Posted simultaneously at WT:RFA
I just saw the current message above the backlog tag at CAT:CSD. It reads:
<!-- Remove the comments around the line below this message (Adminbacklog)
to add a backlog tag. To remove the backlog tag, put comments tags around
it. Usually, the tag is added if there are 100 or more articles (or 200
articles & images combined) in this category. -->
When did it become acceptable to have 100 articles or 200 total things in
CAT:CSD? Since we now have backlogs more often, that means we should raise
the criteria for what is actually a backlog? Is this why we're unnecessarily
raising our standards on RfA, because if we don't have as many "backlogs,"
but still have just as many pages waiting to be processed, then we don't
need as many admins? This is appalling. We might as well stop promoting
admins and just delete the backlog tag, then we wouldn't have any "backlogs"
and nobody would have to do anything! Wouldn't that be nice? Ugh. This is
just silly. We need to stop dicking around and start actually being
productive. We're here to run an encyclopaedia, not pretend we're doing so
and accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Phil Sandifer wrote
> The problem here is that we have two reliabilities in play.
<snip>
> The second is using reliability as the latest code for notability, In
> this case, a standard for notability that is flagrantly different
> from the practical standard used in articles is used as a cover for
> deleting articles, often being used to ignore the numeric consensus
> on AfDs because [[WP:RS]] is cited in [[WP:V]], essentially giving it
> a pseudo-policy status, despite its deep flaws.
Deciding notability on the basis of verifiability is very far from a panacea. I wish people understood that it is faute de mieux, holding a newspaper over your head in a cloudburst in the absence of an umbrella.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
What's the purpose of letting non-autoconfirmed accounts edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy?
(other than causing work for others to revert the 97% crap and making
noise on watchlists)
Why can't we simply semi-protect that? (Or do we need yet another policy
for doing so?)
Or is this a wiki-religious thing?
Puzzled,
--Ligulem
See [[WT:BLP]]. I've been changing "negative" to "controversial",
since controversy is the problem as I see it, and using the word
"negative" is blatantly throwing NPOV out the window.
Our pop culture articles are a wasteland of fan-maintained hagiography
anyway. Do we need to throw NPOV out for those? See e.g.
http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2006/05/what-bears-do-on-lawn.html
There's also a fair bit of Jimbomancy going on, which doesn't help.
- d.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienoSitter
Step 1: Naconkantari blocks the user indefinitely, claiming it is a
"vandalism only" account.
A quick look through the user's contributions shows that this is absolutely
not the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ScienoSitter
Step 2: The user requests an unblock. Naconkantari responds by HIMSELF
removing the unblock template.
Step 3: The user requests an unblock. A user who the user was involved in a
content dispute with (by the username of OmicronPersei8) REMOVES THE UNBLOCK
REQUEST.
Step 4: The users requests an unblock. Naconkantari AGAIN removes the
unblock template himself.
Step 5: An admin by the name of "Mr. Lefty" locks the user's talk page for
"template abuse". Note that up to this point, all the user has done is put
back a template wrongfully removed by (a) the blocking admin who was also
involved in the dispute and (b) a non-admin user who not only was ALSO
involved in the dispute, but has no right to remove the template.
Result? Naconkantari's abuse of power successfully hidden, user completely
deprived of their right to a fair and impartial look at the circumstances of
Naconkantari's abusive indefinite block.
This isn't the first time Naconkantari's acted like this, either. User
Xvidme is blocked as a "sockpuppet of NoLongerScieno" even though
NoLongerScieno's block is "indefinite" because Naconkantari thinks it
violates the username standards.
Isn't it great how admins get away with this all the time? You wonder why
people think there's a cabal? THIS KIND OF SHIT IS WHY.
"David Mestel" wrote
> Well, our deletion policies also cover AfD. I think that the first
> thing we should do is extend CSD A7 to explicitly cover corporations.
I was implying that there has always been the implied discretion for admins to shoot on sight certain types of pages. If you want this in wonkish, those tagging for speedies should stay within the guidelines, but other things can be deleted by sure-footed admins.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote
>>I'm not understanding this point -- why then do we have articles on
>>things such as [[Pipe organ]] or even people such as [[Donald Knuth]]
>>-- both of these can be easily looked up online, and they take up some
>>much more disk space than [[Fleshlight]]
>
>I think the answer to this question is to check the availability of
>recorded media celebrating skilled operators of the pipe organ versus
>the fleshlight. Organists are notable, wankers are not.
That is an amusing quote, but I don't think it proves anything. If wankers
are not notable, then perhaps we should delete [[sex toys]] and how about
deleting [[Masturbation]] while we are at it?
Speedy deleting this was not the best way to handle the situation. If it
was not an office action then it should have gone to AfD.
Likewise, I urge Danny to be more forthcoming about whether something is or
is not an office action. WP:Office is far too serious a policy to leave
editors guessing about whether it applies or not.
- Johntex
I just happened to get the muse for a topical song... enjoy! (NOTE:
This is my original work, and I hereby release it under GFDL in case
anybody wants to make some sort of use of it.)
(To the tune of the [[Major-General's Song]])
I am the very model of a modern Wikipedian,
My knowledge of things trivial is way above the median,
I know, and care, what Kelly Clarkson's next CD might just be called,
And all the insults Hilary and Lindsay to each other bawled.
I'm very well acquainted, too, with memes upon the Internet,
I think the dancing hamster would be excellent as a pet.
About the crackpots' physics I am teeming with a lot o' news,
The Time Cube has but four sides and it's not got a hypotenuse.
I'm very good at grammar, and I spell all words right to a "T",
Even when they're done all weirdly from the far side of the sea.
In short, in matters big and small, minute or sesquipedelian,
I am the very model of a modern Wikipedian.
I know how to "Ignore All Rules", except when I'm enforcing 'em,
I know which version's wrong to be protected by those bossing 'em.
I show respect for all admins, except the ones who have gone "rouge",
But I still wish they'd let us keep the U.K. girl whose face has
spooge.
Jimbo is our own God-King; the things he says are always right,
But I still think that Brian Peppers should be listed in our site.
I'm good at edit-warring, and I stay within the 3RR,
I know just how to make you show just what a troll you really are,
In short, in matters big and small, minute or sesquipedelian,
I am the very model of a modern Wikipedian.
In fact, when I know why the elephant count changes really fast,
Why anarchists are socialists... or not, based on whose edit's last,
Is Oscar Gutierrez 5'2", 5'3", 5'5", or maybe 5'4"?
I need to know so I can win that very lamest edit war!
But when I know at least as much on conflicts Peloponnesian,
as I do about characters in Galactica's latest season,
When I finally learn something that matters in academia
You'll say a better Wikipedian has never came by here.
For my formal education, though I'm certainly no fool,
Has not yet been advanced anywhere further than high school;
But still, in matters big and small, minute or sesquipedelian,
I am the very model of a modern Wikipedian.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Hi,
I'm a blocked user (but I'm not here to discuss that)
and I've been accused of something (else) that I
didn't do so I'm here to clear the air:
Please direct your attention to
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyde&diff=79893307&oldi…
Specifically, this comment:
":::Your cryptic "cough, Nathan, cough" is, I take it,
a reference to e-mails I supposedly sent to
Nathandotcom. That was a banned user using my
e-mail address, and he did the same to several other
admins. The abuse was reported to his university who
managed to identify him and it has stopped.
Like Cyde, you need to learn all the facts before
commenting on issues. [snip]
[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font
color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup>
18:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)"
Quite honestly, I'm sick of being accused of things I
didn't do by arrogant admins who think they're right.
Let me clear the air with the following points:
1) While I may have something against those involved
in the situation that led to my blocking, I have
absolutely nothing against any other admin of
Wikipedia, save for Cyde (who was both involved and
has done more than his fair share of attacking me in
the past and present). Therefore I have no logical
reason to harass any admin on Wikipedia. The reasoning
of "Nathan is a blocked user therefore he harbours
negative feelings toward Wikipedia and would take them
out on admins" is faulty logic.
2) I do not attend college or university nor have I
ever in the past. When my userpage was visible, I
clearly mentioned who my employer was. I'm the
Director of Technical Services of xytra.net (Services
Internet Xytra SENC of Gatineau, Quebec - this can be
verified by e-mailing nathan(a)xytra.net or by asking
info(a)xytra.net or support(a)xytra.net). Therefore these
accusations that I have harassed any admin of
Wikipedia are purely false. As I have said over and
over, if someone's going to accuse me of something, at
least provide proof. Proof wasn't given and it makes
SlimVirgin out to be just ranting about nothing
(apologies if this can be read as a personal attack).
The last time I used university/college facilities to
browse the Internet was in 2001-2002 when my
ex-girlfriend (then-girlfriend) was attending
university. Before that, somewhere in 1999-2000 when I
was living in Toronto.
3) I have been using the Internet since 1995 and
therefore consider my knowledge of the way things
work[tm] to be above average. Anyone can forge e-mail
headers and claim to be anyone else just like anyone
can do the above and attribute it to someone else.
Just because "it looks like Nathan did it" doesn't
make it true. Also "it's true because I say it is"
also doesn't make it true.
I resent the implication that I would go around
attacking other admins without provocation and I want
it said for the record that I haven't been involved in
such activities.
Further, I would like all questions regarding any
suspicious activities I'm suspected of being involved
in brought to me directly so that I may confirm or
deny them myself.
If ANYONE has any questions about this e-mail, please
feel free to e-mail me and I will address them.
Thanks,
Nathan (User:Nathanrdotcom)
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada