Anthere wrote: There are a few things I want to point out here: Danny did not make this decision in a vacuum. There were a series of emails over the course of six months leading up to this; there was also an IRC discussion lasting at least half an hour in which Danny discussed the details of those emails. It basically came down to: - People complaining that their linkspam was being reverted - The company complaining that their carefully crafted advertisement was being damaged during the course of regular editing and demanding complete editorial control of the page because it was causing "customer confusion" Now, in case you missed it the first time: THE COMPANY WERE COMPLAINING THAT THEIR *ADVERTISEMENT* WAS BEING EDITED. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Note the word ADVERTISEMENT. In case you missed it again: AD-VER-TISE-MENT. Spam. Deletable under the new speedy deletion criteria for spam which Brad had made not long earlier. Was the declaration of what became CSD G11 an OFFICE action? Perhaps. Had the use of it prior to this point been claimed to be an OFFICE action? Not that I'm aware of. Did Danny use his OFFICE account ([[User:Dannyisme]])? No, he used his "I am an average Wikipedian" account. Was anyone desysopped for restoring the page? No. Did Danny act unilaterally in deleting this? No, he had the support of several people who were discussing this with him at the time. Was it an OFFICE action? No. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On 10/10/06, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote: Surely this is just another symptom of the fact that the "majority view" or consensus of the community can sometimes be wrong? Nevermind the fact that it is only a handful of editors (relative to the whole editing community) who are party to any given issue. OK - perhaps you disagree in this instance - but can you really not imagine a similar situation where one or two people are in the right, and most people involved are flat out wrong? I am firmly of the belief that there are fundemental flaws with Wikipedia's modus operandi. The whole "consensus approach" to things like AFD are entirely capable of producing undesirable results. They'll continue to do so too. We will continue to have rubbish of all varieties kept, and ill-written, obscure, disliked, inaccurate (not necessarily incorrect) and unfortunate content deleted. And that's just the stuff that reaches AFD! Sorry for being harsh - but I'd really like to see some attempt to deal with these fundamental problems that Wikipedia has! Zoney -- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

On 10/10/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think the basic job requrement is "must have been rocketed from Krypton as an infant; please bring proof of space capsule." - d.