User talk:Ambi/Archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Question from Sjakkalle

Hi Ambi. I know you strongly disagreed with my closure of that VFD debate, but I am a VFD closer who sticks fairly close to a "two-thirds" guideline and who declares a "no consensus" result when the debate's delete votes fall short of a two-thirds majority, after discounting sockpuppets of course and I discounted three of the keep votes. I suggest asking a couple of other experienced VFD closers (SimonP and Rossami) for advice, can you please respond to that suggestion? Finally, I assure you that I was not trying to abuse my position as administrator to keep an article because I wanted it kept. The subject is one which I have very limited knowledge about, and I don't know what I would have voted had I participated in the debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Nomination

Hi Ambi. Thanks for the admin nomination, but I have decided to not accept it. I don't think I have the time for the sysop chores and want to concentrate on my article writing and editing. Perhaps at some time in the future I might take up adminship with all the responsibilities, but I don't think I could do it justice at the moment. Thanks again.--Takver 06:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elam

Rebecca, I was surprised by your comments on Talk:Elam - especially as it represents SouthernComfort's first BC to BCE conversion since the ArbCom - indeed, it was one of his first edits since it happened. To threaten to ban me because I have enforced the ArbCom decision (namely that such changes should not be made), doesn't sit right. I appreciate the page is complicated now, but all the more reason not to jump to conclusions. If you really want the dispute to die down, and I certainly do, I suggest that comments to Sortan, CDThieme and No Account wouldn't go amiss, jguk 06:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

All my reverts of edits (in this dispute) are because the edits are contrary to policy. The discussion on certain talk pages and on the edit summaries when the reverts have continued, is not just about what policy is, with various editors adding their fourpenn'orth on various issues - I have likewise added my fourpenn'orth - but the underlying reason for the reverts is that they are against existing guidelines. Indeed, on some talk pages I have been arguing strongly that all editors should respect those guidelines in the same way that I have been doing, jguk 06:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

What Jguk fails to mention is that my edits were done for consistency (the article had previously been a mixture of BC/BCE after Dbachmann's rewrites, and prior to that was BCE), and even when other editors have pointed this out to him, and even when Dbachmann (who strongly prefers BC) admits this himself, Jguk continues to make such absurd accusations of "unilateral changes" against me again and again. SouthernComfort 10:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Australian sports

I think you are right. It is better to keep all the Australian sport project info together. The Wikiproject pages on Sport governing bodies in Australia and Australian bicycle racing should be subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian sports, rather than their own project. I was just following the suggested wikicode like a sheep! Can you move these subpages? as I will probably not get a chance for 24-48 hours--Takver 07:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Age

I made several changes to The Age article, mentioned them to the author of the original article and am happy to work through them. I think it's quite outrageous you blanket reverted all of them. Persist in this and I will formally complain. I note you have seniority within the Wikipedia cabal, don't think for a moment that will discourage me, quite the reverse. Edit my contributions if you think that's fair but a blanket reversion is just wrong and you know it. Your bias shines through. Newshounder 12:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Ambi thanks for your support, but please don't revert the Age article again. Some of Newshound's edits are worth keeping, so I will re-edit the article myself. Adam 13:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes Ambi we don't need you. Newshounder 13:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have now edited the article. Feel free to revert any further partisan edits from Newshounder. Adam 13:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calvary Christian High School VfD

Please see Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Calvary Christian High School. Common sense is remarkably helpful sometimes. Ambi 01:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I do understand that you feel that I've somehow done something wrong here. I'm equally convinced that deletion in the face of such a split vote would be the wrong thing to do. You mention common sense here, but the trouble with common sense is that it isn't common--what appears to be sensible to one person may appear quite unreasonable to another. I never, ever delete an article unless I'm sure there is, in fact, a consensus to delete it. I was not sure here, therefore I could not delete. That's how I interpret my duty as an administrator. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


The issue here is the way you interpret a consensus. BJAODN - as pointed out to you on ANI, is shorthand for Delete and BJAODN. This is the way it has been always interpreted by everyone I've ever seen in the whole time I've been at Wikipedia. If you went around all the people who voted BJAODN and asked them whether they meant that it should be kept, I'd be very surprised if you received even one affirmative response. And yes, it makes me angry if you expect that everyone should have to spell out this or you'll not count their votes. If you really think BJAODN means keep, go ask the people who voted, as I suggest above. If instead you continue to just ignore their votes, I will make sure to scream each and every time you do it. Ambi 02:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I haven't read anything about this nn WP:ANI; it would be an inappropriate forum to discuss our difference of opinion over VfD closing. It is incorrect to state categorically that BJAODN means anything other than "this belongs on BJAODN." The contributors to the thread had the opportunity to state that they wanted to delete; a good VfD closer does not second guess opinions, but tries to interpret all of them and be as scrupulously fair as possible.
You resent the fact that I expect someone who wants something deleted to say clearly. I would not be doing my duty by Wikipedia if I were, carelessly and through inattention, to delete an article when no clear consensus to delete was evident. An article deleted is gone. An article undeleted can always be deleted at a later date.
I remain unimpressed by your attempts to misrepresent my closing as malfeasance, and your threats. Please do not threaten me again. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Precisely. Look, if you're convinced that there was a real likelihood they meant anything else other than delete, why don't you go and ask them?
I and others have told you that BJAODN has always been interpeted by everyone else as delete. In all my time on Wikipedia, I have never seen an incident where anyone - even the most inclusionist of people - has chosen to interpret it otherwise. To continue to assert that there was some likelihood that people wanted otherwise - despite delete being in the BJAODN acronym - without providing a shred of evidence smells like being deliberately obtuse in order to have school articles kept. You've made your beliefs with regard to school articles clear, and this at least makes me wonder if you have too much of a conflict of interest to be closing school articles.
Of course, if you continue to insist that BJAODN actually means keep, feel free to ask the people who voted. You might prove me wrong, but I highly doubt it. Ambi 04:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Since I see you haven't done me the courtesy of a reply, I've been reading through other recent contributions. I'm a little bemused as to how Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited3 can possibly be interpreted as anything but merge. Once again, it seems like an idiosyncratic reading of the votes in order to see that the article is kept. Ambi 04:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, you do sound very upset, and I'd just like to ask you not to take it out on me. We have different opinions on certain matters and I think you're being far too quick to assume that I actually *share* your opinion on certain matters but am being deliberately perverse. Please take my word that nothing could be further from the truth. I am as completely and absolutely sincere in my opinions as I assume you are in yours.

Secondly, the reason I hadn't replied to your earlier comment was that I hadn't yet read it. Please bear in mind that it is the middle of the night in some parts of the world, that Wikipedia editors and administrators are volunteers, and that like many other mortals they can usually only pay attention to one thing at a time.

Now you say that you "and others, have told [me] that BJAODN has always been interpeted by everyone else as delete." Well now you've met someone who finds that interpretation almost impossible to square with the nature of BJAODN as a quotes repository. If I want something deleted, I say it should be deleted. If not, and the article in question is not trivial in size, the GFDL requires that its history be kept in the database in some form or another. We cannot just paste a copy of the article into a file and forget it.

The meaning of the term "deleted" in BJAODN is quite clear when you look at the original BJAODN--these were largely clips from articles such as George Washington (first submission) and Kylie Minogue (fourth submission), quotations of text that had been deleted from those articles.

You ask: "if you're convinced that there was a real likelihood they meant anything else other than delete, why don't you go and ask them?" I had no need to ask. They voted "BJAODN" and not delete. I do frequent VfD myself and I make multiple votes as a matter of course. If there isn't a consensus for my first choice, I still wish to influence the decision. There is nothing particularly difficult about expressing one's point of view clearly, and I'd hate to think that VfD closers (I only do it every blue moon) should have to go around asking voters for clarification of what already look like pretty clear statements.

You write: "To continue to assert that there was some likelihood that people wanted otherwise"

I have made no such assertion. I have stated that there was no consensus. Some voted delete, others voted BJAODN.

You write: " You've made your beliefs with regard to school articles clear, and this at least makes me wonder if you have too much of a conflict of interest to be closing school articles."

You're being very naughty. I had already pointed out to you that I (weeks ago) stated my opinion of the article--that it was a joke article and would probably be deleted. However when I closed the discussion there was no consensus to delete.

You write: " I'm a little bemused as to how Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited3 can possibly be interpreted as anything but merge. Once again, it seems like an idiosyncratic reading of the votes in order to see that the article is kept. "

Well perhaps you ought to do a recount. There are only 9 merge votes out of 15 total. Even those who put a generously low 66% bar on rough consensus would blanch, I should hope, at a mere 60%. Perhaps it is you who has the conflict of interest. Worse, some of the merge votes are for disentanglement puzzle (7), others for mechanical puzzle (3). This was a classic case of "no consensus". In some such cases I will be bold and perform what I think is the best merge, in other cases I choose not to. But never, when I make such unilateral decisions, do I confuse my own decision, taken on my own judgement, with my interpretation of the discussion, which I try to do in a predictable, consistent and accountable manner. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


Having received no reply and found no less than twenty-five similar incidents of articles being kept despite having few or no keep votes, I will be proceeding with a Request for comment promptly. Ambi 06:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Again you say you have "received no reply". Goodness, how frequently do you expect people to look at their talk pages? On articles being kept "despite having few or no keep votes", do bear in mind that keep votes are not required to keep an article, but a consensus is required to delete it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] On consensus

Let me rephrase. I continue to take issue with the practice of treating delete votes as keep votes where parties are split between redirect or delete - or, in this case, where BJAODN votes were treated as keep votes. This seems to me to be a serious misrepresentation of the voting intentions of those who voted; their votes have been counted as the complete opposite of what they actually voted for.

But it seems that you honestly believe that someone who voted BJAODN really meant keep, or someone who voted delete on an article would really prefer that it be kept unchanged as opposed to redirected where voters were split between the two options. Such a practice has two negative effects; it leaves people with a choice of seeing their wishes misrepresented, or else having to take time that would otherwise be spent writing articles running around to all the delete voters getting them to change their votes to keep, lest Tony take the opportunity to count them as keep votes.

So if you're really serious, anyway, let us settle this. What would you think if I went around each of the twenty-four cases where you've kept articles despite their having few or none at all keep votes and asked every delete voter whether they would have preferred the article to be kept unchanged or redirected? If you're right, then there'll surely be a genuine lack of consensus, with plenty saying they'd rather have the article kept unchanged.

So how about we come to an agreement - if there is a genuine lack of consensus among the responses, then I'll quit whining, but if it does turn out that the vast majority wanted the articles deleted, then you knock off this practice of discounting votes in closing VFDs. Thoughts? Ambi 10:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


You write: "I continue to take issue with the practice of treating delete votes as keep votes where parties are split between redirect or delete."
Well if you can identify someone falsely counting delete votes as keep votes, I will gladly join you in condemning the practice. A delete vote is never a keep vote, or indeed anything other than a delete vote.
You write: "or, in this case, where BJAODN votes were treated as keep votes"
There you go again. I specifically counted the BJAODN votes as BJAODN votes and nothing else. Surely this is the heart of the matter: that I did not count the BJAODN votes as delete votes, nor do I count delete votes as BJAODN votes. I do not do this because I think it would be dishonest to do so.
You write: "This seems to me to be a serious misrepresentation of the voting intentions of those who voted; their votes have been counted as the complete opposite of what they actually voted for."
Again, the heart of the matter in my view is that I counted the BJAODN votes and the delete votes separately (which in my view is the most correct way to tally such votes) and as a result reached the conclusion: no consensus. Roughly 40% of those discussing deletion wanted the article completely deleted, and an equal number wanted it moved to BJAODN. Neither of those comes anywhere close to consensus.
You write: "But it seems that you honestly believe that someone who voted BJAODN really meant keep, or someone who voted delete on an article would really prefer that it be kept unchanged as opposed to redirected where voters were split between the two options."
Absolutely not. Those who voted delete indicated that they thought that the article and its entire history should be eradicated from our database (which happens ultimately when the archive table is cleared.) Those who voted BJAODN indicated that the article was , to quote the Guide to VfD "worthy of saving for humour value." Under our site license, this latter option is generally incompatible with eradication of the article and its history from our database, in the case of all but the most trivial substubs. It is, if you like, a pseudo-deletion. I believe that in practice the article page is moved to a subpage under WP:BJAODN and the link from article space is deleted. It can obviously only be called a keep in the purely technical sense that the article remains in the database (the pages table, which contains permanent content, rather than the archive table, which is regularly purged). Nevertheless, neither is it a delete, and for that very reason.
It really is disheartening that you continue to maintain that I am saying one thing when I am repeatedly stating, in the most forthright and clear terms I can muster, something completely different.
You write: "What would you think if I went around each of the twenty-four cases where you've kept articles despite their having few or none at all keep votes and asked every delete voter whether they would have preferred the article to be kept unchanged or redirected? If you're right, then there'll surely be a genuine lack of consensus, with plenty saying they'd rather have the article kept unchanged."
I would regard that as a dangerous attempt to tamper with the autonomy of the VfD closer. Further, I would regard it as an attempt to rerun closed VfDs. If there are six votes for merge and six votes for delete, this is not a consensus and it isn't a good idea to pretend that it is or to try to rerun a VfD when--as is usual in the case of the late closes in which I specialise--those who voted have had a good two weeks to make up their minds, alter their votes, or whatever.
If people want to indicate their preference in detail in a discussion on VfD, they can already do so. I commonly make votes indicating my first and second preference, or even which I would prefer not to happen. I have noticed that others do the same.
I'm shocked by your proposal, but I'm confident that you'll soon see that it isn't good for Wikipedia. Please take the opportunity to examine your document User:Ambi/Tony Sidaway, to which I have taken the liberty of adding my own annotations. I am confident that I have nothing to fear from a post-mortem on my VfD closing, but do not use this as an excuse for an attempt to subvert the autonomy of the closer. If as you seem to believe my interpretation of my responsibilities--which I assure you I take most seriously--is ideosyncratic and unlikely to find much support, then little harm can be done by taking the case to RfC or arbitration, and if you still have an issue with my closing technique I urge you to do so. But re-opening VfDs by the back door is not in the interests of Wikipedia. It's easy enough to renominate any one of the VfD closings I have done, particularly the ones three or four months in the past--one or two of which havent been touched in the time since. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Six votes to merge and six votes to delete is not a consensus to delete. It is, however, a consensus that the article should not remain as is. I'm not suggesting that the VFDs be re-run, as they're now in the past now, but I am suggesting that we find out what those people wanted. You consistently interpret VFD votes so as to make delete votes = keep votes if there is a substantial number of redirect votes. If that is the will of the voters, then surely they will provided some justification for this perspective.

You say that a delete vote does mean a delete vote, but when there are six redirect votes and six delete votes, you treat the six delete votes as six keep votes - instead of six redirect votes, which is much more in keeping with the likely intention of the voters. Thus a misrepresentation has occurred.

You said that a BJAODN vote means moving it out of the article space. But despite the fact that very nearly all the votes were for either BJAODN or deletion, you kept the article there - which was against the wishes of basically everyone who voted. In the circumstances, I cannot see this as being anything other than a misrepresentation of the votes of nearly everyone who voted.

I'm all for the autonomy of the closer. When I went through your contributions, I saw quite a few borderline calls - some I agreed with, some I disagreed with, but were still quite within the bounds of closer discretion. The only articles I'm concerned with here are the 26 (sorry, I initially miscounted) unforgivable cases - cases where very few, if any, voters wanted an article kept, and yet you kept the article. That, as far as I am concerned, goes well beyond the boundaries of closer autonomy. Ambi 13:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


You write: It is, however, a consensus that the article should not remain as is.
Not good enough. If the editors spend up to two weeks in discussion and cannot agree what should be done, the fact that most of them think that something should be done give me no basis upon which to take action. An agreement that things aren't okay as they are now doesn't amount to a mandate to do just anything. In the recent example which you disputed to the point where you summarily deleted an article, well over half of the votes implied keeping the article in some form, so there was no consensus that the article should be deleted. Substantially under half of those who voted thought it should be moved to BJAODN, so it couldn't be moved there. Where there is no consensus, as applied in this case, the article is kept. So I kept it.
You write: "You consistently interpret VFD votes so as to make delete votes = keep votes if there is a substantial number of redirect votes."
I opened a sidebar for this, because honestly I can't understand why you keep saying what seems to me to be completely untrue.
You write: "when there are six redirect votes and six delete votes, you treat the six delete votes as six keep votes - instead of six redirect votes"
No I'm sorry but this just sounds like gobbledygook. The six delete votes are counted as neither keep votes nor redirect votes, but as delete votes and only as delete votes. This seems to me to be the only sensible way to interpret a vote--as what it says it is. If someone says "delete, or failing that redirect", then I would count the vote towards both the delete and redirect totals, but if it's "delete" then it only goes towards the "delete" totals. I cannot understand how you get from there to saying that I'm counting a delete as a keep, when all I'm doing is counting it as a delete.
You write: "But despite the fact that very nearly all the votes were for either BJAODN or deletion, you kept the article there - which was against the wishes of basically everyone who voted."
This is absolutely true. I cannot do anything for which there is no consensus. When nearly half want deletion and nearly half want BJAODN, there is no consensus. When there is no consensus, an article is kept. Now there's nothing to stop somebody going to WP:RM and asking the article to be moved to BJAODN, if they can get consensus for it. But I am not in that business, I am only looking at a discussion that has gone on for however many days, where no consensus has emerged. I close it with the default keep and move on. The fact that hardly anybody agrees with what happens is a function of the lack of consensus--if there was, they'd nearly all have voted for precisely the same thing and I would do whatever it was.
You write "The only articles I'm concerned with here are the 26 (sorry, I initially miscounted) unforgivable cases - cases where very few, if any, voters wanted an article kept, and yet you kept the article."
Such results are implicit in the process. If there is no agreement, hardly anybody gets what he wants. I cannot move to BJAODN if only 40-odd% vote for that. I cannot delete if only 40-odd% vote for that. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar: does Tony Sidaway interpret delete votes == keep votes in some circumstances?

You write: You consistently interpret VFD votes so as to make delete votes = keep votes if there is a substantial number of redirect votes.
I know that you have a lot else to say on this subject and I respect your view, but this statement, which you have repeated several times, is a serious obstacle. Could you explain it a bit more? I can't make a sensible interpretation of it, but I know you're a very intelligent person and wouldn't say it if it wasn't absolutely crystal clear to you that this is what I'm doing.
Can we at least agree that deletion of an article listed on VfD requires a consensus to delete? If we can agree that form of words maybe we can move on and examine the analysis that leads you to make this--to me--quite inexplicable statement, which I implicitly accept is your honestly held view. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to be inexcusible rude here and butt in. (As I raised the initial AN/I, I've followed this pretty closely. Tony's talk page is on my watchlist as I notified him, and this page was on my watch list because I stole some of Ambi's ideas for layout.) The above ("Can we at least agree that deletion of an article listed on VfD requires a consensus to delete") is the sort of Daniel Webster debates the Devil question that leads nowhere. I intend to raise a RfC about the other pack of VfDs, unless Ambi wants to open it first.
brenneman(t)(c) 15:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I've no idea what you mean by "the devil question", or who Daniel Webster is, but it seems to me that this might be a point we can agree on and move on towards discussing why it is that Ambi claims that I'm counting delete votes as keeps, when all I'm doing that I'm aware of is refusing to count them as redirects, merges, BJAODNs, keeps, bend, folds, spindles, or indeed anything other than delete votes. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I see you're busy, but.......

Hi Ambi. Not so many minutes ago when browsing RC I noticed what I think is an elborate circular hoax involving several articles. SheWhoMustBeObeyed is yelling at me right now to come to bed (we are a couple of hours ahead of you Aussies) so I don't want to start an investigation and get totally immersed. Can you have a quick look at Mike Monty and links to it. Cheers Moriori 09:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Greens South Australia

I added it, then saw it didn't exist and removed it. I might get around to creating it tomorrow or sometime this week. Would it be an appropriate category in any case? (I saw Tasmanian Greens had Politics of Tasmania). --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GNAA

In reply to:

Please read other people's objections before declaring them unactionable. You've added in big bold letters that no less than three objections were unactionable - when all of them made clear what was missing, and some even in the same sentence. Doing this makes it look like you're either acting in bad faith, trying really hard to be rude, or that you just can't read.

This is not a va... ;-) I did read all of the objections completely, and almost all of them are inactionable (those that I specified as such) or go against other Wikipolicies. -- BRIAN0918  00:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Your objection consisted solely of "This is way too short for a featured article", which is what I replied to. I wasn't replying to your other replies. -- BRIAN0918  01:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for your vote of support on my recent RfA. I was quite surprised by the amount of support I received, and wish to extend my thanks to you for taking the time to support my nomination for adminship. -- Longhair | Talk 12:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] BioCOTW Project

You voted for Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria, this weeks' Biography Collaboration of the weeks. Please come and help them become a featured-standard article.--Falphin 18:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GNAA FAC

OK, I grabbed every comment/suggestion I could and placed them at User:Zscout370/GNAA to do. Am I missing anything? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)