nothing to do with the RfC - I actually expected more opposition BECAUSE of that. I'm more disturbed by people who outright lie, and then aren't questioned on it when it comes down to the final decision, but I'm not terribly surprised. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least all the edits are there for people to see. If it's any consolation, I think some of the opposers were genuine ;-) I had a look through some of your edits and could see frustration building up in your adversaries, but in the time I had available didn't come across anything devastating, I think the bureaucrat was right to close the way he did too. Perhaps you can take his advice - it looks like you'll only need to change marginally to succeed next time. Stephen B Streater 23:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's certainly enough opposition that didn't come out of the woodwork for me to not be too fazed by it. But it's refreshing to know that my conduct and contributions are widely respected by members of the community who are in good standing, so I'm not letting myself get down about it. Maybe i'll give it another go in a few months. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. You having buttons would make my editing go more smoothly, and that is my main concern when doing RfAs. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer. Please don't take it personally - like I said before, some people are not willing to separate philosophical disagreements from te issue of fitness to perform janitorial work. Give it time, you will be promoted. I thought many of the Oppose votes unnecessarily harsh, and many appeared to be based on a false perception (votign keep does not mean you will be any more or less likely to block a tendentious editor). I am disappointed your RFA failed, I am also disappointed that Brian Crawford saw it as symptomatic of some problem with WP. I simply don't understand how giving the mop to poeple who are inclusionist can have a downside. Maybe I'm the one with a distorted viewpoint, who knows. Just zis Guy you know? 23:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I'm not the least bit discouraged by the result - I expected different opposers who never showed up, and I'm viewed overwhelmingly positively by those in the community in good standing. I'm not too concerned, I understand completely why it worked out the way it did. Thanks for the attempt, though, maybe round 2 will go better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted against you, not because I think you are a bad person, but because of the controversy surrounding you - because you are an individual. The outspoken maverick is not supposed to become the neutral admin! The quiet dull people who can see things both ways are the ones who should become admins. The people with an opinion are the ones who shake and shout and make sure that alternative views are heard. Do you really want to stiffle your opinions just to get hold of a button that you don't actually need? This admin proposal was like trying to get a Top Gun into a desk job. SilkTork 12:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the outspoken maverick not become the admin? Many admins are decidedly not clones. Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not talking clone - I'm talking balanced. Seeing both sides of the argument. As far as I see it, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, the admin role is mainly to make balanced decisions on events in Wiki - like AfD, disputes, etc. Admins do not decide policy or the direction of Wiki - that is for the body of Wikipedians. And when policy is being created people with views need to be heard. The admin function at such a point is to count the beans, not to materially influence the decision. A person who wants their views and opinions to be heard and felt would need to stand back so much from doing admin functions that there would be no point in having the admin role. SilkTork 13:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then. I never thought people actually bought into that bizarro "how to become a Wikipedia admin by not rocking the boat" document, but there you have it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If SilkTork's is a true representation opf what admins are supposed to do, then most of us will have to stand down. Just zis Guy you know? 13:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had won would you be able to maintain a neutral pov about Afd, Cfd, Tfd your political pov, I do not think so. It all passes the way it should no. You did not need it anyway. Go away little fry cook —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solange Rey (talk • contribs)

Of course I could, and plenty of other people do, as well. Hell, a good look at my contributions would have borne that out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really sucks. I think you'd have done a good service to balance the deletionists among us -- Samir धर्म 06:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am filing an RFM regarding our interactions. You are one of three named parties. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have backed out of meditation due to Silensor's demonstration of transparent bad faith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again with the personal attacks. Surprise, surprise. "Can a persons full name be included if it has been published by 3 different major media sources which are reliable" is something which should be mediated, I am truly sorry you disagree. Silensor 17:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of mediation, though - he feels that it's a point of contention. If you disagree, that's fine, and you can make that clear in the mediation, but there's got to be some give and take if you actually want to see this resolved. Please reconsider. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that he is attempting to advance his arguments through the initiation process - I feel that this demonstrates he intends to game the system throughout. Not interested. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff. I think you're wrong on this one; Leyden is a skilled self-publicist, all the purported sources seem to track back to him (your first link, for example, was to his own site). I can't see any credible evidence that INA is anything other than a one-man propaganda mouthpiece, and I certainly see no sign it's syndicated in any "real" media (as the likes of Reuters are). Leyden is also obnoxious towards Wikipedia since his vanity article was deleted - not in itself evidence of much other than that in my experience people who are genuinely important realise that having a Wikipedia article does not validate their existence in any way and simply don't care, the ones who kick up a stink are usually the ones for whom vanity is a way of life. Most of the argumentation and much of the editing comes from known or suspected soickpuppets of a single user who may or may not be Leyden.

If you can find an example of, say, The Times crediting INA as a source I'd be pleased to hear of it. Just zis Guy you know? 11:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could be, but absent evidence to the contrary that this guy's just a fluke or nut or whatever - and given that much of the opposition from higher-ups seems to be because of his attitude toward WP - I see no reason to rush to delete it at this point. I'd much rather have the article here and deal with those issues in article where we can monitor and control it as opposed to the constant back and forth of deleting and restoring and appeals and whatever else. A little inconsistent of me? Perhaps, but is anything as it seems with this one at this point? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His attitude to WP springs from the dleetions, not vice-cersa, as I see it. Anyway, as ever we can disagree in a civilised manner :-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's put it this way, I have no real complaints about where it ends up, but it'd be nice to have actual consensus as opposed to unilateral motions if we're going to delete it. It's tough for folks to complain if things are done properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened per your request. Kimchi.sg 11:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that because you were unable to get Wikipedia:Snowball clause deleted[1] that you have decided to, effectively, crap on the page. Although the input from people with contrasting views is always welcome, you have gone far beyond what I would normally consider disruptive behavior. Please discontinue behaving in this manner and try to focus on being constructive rather than disruptive and destructive. --Gmaxwell 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but no. I've actually been very firm about my beliefs on the page before I attempted to delete it, and I will continue to oppose it at every turn. If you think that's disruption, you have the right to your opinion, but the day opposing a meaningless essay that promotes ignoring long-standing process come to via consensus becomes disruptive, there's bigger problems at hand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"you have decided to, effectively, crap on the page." "you have gone far beyond what I would normally consider disruptive behavior." Can't say I am surprised.--8bitJake 04:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. You probably don't know who I am, but I have seen you around AfD a lot and you seem to hold similar ideals to mine in that regard. Today I rewrote an article that was up for deletion, Pulp noir, and hence gained several keep votes. It wasn't the first time I've done this, and I realized that I enjoy it more than anything else I do on Wikipedia. I have made several "saves" of articles that needed to be kept in my opinion, but would have been deleted had someone not stepped in.

My idea is this - what do you think of an organized project for this activity? I'm not sure if it would be something as formal as a WikiProject, and certainly not as informal as snarking, but maybe something in the middle. An Article Saving Cabal?  :) It would be important for it to be constructive, not malicious or disruptive.. but what do you think? --Aguerriero (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's crossed my mind, for sure, but I'm not sure how appreciated it would be, constructive or not. What do you have in mind specifically? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right - and it only just crossed my mind and I thought I might bounce it off you. I just think a lot about AfD, and some of its problems, and try to think of ways to address them. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you had some history reguarding the myg0t article. Well, the article is up for DrV, and I ask that you post your thoughts on whether or not it should be undeleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#myg0t - thanks, cacophony 23:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask if you wanted to be nommed for adminship, but I saw that you've just had one that failed. That's a darn shame, as, in my humble opinion, you would make a fine admin, and could really help this project with a mop firmly pressed in your hand ;) Next time you're up for it, I'll vote a very very strong support.

Good luck 'till then. Thε Halo ^Θ 01:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that advance thumbs-up! It'll be a few months before I even bother considering the wringer again, but I appreciate it! --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you participated in the discussion I'd like to point you to this newly created page Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_Blog_Citation to further continue the discussion we started over at WP:RS.--Crossmr 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I'll drop in shortly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The external link to Encyclopedia Dramatica goes to their mainpage, which has a personal attack article posted. Wikipedia does not support this. I have every right to defend myself from any and all personal attacks. I removed the PNG image from the mainpage and this is no different. We are not going to promote that website in this forum, especially so long as they are engaged in personal attacks on ANY wikipedian on the page we must link to. If you don't understand this basic fact, then you are in the wrong forum.--MONGO 23:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of the PNG image was poor form, and the link is completely within reason with our external linking policy. I don't disagree with your being upset, but you're way overreacting over it and only making it worse for yourself in the process, both with the article in question and with users here. I don't want to see that happen, as you've been an otherwise good guy in my experience prior to this episode. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Msinside.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to Daylight (disambiguation), note that the Manual of Style prescribes that disambiguation pages should not contain links, other than those required for disambiguation. Check out the MoS for other special "rules" for formatting these special pages.--Srleffler 03:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it, then. I had seen it before, so...--badlydrawnjeff talk 10:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lapsed eh? [2].--MONGO 11:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check my contribs if you don't buy it. I hadn't done any serious editing of my userpage in a month, interesting timing it really wasn't, but given your approach this week, I don't expect you to believe me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are defending that website, then there is no way you can be defending me...that is preposterous.--MONGO 22:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. It won't make it true, but still. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well hello vanity! (→Netscott) 23:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hello "look at my actual contributions." Hell, I'm not even sure what the point of that was. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you'll strongly disagree with me, but I wrote a little bit about my own personal opinions about band articles once. Feel free to have a look, edit, comment, or whatever, if you wish. Friday (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this would need a second signer. Would you? SchmuckyTheCat 00:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add his flagrant abuse of deletion policy and I'm in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's write another RfC for it. The best way through the WP dispute process is to create clearly focused single issue disputes. Adding a second issue makes it cloudy, dilutes the kick of how obvious this one is, and gives lap-dogs a second chance to find something they can disagree with and ignore the actual problem. SchmuckyTheCat 16:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO (second RfC) Filed. can you sign as certifying the basis? SchmuckyTheCat 15:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. They are my favorite band, which you can check out more stuff ive worked on trying to get them noticed again on www.myspace.com/dreamssoreal1. And thanks for the advice. --Dr. Pizza talk 18:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This website is my favorite website out there since i discovered it about 3 months ago.

Yeah, I have Gloryline but haven't had much luck finding much else, so the mp3s have been nice. Someday, maybe. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd like to offer you my very warmest wishes for trying to improve this article, I noticed that the cites you added to the text are not appearing at the bottom of the article as links. I putzed around a bit but I couldn't get them to show up properly either. However, the same links work just fine at the AfD debate. Any idea what the problem is or how to fix it? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I missed a step. I got distracted by other things, and forgot to c/p my code. Thanks for the heads-up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. You posted a question on the Talkpage, but the actual discussion seems to be going on here[[3]]. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I realise that you think "process matters" or some such mantra, but in this case process can only help the trolls. I snowballed that article because there is absolutely overwhelming endorsement for the deletion. Please revert your wasteful and ill-advised reopening. --Tony Sidaway 02:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. In fact, the constant flaunting of policy, process, and reason is helping more than anything else. You gotta stop doing that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that in light of your conduct, I am thankful your recent RfAd failed and would strongly oppose a repeated attempt. It is a great mistake to put process above prudence. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I did my actions with RfA in mind, I'd stay away from all possible conflict. Unfortunately, prudence has been completely abandoned by people in power over the course of this entire scenario, so I suggest you start preaching to those who have actually abandoned prudence instead of the person trying to fix the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see giving in to trolls as prudence. Just zis Guy you know? 15:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again, it comes back to a discussion of content rather than doing things right. If this wasn't an article about a site that torced Wikipedians this wouldn't even be coming up, and any other article that was contested would have been handled "right". rootology 15:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who's advocating giving in to trolls? I'm certainly not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site is a minor one by any measure. We do and have deleted articles on wikis this size routinely. Howls of "OMG| CENSORSHIP!" from the site's fanclub (no, not you, Jeff) merely muddy the waters. Articles like that simply reinforce systemic bias and give no information which is not instantly available by visiting the site itself. It's the difference between knowledge and information in my view. This was just information - Wikipedia is not a weeb directory. Just zis Guy you know? 16:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, and if it were deleted by any actual fair accounting, I'd have left it behind ages ago. But regardless of your feelings on the content or the notability or whatever it is, there were so many problems with how the entire situation was handled from the start, from MONGO's actions to the way the AfD was unfairly refactored to the way the AfD was interpreted a couple hours as completely differently than the person before it did, and how it was closed early twice anyway. Even someone who doesn't give a shit about process (Tony excluded, of course) can see that this is a clusterf*ck from start to finish, and it's completely absurd that the rhetoric when discussing it boils down to "giving into trolls" or constant bad faith arguments about those who want to see things done right. It's absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be very amused and/or curious as to what happens when the ED people actually get more good press and citable sources, and go to reinclude the article here on WP. Will they be stonewalled as "trolls"? Or do we cover anything notable, except trolls and things we don't like? rootology 16:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, let me toss this out there: Am I wrong for having massive issues with the way it was run? This isn't me protesting a speedy keep because it didn't meet the guidelines, this isn't me complaining because a guideline was ignored, as I'm certainly prone to do. This is a textbook example of an AfD gone horribly wrong. If I'm wrong, no one's showing me why I'm wrong here, and if someone was able to, I'd be very likely to back off. Unfortunately, no one seems to care about what's actually going on. How anyone can ignore it is beyond my ability to comprehend. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again the statement by me for the 8,000th time is ignored out of convenience. Confirm/deny: this article was torched with special vehemence because of the nature of the content it was covering and the fact that on their site they torched a somewhat popular admin. rootology 16:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: Overwhelming endorsement by admins, or by editors? The admins were moreso for delete, but the majority of people were definitely split. Or do you feel that admin voices outshine and have more say in what goes on than the majority? I was under the impression that admins were to enforce policy and their administrative buttons were not to give them any additional weight in content matters. rootology 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Based on the conversation outlined above and in other areas, I think you can understand from these fine folks why the DRV was closed early. It seemed we were only letting sockpuppets and other unwelcome visitors win, and I wasn't about to stand by and let that happen. I'm sure you understand the reasons that this article is no longer, and also why it's been necessary for us to handle things differently. Sorry to hear that you are in such a position. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 01:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, I can't, especially since few, if any, were based in policy or guideline. To shut down an ongoing discussion completely reeks of something very foul, especially with so many issues. I know why the article is no longer, and it's why the article was at DRV. Reconsider. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I regret we are at a misunderstanding. Do understand that these decisions were, for the most part, based on consensous, and while you may not agree with it, consensous is consensous, and there is no way around it. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 01:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So now policy can be trumped by consensus? Don't get me wrong - if consensus is consensus, that's all well and good and I don't protest. However, my complaints have definite merit, and your closing of the DRV after less than 2 days fails to address it. Please don't act as if I haven't been around long enough to understand how things work here, I'm simply looking to make sure things work the way they're supposed to, and early closes of ongoing discussions where policy is outright ignored is not how things are supposed to go. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing policy with process. Policy tells us that an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica does not belong on Wikipedia. Process tells us how long to let its deletion discussion last. Policy trumps process. --Cyde↔Weys 02:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, policy says that an article like ED could possibly belong on WP. Given that the AfD was an unmitigated disaster, I have my doubts weever really tackled that issue. Thus, we have to look at the process (which, BTW, is part and parcel of the deletion policy). The way the AfD was run, allowed to refactor, and closed is a direct violation of both deletion policy and deletion process. I don't honestly care how the article ultimately ends up - I think it belongs here, but that's simply my opinion - but if we're going to delete it, and certainly under the circumstances that resulted in it making it to AfD, we should do it right, following policy and process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to how you think this is a gross process violation as such a thing is nonexistant. Additionally, if your opinion merits on that I did the wrong thing, then it was wrong regardless of process. I'm open to the suggestion that my actions were not appropriate to the situation, and would appreciate it if you could explain to me why you feel my move was wrong (without making any reference to process). I don't know if I can provide redress if it turns out my actions were mistaken, but I'd be grateful for the learning opportunity. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 02:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is it standard to remove an ongoing discussion? Is it standard to say that a "deletion is endorsed" when an article's AfD is demonstrated at the DRV to have been closed incorrectly, out of process, and against general consensus, and the discussion regarding said process is unfinished? At the very least, I think you acted wrong in closing out the DRV after less than two days when the discussion was ongoing - they typically go on for five days, if not more, and the DRV was already closed improperly once. You can certainly provide redress by reopening the discussion and allowing it to run its course. Things can be the right thing, but wrong via the processes in place, part of what DRV exists for. The closure was, as it stands, wrong on both counts at this point in time, and considering the way this entire thing went down, I'm not sure if a further fanning of the flames by "endorsing" anything so early is the right way to go. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. I really don't get the insane wrath that this issue seems to put in people's minds. Just write a freaking simple NPOV article about the site and leave it at that. We don't need a blank page and we don't need a list of every single thing that ED has ever mocked. There's a middle ground and it's been forgotten. FCYTravis 03:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am once again going to ignore a nonexistant policy and put an end to this conversation for now on my end since we still seem to be at a misunderstanding. You do, however, have my understanding. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 02:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which nonexistant policy am I citing here in your actions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiousity, how did you become an administrator there? Do they have something like RfA, or was it a matter of connections, or something else? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They just kinda choose based on availability and capability. I was made an admin when I expressed a desire to see them move away from the drama stuff toward more meme style stuff. It never really caught on, and I moved onto other things, although I still think there's a lot of talented writers there would could make it worthwhile, I may try to push the issue more once the insanity here winds down.

It's funny, though, because most of them are all friendly from other LJ-style communities and LJ Drama stuff, and I was some interloper who found some of it funny and got promoted. It's why I'm amused that I'm tossed into some of that stuff here, even though I've never really been involved in that aspect of it. The perils of being honest, I suppose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The author, Litclass, has reverted your edits several times in a row. I reverted it once, but I'm not going to get into a revert war. I just figured that I would tell you. αChimp ^laudare 17:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have it watchlisted. Judging by his/her talk page, it doesn't appear that much in the way of discussion works... --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just be careful. One more revert and you violate 3RR. Next revert for her, and she violates it. I'll post a final warning and the report (I've warned her, btw). αChimp ^laudare 17:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I know the limits. I'm actually only on my second, so I'm keeping track. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, I just wanted to compliment your most recent work at Staying Fat For Sarah Byrnes. In particular, your most recent edit summary was an excellent example of how wiki should work. Regarding our joint efforts on another article (which doesn't need to be named on an otherwise polite talkpage), I'm watching with amusement to see what happens. I'd like to help expand the stub, but whenever I try I just start laughing and have to cancel my own edits. I did send a request for a more accurate image but don't know what will come of it. Happy editing :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we know where the teacher guy's coming from, it's much, much easier to work with on my end. I've done a few kids books articles anyway, so I'm glad to help on this one. Meanwhile, at our other collaboration, I'm about as amused as you are. I've needed some wikihumor lately, so this is a fun little diversion. I can't wait to see what other, erm, pearls of wisdom come from that experience. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLMAO! Having recently been involved in a contentious RfC I needed some humor as well. That article really lifted my...spirits. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just gotta keep staying hard and firm with folks, and we'll be fine. If we go soft on 'em, it's all over. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't afford to just roll over and go to sleep, we need to get a head. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my RfA! Unfortunately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your support was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here!
Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I AfD'd this last night but it's not showing here or here. What did I screw up? It was my first. rootology 19:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you ((subst:afd3 | pg=Buck Wolf)) on the daily log page? If you did, track down someone like User:JzG who does a lot of AfDs, he can help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use ((subst:test)) instead of ((test)). This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. This is not a warning; only a friendly editing reminder. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 16:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never got around to responding before the DRV closed. Yes, I guess calling a group of people "drama queens" was a bit harsh and not the most overly WP:CIVIL statement I've made here on Wikipedia... but honestly I wasn't in a very WP:CIVIL mood that day. It was also probably not the best choice of words because in light of what this DRV was about it probably appeared I was singling out one side of the debate, when that statement was actually an indictment of some of (what I consider to be) the silliness the debate had descended into due to statement being made by both sides (and for the record, for whatever it is worth, that was not directed at you; you were one of a few people who were still debating the merits of the article and the AfD). Was the AfD done exactly by the book? No... but there are quite a few every day that are not. I will agree with you that the refactoring that was done was wholly inappropriate and the party who did so should probably be reprimanded for doing so. At the end of the day though, I suspect that even if this was run through AfD again the outcome would be the same. Right or wrong, this whole situation has become a headache that I suspect many people just want to see go away. This AfD/DRV is exactly why I don't want to be an admin. You can't win no matter what you do.--Isotope23 17:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the last sentence, hah. I know what you're saying, and you honestly might be right, but I also don't see the harm in having a definitive discussion on the matter that doesn't have anything to do with people rushing to the defense of their friends or assuming bad faith about all parties involved. I didn't think that was too much to look for, but it's tough to get people to look past it, I suppose. I kind of wish the person who DRVed it was different, and that they waited a few days at least, but it's too late now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1% of me that is an idealist agrees it isn't too much to ask to have a logical, impartial debate on the merits of an article and/or the process that this went through... the 99% of me that is a pragmatist though realizes that at the end of the day there are probably quite a few people who are glad this is done and don't want to see it reopened again. Not assuming any faith, good, bad, or otherwise on anyone's part... but I think there are a lot of people who remember the "Brian Peppers" thing and are not overly eager to continue content debates ad infinitum. That said, I'm not trying to disuade you from pursuing this further through whatever channels are still available to you. You gotta do what you gotta do.--Isotope23 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the clarification anyway. Pehraps I need to extinguish that 1% left in me, too, heh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that a little time has passed, I feel it safe to comment. I both support the deletion and agree with a large number of your complaints about it. But, despite often being called a "process wonk" I have to say you fought the battle the wrong way in my opinion. Re-write the article in userspace and show that it meets the wp:web criteria, that would have probably maybe worked. It still might, in five or six weeks. - brenneman ^{L} 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, that will never work, as it did then. Anything rewritten would still have the same conclusion - it meets the guidelines for notability and requirements for verifiability, but continues to be ignored. I dunno, whatever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, you deprodded The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Koran, so I figured I'd notify you that I have nominated all the articles on books in that series for deletion.--Kchase T 00:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this interesting here, just in light of a lot of the recent hoo ha. rootology 00:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you're going to follow through on your application of the NPOV tag to the DOPA article. Your characterization that "...the bill may be misguided, that's an opinion and we can't have that" is incorrect. The ALA, Bill Richardson, libraries using MySpace have all come out against this bill and given testimony before Congress. These are all relevant facts regarding the article's subject matter. They are facts that put the bill in a bad light, but that's for the reader to decide when presented these facts. The facts are all referenced well to reputable sources. Opinions are perfectly legitimate material for articles, so long as it's not the author's opinion that's being relayed via the text. Everything in the Disadvantages (I have renamed it Disputes) section is what one of the reputable sources had to say in response to this bill's introduction and subsequent passage in the House. I think you're confusing neutral POV with no POV. If the article were simply about the exact Act itself, we could just copy-n-paste the text of it and be done with the whole thing. Hey, why even do that much work, we could just redirect to the Thomas Library page (ref #1 in the article anyways) and voila. This is a description of the Act, it's author's motivations, what it entails, and major responses in opposition to the Act as it affects these groups. Again, I hope you plan to do something more than just tag and run. Some specific examples of the POV in the article or suggestions for changes to introduce better NPOV would be a good start. Otherwise, I will at the very least move the article to {POV-check} instead since that would be more appropriate given your "not sure what to do" attitude in your first article discussion comment on the issue. ju66l3r 05:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about it over at the article, I don't plan on "posting and running," but a discussion is in order. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great. ju66l3r 16:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff- Yesterday User:Litclass reverted all of our edits on the article. I've since put them back, but this is honestly getting a little bit out of hand. I just don't understand why he reverted my good faith edits. Anyway, I was just wondering if you could keep an eye on the article.

Regards, alphaChimp ^laudare 23:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ding the best I can. I think he's just trying to treat YA lit book articles as if a YA lit person was reading them, which is commendable but, unfortunately, wrong. I'm just not even sure how to broach it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also removed all of the warnings from his talk page through a series of removals. If it didn't seem biased on my part, I would go through and restore all of them, but I'm a little too involved at this point. He's started an archive, but it's very, very selective. He nominated many articles for speedy deletion this morning. Right now I'm just going to steer away from him, but his pattern of edits does sort of alarm me. alphaChimp ^laudare 23:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, geez, I didn't see that. This is discouraging. I dunno, I'm pretty involved, too, but if people stop watching, I dunno. Yeesh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The difficulty here is that, even though I see the obvious pattern, I really shouldn't step in. I'm already too involved. Out of interest, do you think that my conduct in the case of this article was reasonable? alphaChimp ^laudare 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen many issues outside of mediving a bit too quick early. I dunno, at some point, it can't hurt to be more firm. I dunno. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that there's a point that it's just best to step back and let a user's actions stand on their own. Thanks for the response. I'm just going to avoid all interaction, even reverting back to our version on the page. It's just too inflammatory. I have a feeling that something will come of this, not too far in the future (I'm thinking maybe an RFC or something like that). Anyway, thank you so much for your good efforts in the article. Keep me posted if you need my help, but I think the most mature and reasonable thing in this case is just for me to assume good faith and avoid any potential flame-ups. Best Regards, alphaChimp ^laudare 01:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can help me. Two of my articles, First Family of the United States and Judy Feder have been heavily vandalized by a user called Hipocrite. In the case of First Family, he labelled the article a hoax with no explanation whatsoever despite its being very well-sourced and completely uncontroversial. In the second, he blanked the entire page, citing, "copyright violations." Please look at my last contributions to both articles and give your honest opinion about them, both to me and on their talk pages.

History21 04:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]

Perhaps you'd care to weigh in here. I just sort of stumbled into this while categorizing mandolinists. I'm not one to be fast on the delete trigger, but this looks like junk to me. -MrFizyx 20:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I answered there. Thanks for the heads up, but consider some ((fact)) tags or going to talk before deleting large swaths of information that you might not be sure of. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, in the Peter Buck article I was going by the book (WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_negative_material). Obviously it is easy to cite, but that's not my job. It still is not obvious to me that the topic of a court case in which he was cleared of all charges is relevant to an encyclopedia article on Buck. I'll mull that over a bit though. I'll discuss Downs on that talk page. I'm happy to give you the heads-up. -MrFizyx 21:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a pretty bad thing to do overall when sources can just as quickly be added, but do as you wish, that's by the book. The topic was highly newsworthy, it's why it was there. God, BLP is obnoxious sometimes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta disagree, ((fact)) tags would have been all wrong. Tags have been ignored on that page for over a month [4]. If someone like you can come along right away and fix it great! If not it is better that this sort of info be removed. I'll leave the Down's article alone for now in the hopes that someone will shape it up a bit. I'll drop you a note if I go so far as to AfD it (unlikely). Good day! -MrFizyx 22:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they would ahve been, I just didn't notice the issue because I knew it was accurate. Thanks anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I award you the Bright Idea Award (which, in fact, was my idea) for your great WP:BK proposal! --Gray Porpoise 15:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hey, thanks. I really hope we can keep pushing it along, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for friendly post on my page, but I am unfamiliar with Isobel. She has a beautiful name. Evensong 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use ((subst:test)) instead of ((test)). This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

I noticed that you hadn't subst'ed some warnings. I just figured I'd remind you =). Regards,alphaChimp ^laudare 01:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can never remember what to subst and what not to. I hate subst. d;-)

Thanks for the reminder, though, I'll try to remember. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connor Barrett. I think this is a misapplication of A7, not a failing of A7 itself. Just my two cents. Friday (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is more that then ease of misapplication is what causes it to be a failure so often. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent Kendrick Scott to AFD; I still think the article should go, but it is certainly worth talking about it first. Since you were interested in keeping it, I thought I should notify you. Brianyoumans 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, saw it. Appreciate the notice, others aren't always as kind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. I honestly thought it was spelled per the germanic name. and google "confirmed" that(if i had looked harder i would've realized i was wrong). I do lots of prods and the prods are removed without reason often, so I afd in those cases. I made a mistake, and the AfD discussion helped repair my mistake. To answer your concern, I was well aware of the procedure. thanks i kan reed 18:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right result on the AfD, but could you please not invoke WP:SNOW in closes if you choose to do them in the future? WP:SNOW isn't a legitimate rationale to close AfDs, and it would hold more weight in the future if you used something with a more legitimate rationale (for instance, WP:POINT). Just a personal thing of mine, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you sharing your concerns. In hindsight WP:SNOW does reflect badly on us to outsiders so I should probably avoid using it ever again, but it is a really convenient piece of jargon for saying "there's no point discussing this further because everyone else disagrees with you" that I've seen a few other AFD regulars cite before in the past. Perhaps WP:SNOW should be rewritten so that it doesn't read as blunt as it does now. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  15:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you, but it's been a failing battle. I've found the best way is to point it out, a few people are hostile about it, but most get it. Glad you have an open mind, though, keep it up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm just reading the new RfArb on KM. Somehow a misconception has arisen that the RfC on KM was started as a result of a block that she made. That is actually incorrect. I filed the RFC first, and it had already been seconded and commented on before Kelly made the controversial block. Therefore, the question of whether the block was valid or not became an additional topic of conversation for the ongoing RfC, but it was not a causal event in the filing of the RfC. You may want to ammend your statement at the RfArb so as to make clear that this was NOT the "block in the case in question that spawned the RfC". Thanks for your consideration. Johntex\^talk 15:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, I shouldn't have written it in such a rush, haha. Thanks for the heads up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you have an interest in saving articles like this. It was up for speedy deletion, I put up a hangon template, and I left a pretty reasonable note on why it should go to AfD. I'm not interested in taking it, so I'll let whoever tagged it take it there. I don't like articles like that, but I don't think it's a speedy candidate. Showing one's genitalia as an act of disrespect is found in many, many cultures. I read that pre-Muslim Middle Eastern women did it in the presence of their husbands to another man to show the other guy what he couldn't have. There's an article there, but no one to write it. What's there now is crap. I don't know what to do, so I'll leave it to those that do. Billy Blythe 15:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted it, I'll see what I can do with it when I have a shot, it might not be for a couple days, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. As much as I hate things like this cluttering an encyclopedia, I hate Pokemon, Family Guy, and Star Trek more. If it came down to keeping either Peter Griffin or The penis showing game, in my opinion, the penis game should win, balls down. I'd rather have articles on a hundred garage bands than one article on a minor character in a cult sci-fi series. I think there's a kernel of sociological importance there, it just isn't discussed in the article. Maybe I'll check Google scholar. I guess if we can't salvage it, it'll have to go to AfD, where it will be no doubt deleted if it goes as it is now. Billy Blythe 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted it since you want to fix it up, my deletion was only for being reposted, but it was speedied as nonsense before - so you should do it before too long, or someone else might delete again. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need advice. It seems that unimportant (to me) hair metal bands from the 80's get articles for their individiual songs, i.e. Every Rose Has Its Thorn, which is a kickass song, but not of any encyclopedic value. I'm trying to maintain and build an article on Catullus #16, one of the most offensive poems of the ancient world, written in Rome in the 1st c. B.C. Technically, it's a song. So why shouldn't an old, old song get the same treatment? See my talk page and the talk page for Catullus 16 for info. Your help would be greatly appreciated. I know this is in your area of expertise also, so I am coming to you again. I am a newbie but I have notes written by a former Wikipedian on certain people. He gave you positive comments on inclusion in these areas. Billy Blythe 23:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted. I'll take a look at some music history stuffI have lying around, perhaps I can help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Billy Blythe 05:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which AfD's are you talking about? I'm not stranger to closing them, so if you are taking an issue over one of the ones I've closed in the last 12 hours or so, you should really let me know which ones you're referring to. As far as I recall, I closed a few SNOW AfD's, withdraw of noms, and maybe one or two speedy keeps. SynergeticMaggot 17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't keep track of 'em all, but pretty much none of the ones that you speedy kept met the criteria, and you shouldn't be closing anything per WP:SNOW. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I asked, which one are you referring to? The majority were kept as Keep, not speedy keep. And there were good reasons to keep, so if you disagree, relist. SynergeticMaggot 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd appreciate it if you didnt tell me what I should or shouldnt be doing. It was my call, and if I'm wrong, an admin will address the matter to me, and overturn. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 00:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'll be glad to tell you if you're doing things incorrectly, and I'd expect the same from you. As for the ones you've closed incorrectly recently, they're here, here, here, here, and here. And those are just the ones I've found right now. Please be aware of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I don't mind re-opening it for more discussion. Looked to me that all of the delete "votes" were either on the basis it being a hoax on account of the article creator, or were withdrawn (but there was one WP:N "vote" that I guess I missed). Cheers -- Samir धर्म 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this AfD (Boston, Ontario). Thanks for your efforts, but its closed as speedy keep. I'm very capable of closing by myself, without any comments as to how it can or cannot be closed. For the last time, please let it be. SynergeticMaggot 21:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it meets no speedy keep criteria. I'll ask you to reopen it and let it run its course, or I'll be forced to take it to DRV. I'll again request you stop closing AfDs as well, because you too often close them incorrectly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep needs to be expanded. While it needs to be expanded, please don't violate the speedy keep policy in the meantime.

This was posted on your userpage. I'd like to let you know that Speedy keep isnt a policy, its a guideline. SynergeticMaggot 03:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I'll fix that next userpage update. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are, in my opinion, intentionally harassing User:SynergeticMaggot. If you think he is doing something wrong, take it up with admin. He's asked you several times to desist. If you don't, I'll support any complaint he makes about your harassment. You need to leave people alone after they've asked you to do so. See WP:DICK. —Hanuman Das 01:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, i'm not intenetionally harassing anyone. If questioning his closing procedures is harassment, that's a big problem with our harassment policy. Perhaps you should instead be preaching to him about doing the right thing. Furthermore, reading SM's talk page, you best get a grasp on what our harassment policy actually is. Here's a hint - trying to correct his errors aren't it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, Speedy closing as keep is not so out of process for it to be a major concern. If SM intends to listen to you, he will stop. If not, further comments to him will not change his mind. I suggest you let it go unless you think it is such a major policy violation to warrant further action, in which case you know what to do. JoshuaZ 02:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is a major concern. It would be nice if, instead of preaching to me, you would instead preach to him the virtue of following basic process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did make a comment to him about process. But on balance, speedy keeping is not nearly as bad as speedy deleting, and aside from the process issue all of them were clear cut cases. Quoting Will Beback has succinctly summarized the right attitude: "Better articles are our goal, not better policies." [5]. JoshuaZ 02:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good for Will. Whether they're "clear cut cases" or not is rather irrelevant to the overbearing situation, which it would be nice to get a little support on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point that they are clear cut cases is precisely the issue. Closing a few things early as keep is not going to damage the Wiki when they would be closed as keeps in a day or two anyways. JoshuaZ 02:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then we disagree. Not much else to say, then. It's too bad you can't support me on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, it might help if you could explain how you think SM's closes have damaged the Wiki. JoshuaZ 03:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes light of the need to have a full discussion on deletion, it marginalizes our speedy keep guideline, and it encourages out of process behavior based on the subjective belief that out of process actions aren't always able to damage the wiki. No harm if he lets them run. Plenty of possible harm if he does not. Hell, he even undid an admins early close before, and we're wasting my time here over trying to correct his actions. Interesting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making "light" is not damaging to the Wiki by itself, nor is marginalzing the speedy keep guidelines. All your critiques seem to come down to that it might encourage further out of process behavior. That is not a persuasive concern. And the only reason we are "wasting" your time is because you insist on the matter. JoshuaZ 20:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite persuasive, it's in fact foundational in construct. You're free to disagree, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be sick of hearing it, but here's an additional two cents: Any practice that helps resolve uncontroversial cases quickly can only be good, right? 5 days on Afd is a typical case, not a requirement. Of course maybe the issue is that what seems uncontroversial to some may not look that way to others. Friday (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a requirement. That's what the deletion policy calls for, and we have specific requirements for early closes. Imagine if we said "Aw, hell, we don't need to follow WP:BLP on this guy." It'd never fly. Otherwise, you're right - uncontroversial cases should be dealt with quickly and painlessly. The problem? Every time I bring it up at speedy keep, I get shot down. This tells me that people largely want the full process. So what's left? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it's a requirement? As you going on the exact wording of some Wikipedia: page as it existed at some particular point in time? At various other times, it's been clear that 5 days is a typical case and is not set in stone. This is the conundrum of "Wikipedia policy"- it's not what's written on the pages- that changes too much. Anyway, rules aside, what would be the point of having it set in stone, anyway? There's nothing magical about 5 days that means you can get the right answer only after that much time. One thing that might be a factor here- you very frequently end up being in the minority of "keep" people on some articles. If you're trying to speedy keep THOSE, of course it'll be shot down. That's as it should be. Friday (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get it from the Deletion process, which is linked as an instructional from the deletion policy. What's the point? The 5 day window is there to give it an objective time length designed to give an article a fair hearing. I noted 10 of them to SM, but only one - Boston, Ontario, was brought to WP:DRV. Why? Other issues that came up. I could be a WP:DICK and bring up all 10 of them - and that may have to be my future path - but this is how we do AfD. If an AfD doesn't meet speedy criteria, it goes 5 days. Done deal. We can't flaunt policy for biographies or for edit warring, we shouldn't flaunt deletion policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still see nothing indicating that 5 days is a requirement. I close stuff earlier than 5 days all the time, and I don't remember getting particular criticism for it. On a controversial once you're less likely to get away with an early close, of course. Friday (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're not reading the process. It's the first part, about how to close the AfDs. If you're closing them early, either they're meeting speedy criteria or I haven't caught them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant "flout", not "flaunt." --Tony Sidaway 20:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. You at least understand what I mean. --Badlydrawnjeff 20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. But you think people "flout policy" when all they're doing is flout some silly little rule or process. --Tony Sidaway 20:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and the fact that you consider them silly simply proves my point. What if someone decided that WP:V or WP:BLP was silly? You wouldn't stand for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all policies are created equal. The core part of the deletion policy is "Crap gets deleted, good stuff gets kept". The actions today weren't violating that policy, merely expediting it. And frankly, Jimbo, I, and many others prefer the expedient fashion of handling WP:V problems ... remove the offending material immediately, don't merely mark it as ((fact)) and then move on. You seem unable to distinguish between the core purposes of the policies and then the little niggling details, like how long some part is supposed to last. That doesn't particularly matter, as long as the correct result is achieved. --Cyde Weys 22:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they were violating it. You're incorrect, again. It all matters. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion process states day pages may be moved to "Old", as a backlog, after five days. It does state that the decision should not be made before that time, but the strict wording there would actually prohibit any speedy keep, or perhaps even speedy delete: it is clearly not accurate. Wikipedia:Deletion policy states that the "lag time" before AfD's are closed is five days. These don't prohibit reasonable closures before five days, and it is not productive to contest a unanimous-keep AfD being closed after 4 days only on a procedural quibble, when you could instead be contesting legitimate bad-deletes or bad-keeps where you actually disagree with the result, or writing an article. —Centrx→talk • 20:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reasonable closures being one in process. I haven't yet been bringing "4 days and 12 hours" closures to DRV yet, but I don't want to have to. DRV is completely broken anyway, so I'm at a loss. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, the rules which matter are WP:V and WP:NPOV - policies. Any interpretation of any process guideline which prolongs acrimony without changing the result is destructive, not constructive. There is a long-standing consensus that verifiable settlements of any size are encyclopaedic, there was no realistic chance of deletion, and your arguing over why the article should be kept is foolish. Save your righteous anger for something that matters, eh? Just zis Guy you know? 21:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, we disagree as to whether it matters. I think this matters plenty - it's about people following basic rules in all areas so there can be a general trust that the right thing can be done. I'm not wrong here, and I'm certainly one to admit when I am. This is not one of those times. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you are wrong jeff. You fundamentally misunderstand how wikipedia works, and has always worked. It has never had 'rules' (except NPOV and V) and never obliged people to studiously follow them. IAR isn't some rogue new concept, it is an integral part of this encyclopedia. You want wikipedia to be something it isn't, hasn't been, and never will be. You are getting all this grief because you are trying to enforce 'rules' that simply don't exist - and disrupting a system that actually works. Our guiding aim is the encyclopedia, and our only solid process is common sense. If you think wikipedia should change as fundamentally as you seem to, then you really need to take it up with Jimbo Wales and see if you can convince him - because otherwise you are on a hiding to nothing. We can all have some impact here and there, and suggest a few improvements and changes, but if you are looking for such fundamental reform you are really dreaming up a different project altogether. Perhaps you need to m:fork? --Doc 22:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very, very glad that the majority of the encyclopedia doesn't work the way you think it actually does. And you have the nerve to tell *me* to quit trolling. --Badlydrawnjeff 22:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we take a step back and see if we can find a part of Wikipedia to which Ignore all rules is not applicable? If "the majority of the encyclopedia" doesn't work that way, it should be easy to find many, many such areas of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for one for months where it is applicable, Tony. I can't think of any, and I certainly can't think of any that would be so egregious that a policy couldn't be crafted to deal with a problem policy doesn't solve. I'll say it again, Tony - why not try and craft policy to work toward how you want things to be? I've told you time and time again that I'd be behind you 110%.--badlydrawnjeff talk 23:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knock it off. --Doc 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trolling, so this warning is without merit. Back off or ocme with something substantive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look,when this all started, I thought you were just a wikipedian with strange ideas. Ideas I didn't agree with, but so what? It's good to have different views. But now you are becoming a one man crusade, stirring up trouble, and trying to provoke people. Go start a debate on your ideas of process at the village pump if you wish. But stop disrupting wikipedia looking for a fight. --Doc 20:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "stirring up trouble" or "trying to provoke people." Your characterization is entirely without merit. You want "trying to provoke people?" How about your use of WP:SNOW in things I'm involved with. The only disruption I'm seeing are early closes, "rolling bomb" awards, and attacks on my motives. I won't tolerate any of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you in principle that AfDs shouldn't be closed early regardless of whether the conclusion is foregone, this should also be tempered with the knowledge that often the right decision is NOT reached by consensus on Wikipedia, and there are a lot of bad thinkers making bad decisions out there. Sometimes even the good thinkers make bad decisions. In other words, just like real life. And just like real life, it does you no good to be in the right if it achieves nothing but pissing off everyone else in town. wikipediatrix 21:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we disagree on tactics, then. I've tried playing nice, I've tried going to the source. I'm running out of options. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Doc, I've seen you post on some talks with comments that rubbed off as uncivil. Take a breather, please. Yanksox 20:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't agree with Doc. The solution isn't to demonize me for doing the right thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to keep a good note w/ everyone, but it just appears you are really trying the community's patience right now. Please, I'm asking you, for your own benefit, to step away from Wikipedia for a little bit and just relax. Yanksox 21:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only people who's patience is tried (with the exception of JzG at this stage) are people who are simply upset that I'ma ctually willing to stand up to them. Just look at the rude comments I get from them, you get the picture. I'm not concerned, and I'm not going to back down. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Wikiholiday can be found many templates to take breathers. I back the suggestion to take a small break. Best regards. SynergeticMaggot 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I see your efforts as being motivated by the best intent. I 100% agree that WP:SNOW is from the pit of Hell and smells like smoke—that is to say, it is a destructive rather than constructive bit of fluff that will often be seen as giving partisan bureaucrats carte blanche to jump the gun on straw polls, etc. To the other editors: BadlyDrawnJeff has always edited in good faith in my experience, and I would suggest seriously considering his objections. Seeing BDJ this vehement is a good indication to me that something is amiss, and I think that the root of the problem is the potential for steamrolling that WP:SNOW creates. DickClarkMises 21:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you might wish to do some more digging. Try 4 talk pages, one project page, a DRV and the numerous AfD's. He may be a good editor (I wont say he's a bad editor in fact), but he was trolling. SynergeticMaggot 21:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could link the above since you are making a rather serious claim. I share DickClark's incredulity and I'm surprised by the swarm circling in on this talk page. -MrFizyx 21:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Badlydrawnjeff - do your own research. And it wasnt my claim to begin with. SynergeticMaggot 21:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're gonna have to forgive me, I'm not good at mind reading I just see a lot of people yelling. I see a lot of respectable editors jumping on another respectable editor. Maybe you could direct me to one or two starting points. -MrFizyx 21:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, surprised by the fact that so many of us want Jeff to calm down before he gets blocked, or by the number who think his arm-waving over an article which has been kept when he wanted it kept is rather perplexing? Just zis Guy you know? 21:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about getting blocked. I'm being muchmore careful than anyone should realistically expect me to be at this stage. There's nothing perplexing about my motives - I want process to be followed. Full stop. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Isn't policy enough? Making proces into policy is instruction creep and is explicitly rejected by long-standing consensus. Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is enough. The problem is the abandonment of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I've told you on a half-dozen other occasions, the problem is your worship of policy. The reality of the situation (WP:SNOW) is evident, but you seem to prefer worshipping the process than achieving the result. Respect for Policy and Process is not diminished by intelligent people and the community ignoring the rules when appropriate. It focuses us on the result, not the process. I don't think you accept that axiom, an axiom at the core of WP - and so at this point I think it is becoming clear that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, to me, the last from SynergeticMaggot is not constructive, not cooperative, and, frankly, is the sort of response I would have expected. SM: If you are really interested in cooperation, how is it that you can take the time to count these alleged departures from civility, but not to link to them so that others can see that your point is substantiated? Why is it so difficult to reference the diffs when taking issue with an editor's actions? That is, unless you are just trying to buffalo him... DickClarkMises 21:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geez. I gave one link that links them all. You want me to hold your hand too? SynergeticMaggot 21:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to stop being rude. That would be an excellent start. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Not a problem. Then you take him through a tour of your trolling. I'll stay out of it. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 21:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. then. I really wasn't being coy. I can't tell where all this got started or what exactly is going on, but the suggestion of a "breather" may be a good one for more than one person involved here. -MrFizyx 22:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it started on Doc's talk page. WP:IAR is long-standing policy. WP:SNOW is its corollary. Doc's entirely right... it's acceptable (even good) to have different opinions, and to try to disucss why the policy exists and how people's ideas on it might be changed. But it's not acceptable to so emphatically single out Doc's actions over something that's long been part of our culture. --Interiot 22:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've outlined (on where it started on MrFizyx's talk page: all BS and POV aside for the sake of clarity in this mess), as this began with me. SynergeticMaggot 22:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. My mistake. I forgot about Doc's talk page. This makes 5 talk pages now. SynergeticMaggot 22:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my WP:SNOW thing goes back long before you even got here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vent

I'm going to just ramble on here for a couple of minutes, so please do bear with me. It might come to a point eventually.

I started editing maybe 17 months ago, something like. In late July I got very cranky with the stretching of facts like silly-putty in discussions, leading to an escalating series of incivilities on both sides over many months. The arbitration commitee eventually reminded all parties to remain civil "even in stressful situations." I took several wiki-holodays, even wrote one or two "get bent Wikipedia, I'm gone" messages on my userpage.

But I eventually found my pace. I'm just as opposed now as I was then to the obfuscation, double-talk, and outright falsehood that takes the place of discourse. Other parties are just as rude, arrogent, and down-right nasty as they ever were. I however have taken the very long view. I'm going to be here as long as this project goes on, in all likelyhood. I have faith that, eventualy, sweet reason wil pour down and we'll get things straight. As long as I don't give myself an anurism first.

Here comes the point.
You've copped a lot of flak over the last couple of days, and a metric bucket-load over the last couple of weeks. Some civil, quite a bit of it not. I sense a growing exasperation as evidenced by the fact that you're getting easier to bait, and I am concerned for your future with the project.

While I often disagree with you, I often agree with you too, and respect your passion and your willingness to provide a dissident voice. I'd hate to see you burn out and fade away. I've got several healthy doses of geological time-scale laying around that I'm happy to share with you. Find your pace, mate. All will be right in the end, even if we simply have to outlive everyone else. --brenneman ^{L} 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you left this. I nearly burned out a month ago, but that's finally getting resolved and I look forward to it. I'm more angry at this point that only one person has even bothered to actually back me on this. I appreciate your attempts at mediation - and I meant it when I said I trust you more than generally anyone else on the wiki - but, at some point, you just sit there and say "why the hell is everyone defending this?" I mean, I understand a couple of them (insert cabal comment here), but I think that's the most infuriating part. The guy was wrong. What's it gonna take.

Either way, I'm not going anywhere. I have a FAC review going, I have projects I'm still working on, and, yes, I'm still gonna work at AfDs. But at some point, the bullshit's gotta stop, y'know. Thanks anyway for the help, I'm glad I can count on you for a neutral, fair hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wot Aaron said. Don't lose it, and as I said before I think you should save your righteous anger for something that really matters. You will never achieve consensus to make process immutably enforceable, and there are more compelling reasons for not having it enforceable than for having it so. WP:IAR goes back a long way and WP:SNOW is only shorthand for "why waste any more time when the result is clear". You can't fail to have noticed that Tony, for example, usually invokes it when keeping content. Just zis Guy you know? 14:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed it, absolutely. It makes it doubly frustrating - it means that the position I want people to take is being forced as opposed to accepted. I don't want to force content. I don't want to force results, because it leaves openings for what are actually misguided challenges later. Fixing the culture. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I admire anyone's effort to fix the culture here, but to me it looks like there are way more important fish to fry. I wouldn't want to see a culture of "always follow an exact procedure without trying to introduce individual judgment"- that might not be what you'd say you're aiming for, but trying to make sure procedures are always followed to the letter is pretty close to that. There is a real problem with the culture of certain admins thinking it's always acceptable to steamroll over those who disagree, but trying to enforce process for process's sake when the answer is already clear is just, well, a time-waster. Friday (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the situation, I'll use a personal example. I went to great lengths to try to codify in speedy keep what we already do in terms of articles such as GNAA or Daniel Brandt, or articles like Girlfriend - they're consistently closed early because we know that there won't be any consensus to delete them given the amount of discussion in the past. It makes sense, but there's absolutely nothing to actually allow for it. So I went to speedy keep, I went to every policy board I could think of, the AfD talk pages, AfDs themselves, and advertised the change I wanted to make. It was uncontroversial, I made the change, I invoked the change, a shitstorm develops, and the consensus at speedy keep was to NOT allow for the closing of repeat offenders that had consensus keeps like this. So what does this tell me? The community does not approve of this sort of thing. They want the AfDs to go 5 days, they want the full hearings. There's a tendency for those of us knee-deep in project spaces and in/close to administrative roles to not realize what's going on with the articles and with how people rely on these processes, and they don't challenge them because of the fear of stadning up to administrative power or simply not knowing about the appeals processes available.

What I want is the same thing that so many people here want - to be able to skip the long stuff when things are blatantly obvious. The problem is that the way to go about it is not to declare it and throw your weight around, and that's what's being done here. I'm simply pushing back on those until we're able to craft our operations with our day to day "what we're already kinda doing." --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've given up on written policy, some time back. The stuff that's written on the pages marked "policy" isn't really the REAL policy. Actual policy is whatever you can do without stirring up a ruckus. I notice this all the time with the criteria for speedy deletion- many of them are fairly ridiculous and wrong. All we really need are admins with decent judgment (and a willingness to seek second opinions when there's disagreement) who delete on the basis of "are we better off with or without this content?" Anyway I dunno if I have much of a point, other than, don't confuse Wikipedia policy with the pages maked "Wikipedia policy"- they're not, and may never be, the same thing. Friday (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's that "not causing a ruckus" part that worries me. I'd love to give up on it, but once you do that, you leave the door open for a lot of poor decisions, and since we can no longer trust DRV to overturn improper deletion decisions, as an example, it leaves folks like me at a loss. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a philosophical difference of opinion, but I don't see that good decisions particularly come from following a rigid process- I think they come from collaboration and transparency. When you've got a sufficient number of reasonable editors looking at a particular siutuation, it will tend toward improvement over time. I've sometimes seen astoundingly bad results on Afd and on Drv, sure- but leaving things there for longer doesn't really help prevent this. I think we should just do what seems sensible, quickly and easily- but then, if there's disagreement, it's probably time for a more thorough discussion. I frequently undelete things without waiting 5 days (or whatever) at DRV for example- do you see that sort of thing as somehow harmful? To me it just seems sensible- the amount of effort required to UNDO something should not be disproportionate to the amount of effort it took to DO the thing in the first place. Friday (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think what Jeff is trying to do would fix anything, actually. Tony looks first at the content and its encyclopaedic value, and only second at guidelines. Making guidelines more enforceable is going to make it harder to apply common sense in the face of mindless opposition. If Jeff wants to fix the culture then he has my support, but the place where culture is broken is places like AfD where the sheer volume of junk articles submitted makes people terse and dismissive. WP:PROD was looking to fix that but has not, in that the fans of garage bands are always going to challenge deletion. Fundamentally in my view there is no way to convert more than a small minority of garage band fans into good Wikipedians committed to making an encyclopaedia (as opposed to promoting their garage band). Their hobby is the band, not Wikipedia. I have an idea, which I can't really commit to right now (I'm moving house on Friday and will lose connectivity for a while) to gather a small group of committed individuals like Tony, Jeff, some of the other familiar faces, and really focus on AfD for a couple of days. Fix uncivil nominations, refactor excessively brusque comments, leave talk messages for those who make such comments. And yes I freely admit that I am among the worst offenders at times, so that means me as well. It would require that we do not take a part in those debates (advocating neither keep nor delete) but simply that we rigorously police WP:CIVIL and WP:DP for a couple of days and see if it makes any difference. Maybe it's a futile idea, maybe not. Just zis Guy you know? 16:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd gladly put aside any issues I have with the various things in those areas to give that a shot. Let me know when you've got the time to put it together, and I'll help any way I can, seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When five or six or more people have the same problem with your behaviour, perhaps you ought to take a look in the mirror. Just adding my opinion, everyone else is right in trying to talk some moderation into you; you are wrong for being stubborn. —Hanuman Das 01:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'll admit I'm wrong when I am wrong. I'm not wrong here, and I don't know who you are or where you came from on this, but you're obviously only getting one side of the issue here. I strongly implore you to do a little research on your own before coming here and getting yourself involved with this, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easy to do a little research with the conversation jumping to and fro. Does this mostly cover it?

--Interiot 01:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a horrible recent timeline. I've been protesting Doc's use of it prior to his wikibreak, Tony Sidaway numerous times, I'm sure you can find dozens of DRVs concerning it in my contribs, at least one with Cyde. It really only got nasty when SM took offense to my trying to correct his errors, and then the usual suspects came rushing in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a few more links added above. --Interiot 04:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ED stuff really has little to do with any of the overbearing issues her. That was an entirely different situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What explicitly is this timeline meant to demonstrate? - brenneman ^{L} 14:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm chipping in as a mediator. IF you agree with me working on the case, please drop a note stating so on my talk page. -- Drini 05:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I just want you to know that I don't agree with some of the rather nasty things that are being said on this talk page. We have a disagreement about an issue but I don't think you're trolling on this.

I think that the problem that most editors who complain here have with your behavior on the Boston, Ontario issue is that you are doing something that could almost be the typical example for our essay on wikilawyering, particularly "Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express."

Certainly if you genuinely think that there is a chance that the closing of a deletion process will be reversed on discussion, you should always feel free to revert an invocation of the Wikipedia:snowball clause. Nobody disputes that. It's when you say things like "my hand has been tipped, the camel's back has been broken" [6] and "If I have to do a one-man crusade to protect it, so be it" [7], and use that to justify repeated legalistic challenges to quite reasonable actions with which you disagree, it's then that you appear to be telling us that you're beyond the reach of reason and are determined to follow a policy of obstructionism. It's then that you appear to be announcing your wish to cause disruption in order to change the way things are done on Wikipedia. This is, I think, why so many people have complained. --Tony Sidaway 12:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand people's frustration with my tactics at this point. I'm totally understanding of it, and I mean it. The problems aren't simple anymore, that's all. It's a culture thing, and edit warring over snowball closes, to use your example, is going to do a lot more damage short and long term than the original action does, and pointing out the issues in a reasonable manner on the talk page as opposed to challenging every single close at DRV (which I would be well within my rights to do) makes more sense. What do I get from it? Hostility, and the same old characters ganging up on me because I dare challenge the incorrect conventional wisdom. Imagine how mcuh of this could have been avoided if, for instance, SM said "yeah, you know what, I did close these wrong, I see what you're saying." Or, instead of people accusing me of trolling, correcting the root cause. I'm glad you're being reasonable about this with me right now, but if you don't mind my using you as an example, why don't you simply try to make what you're doing legitimate and head off the issues? I'm not sure what else I can do, but giving up on it isn't an option for me.

I'm open to reason - anyone who's not just aware of my conflicts regarding this specific issue knows this. But reason is a two way street, is it not? What else am I supposed to do when people go out of their way to not support what's an entirely logical and substantive issue here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't get many people to agree with you, maybe you could consider that your argument isn't very persuasive. A one-man campaign on Wikipedia won't get you anywhere will it? --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that I tend to take on issues that have wide support amongst a small, but vocally significant, group of editors, many of which tend to be admins. People don't like to be challenged as a human, instinctual thing. It's why it's more of a change of culture than a hearts and minds issue - the problem isn't so much what I'm advocating much of the time, but rather who is advocating against it. You're certainly right on the surface, I've abandoned more than a few different policy and guideline changes based on that. But true, reasoned consensus and vocal shout-downs aren't always similar. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, you're doing it again (harassing SynergeticMaggot). I'll be noting everytime you do it on your talk page, because it's the Right Thing to Do (TM). Have a nice day! —Hanuman Das 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not harassment to point out a bad close. I have no clue what dog you have in this fight, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you will find this amusing. We can all use a laugh now and then. Friday (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, that's a cute one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, I just wanted to let you know that I've been following this discussion and I feel you are being unfairly ganged up on. Your comment on Maggot's talk page that he not speedily close the Boston, Ontario AfD was a civil and reasonable request, as another admin has noted. FOR SM to reply that you "Try rereading Speedy Keep" must have been very irritating. For him to then quote the policy guideline to you, proving he was incorrect, was inexplicable. Also, I automatically have no love for people who say things like "I'm very capable of closing by myself, without any comments as to how it can or cannot be closed." Finally, I see nothing you have done being anywhere close to "harrassment". Discussion is paramount, and to try to close honest discussions with "Stop harassing SynergeticMaggot" is deplorable.

I'm not trying to get into the debate over how, whether, and when AfD's should be speedily closed (not in this post anyway). I'm just saying that the way you have been treated is completely anti-thetical to all of the civility policies of Wikipedia. Editors, and especially admins, do need to explain their actions, and they are required to respond civilly to people who take issue with them. I feel that Samir acted in the exactly correct way an admin should, while Synergetic Maggot acted in the worst possible way. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. People are getting altogether too worked up over what actually amounts to pretty much nothing. Just zis Guy you know? 21:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, in any case. Hopefully, it's over. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, and sorry for my mistake. Could you please select the best link from the dab page 3D that the link should go for that page. -- Jeff3000 03:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I know we've had our disagreements, but THAT is not a criteria for speedy keep. SynergeticMaggot 17:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, actually, that borderline fits under criterion #1. I wouldn't have seen it until tomorrow, but since it wasn't nonsense, the nominator had expressed no actual recommendation to delete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I was so amused with bringing this to your attention that I didnt read the damn thing. I seen deletion and figured it was a delete "vote". But just to let you know, thats one even I wouldnt have closed :) SynergeticMaggot 17:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go figure, right? As for your second comment, I'll accept little blessings when they come around. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for rv the vandalism Merhawie 18:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! In the future, take a look at the tabs at the top. If it says "edit this page," chances are that there's more to what's there, and it's worth clicking on "history" to look back a bit. Good luck. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is closed and the result has been published at the link above. 8bitjake is banned from editing articles about poltical figures from Washington State, and he is placed on Probation. These remedies also apply to Bazzajf and 62.77.181.16.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, did my last reply at Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_keep#exception_to_the_exception make sense? I'm still not sure who's arguing for what and why here, but didn't want discussion to die off entirely, unless I'm the one who's wrong... -- nae'blis 20:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think to even ask for that when I composed my own. Thank you, I didn't realize that was possible. rootology (T) 06:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind expanding that to MONGO RfC 2? Or should I? Not sure how a lot of this works still for arbcom. rootology (T) 06:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have done as you asked for the main and talk pages of ED and Mongo's second RfC. All of these are protected deleted, but their histories are available. It goes without saying that no reposting outside of ArbCom proceedings should be made. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff. Sorry, you were wrong about their site being a reliable source for information about tours etc. Subjects' own sites are generally considered reliable for information about the source, but this applies mainly to trivial biographical data and corporate data. Claims to fame on websites should not be taken at face value. Examples were cited in the AfD where spurious claims have been made, but actually it's more obvious than that: the reliability will vary according to how much incentive there is to make inflated claims, and how likely it is that such claims will be challenged. So although we can say form their website that the band claims to have done X, we cannot say without corroboration that the band has done X. I thikn that really you know this. Just zis Guy you know? 17:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree, especially when it comes to band websites. I quoted the applicable policy/guideline on it, and I still think I was right. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A band website is no more reliable than a blog. It's OK as it goes, but before we can rely on the information for anything substantive it needs to be corroborated. It's a primary source. Just zis Guy you know? 19:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one's looking for it to be substantive, but it's perfectly okay when you're talking about notability, which is expressly allowed. Along the same vein I'm also disappointed in your comments at the Axe Murder Boyz DRV for similar reasons, even though there's room for an AfD there, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: in respect of whether the article should be kept or not, the band's own website is not reliable. Who's going to provide evidence of their own anonymity on their website? Resume padding is far too easy. Just zis Guy you know? 16:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's worked with a couple bands regarding website stuff, lying about their press or their appearances are not somehting they do for various reasons that I hadn't even thought of until it was explained. Let's just say I've heard stories of bands that can't play in some towns now because they lied about prior bookings and got blacklisted. It doesn't happen to a degree that we should worry about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for three hours. Close the computer. Go outside. Play frisbee. Eat an ice cream cone. When you return, I hope your mood is better, and I hope you are better able to avoid personal attacks, insults, insinuations, and incivility.

Regards, Nandesuka 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toning it down is a good idea, but I'm not sure blocking was helpful. Sure, it's only 3 hours, but still. Were there actual personal attacks or just a difference of opinion? Friday (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I did none of those things, I believe you're acting out of line, and it seems like I'm not the only one - 4 others plus possibly Friday feel the same way. I disagree with you - not a reason to block. I'm going to lunch for a half hour anyway, I'd hope you'll reconsider this action. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I saw was a pattern of increasingly more frantic responses to every comment on that page, by Jeff, increasingly strident and directed at editors (Cyde, obviously, but more disturbingly SCZenz and Drini), capped off with "I question your ability to administer with this in mind." Civil arguments are addressed to topics, not ad hominem. I see no reason to believe that pattern wouldn't continue and worsen. Hence, he gets a refreshing break. Nandesuka 16:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabor the point, but there's a big difference between a personal attack ("You're a poopie head!") and criticism of behavior. Comments about the competance of an admin are relevant to the project. We should always take care to distinguish between criticism and an attack. Friday (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabor the point right back, but Jeff wasn't criticizing Drini and SCZEnz for their behavior, but for their beliefs. In my opinion, in context, that was incivil. I accept that others disagree. Nandesuka 17:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frantic, I'll accept - I was trying to avoid constant edit conflicts. But then again, if saying I'm losing faith in an administrator's ability to do their job properly is blockable, then there's a lot of ArbComm situations that'll have some major implications if that's the standard. Regardless, I'm unblocked, so it's a done deal. I'm approachable, if you have a problem with me in the future, come to me first, seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary, of course. I did nothing wrong, and I'm fully capable of debating the issues. As I was not incivil, not attacking anyone, it's beyond absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been unblocked. Drini beat me to it. --Doc 16:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! Wheel war!!!! Err, nevermind. Doc and Drini did the same stuff I was trying to do. Friday (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you, and to everyone else involved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Props to you for taking an unjustified block very civilly. I happen to disagree with you but respect the way you say things. ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echo what Lar said. A block can be stressful and many people have completely gone off the deep end about them. Friday (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. It happens, and it worked out. I'd much rather dwell on out of process deletions than a fixed block at this point. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little late on scene here, but nice reaction to that block. It showed a lot of class. alphaChimp ^laudare 18:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block wasn't good. But seriously, pick your battles. If you need to be a warrior, go looking for deleted stuff that we'd have been better keeping - that would be helpful, and you might be able to show up problems with process ignoring better if you can point to places where it actually causes the wrong result. Just a though. --Doc 18:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're saying, but this combined with the CVU speedy that's at DRV made it pretty clear it needed - and perhaps still needs - to be discussed. I've said it before, there's a lot I could be bitching about, and I don't. I'm not going for total war, and hopefully I'll never have to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]