So what's the fuss? I would personally find [[List of heterosexuals]]
to be as completely useless as [[List of right-handed people]], but I do
understand that some people view that differently. I really don't care
if that page is deleted or not. If Adam's vote and comments had simply
been allowed to stay that would have been the end of the matter. Since
he was still banned during the stated voting period he could not make
his comments then. The deletion of his comments was the provocative
act. In that light his reaction is perfectly understandable. Would the
result have been any different if he had posted to the
The alleged rules strike me as an attempt to impose a tyranny of the
majority. Perhaps it is a place where the rule "Ignore all rules"
should apply, since their appear to be some Wikipedians that would apply
this set rigidly.
In the meantime please stop developing excuses to make Adam a scapegoat.
james duffy wrote:
I'm afraid Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]
is acting the ass again in exactly the same
way as he did before. He new stunt was to try to edit the [[Talk:List
of heterosexuals/delete (final archive)]] page.
For people who may not know, to preserve long debates that used to be
moved to talk pages from the VfD but which then ended up deleted if
the article and talk page were both deleted, and to avoid the problem
of inconclusive delete debates on talk pages, where the debate got
sidetracked as debates on deletion and on the article blurred
together, a recent innovation is now being used by increasing numbers.
A special /delete page is created and attached to the talk page. A set
of rules are followed:
1. /All/ the delete debate is focused there, not on the talk page.
2. A strict timetable is followed. The article is created on 'x'. A
decision is taken on 'x + 7' meaning that debates no longer meander on
for ever but are decided at the end of a week.
3. The /delete page is kept, even if the article and talk page isn't,
and preserved on a page linked to the VfD page, meaning that we will
now have a back archive of these debates for people researching the
history of wiki to review.
4. Once the page being debated is deleted, the debate ends, the page
ceases to be 'live' and becomes a record of the debate that decided
Everyone has been following this. All debates have ended when a
decision was taken. But Adam, in one of his tantrum-throwing spoiled
child moods, decided as so often in the past that he wants to be above
the rules. The vote on that page ran from 31 August to 8 September.
70%+ voted to delete the article. It was deleted, then the /delete
page closed, archived and linked to the [[Archived delete debates]] on
the VfD page. Adam however doctored the archive page to add in his
vote and comments, weeks after the page was closed. I reverted back
the archive version that has been sitting there untouched for weeks.
Adam again doctored the page. Ed Poor protected it but inadvertently
preserved the wrong version. I corrected to the archive version that
everyone had originally signed off on and left the protection.
Adam is now going ballistic, throwing accusations of censorship and
bizarrely demanding the right to vote in a vote that finished on 8th
September as to whether to delete a page that was deleted on the 8th
of September. It is so bizarre it is like an episode of Fawlty Towers.
He is alone complaining on the [[Problem Users]] page, where no-one
has supported him and he has been attacked for his behaviour by RickK,
Angela, and Cyan. (I also commented.)
However, all past experience of Adam is that he starts off like that
and keeps at it, childishly setting off edit wars the way some
children set off fire alarms. We all expected that /this/ time he
would stop acting the ass and grow up. It doesn't say much for the
future when within days of returning he is acting /exactly/ as he did
as Lir, as Vera, as Susan Mason, as Dietary Fiber, as Pizza Puzzle, etc.
This behaviour has got to be nipped in the bud immediately or we are
going to have weeks if not months of it, as he plays his little games.
I was one of the first to say Adam should be allowed back, but that
was only if he behaved himself.
IMHO Jimbo, he needs to be told clearly, unambiguously and explicitly
- STOP THIS NOW. Any more antics like that, any more returning to the
spoiled child antics and you will be banned immediately, permanently
and for life. No more warnings. You are back because people, even
after all they put up with before, agreed to give you /one/ more
chance. But even the slightest whiff of your old foot-stomping 'I want
my way' screwing around with articles and you are gone for good.
That /has/ to explicitly spelt out to him now, not one week or one
month later when he has done it 5, 10 or 20 times elsewhere. Wiki
doesn't need to have to put up with Adam acting the ass again if that
is his game plan. And his behaviour on this one article tonight
suggests that he has every intention of acting as before and thinking
he can get away with it. He needs to know, bluntly and directly, that
he cannot, ever again.
And for the record, I don't want Adam banned. But he has to stop
acting like a spoiled 9 year old throwing tantrums and seeing how many
fights he can start. Adam has shown for long enough that 'softly
softly' doesn't work with him. The rules have to spelt out to him
unambiguously and forceably.