Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LGagnon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] LGagnon
final (14/8/3) ending 22:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
LGagnon has been a participant in the project since November 2003 and has made over 5000 edits. He contributes chiefly to popular culture articles, and does so with a degree of care and attention to detail rarely seen in this subject area. He has also shown his commitment to Wikimedia through his work at Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikisource, and Wiktionary. I offer this nomination with his permission.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I accept this nomination. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 03:59, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Support
- The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Lst27 (talk) 23:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think the talk page should have been blanked, but since it was off-topic, it wasn't wildly inappropriate or anything. Tuf-Kat 13:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Having browsed LGagnon's edits, particularly appearances on talk pages, I cautiously support this candidacy. I'm eager to give him access to the roll back feature, but not quite convinced with regard to his maturity. A pity that the opposition below seems pretty numerous. (Yes, I disagree with the opponents.) /Tuomas 14:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm supporting for a number of reasons: a) It appears to be an isolated incident (one contentious edit in a history of 5000 is still very good), b) it's probably within the letter of the law, and c) I think that this conversation is enough to make him aware that following convention is sometimes as important as what is explicitly written in the rules. Other than this one minor issue, what is left is a very good contributor. Shane King 06:41, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. User:LGagnon was correct to attempt to refocus the discussion on talk:Stephen King. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, is that what he did? Have you looked over Talk:Stephen King lately? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 18:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Deleting the discussion may be a little improper, but certain users are blowing it way out of proportion. Rhobite 01:53, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Rhobite, ShaneKing and Tuf-Kat. It seems that some (not all, however) of the objectors here have been blowing this way out of proportion in order to pursue an ideological dispute with this user. Ambi 02:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen ( talk)]] 09:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. - RedWordSmith 22:08, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
- [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 05:26, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
- I think he'd make a good sysop. The Steven King case isn't something I'd care to weigh in on at this point. --Improv 06:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- User has 5000 edits and removed conversation of questionable relevance in one of these. -[[User:MikeX|MikeX (Talk)]] 08:53, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support --fvw* 11:27, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose strongly. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Blankedremoved an article related discussion on Talk:Stephen King. Not a good sign. [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 23:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)- Sam Spade, you were chatting about lesbians when you should have been using the talk page for something more productive. I removed your chat because it was useless and goes against the point of the Talk pages, which is to help improve the article. Needless to say, your love for lesbians and interest in finding photos of King's daughter do not help improve the article (at least not in your application of them). -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 03:59, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Firstly, I was investigating a interesting detail of Kings family life, one which ought be mentioned. When I expressed enthusiasm about my investigations paying off, another user questioned my enthusiasm. I tried to explain to him that this was useful info, and why I as a reader was interested in it. I also suggested that a photo would be nice... for the article! At this point it almost sounds like you think I was making perverse comments and attempting to solicit indecent photographs for personal usage or something! The fact that Kings daughter is a lesbian is likely to interest readers, and a photo of her and her "signifigant other" would be a tasteful addition. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Just because he went off-topic doesn't mean you should join in. And your response said nothing about doing it for the article; you were simply talking about your opinion on lesbians and a want for photos (you said that you want photos, not that the article should have them). -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 21:48, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Firstly, I was investigating a interesting detail of Kings family life, one which ought be mentioned. When I expressed enthusiasm about my investigations paying off, another user questioned my enthusiasm. I tried to explain to him that this was useful info, and why I as a reader was interested in it. I also suggested that a photo would be nice... for the article! At this point it almost sounds like you think I was making perverse comments and attempting to solicit indecent photographs for personal usage or something! The fact that Kings daughter is a lesbian is likely to interest readers, and a photo of her and her "signifigant other" would be a tasteful addition. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Sam Spade, you were chatting about lesbians when you should have been using the talk page for something more productive. I removed your chat because it was useless and goes against the point of the Talk pages, which is to help improve the article. Needless to say, your love for lesbians and interest in finding photos of King's daughter do not help improve the article (at least not in your application of them). -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 03:59, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- He didn't blank any pages, but he removed discussion. Bad idea. Andre (talk) 03:48, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry about the "blanking" suggestion, I didn't mean to exagerate. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, there was a reason to do so. Talk pages should not be censored when worthy discussion is being done, but when they are used for purposes other than what they exist for then there may be a need to remove such discussion. This was one such case in my opinion. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 05:52, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose. Two reasons. 1. I plan to use my admin status to block users is not promising. I wouldn't vote for anyone who saw this as the primary goal of adminship. 2. I firmly believe consensus is built on talk, not reversion and forcing your POV. I am not so much worried by his blanking the talk page as his general attitude that he will decide for himself when people need "censoring". Contrition and a repeated commitment to consensus would have been far more persuasive than being adamant that censorship is a valuable tool for an editor. I've changed my vote to reflect the further discussion with LGagnon.Dr Zen 07:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I said that I would block users if needs be; this is standard practice for continuous vandals (which is what I was referring to). Also, I did not say that I would nessarily block them permanently. And I didn't say it was my primary goal; I simply said that I wanted to help deal with the vandalism situations that often appear on Wikipedia.
Secondly, I did not advocate censorship, nor would I in the future. I do not appreciate the fact that you are trying to put words in my mouth by claiming that I consider such to be a valuable tool for an editor; I have never said any such thing. When I removed his comments, I was advocating on-topicness. His comments on the talk page did not appear to be on-topic, so I removed them. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 21:48, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)- Appear is the key word here. You should not be making snap decisions to delete non-vandalism edits to talk pages. Rather you ought to join in and build consensus. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I said that I would block users if needs be; this is standard practice for continuous vandals (which is what I was referring to). Also, I did not say that I would nessarily block them permanently. And I didn't say it was my primary goal; I simply said that I wanted to help deal with the vandalism situations that often appear on Wikipedia.
- Oppose—as I understand it, convention is that we leave talk pages alone unless they are our user talk pages; obviously, in this case, the talk page in question was not LGagnon's user talk page. ugen64 05:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- But the comments were off-topic. As a rule, comments aren't supposed to be so, so thus I removed them. As far as I know, there isn't any standard way to deal with off-topicness, but I assumed that removing the comments was appropriate. If this is such a big problem, then it should be better explained in one of the editing tutorials. And honestly, I don't see why this is being treated as such a big deal; I wasn't committing vandalism, I was just trying to uphold the rules. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 17:55, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- In your opinion they were off topic. In my opinion, they were on topic. You have no place deleting non-vandalism edits from talk pages. Besides, your whole argument is a red herring, since they were on topic. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 22:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You are supposed to talk about the article, not the subject of the article. This is explicitly stated in Wikipedia:talk pages. You were doing the latter, which is off-topic. It's not opinion, it's fact. And if off-topicness is against the rules but not vandalism, then what is to be done? There is no rule in place for handling off-topicness as far as I know, so I have not broken any rules by deleting it. And a red herring is supposed to distract from something, so please explain what you are trying to saying I'm distracting from, because otherwise you just appear to be misusing the term. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 23:53, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- It is a red herring because what I wrote was on topic, and this debate about if it was or not is irrelevant, because even if it was clearly off topic, it would still have been wrong to delete my non-vandalism addition to a talk page. Are you suggesting it was vandalism? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I never said you vandalized the page. I simply said that we have rules for dealing with vandalism but we don't have rules for dealing with off-topicness. Given that, I decided that it wouldn't be too harmful to be bold about it and create a solution; after all, if there was some obscure rule that said "don't delete off-topic comments", my change could simply be reverted. Unfortunately, nobody has created a rule for dealing with this, so why am I being chastised for doing the best I can without its existence? And as someone else has mentioned on this page, even if it is not vandalism, it is still clearly adolescent panting that should be cleaned up. You make no comment in regards to using your comment for the betterment of the article; you were on topic at the start of the conversation, but when you made your "Lesbians make me happy" comment you were clearly off-topic. If anyone else wants to, they can go to Talk:Stephen King and check your "Lesbians make me happy" comment for themselves. I'd be happy to hear other editors' comments on it and discuss it there. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 18:57, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
- It is a red herring because what I wrote was on topic, and this debate about if it was or not is irrelevant, because even if it was clearly off topic, it would still have been wrong to delete my non-vandalism addition to a talk page. Are you suggesting it was vandalism? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You are supposed to talk about the article, not the subject of the article. This is explicitly stated in Wikipedia:talk pages. You were doing the latter, which is off-topic. It's not opinion, it's fact. And if off-topicness is against the rules but not vandalism, then what is to be done? There is no rule in place for handling off-topicness as far as I know, so I have not broken any rules by deleting it. And a red herring is supposed to distract from something, so please explain what you are trying to saying I'm distracting from, because otherwise you just appear to be misusing the term. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 23:53, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- In your opinion they were off topic. In my opinion, they were on topic. You have no place deleting non-vandalism edits from talk pages. Besides, your whole argument is a red herring, since they were on topic. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 22:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- But the comments were off-topic. As a rule, comments aren't supposed to be so, so thus I removed them. As far as I know, there isn't any standard way to deal with off-topicness, but I assumed that removing the comments was appropriate. If this is such a big problem, then it should be better explained in one of the editing tutorials. And honestly, I don't see why this is being treated as such a big deal; I wasn't committing vandalism, I was just trying to uphold the rules. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 17:55, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Candidate's argumentative self-justification is not what I look for in an administrator. Gdr 21:46, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
- I'm arguing because I'm being trolled by Dr Zen. Nothing has been done to stop him, and so he continues to make lies about me. I'm only justifying myself because no one else is stopping his libel. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 00:57, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Cribcage 05:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I oppose for reasons stated by Dr Zen. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 18:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Neutral
- Not sure about the talk page blanking business. Investigating further. -- Grunt ҈ 02:08, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
- - Amgine 05:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Talk page removal is a bit concerning, but I can also see the conversation was not completely on topic. Will have to stay neutral until I can assess the rest of the edit history. Shane King 06:39, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Entirely neutral, because I don't really know the editor's work, but this bit with Sam Spade is frightening -- frightening that people are voting to oppose on this basis. Trimming chatty adolescent panting from a talk page is not a reason to oppose. If anything, it's a janitorial function to keep talk pages on topic. No, it isn't necessary to go and ask someone to remove their own comments. That's a courtesy, of course, but it's hardly a requirement. Talk pages are not IRC, and they are not a forum. They're supposed to be places for talking about concerns with an article and the "Lesbians make me happy" is inappropriate in so many ways as to be beyond counting. Geogre 04:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Comments
- I'm a little dismayed by the oppose votes based on the talk page edit. The page was not compeltely blanked, and the edit was not made without at least some care, as only a portion of the conversation was removed. At most it would appear to have been a minor faux paux, since the removed comment was clearly off topic, and I can see how some people might have found it offensive. As this is an isolated incident, I am puzzled why it should be disqualifying. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- Did LGagnon approach SamSpade and ask him to remove the comments? Did he discuss his idea of what was on and what was off topic on Sam's user page? Did he try to achieve consensus, agreement, harmony? Or did he impose his view without regard to anyone else's? Dr Zen 00:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- From Wikipedia:talk pages: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. He was obviously breaking this rule. Just look at what he wrote: Lesbians make me happy, as do embarrassments for celebrities, as does reading wacky stuff about people I pay attention to. I just got done reading the dark tower series by this guy, so finding this out makes me raise an eyebrow. I also want photos, if you know where I can find em. Honestly, is it so hard to see that he was off-topic? -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 01:10, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, man, I'm sure you did it in good faith but I just don't believe that we're crying out for enforcers so much as we are for discussers and consensus-builders. As it happens, I think Sam was "raising an eyebrow" at a new fact that might be notable enough for inclusion: a piece of "wacky stuff". Had there been a discussion, you might have been brought to the same conclusion. But there wasn't. You unilaterally imposed your POV. Even if you were right, you did the wrong thing IMO. If your first thought was "how can I build consensus", you never would have done it. Because it isn't, I strongly oppose your being an admin. It's not personal. If next time you're nominated, your record shows more consensus focus, I'll be the first to support you.Dr Zen 02:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- And yet, he wasn't willing to discuss his edits to the article itself. He was reverting my attempts to better word the section he was talking about (he didn't add anything, he simply commented on it) just so he could say "they are lesbians". I still doubt he was concerned about the article because he wasn't making an attempt to discuss how to edit it - he just wanted to talk about lesbians. I would have tried to discuss it first if it he didn't come off as being unwilling to discuss it himself.
And why is my entire edit history being judged by this one incident? Have I done anything else like this? I'm pretty sure I haven't. I don't think it's fair to make a slippery slope assumption that just because of one minor incident I can't be trusted. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 02:36, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)- This has nothing to do with a slippery slope. Nobody is saying
- "if he deleted Jacks comments, whats next?, He'll clearly move on to blanking articles, then user pages, and by the time he's done, he'll be using admin powers to delete the arbitration committee and Laird Jimbo himself!"
- nor are the suggesting anything like that. What they are pointing out is that what you did was wrong, and your unappologetic response to it is a poor reference for a position of authority. Also, we are being distracted from your claim that banning users is largely your motivation for seeking this position. Try again next time, if you come across completely differently, you may even have my vote. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I am not apologizing until we can discuss it. Hardly anyone has gone there and dicussed it, so I don't think I have to apologize in a your-word-against-mine situation when you yourself have called it a matter of opinion. Other editors should go to Talk:Stephen King and comment on it first. When we have a consensus, and it is decided beyond a shadow of a doubt that I was wrong, then I'll apologize. Until then, I am not going to be forced to apologized for an unproven wrong.
And once again I must repeat that I am not trying to ban users. Maybe I worded that wrong, but I was referring to a last resort that is taken when rampant (continous, unrelently) vandalism happens; the type in which several pages are blanked, or a single page is covered with nonsense 10 to 20 times in a single day after many reverts. I have seen it happen, and it sometimes goes unchecked. I was simply stating that if I see that I will try to stop it. I am not going to ban users who go off-topic, make factual mistakes, or even make one little act of vandalism. I was only referring to the extreme cases, which is what I will reserve that power for. My whole point was to show that I will not abuse my power. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 18:57, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
- I am not apologizing until we can discuss it. Hardly anyone has gone there and dicussed it, so I don't think I have to apologize in a your-word-against-mine situation when you yourself have called it a matter of opinion. Other editors should go to Talk:Stephen King and comment on it first. When we have a consensus, and it is decided beyond a shadow of a doubt that I was wrong, then I'll apologize. Until then, I am not going to be forced to apologized for an unproven wrong.
- This has nothing to do with a slippery slope. Nobody is saying
- And yet, he wasn't willing to discuss his edits to the article itself. He was reverting my attempts to better word the section he was talking about (he didn't add anything, he simply commented on it) just so he could say "they are lesbians". I still doubt he was concerned about the article because he wasn't making an attempt to discuss how to edit it - he just wanted to talk about lesbians. I would have tried to discuss it first if it he didn't come off as being unwilling to discuss it himself.
- I'm sorry, man, I'm sure you did it in good faith but I just don't believe that we're crying out for enforcers so much as we are for discussers and consensus-builders. As it happens, I think Sam was "raising an eyebrow" at a new fact that might be notable enough for inclusion: a piece of "wacky stuff". Had there been a discussion, you might have been brought to the same conclusion. But there wasn't. You unilaterally imposed your POV. Even if you were right, you did the wrong thing IMO. If your first thought was "how can I build consensus", you never would have done it. Because it isn't, I strongly oppose your being an admin. It's not personal. If next time you're nominated, your record shows more consensus focus, I'll be the first to support you.Dr Zen 02:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- From Wikipedia:talk pages: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. He was obviously breaking this rule. Just look at what he wrote: Lesbians make me happy, as do embarrassments for celebrities, as does reading wacky stuff about people I pay attention to. I just got done reading the dark tower series by this guy, so finding this out makes me raise an eyebrow. I also want photos, if you know where I can find em. Honestly, is it so hard to see that he was off-topic? -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 01:10, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Did LGagnon approach SamSpade and ask him to remove the comments? Did he discuss his idea of what was on and what was off topic on Sam's user page? Did he try to achieve consensus, agreement, harmony? Or did he impose his view without regard to anyone else's? Dr Zen 00:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Here's the diff, so people can see for themselves what was deleted. It was pretty silly stuff, but I don't see how it was important to delete it. LGagnon refers above many times to a "rule" that Talk pages have to be on-topic; could you quote this rule and its provenance, please? See, I can only find pretty mild-sounding recommendations. For instance, this is all there is on the Wikipedia:Talk pages that you refer to: "Keep to the topic: Not layout, but worth keeping in mind. Talk page discussions can be much more humorous and POV than the typical article, but personal attacks don't do much to make articles better." That doesn't sound anything like "If you go off topic, others should delete you" to me. It's angled more as part of the many times repeated policy against personal attacks. Policy does indeed state that it's appropriate to delete PA's, but Sam's bit of silly chat isn't a PA, it's not even that outrageous or offensive (well, it is a bit offensive) or very long. However, I completely agree it's quite wrong to judge the candidate's whole very solid edit history by such an incident. I'm much more concerned with the way he defends the action here, than with the action itself. I may be in a minority, but I think admins should be allowed to be human, in the sense of occasionally--not too often--losing their temper. Of course it's just my speculation, but if, say, the deletion was caused by LGagnon seeing red on account of some other inflammatory interaction he was having or had had with Sam Spade, and if LGagnon were to acknowledge a rash deletion with an expression of regret, I wouldn't see it as a problem at all. (LGagnon: no, I do realize you can't do that if it wasn't what happened!) But his extreme insistence, in this discussion, on a "rule" (where is it?) that he seems to be implying pretty much forced him to delete dialogue on a Talk page--that does bother me. Not sure I want an admin to be quite that unbending.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 16:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That edit was my first contact w this guy, AFAIK. I also second most of the above, ans as I pointed out earlier, while I'd probably still oppose this time if he was repentant (I don't like the part about wanting to ban users either), I'd likely support in the future if things changed. However he seems to insist what he did was proper, which is much more disturbing than what he did in the first place. Also, he is ow engaging in a great deal of non-article related discussion on Talk:Stephen_King, which is worrisome in its hypocracy. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- From Wikipedia:talk pages, first section: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. That is the rule I referred to.
As for my intent, I have not met Sam Spade before this incident, and thus have nothing against him. Nor am I doing any of my comments or editing maliciously; I have stayed calm to the best of my ability during this situation. I will make one exception for the situation with Dr Zen on the same talk page that this issue arose on, which happened simply because he has been harassing me recently and there has been no action by the admins to deal with it. Still, I have tried my best to stay mature in that situation, despite Dr Zen's personal attacks on me.
And as I have mentioned above, I will apologize if it is found that I was wrong in deleting his comments. This is a matter to be taken to the talk page on which it occurred. If other editors review his "lesbians make me happy" comment and find it to be on-topic, then I'll apologize. In the meantime, I should not be required to do so, because as long as no one else is reviewing it this will be just a his-word-against-mine situation. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 18:57, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)- If User:Dr.Zen has been harassing you, by all means try to resolve it politely, and then, if it is continuing, proceed to an RfC. Geogre 21:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It's quite the opposite and the course you are taking is upsetting me, Geogre. Following me around, posting *about* me... there's a word for it, and if you keep doing it, I will be seeking mediation, because my asking you to desist has not worked. It is quite clear that I have not made a "personal attack" on LGagnon. I gave my reasons for opposing him and he began a campaign of harassment with the aim of convincing me otherwise, including making threats after I had asked him simply to walk away from it and had done so myself. I suggest again to both these editors not to carry on a personal feud with me. I ask both editors not to continue posting inflammatory remarks about me. I'm entitled to disagree with you without your feeling that is a licence for you to hound me.Dr Zen 06:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Following you? Excuse me, but I go to RfA pretty frequently. I was giving the candidate advice. My first advice is always to try for an amicable solution, but, if that fails, to open an RfC. I give you the same advice. If you believe that "it hasn't worked," etc., then feel free to seek mediation. I should welcome it. Or open an RfC, if you choose. I give you the same advice that I give LGagnon. Geogre 16:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- I did not threaten you, I said I was contacting an admin about the situation; and by seeking mediation, you are doing the same thing I was talking about. And you have been following me around, not me following you. And I have had no choice but to respond to you because you have been insulting me and making wild accusations about things I never said.
And no, I can't simply walk away from it. You have gotten away with making personal attacks on me, soiling my good name with your false accusations, and nothing has been done about it. Even on this very page you have personal attacks sitting there in your opposed vote, not yet deleted as per the rules, which I can only wait for someone else to do because I know that if I were to remove it I'd just be putting myself in more trouble. And now I'm sure your going to just spin that into me trying to censor your vote, just as you spinned my comment in the questions section. I really am hoping a mediator does deal with this soon, because it's likely that your FUD is swaying voters to vote based on your misleading statements.
And I honestly don't know why you are doing this to me; I never did anything to harm you. I have done nothing more than attempt to uphold the rules of Wikipedia, and suddenly I'm being put on trial for my doing so. And all this is simply stemming from a minor incident that didn't cause any irreversible damage if any damage was done in the first place. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 07:56, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)- Having tried to cajole me into changing my vote, you are now seeking to have someone delete it??! I ask you once more to cease your personal feud against me. I have explained why I oppose your nomination at great length, politely and decently. I have explained that I will reconsider if the issues I've raised are no longer applicable if you are nominated again in future. I've tried to placate you without being bullied into changing my vote. Now, please, enough.Dr Zen 09:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- See, you just accused me of trying to delete your vote, just as I said you would above. You didn't even try to read my comment correctly and instead reworded it in a way that makes it look like I'm attacking you, which is what you have been doing over and over again. And you haven't been polite about it; you constantly throw rude insults and wild accusations in your comments.
And I'm not trying to bully you into changing your vote; I'm not even trying to get you to change your vote, because I know you won't. The rules do say that personal attacks should be deleted (and I said delete the personal attacks, not your vote), but even that is not my point. My point is I'm trying to defend myself against your constant false accusations. You have made false statements about my actions and intentions over and over again, and you are swaying the vote against me through this FUD campaign you are running. This lying has to stop, because if people are voting on the basis of your lies then this election is going to turn out unfair. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 09:31, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
- See, you just accused me of trying to delete your vote, just as I said you would above. You didn't even try to read my comment correctly and instead reworded it in a way that makes it look like I'm attacking you, which is what you have been doing over and over again. And you haven't been polite about it; you constantly throw rude insults and wild accusations in your comments.
- Having tried to cajole me into changing my vote, you are now seeking to have someone delete it??! I ask you once more to cease your personal feud against me. I have explained why I oppose your nomination at great length, politely and decently. I have explained that I will reconsider if the issues I've raised are no longer applicable if you are nominated again in future. I've tried to placate you without being bullied into changing my vote. Now, please, enough.Dr Zen 09:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I did not threaten you, I said I was contacting an admin about the situation; and by seeking mediation, you are doing the same thing I was talking about. And you have been following me around, not me following you. And I have had no choice but to respond to you because you have been insulting me and making wild accusations about things I never said.
-
- If User:Dr.Zen has been harassing you, by all means try to resolve it politely, and then, if it is continuing, proceed to an RfC. Geogre 21:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The conversation below your original reply to me has already accumulated and veered away, so I'll start afresh:
"From Wikipedia:talk pages, first section: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. That is the rule I referred to."
I'm sorry, I don't agree with calling every word on a Wikipedia policy page a "rule". Some policies are more in the nature of recommendations, hopes, or ideals, and your quote is an example. Compare the longer context: Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into another H2G2 or Everything2. See also: Wikiquette. You've been here a while, you have to know that people on Talk pages are always going off-topic, moving back and forth between discussing the article and discussing the subject, sometimes because the two are hard to distinguish, sometimes out of irrepressible interest in the subject. Policy wants to "encourage" them not to, but they still do it. I know I do it. Does it matter if we refer to policy recommendations as rules or not? Well, only if the word "rule" is used with the implication you've been giving it sometimes in this discussion: "it's a rule, and breaches of rules need to be policed, so off-topic Talk-page talk needs to be deleted". I still don't quite see why you have to talk like that when, as you point out, you don't actually do it. You're not on a crusade to delete off-topic Talk page discussions, you just deleted something the one time, which is nothing, I quite agree. I can see that you're under pressure from the small number of users who have seized gleefully on that one tiny instance, but please chill, it's OK to come down from the "rule" bastion, I think there are plenty of people here who'd like to vote for you. I hope and believe people won't base their votes on the flaming you're getting from, count 'em, two users.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 15:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No one is flaming him. He argued with my reasons for opposing him and I discussed that with him politely. So far as I'm concerned, he is welcome to remove the discussion and leave the vote. I am not seeking to prevent his election by scaring other voters (although clearly I oppose his election). Yes, he only did it once. If he had said "I did it once but on reflection it was the wrong thing to do", as I indicated, I would have changed my vote. But he didn't.Dr Zen 23:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You have been flaming me, but I'm not going to bother trying to convince you, since you aren't willing to reflect on your own mistakes and admit to them. Instead, since you have given the OK to remove your flames, I am asking someone else (that is, anyone here who wants to) to remove the personal attacks you've been making. I won't do it myself, since you'll just spin that as me vandalizing the page.
And as I've said, I'm not going to apologize for something that hasn't even been proven wrong yet. If a concensus was reached that I did in fact do something wrong, then I'll apologize; in the meantime, I'm not going to be forced into it by a troll. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 00:46, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
- You have been flaming me, but I'm not going to bother trying to convince you, since you aren't willing to reflect on your own mistakes and admit to them. Instead, since you have given the OK to remove your flames, I am asking someone else (that is, anyone here who wants to) to remove the personal attacks you've been making. I won't do it myself, since you'll just spin that as me vandalizing the page.
- Sorry if this seems like I'm being impatient, but I'm a bit unsure of what the final decision is. A bureaucrat has closed the vote, but I don't understand whether or not a decision was made. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 02:25, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- That bureaucrat labeled his edit, final (14/8/3), failed consensus. Cribcage 03:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- My point was that I'd like to know whether "failed consensus" means that I've lost and this is over, or if it means that there will be any additional decision to be made by the bureacrats. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 03:36, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Failed consensus means that this vote is over, and you didn't get the required 80% support. Shane King 03:40, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- My point was that I'd like to know whether "failed consensus" means that I've lost and this is over, or if it means that there will be any additional decision to be made by the bureacrats. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 03:36, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- That bureaucrat labeled his edit, final (14/8/3), failed consensus. Cribcage 03:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
- A. I plan to use my administrator status to help maintain the integrity of Wikipedia when needed. Having seen the results of rampant vandalism on some pages, I plan on protecting pages when such attacks become too serious to be handled by a simple revert. I will also make sure to watch that vandals do not continue to vandalize other pages afterwards, and will block them if needs be. Both shall be done with sound judgement as to the need for such actions. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 03:59, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Note: Contrary to false accusations made in above sections, I am not going to abuse my power to ban people unjustly. Nor is banning people my motivation for being an admin. I have merely pointed out, to show that I will be responsible about my position, that I will only use such powers if it is needed. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 00:51, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I am most pleased with my work on Chuck Palahniuk, which elevated it from being underinformative to featured article status. I also am particularily fond of grunge speak because despite the fact that it is a relatively small article, it is still the most detailed article on the subject available on the internet today (that is, as far as I know; I have looked around). -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 03:59, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
- A. I have dealt with conflicts on some articles (McJob comes to mind), but I have not let it get to me to the point that it stresses me. I've handled myself maturely when conflicts do appear, and I have been unbiased in my support or opposition of edits. I plan to continue to do the same in the future. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 03:59, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
