User talk:Zordrac/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1

Dates: 24 November 2005 - 24 December 2005
Posts: 95

Wikistalker notice: If you are receiving messages in your talk page from me, followed up by threatening, abusive, accusational comments from another user about me, then please be advised that they are Wikistalking me. I would recommend for people to not respond to the comments, and to delete them as the best method to get them to stop. I believe that they will go away if ignored. For more info, see User:Zordrac/helping.

Contents

[edit] Welcome to my talk page

Hi there. Welcome to my talk page. In general, there is no need for you to write me notes in here about articles, as this can be done in the article's own talk page. I check articles regularly after editing them, to make sure that everything is cleaned up nicely. I would greatly prefer it if anyone disagrees with an edit that I have made, or an article that I have created, for them to discuss it in the article's talk page. If I do not respond to it quickly, or if the edit was from a long time ago, then please feel free to leave me a message here. Otherwise, I would prefer for it to remain there.

When writing messages here, please try to be polite, not offensive, and not threatening. I will never engage in vandalism or any activity which deliberately disrupts Wikipedia, and I can assure you that if you ever think that I have, then you should first talk to me and discuss it, and above all assume good faith.

If someone feels the need to revert my edits for some reason, please explain why when making your reversion, and if there is not enough space, please write in the article's talk page. I will have made the edit in good faith.

Other than that, please feel free to edit my talk page. In effect, though, this is my property (in the context of Wikipedia) and hence I may delete any comments that I find offensive. Thank you.



[edit] Note

I have moved all talk about Vfds to User_talk:Zordrac/deletions. Please go there to resume discussion. My own notes are in User:Zordrac/deletions :). Just to clean things up a bit.

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your message to me about my article. I am a little disheartened with Wikipedia as I had (somehow) gained the impression that it was an encyclopedia of things-that-stick-out. I'm a little unclear of what Wikipedia is now and because of the moron who messed up my record I can't have a credible record on this site either. I would be much more disheartened however if you hadn't written the message, so thanks. Sorry to write again (it must be annoying to keep going back and forth) but in reply to your message. I don't think I'll be joining Wikipedia but thanks again for taking the time out to give advice to a random IP address. I'm sure the 'abrupt' side of Wikipedia I just saw doesn't reflect the rest of its members. --81.109.204.222 09:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Ubie

Just a note that the prior AfD was vandalized by the same person that recreated The Ubie and voted twice on the current AfD; the original results were 4 deletes and 1 keep. I have since reverted that AfD to what it was at the time the discussion was closed. Peyna 23:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamnuts

Hi, I fixed your AfD nomination per your request. The proper syntax to use is:

{{subst:afd2 | pg=Name of page | text=Some text here.}} ~~~~

Your basic problem was that you had "))" instead of "}}" after the text, breaking the template syntax. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, sorry you had probems with that entry, good to see it's been sorted out now. Funny stuff does seem to happen sometimes with the daily AfD log page. I've had problems like that myself that I've been unable to sort out, in spite of following the instructions exactly. There is sometimes talk of simplifying the AfD procedure: let's hope it happens soon. Flapdragon 23:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tzmerth shmarya

Hey Zordrac,

I noticed your question as I was closing AfDs. Yes, articles are often renominated for deletion. That is acceptable. The article was kept last time on a conditional keep (cleanup). It was never cleaned up and now renominated. It has now failed AfD and I just deleted it. Thought you might want to know. Let me know if you need help with anything else. -- Psy guy Talk 00:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guide to Humanity

Thank you for your support on the guide to humanity. Please help me get the ball rolling on this project; help me expand this. Thanks - Ewok Slayer

Here. Try this [[User:Zordrac|Zordrac]] [[User_Talk:Zordrac|(Talk)]] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Darwikinism Darwikinist], [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Wikipedians_Who_Dislike_Making_Broad_Judgements_About_the_Worthiness_of_a_General_Category_of_Article%2C_and_Who_Are_In_Favor_of_the_Deletion_of_Some_Particularly_Bad_Articles%2C_but_That_Doesn%27t_Mean_They_are_Deletionist wishy washy] and [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism Eventualist]

Looks like this - Zordrac (Talk) Darwikinist, wishy washy and Eventualist

[edit] Your sig

Ahhh, do something to clean that thing up, it hurts my eyes =] Shorter is better. Perhaps just put short one letter links to each of your characteristics and drop the "is a" and "and". Peyna 03:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks better; thanks =] Peyna 04:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q about Sig and Philosophies

Copied from User talk:Psy guy

I don't see anything wrong with having more than one philosophy either. However, I would caution you about having a complicated signature. Some users frown on that because they take up so much space. Also, I don't know if I understand the last question: "manually copy and paste ...?" If I were you I could at least make the philosophies small in my signature and use transwiki markup rather than external links. Check out the following:

Zordrac • talk (Darwikinist • wishy washy • Eventualist)

That is a little cleaner. To say you from open the edit tab, here is the code for it: [[User:Zordrac|Zordrac]] • [[User_talk:Zordrac|talk]] <small>([[M:Darwikinism|Darwikinist]] • [[M:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD|Wishy Washy]] • [[M:Eventualism|Eventualist]])</small>

As for the "banners" .... I assume you mean the userboxed like what are the the top and right of my user and talk page. They are fairly simply to recreate. You are welcome to copy one into my sandbox and change the image and text and play around with userbox formatting if you want to. If you need help, just let me know. -- Psy guy Talk 04:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Zordrac • (talk) Wishy Washy • Darwikinian • Eventualist 04:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

test Zordrac • (talk) Wishy Washy • Darwikinian • Eventualist 04:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If you don't want to be copying and pasting your sig all the time, go to "my preferences" and copy your sig code into the nickname box and check the raw sig box. Wikipedia will insert the code for you every time it sees ~~~~ (4 tidly winks)--Ewok Slayer --(User | Talk | Contribs) 04:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Let's see. Zordrac • (talk) Wishy Washy • Darwikinian • Eventualist Zordrac • (talk) Wishy Washy • Darwikinian • Eventualist 04:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)~~ 04:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Try again. Zordrac • (talk) Wishy Washy • Darwikinian • Eventualist 04:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't like the dots. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad you got it working. Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant by "copy and paste." There are a lot of cool things to play with in the prefs. See you around. -- Psy guy Talk 05:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] well done

glad to see you've stuck it out. grats on your AfD's. ∴ here…♠ 07:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 13, 1981

I've placed an explanation about 12-31, which you may find useful. - Mgm|(talk) 11:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)



[edit] Uh, thanks?

No really, the only thing I can truely offer to the WP community is my honesty. I just read the last few posts to your user page, and I'd like to offer any assistance that I can. If there is ever a vote, or AfD that you'd like to have my opinion on, just leave a link to it on my talk page. The one thing about opinions is, sometimes you (or potentially anybody) might not like it. But, barring bigotry, or more personally, any comment that contradicts the Ontario Human Rights Code (my personal standard for correspondance in WP, in addition to appropriate codes of conduct outlined in Wikipedia pages), I am willing to agree to disagree, and still retain respect for individual editors. So, as an editor that I have had no prior contact with in the past, I remain in hope that we can work together here in Wikipedia, the most important online information resource. See you 'round the Wiki! Hamster Sandwich 02:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You have a point about debates degenerating into name calling, nasty and sometimes neither side of the debate comes out looking particularly good. Thats the nature of a community of strong willed individuals. My personal opinion concerning the use of sockpuppets and user accounts which seem constructed simply to push a particular POV or opinion, are rather spurious sources. I would disregard them out-of-hand. On the other hand, a well constructed and presented debate would sway my own opinion in certain instances. If citations are correct (and reletively easy to check) I tend to go with the weight of evidence presented, by reliable sources. I must add this, I think your study of deletions in AfD is weighted to skew the result you are arriving at. Junk articles, and articles that do not cite sources, or meet established criteria for inclusion, or that do meet criterion for deletion, are the articles most likely to end up at AfD! Heres a suggestion, compare your result with articles that included into the knowledge base at WP on a day to day basis. The number of daily article edits that are kept vs. the number of ones put up for deletion, vs. the number actually kept as opposed to deleted. I personally have no idea how to do such a thing, but you seem to be fairly handy in that direction. My thinking, offhand and without qualification is that the vast majority of edits are ultimately kept, beacause they are good edits, good artciles. The best of the best so to speak are going to survive an AfD debate at any rate because, primarily they have met a certain standard, by the same token, a few are going to survive because only certain editors may be technically qualified to comment on the article (I stay away from techie stuff myself) and a few are going to survive because a group of editors are going to carry an agenda into the debate. I have no agenda's other than to protect the Wikipedia as a credible resource, to the average person who references the site. If you wish to continue this coorespondence, please let me know if you want to write here, or on my page so as to preserve continuity. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 03:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
To make it simpler, and because someone else commented on your talk page, I'll answer this here. First up, congratulations, you are officially a Darwikinist per your statement above, "...is that the vast majority of edits are ultimately kept, beacause they are good edits, good artciles. The best of the best so to speak are going to survive an AfD debate..." You might want to consider joining the Darwikinism movement, as I did. Personally, I have joined 3 different movements, just to be difficult! You might find some others that are more suitable. Anyway, I would agree with you that probably less than 5% of articles are ever put up for deletion. Indeed, I would suggest that, if articles were put up for deletion randomly, then the average vote in fact would be about 5% of the time for delete, rather than currently which is somewhere between 55-80% average (depending on which statistic you use). However, per my arguments above, if we were to do this, it would be a good thing! If people were able to regularly see all of the good articles that are out there, then they might have a more positive approach. It'd be nice if we voted for delete on all articles, and then said "Oh wow, isn't this article wonderful?" instead of all of the negativeness that comes in. Why don't we put Ronald Reagen up for AFD? Indeed, some of the articles I have seen on AFD have been wonderful. Whilst they were almost exclusively kept, some of them were not, sadly, predominantly because of negative attitudes. The contentious article that was recently deleted, of Sholom Keller, was a wonderfully well written article, yet was deleted after a 6/6 vote. I know that there are arguments about his true notoriety - after all, he wasn't interviewed all that often, and a lot of people contend that he wasn't really important - but there can be no debate about how well written the article was. It was one of the best written articles I have seen. But such things are occasionally steam rolled. I think its because some people are having a bad day and want a pick-me-up, or else perhaps in retaliation for them being abused by others in the deletion process previously. There have been studies within the armed forces about this kind of thing, where emotional abuse leads to emotional abuse as a kind of escape. Similar kinds of behaviours are prevalent within some US university houses (the ones with the greek letters, I mean - sorry, off hand I forget what they are called). And perhaps you are right that my opinion is skewed. But of course it is! But all opinions are always skewed. I do not attempt to pretend that my opinion is neutral when it is about something that I care about. When it is something that I couldn't care less about, then my opinion is fairly neutral. For example, Sholom Keller I couldn't care less about, hence my opinion is neutral in terms of the article, since he is really only relevant to American readers. However, from the point of view of the process, my view is that it should be kept. I put it up for undeletion, and I hope that that is what happens. I think that there is a clear case of lack of process. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
the american college societies of brothers are called fraternities. See Animal House. --Metarhyme 17:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
yeah. For some reason I can remember the name sororety but not fraternity off hand. Maybe if I'd ever been to america I might be more knowledgeable about its culture. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I have moved some parts of this page over to User_talk:Zordrac/deletions partially because it was getting me down and I don't want to have to look at it all the time, but partially because it was talking about deletions. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thank you very much for your advice.

--Papist 16:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Help with Vfd nom for Skybluz

That artricle is clearly a speedy delete as a recreation of a deleted article. Placing the speedy tag on it. And by the way if you want to renominate a article on afd use subst:afd2 . Thanks --Aranda 56) 18:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darkwars

Uncle G has a point, you know. Forums and web directories are easily abused by people trying to linkspam their forum, game or website just like Wikipedia is. Why do you think the sites you cited on this particular AFD are reliable? - Mgm|(talk) 20:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I just did a google search. But the site is a notable site. I could go through and bother to go through hundreds of links, but it really shouldn't be necessary. You don't get that many links. And remember that this is not a forum - its an online game. How about I look it up in tucows for you?

And uncle g has no right to abuse me in that manner. He can have his opinions, and that's fine, but he can tone down his behaviour. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD and hostility toward newbies

I applaud you trying to convince AfDers not to bite newbies -- as I said elsewhere, it's a valiant effort, and I tried it once. The problem is that AfD has become more than a process; it's a subculture that has different ideals than the rest of Wikipedia.

AfD makes people lose perspective. They see all the newbies who are wrong, and who use sockpuppets and recruit meatpuppets, and they assume that all newbies are puppets who are wrong. If you try to argue, you get wrapped up in some debate that's internal to AfD that was unrelated to your point, like deletionism or inclusionism.

The way to fix AfD, I think, is to have fewer things end up there. Would you like to help with deletion reform?

But keep fighting the good fight if you think you can change AfD. I applaud your effort.

rspeer 21:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Please reconsider your decision here. As I mention there, I don't think Transwikifying is even possible. Aucaman 06:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the prompt reply! It seems like we essentially agree, but I don't see how the article can be expanded in an encyclopedic way (that's the point I was trying to make).

[edit] CP vandalism.

You're welcome. Frankly, that whole topic area seems sort of small and esoteric to me, but it seems like consensus exists for that material to be there and I can't cite any rules that would categorically deny it. It's in, so removing it is vandalism, and nobody likes vandalism. Eh-heh-heh. Tom Lillis 07:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing inherently inappropriate about AfD-nominating something that was primarily your work. I'd almost suggest just turning it into a redirect yourself, but if you're more comfortable with the AfD process, that's perfectly fine. Tom Lillis 09:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of commenting on the request for protection and the larger liberty of nominating the page for deletion. This whole affair is just not good, and a deletion is probably the healthiest way to resolve it. Tom Lillis 03:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Consensus vs community decision - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Impaled_Northern_Moonforest

Consensus = community decision, IMO. This seems to be just pointless nitpicking to me — while consensus is not a supermajority, it is not unanimity either. Johnleemk | Talk 00:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, it's all right. Precisely defining consensus is often difficult and troublesome. You might want to check out wikipedia:Consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 00:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PoE bad faith AFD nom

I am very sad that the vandals that have been attacking my talker articles have now made a bad faith AFD on PoE. I had spent so much time working on those articles. Whilst I don't know what the policy is, they have said that they can get all of their friends to create accounts so as to make sure that it gets deleted. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. New accounts are generally noted as such on AfD and taken into account. Further, the article was just nominated, as I noted on the AfD entry. No doubt it will be kept, and discussion should continue on the talk/article pages themselves. ∴ here…♠ 01:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am not overly worried about it. They said themselves that they found the page (CP) and decided to edit it so as to promote their site. But that's not what Wikipedia is for! They say that they don't want bad things said about them. Well, nor does Michael Jackson. Same kind of issue, as far as I am concerned. A few of them created accounts purely so as to vandalise the page and more so as to vote on the deletion. In effect, their reason to nominate the article for deletion is so as to prove their point that their talker is better than another talker, in other words disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. I am just trying to stay away from the whole thing until it blows over. I think it is pretty likely it'll result in a speedy keep, but if it goes through the entire process, well, that's fine. I have most of the history of talkers written now. Its just sad that these people couldn't contribute something worthwhile. They were just the kind of people I wanted to help to edit these articles. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Preachin to the choir ;) ∴ here…♠ 02:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Rachel Owen

Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention! Yes, in the heat of closing AfDs, I closed it as a Delete but then went on to remove the AfD notice on the article as if it were a Keep... I appreciate your integrity! Making sure the process is followed even when the vote is against you is truly admirable. Owen× ☎ 02:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be fascinated to see the results of your analysis! A few months ago someone did a large scale analysis of AfD ("VfD" at the time), to figure out what were the actual consensus thresholds of various closing admins. The results were quite interesting, although it is sometimes difficult to figure out which votes were discarded as sockpuppets in some cases, possibly biasing the numbers. One of the impressions I get is that a "highly-wikified" article on non-notable or unverified subject is more likely to be kept than an ugly, unwikified article about a notable subject. If you could give a subjective score to this quality and calculate its correlation with the AfD outcome, we may get a confirmation of this theory.
I've noticed that you tend to be on the "Keep" side more often than most. When closing AfDs, I look for every possible way to escape an actual deletion, within the limits of consensus, of course. If, when you vote Keep, you could also provide an alternate "Redirect to" option, it would often give me an easy way to avoid deleting, especially if someone seconds your idea. If you vote early enough, others are likely to follow your lead. Redirects are cheap, and allow non-admins to retrieve text from the history.
You may also be interested in scanning CAT:CSD on a regular basis. I find that many articles are incorrectly nominated for Speedy deletion. CSD:G1 and CSD:G4 are two major offenders, although in many cases no reason is provided at all. Regrettably, some admins do not apply much scrutiny to those nominations, and I often see articles speedied improperly. When I check CAT:CSD, I usually end up removing speedy notices and changing deficient articles to a redirect as often as I do deleting them. You too are authorized to do that; it is perfectly legitimate to remove an incorrect speedy notice if you provide a valid reason. When in doubt, replace it with an AfD. I don't want to load our AfD pages with every speedy in sight, but many good stubs get lost daily to an often indiscriminant CSD process. Owen× ☎ 03:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shanna_Compton

Not petty at all! AfD is a delicate process, and I appreciate your feedback. I am not infallible, and having you audit my work is an excellent way to find any mistakes I made. Don't hesitate to bring any other such cases to my attention! Owen× ☎ 03:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As to consensus thresholds, I wouldn't be comfortable deleting an article with a mere 2:1 consensus. Therefore, it is only fair that I also close a 2:1 Keep as a "No consensus", although in that case the practical outcome is the same. The total number of votes also matters: two-thirds of 30 votes is statistically significant, while two-thirds of 12 votes probably isn't. Owen× ☎ 03:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_political_epithets

I counted the votes again, and this time got 15 "Keep", instead of the 14 I said when I closed. However, on your page you claim there are 17 Keep votes. Did I miss anything? Again, this wouldn't change the outcome, but I'm interested in your feedback. Owen× ☎ 03:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My head got dizzy. I don't think that it makes much difference. I will go back and change it if its wrong. This is taking me a while to do. :) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I counted 16, which is 15 if you ignore the anon (I am including the anon since I can't see any reason why we would assume that they are a sock puppet). Anyway, yeah, I will amend it to 16. I did the count before the voting closed anyway. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a sockpuppet? I disagree. The entire history of this anon consists of 3 edits, of which two are minor additions to the article itself and the third is a vote on the AfD. All three edits were done in a span of 6 minutes. Do you really think this is a new editor who happened to stumble on this page and then decided to vote? As a minimum, this is a meat-puppet who was invited to participate. If I saw a registered user with the same edit history I would also ignore his vote. This may not be enough evidence to go and block someone for sockpuppetry, but it's more than enough for most admins to ignore a vote.
Regarding anon votes, on RfA we simply ignore them. On AfD we are more accepting, but generally I only consider the ones which are clearly established editors. If it is a dynamic IP, as evidenced by large gaps in the history or varying editing styles, I only look at the last batch of edits. All in all, I think more harm is done by taking anon votes into account than by ignoring them in bulk. Even the non-sock voters usually have a very poor understanding of our inclusion criteria, and their votes are often personal testimonials as to their familiarity with the subject matter, rather than its encyclopedic value. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AFD bot

I noticed that you have an AFD bot that automatically puts the entire contents of articles listed for AFD in to a subsection of your user page. This is very useful I am sure. But who uses it? And why isn't such a thing maintained on an official site somewhere? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

1) I don't know who uses it. 2) It has been traditionally placed there. The previous user before me also placed it under a subpage of his userspace. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh? The previous user before you? Do you mean that there was another AllyUnion before you? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Anthony DiPierro ran a bot to update a similar listing at User:Anthony DiPierro/Current VfD, and I just took over the job. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:168.174.253.221

Hi Zordrac,

I came across the above-mentioned talkpage and saw your message.

You may be comforted to know that I do share the same views with you on how newcomers are treated. But I'd assume good faith that the community isn't as xenophobic as it seems. There are fellow sysops that I know who are more than happy to actually welcome newcomers into the family of Wikipedians.

BTW, there is a page on Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (a guideline, but not policy) as well.

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 20:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) :)

[edit] Re: Sock puppetry

Mass anon attacks on an article or an AfD can be very frustrating. When there is a clear violation of 3RR, you should get an admin to act. I'm online almost every evening, and would be happy to get involved. If there is no clear violation, it's best to get a few people familiar with the subject to take a look. A quick look at the major contributors for related articles is usually a good place to find such editors. With suspected socks on AfDs, add your observations below the offending voter, e.g., "Anon's 2nd edit after 3 weeks of inactivity. Tried to remove this note twice.". It is OK to revert as many times as needed to correct vandalism on an AfD, but a quick note on WP:AIV or on my Talk page would usually get that vandal blocked.

Which brings me to my next topic: would you be interested in adminship? I think you are more than ready for it, and I'd be proud to nominate you. I believe we would all benefit from letting you delete, undelete, and block when needed. Let me know, and I'll set it up this evening (EST). Owen× ☎ 20:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One dollar Federal Reserve Note

I noticed the deletion debate here has fizzled somewhat, but I made some changes to the articles that may further illustrate the points I had been trying to make. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Paul 23:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] response re Ti Tree

All towns/cities (except some capitals) in Australia should have the state/territory added to the article name, with a redirect or disambig at the plain name. Utopia is not in List of postcodes in the Northern Territory, which I normally use as a guide. If it has over 1000 people and is famous for its art, it probably deserves an article.

I have redirected Ti Tree to Tea tree, as that's what I thought of first of the name. I of course added Ti Tree, Northern Territory to the things in the disambig list at Tea tree. --Scott Davis Talk 03:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If I entered "Ti Tree", I'd expect to be redirected to Leptospermum, as that's how I thought the plant was spelt. As Tea tree is already a disambig page, I figured the best solution was to put all meanings of Ti Tree, Tea Tree, Tea tree and Ti tree together there. --Scott Davis Talk 02:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Girafa

Thanks for the heads-up. Someone recreated it after I speedied it. (Argh.) FreplySpang (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talker articles

I can easily understand your frustration. We have lost many good editors due to orchestrated attacks on their article by people with an ulterior motive. You do raise a few troubling issues, though:

  • Making legal threats is against our policy: Wikipedia:No legal threats. Can you provide diffs of those threats? Most admins would be quick to act on such violations.
  • WP:3RR is also a policy. There has been some talk about expanding the definition to include "meat puppets" – groups of editors acting as a team. If the pattern is obvious, most admins would block the offenders.
  • Unexplained blanking of portions of an article is considered vandalism, especially if done more than once, after the issue was brought up on the article's Talk page. If an explanation is provided, this becomes a content dispute.
  • I think merging the articles is a good way to go. As a minimum, you'd be bringing the content into higher traffic pages, where you are more likely to get neutral editors to participate in the discussion, and help you resist blanking and deleting by POV pushers.
  • You can easily find out whether someone is an admin here; an admin would show up with "(sysop)" next to his name, like so.
  • Review Wikipedia:Protection policy. When edit wars get out of hand, we sometimes use this feature. It's not a secret; many non-admins frequently ask for it on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

Get me or any other admin involved when you spot violations such as the ones I mentioned. As an Eventualist, you know that the truth will prevail. Hope this helps! Owen× ☎ 19:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a note to thank you for the great work on expanding the Talker article, it was sorely in need of expansion. I think there's lots more that could be added but the trouble is that its hard to verify independently of our own knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.247.235 (talk • contribs)

  • If you looked at the references, there are about 100 different references. Whilst they only represent one point of view, they are nonetheless references. It would be useful to have references to represent the other point of view, but to date I have been unable to source them. If they exist, then it would be very useful. It's certainly not original research though, as you can see from the references. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of asking Shinmawa to work with you on the merge process for the talker articles. He is willing if you are, and I think a joint effort would probably produce the most neutral and content-valuable final result. I'd ask that you get in touch with him about this one way or the other, as it would probably go a long way to healing rifts created by this process.

Best of luck and happy editing. Tom Lillis 05:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that much of the work is done and it looks great to me, but I'd like to head off any future potential conflicts by having a member of the talker world discuss some of the changes with you and make sure that a mutually agreeable product is put out there for public consumption. I hate toxicity on the Wiki and this just seems like a good way to prevent that while upholding the collaborative model.
Again, as far as I can tell the merge job is fantastic, but after the divisive process we've just gone through, I think it's only fair that we go as far as possible to be inclusionary. Tom Lillis 05:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. I'm not asking for you to cede to his every demand--I'm just suggesting that you talk to him and solicit his feedback. I was as aggressively for the deletion as you were, remember. I just think very much that the issue is not going to go away with the merges and the (inevitable) deletion; also, those actions don't exclude the other participants from further editing. I'm a hardcore deletionist when it comes to material. I am an inclusionist when it comes to editor participation--especially editors who can make valuable contributions and especially when it might ease some bruised working relationships and foster a stronger sense of community. I'm obviously nobody to force you to do anything, but I think it would be a powerful and "right" gesture to work with him a bit. That's all. Tom Lillis 06:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talkers et alii

The subject matter is not something I'm familiar with (even though I was using Relay for AberMud back in 1987) so I'll need to actually look over the articles before I can form any clear thoughts on them in paticular. However, as to redirects and merging, I can comment with some authority that no authority is required. Be bold and do it, of course staying cool if someone disagrees.
I'll comment more after I get a chance to do my research, eh?
brenneman(t)(c) 00:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crystal Palace (chat site) and related issues

I've posted my reply here. Owen× ☎ 02:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help!

Thanks for your support on the request for protection of Odin! Wighson 00:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what my adminship has to do with anything, as I haven't even as much as referred to it in this case, let alone made use of my privileges. Nor was I aware that you were following the "discussion", nor do I believe we have met. Nor do I quite see how demanding protection of an article is compatible with demanding its being rewritten (but I realize from the "discussion" that Wighson has issues with elementary predicate logic, so we'll let that pass). But I have obliged you in putting a note on the admin board, at this point, as I don't care too much to have a vote on my character conducted on article talkpages; you are free to team up with Wighson in an RfC against me, of course, where, unlike on Talk:Odin such comments will actually be on topic. It goes without saying that I deny all of Wighsons ten claims about my behaviour, and I actually claim points 6 to 8 apply to W himself. dab (ᛏ) 17:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC) -- I apologize, I was under the impression that you posted you comment to Talk:Odin, where it was misleadingly placed by Wighson [1]. I realize now that you were only replying to WP:RFP, [2] without taking sides, after W put up a flurry of ludicrous misstatements. Sorry to have drawn you into this. dab (ᛏ) 17:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you..

For the support of the Bitties article. You are a true hero, but too many disagreed. One day, Bitties will be a real word!

[edit] Mo0's RFA

Could you please explain how Mo0's talk page getting vandalised means that he is unsuitable for being an admin? "Reaching peace" with vandals is very very rare; all we can do in most cases is remove the vandalism and hope they go away. Most vandal-fighters have their user page or talk page attacked frequently, if anything it's probably a good sign as it means that they are annoying a lot of vandals.

Also, it's fantastic that you have got such a lot of edits in so short a time, but I'd have to say that no-one I've seen is anywhere near as active as you have been, so opposing Mo0 for having less edits than you isn't really fair. I've been here since July and I only have half the edits you have, and I'd say Mo0 has an average number of edits for an admin candidated. I urge you to reconsider, or at least further explain, your vote. Raven4x4x 09:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll reply on the RFA page as you've also posted there. I'll just say that I share your concerns about how hard it is to remove someone from adminship. There are people who feel that Bureaucrats should be able to de-admin people as they are the ones that promote them. I think the reason why that was voted down was that very few admins have actually needed to be removed. Using Mo0 as an example, a user who has spent as much time as he has reverting vandalism is unlikely to start adding it. Raven4x4x 09:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zachary Soza

He was just one of many actors in Barney, and anything more than a mention of his role in the show would be irrelevant to the article. Therefore, for the purposes of the article it was agreed to redirect his article to, he was an inconsequential actor. Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pebbles for People

Consensus is not indicated by a vote. It's indicated by a debate. (This is why Votes for Deletion was renamed Articles for Deletion.) The debate clearly indicated the article should be deleted. There was good reason to suspect at least two of the keep voters were sockpuppets, and the article itself was unverifiable. And besides, what kind of charity donates pebbles? Clearly a hoax. Such discretion is why if a hundred people vote to keep a copyvio and only one person votes to delete (but proves beyond all doubt the article's copyvio status), the article is deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 10:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Friday Harbor High School

10 to 4 is not consensus; most people won't settle for anything less than 80% as consensus, and even then, the definition of consensus is quite fluid and varies from person to person. Johnleemk | Talk 11:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You have not read the page properly. Please see the template at the top: "It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy." As for Pebbles for People, for the last time, there is no agreement on what constitutes consensus. (If I wanted to be funny, I'd say there is no consensus on consensus.) Refer to my example of the copyvio above. 100 invalid keep votes versus 1 valid delete vote = consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the (un)fortunate truth. Deal with it. Every AfD closure is at the admin's discretion. And this is pointless nitpicking anyhow - you're not questioning any of the decisions, are you? You're just questioning the terminology I used. Johnleemk | Talk 11:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hirst

There is a precedent for userfying pages of marginally notable individuals when those pages flout WP:AUTO, even if nobody nominates it for userfication. I can't think of any specific examples offhand, but I recall a few instances of similar closures being made by other admins over the time I've been keeping up with AfD, and at least one instance of a speedy userfication where the closing admin userfied the page less than 24 hours after the page was nominated for AfD. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 15:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit counting

Replying to the discussions on RfA/Mo0 and my user page.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to offend you. You've certainly done a large amount work, and I'm very glad you're contributing to Wikipedia.

Perhaps I should have expanded my reasoning a bit. 1) According to other people's standards for RfA, 1500-2500 edits is not all that uncommon of a standard. 2) Edit counting is a tricky thing, and doubly so if you want to compare two people's edit counts. Usually on an RfA, most people don't go strictly by the edit count, but also comb through their history to make sure most of those edits are of good quality. As Wikipedia:Editcountitis points out, there are all number of ways in which specific edits can be lower or higher quality than others. 3) To some extent, RfA is harsh on the nominees. You were comparing your edit count to the nominee's, and I subsequently decided to be harsh about your edit history. Perhaps that wasn't correct, because it wasn't your RfA (and especially because I did it right before going to bed, and without more than a cursory examination). 4) People use different standards for voting (discussing) on RfA, sometimes wildly so, and you're absolutely entitled to your standard. Though it's usually better to look at their edit history, and explain your qualitative analysis, rather than relying solely on raw numbers from a tool. --Interiot 17:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removing valid comments from this page

Zordrac, I think it was a poor choice to remove comments from this talk page. Splash is a valued member of our community, and if you'd rather not respond to him, the least you can do is leave his comments untouched. None of the text you removed constitutes a personal attack. Your action looks particularly questionable coming less than a week after you chastised another editor for doing exactly the same. Please reconsider. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I took it as a personal attack, very much so. I also responded to it in its appropriate place in another forum, where he wrote the exact same thing, but as less of a personal attack. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider my comment to fall anywhere near the examples laid out in WP:NPA. Perhaps you should reconsider what you consider to be a personal attack as compared to criticism. Peyna 00:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
It was invalid and inaccurate. You stated that I spend all of my time complaining about things instead of writing articles, which is simply not true, and is not a valid explanation for why people are nasty occasionally. Hence it was something that I consider to be an untrue statement veiled as a personal attack, and I do not want it on my page thank you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Have it your way; however, you ought to assume good faith. I was merely suggesting that there may be another reason for why you don't receive "positive" comments on your talk page as opposed to your apparent belief that everyone on Wikipedia hates you. Your attitude regarding my comment reinforces my original comment. Peyna 00:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
You also have mischaracterized my comment completely. Re-read what I wrote. Perhaps you saw something there that wasn't there based upon your own assumptions. Peyna 00:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Deletion reform is not the "appropriate" forum — my talk page and/or yours is (if you don't want to use Deletion review straight off). My manner of closing AfDs doesn't have anything much to do with deletion reform at all, particularly since, if deletion were reformed, one supposes my present closure methods would become obsoleted by definition. -Splashtalk 00:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
So I am in trouble for trying to help people out? Great. Or am I supposed to just say "Hey, no problems, I'll just let you bash me for it, no problems." Sheesh. Its not my fault how some people react to me trying to help them. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert Raider

Hey, yeh I spend a lot of my down-time scouring Wikipedia for vandals. I don't really have much down-time, though, so perhaps you can appreciate the speed with which I do it :-). JHMM13 (T | C) 03:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

I, Megamix, award Zordrac the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar for comforting newbies in the hostile and often-traumatic environment of AfD.
I, Megamix, award Zordrac the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar for comforting newbies in the hostile and often-traumatic environment of AfD.

Hello!

I saw your notice at the very end of your userpage, and decided to fix that. Here's a Barnstar for you. I hope you don't get too stressed-out over whatever is troubling you on Wikipedia right now. Take a Wikibreak, if you must, but come back. You are valuable. -- MegamiX 06:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Cleanup" as an AFD option.

I don't like to use the "cleanup" option because I'm told some closing admins treat it as an unconditional "keep" instruction, whereas I look at it as "Keep iff cleaned up, otherwise delete". Same when I give a merge (or more typically smerge) instruction: "Keep selected information iff moved to another article, otherwise delete". So while cleanup is a legitimate option, it's one I don't often use because I don't feel it necessarily expresses my opinion explicitly enough. The Literate Engineer 16:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I went in and gave it some cleanup. Mind you, it could probably use more, but that's as much time as I'm going to spend on a pornsite article. The Literate Engineer 18:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] v.

Hi. Regarding your AfD vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McCleskey v. Kemp, in U.S. cases, the "v" is invariably followed by a period 481 U.S. 279 (see this case report, for example). I believe this differs from country to country, but U.S. cases are named by U.S. rules. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Greetings. Per your questions - indeed, in Australian cases, there is no period after the v (but in the U.S. there always is). Just a small matter of style, I guess. As to your second question, I am a legal practitioner, specializing in intellectual property law. Thanks for asking! BD2412 T 16:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brandi Lyons

Awwww. Of all the things wrong with that page, you picked that? Where's your sense of humor? Herostratus 16:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Falconio

I've been watching the case, but was not particularly keen on updating things that are sub judice, regardless of whether or not I would be allowed to (although to be fair I think I remember updating Soham murders cautiously during the trial - at least in that case there were bodies). I think it's unlikely he'll 'fess up at this point. Morwen - Talk 14:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is why I like the idea of truth and reconcilation. Morwen - Talk 14:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but certainly with the Moors Murders, there are still kids left buried in unknown places, and others that nobody's sure if they were victims, and that saddens me. Morwen - Talk 14:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re Nonsense

I've never looked at it like that before but I always respond on the other person's talk page - saves bandwidth and makes sure they always receive my message. -- Francs2000 14:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I did see what you were getting at. -- Francs2000 14:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shpants

Zordrac, Thanks for your note. I nominated the Shpants article for a speedy delete under the criteria of re-creation of a deleted article. From the discussion, the conclusion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shpants was delete, not redirect. I was surprised to see it recreated, even as a redirect. As you noted in a December 1 comment, "...rewrote page. it is valid, but shouldn't be called shpants, as that is not the notable form of the word." ERcheck 11:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, I count 4 deletes, 1 delete or redirect ("if must"), 1 move+redirect, 1 rename (which was done)+ 1 move, and a number of comments. (See the vote here --> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shpants.) As you noted, it is not a notable form of the word. -- ERcheck 11:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That is 4 redirects and 4 deletes - 3 of the 4 deletes were based on the original article - the ONLY delete that was based on the improved article was yours. Ergo, consensus to redirect. Its silly really that you push to speedy delete something when you were the only one who nominated it for delete. You should just accept the views of the majority. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brandt

Thanks for your note. I accidentally stumbled on the case just today, and am always interested in things that affect wikipedia but also internet freedom, something Brandt doesn't seem to like while I place a great value on it. I have added that actually it is the ISP's who insist on anonymity for their clients not wikipedia. I did also read someone saying that instead of doing the hard work to promote his site at Google he just started criticising them, perhaps it is all just a subtle way of generating self-publicity and making money, as the article suggests. While I am all in favour of people making money if they work hard to do so at the expense of internet freedom is atrocious, IMO, and I will certainly be keeping a watch on this character, SqueakBox 15:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well perhaps that should be made clearer in the article. As I say I never heard of him till this morning so I could well be confused. I notice he seeks out anonymous editors whereas you openly proclaim your anonymity, so I am not quite sure what your take on the whole affair is either, so keep responding, SqueakBox 16:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

I am honored by your comments and support in my RFA. It is becoming increasingly rare and I thank you. I will not forget it.Gator (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for your words! I would be honored if you would put some or all of them on the RFA page (or in its talk page). There is a lot of one0sided talk on this right nwo adn its hurting me. I could use all the help I can get right now. Wow, thanks again. I was depressed amd am still bummed, but feel a lot better because of you. Thanks again. You humbled me. :)Gator (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's cool. Just the comments I suppose, especially the recent ones. I apologized and have out it behind me. I had hoped that others had too, but am surprised by how many people still have so much ill will about the entire ugly episode. I made some mistakes but I've learned and moved on. My edits since then prove it. But I guess I need to pay my dues for what I did. Thanks again.19:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfB

Hi Zordrac!

I think you may have misunderstood my actions on Wikipedia, and as such I have replied to your oppose vote. I am respectfully asking that after you read and consider what I've written that you reconsider your vote. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. Thanks! Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi again,
As much as I wish I could agree with you, Brandt has already taken shots at me, and that was long before I said anything that could even be considered negative. Have you seen this? He posted my name, address, information about college... it's things like that turned me off so very quickly about him. His ideals may be in the right, but his methods, such as tracking down personal information about those who speak against him, are not moral. He was banned from Wikipedia for being a disruptive troll. We did in fact try listening to him; in fact, I tried talking to him personally. It did me no good. He ignored me completely, even as I extended him the olive branch.
I find Mr. Brandt fascinating, Zordrac. I don't agree with his tactics, though, because I find them very unbecoming of a privacy activist. Do you see the angle I'm coming in from?
So, basically, I'm asking you this. Would you reconsider your vote to at least neutral? I don't know if you read my candidate statement (I don't think you did, but I could be wrong), but my heart is in the right place, and I have the credentials to prove it.
Anyway, don't be alarmed by the name thing. That's on my signature and isn't anything special. Thanks for your time. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BD

noticed your comment on Gator's page about how arbcom seemed to ignore evidence in the BD case. if you read through the arbcom proceedings, you'll see that BD stated that he was making it a personal mission to attack the funding sources of wikipedia, and that this had been his plan almost from the start. regards, Derex 20:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ianbrown

You said:

Neutral - can't see a reason to oppose with the huge edit count, lots of valid contributions, and likes cricket. But just not enough activities with regards to such things as AFDs, policy discussion, anti-vandalism or any admin-ish chores. A great contributor, and an asset to Wikipedia. No need to make him an admin.

You are of course entitled to vote however you wish for whatever reason you choose. However, I would like to say that I have seen Ian participating in AFDs many times; that a look at his User page pre 9 November will indicate just how much he has been thinking about vandalism and policy; and that participation in policy discussions is utterly irrelevant to adminship status. Rock on, Snottygobble | Talk 02:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Falconio

I saw a redirect had been made from the peter Falconio page and assumed someonehad vandalised the page to redirect it to another, that was not the original one, and tried to revert it to what it was originally. I fail to see why there was a need to create a new page just simply to add 'dissapearance' to the title. What would happen if someone now wanted to add 'murder' to the title? would that be yet another redirected page? yes I'm new. and have not done the other edits. I'm working from the local library open link station. 86.2.137.12 10:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Thanks, I made the error with the categories by getting mixed up as I moved between the redirected page and the original I will correct my error. 86.2.137.12 10:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Help

Care to help with S11? --Striver 00:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Care to join Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild? --Striver 00:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much for contributing those pieces of information! Have good day/night :) --Striver 01:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The world is going strairt to NWO... or Hell, depending on which word you prerer... Thanx for all the time you spent on it. I would sugest you to start something like a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject anti-Globalization related topics Guild, abrevated to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AGRT Guild or something... you seem to know a bit about it, and coordinating efforts is a great tool! I mean, if it wasnt, why whould they ban it? Good luck! --Striver 18:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brandt again

Hi Zordrac,

I invite you to look at this posting on WP:AN. You will find it to be very interesting. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 01:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

For your surprising vote of support on my recent bid for adminship. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:19, Dec. 17, 2005

[edit] Daniel Brandt

I really don't care what he puts on his website, it's not as if anyone will actually read it - I think that if he wants to list people's real names and that's not an invasion of privacy, then that's his business. I have nothing against him or what he does. What I do object to is him expecting that he can waltz into Wikipedia and lay down the law and when people object, resort to blatant trolling. He can edit his own article within policy - as far as I am concerned, he is just another banned user who has set up a hostile website. So what? He is not the first and is not likely to be the last. What I am going to do is ignore him - I find it rather flattering that he's listed me (John Doe #16). I am planning on being reasonable and will always be extending the same invitation to him. Whether he takes it or not, is a matter for him. Izehar (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

When he was trying to get the article deleted. The fact that policy and consensus was to keep it didn't enter his mind - you may also want to check why he has listed FayssalF on his black list. Fayssal committed a heinous crime - he reverted Brandt. Izehar (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you note on my talk page about Public Information Research. The site used to be at pir.org, but I imagine Daniel Brandt sold it to the current owners because it is a very valuable domain name. Now it appears the main presence online is at namebase.org. I don't have a whole lot of info beyond what I found from a cursory search. I usually jusy click on red links and start articles when I can. Jokestress 17:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I also saw you are spearheading the drive to delete U.S. v. Brandt. I believe things get filled in when they are current events much more thoroughly, so I am always saddened to see deletionism of this sort. To take your apples and oranges analogy, I don't think any SCOTUS decisions should be deleted, nor should the episode guides to popular television shows, to take another "frivolous" example. I believe one area where Wikipedia can outshine other resources is this very type of article. I envision Wikipedia being as deep as one wants to go into a subject. The Brandt case was a notable example of the government using conscription to crack down on protestors and delinquents, fast-tracking them to get shipped off to Viet Nam. Brandt was one of the few people who not only stood up but did jail time on this. The case had a chilling effect on the overzealous draft boards and was a big black eye for the military. Like you, I find this topic interesting, but I find the argument about SCOTUS specious. I suppose I should be tilting at windmills regarding those deleting SCOTUS decisions, but I have faith that in the long run, all those cases will be rescued from the deletionists active during Wikipedia's early history. Jokestress 21:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Well Done

I noticed this on your user page. Are you happy now? ;) --D-Day 19:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for voting on my RfA, even if you voted oppose. Shanel 21:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers!

Hi Zodrac, thanks for your support on my recent RFA. The request was successful, with a final tally of 33/0/0. I'm delighted that you decided to support it and I hope that I can live up to your expectations. Leithp (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, stalked

Daniel Brandt obviously did a little research on me, as I have not provided any of the personal information found on his so-called lawsuit page on Wikipedia. I'd call that stalking. Obli 12:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • No, the very opposite. It's my name, I'm the only person with it and that's what's bothering me. That information is more than enough to find me in real life, I'm by no means a public figure or celebrity and should have the possibility to exercise certain control over where information that personally identifies me gets posted. Besides, if he's collecting evidence for a lawsuit, why does the world have to see everything he's got?

Obli 12:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose, but if he wants something out of this other than attention I think pressuring me is completely useless, I have no say in the Wikipedia community, I'm just an editor, an awfully inactive one on top of that. Also, I noticed Linuxbeak is no longer on Brandt's list, what happened to him? Obli 12:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that shed some light onto all this... But yeah, I agree, I guess I got a little too edgy to join the flow to "protect" wikipedia, as both WP and Google are in high standing with me I just dove into the drama bomb without knowing anything about it, but I've got to admit that after this whole affair he's notable enough to me to stay in WP.

As for the something awful issue, I'm a member of their forums myself and I agree strongly on what you're saying, they're pushing the limits of privacy a little bit too much sometimes, in fact, I think they're struggling to keep the invasions of privacy down right now, there have been quite some discussions about "internet detective work" and how it should be bannable.

Having that said, I'll just have to admit that I agree with RoyBoy on the hive-mind page: "privacy ain't what it used to be"

Obli 13:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've read your page on Daniel Brandt and I fully agree, this is not CIA's personal dossier on him, it's supposed to be a brief encyclopedic synopsis of what he's notable for. I haven't had time to look into the LJ drama thing, but I can assure you that I'm familiar with the something awful counterparts... But then again, I don't think I ever touched the Daniel Brandt page, all I did is was writing those words that now appear on his hivemind page, to be honest I think he only put me there because my personal info was really easy to find (the link to my blog on my user page, for example. A whois would give everything he needed). It's sad that he doesn't know who to pressure, it's ceratinly not a 18-year-old Swedish teenager who masterminds this so-called conspiracy of his. Obli 14:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, better get a new identity for my undercover CIA work then, that Swedish teenager was getting kind of old anyway ;) Nice talking to you about this, turns out it was far more than an elaborate drama bomb... Obli 20:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, at least he removed everyone's names from the list, that's nice, I suppose... Obli 20:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hello, I'd like to thank you for having taken the time to vote and comment on my RFA. Izehar (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate you reconsidering - with regards to Brandt, I don't know for sure, as I wasn't there, but everyone was being polite and reasonable with him at first, especially Linuxbeak and SlimVirgin. He expected us to rearrange the entire system so that he could get his way. After days of trolling, tantrums and legal threats, he set up that website and got blocked. I would nominate that page of his for deletion and everyone could relax, except I know it would fail, as overwhelming consensus is to keep it. Don't get me wrong, I find all his legally ominous comments worrying - when I saw he had added me to his list, I nearly kicked myself. Of course, that website of his probably is an attention-seeking bluff, but IMO that was completely unnecessary. If I could get the stomach for it, I would propose that the Wikipmedia Foundation seek full legal advice on how far we can go with biographies, but I daren't, I'd get laughed down at once.

IMO you should stand by everything you said, there's nothing wrong with that. I an fact fully agree with you at User:Zordrac/Daniel Brandt. I think that Wikipedia:Libel and WP:NLT should be rewritten and supervised by a legal expert. Anyway, I don't think we should worry about it. Brandt has been behaving ridiculously, like a child and his pudding. If none of the other Wikipedians worry about it, neither shall I.

I'm beginning to think that Brandt deliberately caused and prolongs this dispute - it fuels that website of his and he has dismissed your patient attempt to solve everything allows us to draw inferences. I bet sooner or later, he'll start another "watch" website. Perhaps Oatmeal Watch or something like that.

Anyway, thank you again for reconsidering my RFA. Izehar (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bye and some comments

I am sad when anyone leaves, so goodbye (even though I never really had much contact with you). I just stumbled across User:Zordrac/Daniel Brandt and I have late some (late) comments for you. You wrote:

Then someone recreated it (in spite of recreating deleted articles being a criteria for speedy deletion WP:CSD), and it passed an AFD and was kept.

That isn't true. Only articles recreated after a AFD are CSD candidates.

He was then banned for creating hivemind, supposedly because his listing of users' real names was in violation of policy.

that isn't true. He was blocked for legal threats (the hivemind page didn't help though). I was one of the blocking admins.

And then today he was unbanned by User:Linuxbeak. I found it a bit astounding, as, if I read it correctly, he seemed to be doing it because I was the only person to vote "Oppose" on his Request for Beaurocrat (something that he'd get regardless of my vote). Seems a bit odd. But then it didn't really work.

I unblocked him, Not Linuxbeak.

Also, I don't think Brandt seriously thinks Google is out to get him (and is in collusion with Wikipedia). In general I disagree with you, but you do make some good points. Basically I think everyone should just be nicer. If people hadn't insulted Brandt (and Brandt hadn't threatened to sue/blackmail) then things would be fine today. Oh, well. Broken S 22:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

oh, alright Broken S 15:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia philosophies

Just a note to say I like your short summary of the Wikipedia philosophies. One of these days, I am going to spell mine out, but for now I come out pretty close to where you do. -- DS1953 talk 05:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I knew about the links -- it's your personailzed take on each of them that I liked! -- DS1953 talk 06:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tawnee Stone et al.

We have agree over the course of multiple discussion at AN/I not to include the unverified names for these porn models which are proposed by an individual who had it in his interest to stalk these women. He subsequently cofounded wikiporn after his edits were rejected here. Dragons flight 06:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fortune Lounge Group Article

I would like to understand better why the Fortune Lounge Group article keeps on being deleted, as I have tried as much as possible to re-edit the article so that it is less promotional. It would be nice for the Group to feature in the Wiki and I do not mind re-editing the material once again, but I do not understand the grounds for deletion.

I did make an attempt to completely re-edit the article and posted another version on 15 Dec 2005, but this got a speedy deletion.

I see you have a number of online casinos and poker rooms listed in the Wikipedia and these articles have external links so if this is not ideally the factor for deletion - please could you give me some tips as to how we can feature in the wiki without breaking the editorial rules per se.

I'd really like some feedback and will await a timeous response.Email me at matthewa@fortunelounge.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by fortunelounge (talk • contribs)

[edit] YOU TOTALLY RULE!

Kudos to you on your brilliance! I just read what you had to say on AfD reform and your are absolutely 100% right. Everything about the current process is biased. The AfD voting policy is an outright sham. Please see the GH avisualagency AfD to see Wikipedia's so-called "democracy" at work. What is even more hypocritical is the issue of "vanity". It obviously doesn't apply to the higher-ups and the admins:

Wikimeister 18:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your interest in my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to vote on my RfA. While it was not a favorable vote, I do appreciate your honesty -- and I also appreciate your perspectives on AfD. Obviously, I may disagree with you on certain things, such as the Tori Stone issue -- but this does not mean that those who disagree should be hateful of one another, which is a growing problem on Wikipedia. I applaud (and will back up) your willingness to assume good faith on all people, and if you are in need of any assistance, I will try to be there for you as not only a fellow human being, but as an administrator. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 04:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] malo's RfA

Thank you!
Zordrac, thanks for your support on my RFA. I was rather suprised at the overwhelming support I received. Thank you for your confidence in me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] For the record...

... if you had something to do with Brandt taking down personal info from his shitlist, thanks. Please don't feel stupid for sticking your neck out to defend a person, even when they don't appreciate it. The principle of the thing is to be fair, and to stick to your guns, even when others disagree with you. That's my take on things, anyway. I think you did a good job. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: Brandt suspect that I'm a member of the CIA, because I don't give my real name? C'mon, you can't be serious! That would mean that he believes that 95% of the site are agents! As for bargaining chips, well, if that's Daniel's ethics, then IMHO he probably shouldn't be in the activist game...
Can you tell me who the "outing" user was? Sorry that this happened. Sounds like they need to be reminded about Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
As I say, though, Brandt may have stabbed you in the back, but you have shown that you have principals. That's good enough for a whole heap of people, myself included. Unfortunately, principals often come at a cost, as you have so painfully discovered :( Ta bu shi da yu 17:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, if Brandt believes these things he really is a twit. Perhaps he should read our article tinfoil hat. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grateful for your advice please

Please e-mail me - Poetlister 20:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean you've never used the "E-mail this user" option in Wikipedia? I have a Wikipedia problem that I believe you may be able to help me with. - Poetlister 20:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zordrac/Fortuneloungegroup

It seems more neutral than the advertisement posted previously, so I would move it back to Fortune Lounge Group. That said, the page is still not completely NPOV—there is no need for an "Awards" section, and the controversy section shouldn't be at the end of the article, but probably much higher. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, those awards seem too much like an advertisement, so they could probably be pared down to the most important ones... but then, that's just my opinion. That probably should be settled on the article's talk page along the input of other users. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Just leave them on the External links section with a note that they're not clickable due to spam blocking. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I truly don't know. It might be better to ask at the Technical Village Pump about this, since it is frequented by the MediaWiki developers. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Having looked over the new NPOV article, it seems that we may all have been talking about a different deletion, as the 2nd version contained no "Awards" section. However, I'd like to thank Zordrac for helping to recreate a fairly good article, but unfortunately some information is highly inaccurate and I will take it upon myself to edit the necessary false information. I'd like to send the version I did write up to Zordrac and urge you to please email me so that I may send the material I'd like to add to your version. here's my email address so you can make conatct: lildice@brillmarketing.com. thanks so much for all your help. fortunelounge

[edit] Message

Hi, message for you at User talk:Mindspillage. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Zordrac. Do you have any reason to believe Poetlister has not been using other accounts? She was blocked by a member of the arbcom who has check-user access, and she is definitely not involved in mediation with anyone, as she has told you. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed you say on Mindspillage's page that you've seen evidence of wrongdoing on Lulu's part that might require an RfC or RfAr. Would you mind saying what this evidence is? I don't want to interfere, but I noticed you say earlier that you've had no contact with Poetlister until today, so you may not be aware of the background. I would urge caution for that reason, as the situation has been a little strange. To the best of my knowledge, Lulu has had no contact with her for weeks, and his disagreement with RachelBrown is over. It was about whether she had to supply sources for her edits, and then it was whether a particular source she offered was a credible source, and it was, which Lulu accepted. There were no other issues between them that I'm aware of. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Mindspillage

I happened across the fact you made several rather scurrilous comments about me in a thread about a block on another editor. For example: I see evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Lulu of the Lotus Eaters requiring a RfC and possibly ArbCom.. AFAIK, I've never even intersected in editing a page in common with you, so I really don't understand why you would go around diss'ing me in such a manner (especially given it's flat-out falseness). Maybe a little more WP:FAITH than just putting down editors you've never interacted with would be a good thing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I would have replied on your talk page, but it was infiltrated by a wikistalker. Suffice to say that the issue was that you failed to assume good faith with regards to new editors citing references, which you deleted and discredited, even after they were verified, and still continue to claim WP:V over such issues as whether or not a supreme court justice of the Israel Supreme court is jewish, and whether the Jewish Year Book is a valid reference for finding out if someone is Jewish. It goes a bit beyond just you lacking good faith however. It is my opinion that your actions were wantonly irresponsible and I would support someone going to ArbCom over this issue, especially now that User:Poetlister was arbitrarily banned so as to prevent any dispute over your conduct. And yes, I am neutral in the context, since I never met you. That makes my comments MORE valid, not less. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Also note that I have had no prior contact with Poetlister or anyone else involved. I am a purely neutral party giving my opinion of the situation based on evidence. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Suggestion

Zordrac, I notice you opposed W.marsh's adminship with the comment "a few bad run ins with this fellow." I don't have a problem with this, but several users, including W.marsh himself, have wondered what the few bad run ins were. It is prefered in RFA to provide evidence of such encounters – this backs up your claim while allowing other users to include them in their judgement of the nominee.

On an unrelated note, I know you probably don't ever want to hear the name of Daniel Brandt ever again, but I just want to say I'm sorry that he upset/insulted you so much. I haven't seen any of his comments to you, but they must have been pretty bad, and I never like to see that happen to anyone. Raven4x4x 01:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poetlister block

Hi, I have been in contact with these people by email, it may be that there are friends or acquaintances of each other but to block them because they have supported each other in disputes (in a totally open way) seems incredibly unfair!? Arniep 02:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, you might want to see or/and comment on Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#RachelBrown socks. --Mistress Selina Kyle 05:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration? O-o

I just saw the message you left over on my talk page

I have no idea who Lulu is or why I would want to arbitrate agaisnt her, sorry. :/ But it does seem that User:Mindspillage, the one who made all these blocks is using unjustified guesswork here - It seems quite obvious that they have been using each others computers at various times and hence the similar ip's --Mistress Selina Kyle 05:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fortune Lounge

See what I mean? User:Fortunelounge is going to try to remove anything he doesn't like and replace it with corporate PRspeak. Trust me, I'm a racing team PR person. He's gonna try and make everything in the article PRized approved fluff. FCYTravis 09:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi Actually the only reason why I tried to delete the information under the spam section of the article as it is inaccurate and providing time-sensitive false information is neither in the best interests of the wiki or our page.

When Zordrac created this new article, some of his links were incorrect and that has led us to believe that his keywords research for our site came up with a www.fortuneloungegroup.com web address that does not in fact exist.

www.online-casinos.com is under the maintenance of Jan Balslev, and the site is part of the InterCasino/Casino Tropaz online operators. I do not know where they got their information from or what game they're trying to play at, but their article is unsubstantiated and alleged rumor by the look of things.

We're not looking to cause a stir, but do not want this wiki page to be the start of a smear campaign either as it does add significant encyclopedic and research value to this entry . Apologies for givng you the impression that we were trying to cover up some negative press, but we are actually about transparency and like to be held accountable for our decisions.

Thanks goes to Zordrac for helping us to have an entry and we do not expect any ownership over his created page. User:Fortunelounge

This is my user page. I have possession of this user page. Therefore, you can refer to me in first person (i.e. "you" rather than "zordrac"). Thanks :).

Yes, feel free to correct things, and I apologise for any errors. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'd prefer for you to correct your mistake on that article as this will cause less issues on my side with FCYTravis, who seems to be a little like he's out for our blood - by the look of some of the comments... anyway just glad to resolve some journalistic inaccuracies. thanks again for your help in this matter. User:Fortunelounge

[edit] Fortune Lounge Group

Thanks for letting me know. enochlau (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Hey, you asked why no one was nice. I guess it's easier to be nasty, so people take the easy road. I read through your user page. Quite interesting. You have a lot of interests but maybe you could get out more. You take AfD way too seriously. Analysing your votes is a step too far, man. Still, if it makes you happy, it makes you happy. I also read your comment to Mistress Selina Kyle. Don't stress too much about admin corruption. Get on the wrong side of someone who's "connected" and the best thing to do is walk away. There's 1000s of other articles to work on. Unless you want to get bruised, give up the one you've run into a bully over, and find something else to work on. Unless you like mischief, that is. The more pompous administrapo are very teasable but lacking in a sense of humour. They get all huffy and ban those who tweak their noses. So take care and happy editing. I don't know whether this qualified as nice. Still, it's friendly in intention. Cheers now. Grace Note

I signed the comment. A quick check of the contribs of that IP would show that it's me. I don't always bother signing in because my belief is that it's the edit that matters, not the person who made it. -- Grace Note.

[edit] Thanks Zodrac, for your notes and assistance

Zordrac, thanks for this very helpful information and background on Wikipedia. I will add some of my comments on the page deletion process to the articles you have suggested.

I am very interested in Wikis as a new paradigm for publishing and information sharing in a distributed fashion. I think the concept of an encyclopaedia that can be edited by multiple (millions even) of people is a very powerful resource. I am active in forest campaigning. I was searching via Google for information about Senator John Devereux - he resigned from the ALP over their Tasmanian forest policies in Tasmania. If found a Wikipedia entry via Google for him - he was listed as an Australian Senator with not details or article about him. So I created an article for him and added some information to it. Then I got curious and checked out some Greens articles - and noticed that there was information on elected Greens and elections, but no mention of a candidates. So I added references to candidates and created a page listing all candidates for the 2004 Federal Election (and a subcategory for Greens Candidates)

Then I added a page for myself linked to the list of candidates as I had information about my campaign and believe the results to be significant. The Liberals certainly do too - I think the growing Greens vote has partly motivated them to attack the Greens to marginalise them and portray them as "fringe extremists". This is fairly basic negative PR tactics designed to stop the trend of "thinking liberal" voters moving to the Greens due to better policies on refugees and the environment etc. I also think Petro Georgiou's recent outspoken stand on asylum seeker policies (welcome though it is) is partly motivated by him losing votes to the Greens. The whole thing looked like a set play - Petro threatens his private members bill. "Progressive Liberal MPs" (Bruce Baird and Judy Moylan etc) rally around him. John Howard states that he can hear public concern on the issue. End result - NO change to policy, but increased ministerial discretions to Vanstone (who won't use them). Some token releases of children & long term detainees, but now they are locking more up. A win for Petro, a win for Howard, and refugees and the Australian public dudded yet again!

What the Liberals don't want to do is assimilate Greens policies - they are hell bent on burning coal, running a budget surplus at any cost, robbing the poor to pay the rich, and shifting Australia to a "dog eat dog" competitive nation like America. I don't think they are conservatives any more - they are actually tending towards extremists and even fascism now - as Malcolm Fraser has recently pointed out. My activities in politics are now motivated by reversing this trend - in addition to campaigning broadly for sustainability and environmental protection. My blog has some of my recent articles, letters and writings on it.

I didn't think the page would harm my bid for preselection, but I didn't think it would boost it much either, as it fairly obscure to most of the general public and Greens members. Some late breaking news - I missed out on preselection - but I still think the page is valid and should remain. I understand though that it is likely to be deleted. Having checked out the process for this, I find it to be vague, subjective and not well documented - certainly for 'newbies' such as myself. There really should be mention of this page creation policy (on vanity articles) in the page creation guidelines.

Having added several Wiki links to my page I checked the content of them and have edited quite a few. There is certainly a lot of improvements and corrections required. It is simply fantastic to be able to make them. And then it is curious to see them reversed or kept, and view the process behind this (such as the discussion page contents etc.) I have had some positive feedback for these contributions, which has partly offset the not too pleasant experience of having "my page" listed for deletion.

I intend to keep on editing, but will take a break over Christmas and the New Year.

I had previously looked up your user page and was impressed by your efforts and activities. Keep up the good work.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Campbell (talk • contribs)

[edit] Reversions of well intentioned edits without a comment

If you are going to revert well intentioned edits you should at least have the courtesy to provide an edit summary. I believe it is very useful to note which clubs are in Melbourne. Indeed without the infomration the location column of the AFL clubs list is almost useless to non-Australians. Calsicol 15:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay, it looks like it may have been an accident. All sorted now. Calsicol 15:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No, you are right, it was my fault. I should have put in an edit summary. I can see how you could think that it was a reversion. I changed it from suburb, victoria (suburb of melbourne) to suburb, melbourne, victoria and got rid of the comment. You likely thought that I was getting rid of the suburb bit, but I wasn't really, I was just making it a bit more explicit (too many brackets can make things more unreadable). It was the only one of my edits without a summary. I got a bit confused though because the only reversion I made was reverting myself. But your changes were great and very productive, so thanks for that. I was a bit confused with what I was doing. Should I include the mergers? Should I write their physical location? But you backed me up big time which was great. Thanks! I am sorry that you thought I was having a go at you there. Anyway, as I said, feel free to revert all my edits. I was really BEING BOLD in butting in really lol. I hope that I didn't upset anyone. I wrote in talk why I did it, so if it crops up later, then feel free to revert everything. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List of Jewish Jurists

If CheckUser shows that they are the same person, there's nothing I can do. I'll get back to you on this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Mindspillage is a member of the ArbCom with CheckUser access. I don't see what you're disputing - Mindspillage says she did a CheckUser with conclusive results, and I don't see why we should doubt her. What are you disputing? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think she does have CheckUser access. That's rather restricted. She said that evidence had been presented to the arbcom, but it's not been made explicit at Poetlister's page from what I can see. -- Grace Note.

[edit] Your note

Hi Zordrac, thanks for your note. I don't want to say too much more about this, because I've no idea what's going on, but in brief I think someone is pulling your strings in order to cause trouble, and I urge caution for that reason. Regarding Brandt, I've had very little to do with that situation. I wrote the initial stub, deleted it when he objected in October, and since then haven't edited the page or been in contact with him. My recent involvement was just to protect the page because there was a revert war. Regarding Poetlister, I'm not aware of having threatened to block her over 3RR, though I may have warned her not to violate it. Regarding Lulu, he did initially object to the use of the Jewish Yearbook, and I didn't back him up on that; rather, I expressed the view that it's a reliable source and he accepted that. I don't know why he initially had doubts about it: I suspect it was simply that there was little trust left between him and RachelBrown/Poetlister because of her earlier refusal to supply sources for anything, but I'm guessing. Regarding the block, Mindspillage has check-user access, and that is the evidence. It can't be made public for reasons of privacy. I hope the above answers your questions. I'm quite confused as to what any outstanding issues would be with regard to Lulu that would require an RfC or RfAr. As I see it, RachelBrown/Poetlister is trying to make trouble for him for the sake of it, but again, I'm only guessing. If I don't respond to any further queries about this, it won't be that I'm ignoring you, but simply that I don't have any more information. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it wasn't me. Anything I asked for is unconnected to the block. What it looks like to me is that more than one user was suspicious, and that various checks were done in parallel. The only admins with check-user access are those who are members of the arbcom, and they don't discuss check-user evidence with anyone else for reasons of privacy. So they may confirm that technical evidence suggests A is B, or that it suggests they are not, or is inconclusive, but they won't go into any more detail than that, no matter how often you ask for it, because they're not allowed to. As for me acting to protect Lulu, I'm not even sure what you mean, what any of this has to do with him, or how I'm supposed to have acted (in his defense or otherwise) and I see no evidence of him stalking you. If you attack him, he's going to defend himself, but if you let it go, I'm sure he will too, because this is very much a tempest in a teapot. I do caution you against acting as a proxy for someone else who wants to cause trouble, because we're here to build an encyclopedia, nothing more, but all I can do is make that request. I can't say any more, because I simply don't know any more. Finally, and most importantly, I wish you and your loved ones all the best for the season. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your note again, but I think this has to be my last response on this subject. I don't know anything about Antaeus Feldspar or that situation. If you stop mentioning Lulu in your posts, I am certain he'll stop mentioning you, so perhaps you could try that: just drop the subject completely, and I'm certain you'll see nothing more will come of it. However, if you continue to criticize him (he's a he, by the way, not a she), then he will continue to defend himself, which is only natural, and then the dynamic will spiral out of control. As for check-user requests, checks can be made without any explicit request. And the only reason I archived your posts is that I've just archived the ones I have responded to or otherwise dealt with. ;-) All the best again, SlimVirgin (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, yeah

Maybe you should bring this harassment up (User:Zordrac/Poetlister) with User:Jimbo or someone else high up in the chain.

I looked at the arbitration board and it seems most of them don't actually care about the things brought up there, "wasting their precious time" -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ignore button, etc

Thanks for your essay on new users; I really appreciate it. As for the person editing your talk page, I'll keep an eye on it. There is no way to block them from editing a specific page, but if they really are being abusive or threatening, I can block them. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] That's not the way the world works

You said "And I guess, well, it sounds totally nutty to think that CIA would be interested in this. I mean why? But then again, we do know that the CIA do go around the internet trying to intelligence gather, and trying to catch terrorists etc. What better place to intelligence gather than in an encyclopaedia?" here The way the world works is donations are made an a regular basis along with compliments like "Glad to see Israel (for example) is not being unfairly portrayed. We really appreciate your NPOV policy. This donation shows how MUCH we appreciate it. The donation receiver says thanks and every now and then provides something (praise, birthday gift, employment check, whatever) to a worker and says, by the way we really appreciate your making sure the NPOV policy is maintained - especially in such difficult areas as the middle east. If they get his drift and help appropriatly, the giving continues. If not, the giving does not continue. Outright placement of personnel and outright money for misconduct is never necessary and only done by those who are new to the game. Check out the FuelWagon situation if you want grist for the mill of conspiracy-inventing. Cheers. (Its such fun to imagine vast conspiracies. ha! Like the ECHELON conspircy theory.) WAS 4.250 21:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You said "Hi. I am confused with your message. Were you saying that I was wrong to dispute Brandt's conspiracy theory, or that you think that my own beliefs are silly? I am a bit confused with what you meant there. Can you elaborate a bit? :)" So first, how about we keep all this in one place (I suggest right here). Second, I am only saying that the CIA having a CIA agent as an active editor makes no sense from an efficiency viewpoint. They and other interested parties can accomplish their objectives better with donations and suggestions. I am not saying anyone is "silly". WAS 4.250 21:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh I get you. I think that the CIA almost certainly uses Wikipedia, but you are right that they are unlikely to edit Wikipedia. If they did, they wouldn't be doing so as a "CIA agent", they would be as a private person and for their own personal reasons. Given the numbers of people who use Wikipedia, its quite likely that a number of editors are, in their work lives, members of the CIA. But that doesn't mean that they would edit for the CIA. CIA agents likely use LiveJournal and Blogger too, but they probably wouldn't do so in an official capacity. They are people too remember. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem like an intersesting person, so while waiting for a response, I looked at your contributions, saw User:Zordrac/Poetlister, read it, and now I'm wondering "Why?" Why are you involved; meaning what good do you hope to achive? Can't anyone just start up under a new username (yes, they can) So what's the big deal? WAS 4.250 21:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

So you think that a decision such as that is reasonable and we should just let it fly? And no, actually they can't start up a new username. If you are banned, then try to evade the ban, you are banned indefinitely as a sock puppet. Thus, no, you can't just start up a new account to get around it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 21:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The FuelWagon case shows it doesn't matter how right one is and it doesn't matter what the evidence says. THEY DON'T EVEN READ THE EVIDENCE AND COME CLOSE TO ACTUALLY ADMITTING JUST THAT. So why waste one's time? And yes one CAN just start up a new account. Just use a different personality. What one CAN'T do is the same stuff one did before. Such a person can diversify, broaden their interests, stop arguing and simply edit here and there without warring over any specific edit. WAS 4.250 22:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I'll go a bit further on "why I am involved". To begin with I was reluctant, and I was just composing an e-mail to advise Poetlister that there was really nothing that she could do about it and to just put her head down, stay out of trouble, I was sorry, and if she quit Wikipedia she could still e-mail me, that kind of thing. And yes, sure, so people were doing the wrong things in edit wars, so I was just giving her advice, as a newbie, and I had no intention to help out at all. I was going to agree to be have an "Outside view" if she went further with the Arbitration etc, but that was about all.

When she got banned, I was shocked and horrified, and immediately asked to find out what had happened. If they had presented evidence, I would have written to Poetlister and explained to her why, said "sorry" and explained to her that it's okay really, and that's about it.

But they didn't provide any evidence, and indeed suggested that they don't have to, and that's when I started to really become involved.

I was actually in two minds for a long time. On one hand, I don't know any of these people and actually couldn't care less personally what happens, and I also know that getting involved sets me up for possible problems. However, on the other hand, this is a grave injustice, and as such as a fellow human being I am obligated to help to right it, because if I don't then something like this could happen to me, and why would I expect anyone to help me out? So I was basically morable obligated to help, whilst at the same time really seriously not wanting to. It was an internal battle.

For ages I was just asking for clarification, but one thing that really turned the tables for me was when Antaeus butted in and tried to convince Lulu to stalk me. I thought that Lulu would ignore that, but it was a bit troubling, and Antaeus butted his head in on this to try to set me up. This also made it more difficult to become involved in a lot of ways, because its really unsettling having someone go after you like that.

When I saw other people agreeing with me, it made me feel more obligated to be involved. Countless people were agreeing, including administrators. Everyone was asking for answers. Indeed, it was universal - with the exception of the people who themselves were involved. 20, 30, 40 people all voiced concerns about how wrong it was. I was starting to feel pressure to get involved.

When Lulu accused me of being a sock puppet of Poetlister, it almost made me laugh, and it made me think just how ridiculous this case was. When I saw that Lulu had also accused everyone else who was saying that the ban was wrong of being sock puppets, I started to realise what was really going on here. The people concerned weren't really sock puppets - they were just people who thought that Lulu was doing the wrong thing. And thus it meant that this wasn't just a bad decision - it was corruption. And it made it very important then.

I tried to convince Poetlister to do something, or one of the other people involved, so that I could stay out of it, and I offered just to help them with what they were doing, but everyone was too scared to do anything, Then there were the big threats from Lulu, which made me feel like really I should stand up to a bully like that. Someone who goes around bashing people and then getting them banned when they get in your way is a serious problem. And then I thought "stuff it" and I decided that what I'd do was to document all of the evidence and if I got banned for it, so what.

So I documented everything and sent it in an e-mail to Mindspillage to request for her to remove the ban, or alternatively to explain things. She didn't respond.

So I thought well, there's no harm in making a sub page, so I went and did it. And I thought to myself "they'll probably ban me for this, but I am doing it for the right reasons, so who cares?" I guess that's a part of my belief system. See, if I was to choose a method of death, I would want to die while saving someone's life, preferably someone who I had never met before who was innocent. Think of rescuing a drowning baby, throwing yourself in front of a train, or rushing in to a house fire. To me, that is the ideal way to die. I don't care too much about pain, so long as I am doing it for the right reasons. Some people say that's altruistic but others say it is selfish because I am doing it so that I can feel good about myself. Well, whatever you think it means, that's what I do. I like to help people, especially people I've never met before. I like to feel like I am making a difference to the world, and in the right direction.

Of course, you could argue that Wikipedia is irrelevant, and you are probably right. But then again, miracles are achieved through performing ordinary, every day tasks that anyone can do. You don't perform a miracle just on the spot - you do it by doing lots of baby steps along the way. I can see many things that I have done that were miracles, and they all ended up like that because of these baby steps. That's why I do these little things. Why focus on the big things which you can't directly change? Instead, I do the little things which will end up making a big difference.

So after I started to edit the page for a while, I sent Poetlister an e-mail to ask her for her opinion, and she asked me to remove the quotes from her e-mail to me, and that was really good because it made me realise that a lot of what I'd written was opinion. So I started to make the sub page more neutral, more factual, and less opinion. As I started to do it, I became extremely happy with it.

So then I went around and told a lot of people about it. I was tempted to tell Mindspillage but thought that I'd probably better not. Then someone else started editing it. At first I thought it was vandalism, but then I realised that they were constructive edits. And they were really helpful.

The page resulted in the bans being lifted, which is what has happened. There is a good chance that all of the outcomes I proposed at the bottom of the sub page will end up happening. Or at least that they will be a guideline towards something. And that is what I aim. I aim to resolve these disputes and make everyone happy. That includes the people who I have suggested were instigators in the problem. I want them to be happy too, and I hope that they stop their bullying and can become more conducive editors. That's the aim.

Am I doing it for Wikipedia? Sort of, but not really. Am I doing it for Poetlister? Not really. In the sense of helping someone in need I am, but if she really has done something wrong, I will drop her like a ton of bricks, and will be quite happy to support the blocking if there is evidence that it was justified.

This problem has created incredibly inaccurate articles, and also upset maybe 100 different users, and that's purely in terms of the content disputes. And this is just one issue. For all I know, this has happened all over the place.

And maybe if we fix this problem, then it will create a little ripple, maybe set a precedent, and maybe fix up a lot of other similar problems as well. I am sure that this is not the only time that this kind of thing has happened, and I am sure its not just these users that have been involved in it. But maybe it will set up that ripple and help to fix things and make the world a better place.

That's my aim.

PS. (edit conflict there) - can you show me this Fuel Wagon case? If that is a case that is similar to this, and it went the wrong way, then it shows the importance of this kind of case even more. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I understand now

I understand now what your involvement is. The same as mine when I was new here and saw User:Sam Spade being bullied by a gang who backed each other up and helped each other gain admin priveledges. The second time I saw this was the User:FuelWagon Case. I won't bother involving myself again with ANY of these rigged Wiki-lawerings that are laughably called arbitration. The solution for me is simply don't get in fights here at Wikipedia. I LIKE the end result even if I don't like the process. WAS 4.250 22:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I know the feeling. But I've ended up with good results in the end in most cases, so I guess I've been lucky. I could go over all of the "fights" I've had over this kind of thing - 2 of them were personal, and what was it 20 of them now that was me helping out other people. Other than the AFD issues, most of them have ended up positively. That doesn't mean that I have faith in the system. Not at all. I think it is obvious that the system is corrupt to the bone. However, I've been online enough to know that when you get to the heart of it, every single internet management system is corrupt to the bone - I mean LiveJournal is, Blogger is, every forum you can imagine going to is, every talker, ever MUD, every single community. Whether every business out in the real world is corrupt is another matter. Thus far I don't think so. But certainly online they are. So I just kind of accept the corruption. If there was no corruption, then I'd be surprised. I just try to work through the corruption. Fighting it is pointless. Its there. But that doesn't mean that you can't help to make things a bit easier for people affected. Baby steps. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You also might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Ignore the Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. Cheers  :) WAS 4.250 22:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful articles. I notice that you wrote Ignore the Arbitration Committee. Wonderful read. However, I note that both articles were generally believed by most editors to be terrible and should be deleted/ignored. I think that this sums up the problem. Those two articles, if they were enforced, would be incredibly good for Wikipedia. That they are not reflects negatively on Wikipedia. Of course, if you look at the wonderful WP:BITE policy, you'd think that maybe Wikipedia is wonderful - until you realise that most people think its stupid and refuse to abide by it... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:BITE is a guideline not a policy - the differece is like the differnce between law and manners. Wikipedia:Ignore the Arbitration Committee is about a person ignoring "enforcement" by choices they make. There is nothing to BE enforced. You are missing the whole spirit of the thing see below WAS 4.250 23:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

<Lyrics to Paul Simon's "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover" removed>

  • Yes, you are right. I keep saying "policy" for guidelines and vice versa. Blah. Anyway, nobody abides by WP:BITE - I'd say less than 10% of long term users. If they did, this would be a great place to be. But because they don't, its not. Anyway I am tired now so going to bed I think. Man my sleeping habits are messed up. lol. Oh well. Bye and thanks for the wonderful comments. Best series of comments ever. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks re: List_of_African_American_jurists

s'ok. glad i could help. BL kiss the lizard 22:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I've been here long enough to know this is considered an unacceptable delete. Continued such behavior will end up with you being permanately blocked in a completely unjust "trial". Archive it instead. Some people blank their page then link to the stored history version AS their archive. That so far as I know is considered acceptable. Humans are all nuts. Alcohol - legal, not legal, legal again. Same with gold. Herodotus said it best :"Custom is King". WAS 4.250 23:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit. Delete what you want from your own talkpage. You don't have to let people who are giving you shit have a platform. They can copy it to their own pages and talk to the hand from there. -- Grace Note.

Why is it unacceptable? It was harassment by a user who has been harassing me. I reported him for it before making the reversion. So what is the problem? He stopped harassing me after that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Consider the possibility that you are being deliberatly set up with regard to this. Don't fall in their traps by insisting on logic. Follow their dumb customs with regard to "archiving" rather than "deleting" your user page. Thanks.

Three reverts. But it was on MY page. Not your page you don't own it. But it was harrassment. No you were harrassing him.

Seen it before. Watch out. WAS 4.250 23:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL. I did archive it. I quoted it in the evidence that he was harassing me. There is no reason why I should have to put up with abuse on my page. It is quite reasonable to remove it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL. The guy shouldn't be taken seriously. Nobody takes him seriously. If you saw the evidence of his wrongdoing, you'd see that his comments are laughable. Its not worth bothering with. He did actually threaten me with a lot more than "taking me to RfAr", but I am not going to repeat that here. The guy needs to get some maturity and calm down. And besides which, no, I am not going to put up with harassment. If Wikipedia deems that I am forced to be harassed, then I won't use it. Simple as that. It's seriously not worth it if you are forced to be harassed. Oh, and the guy is following me around making edits on all of the pages I visited. That's the very definition of Wikistalking. Whilst protesting his "innocence" and trying to drum up support against me, he is in fact proving his guilt. Silly fellow. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyway I don't really want his idiocy in my talk page so I am going to remove that. If we really have to, we can quote all of that stuff in the appropriate place at the appropriate time. I hope that this guy just grows up in the meantime. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poetlister etc.

Please email me from my talk page. Thanks Arniep 23:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] In Response

to a comment made on List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society

I disagree. I think that lists like this, which could be better represented as categories, should not be included in Wikipedia. The definition of who is a Jew is extremely controversial (ethnicity, religion and cultural reasons) and hence this is better described as a category in individual articls. Whilst I do not object to lists that cannot be categories, I personally am of the view that a list such as this should be deleted. However, as it passed AFD, we are stuck with it, and those who are interested in the topic must work through the list to work out a good way to handle it. I have proposed below some civility guidelines which I think should help. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with your conclusion. The following is some information you should know (seeing as you are a neutral party). Note that this list has passed afd through two no consensus closings, both of which had majority (or equal) delete votes. It seems that the users who created this list have left Wikipedia and those that voted keep on the afds generally don't care about the list itself (they may care more about just voting keep to any list that has religion occupation for political correctness/etc). I'm fairly confident that if this list was AFDed presently, it would probably be deleted. Note that the inclusion of a List of Fellows of the Royal Society was even too much for a list and that one was deleted. All lists similar to this one have been deleted via afd, so the ideology that "now we're stuck with this list" doesn't have to seem so helpless. It is a generally excessive list (used more for making a point than just contributing names to wikipedia). From a quick wiki scan, most of these names are themselves on a good two or three other lists. Antidote
I understand how you don't like to get involved in these types of complex questions. But I want to know if you understand the type of POV-pushing and extraneous listing that has been going on within the sphere of this controversial topic and if, given that another afd were to be put up, you would vote? That is all I wish to know. Antidote
Well thats exactly what will be attempted - to transfer such lists into categories. That can only be done with support for deletion though. I understand that you rather abstain and I guess thats fine, but there are many people on wikipedia who simply vote based on their biases, and thus, most of these lists will never go because so many are afraid of touching on controversial topics. Anyway, thanks for your responses. This just proves to me that there are many more people out there on wikipedia who WOULD consider a deletionist policy but would rather abstain, which gives me support in a way. Talk to you about other subjects later. Antidote
When I said deletionist, I meant in terms of these types of lists, not in general. The thing is many of lists like these get put up for deletion but they rarely pass through because people are afraid of political correctness and because some users just want to keep whatever they are fond of, no matter what reasoning there is for the deletion. I'm just saying that you prove to me that there is a general negative opinion of extraneous lists and that a lot more wikipedians wish to delete them but simply don't want to get involved. Not that you are a deletionist for the sake of deleting. Antidote