User talk:Bdj/Archive5

DRV on Axe Murder Boyz

Hi,

That's an interesting reading. I took King of Hearts' comment to mean that something new had to come forward in order for his opinion to change. I'm aware that you believe notability was unconditionally asserted in the first place; however, KoH (the deleter) clearly disagreed. Although you did comment beneath him reiterating your view, he did not concede the point. Thus, I read his comment as "keep deleted" (in favor of a rewrite, maybe?) If I have misread, simply have KoH contact me, and I will reverse the closure. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you've misread it as much as I don't think he's reading what constitutes nobility for an A7 properly. I'm more surprised that you took it that way than him, honestly. If someone says "assert nobility," and nobility is asserted, how is it supposed to be taken? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As I understand my role as a closer, I have a duty to abide by the intent of the commenter; it is not my job to super-impose my judgment (or yours) over someone else's words. I care about what KoH's meant, not about whether or not he's "right." I believe in consensus, so, by default, the consensus is always right.

So in events that there isn't a consensus? In events that KoH only wants the article restored if notability is asserted, then there shouldn't be much interpretation here - notability is asserted, thus the article would be restored in his mind. Perhaps he doesn't agree with the assertion, but that's not for him to decide by rule.

Incidentally, I've heard your view that DRV is broken somehow. Obviously, I disagree. DRV is, remember, only a forum for deciding if discussion should begin again. Parliamentarily, DRV functions as forum only for deciding cloture. This is why majoritarianism is a fine form of consensus in DRV only. If a majority wants to discuss, then discussion opens; if the majority is finished speaking, the matter is closed. The alternative, to require a 70% consensus to reopen discussion, is more draconian. Note that matters always come to Deletion Review only after discussion has closed (unless somebody makes a huge mistake in procedure.) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, and with all due respect to you, as you're only doing your job, this is an excellent example of how broken DRV truly is. The fact that we can overturn based CSD policy on a majority vote for one article based on the actions of one administrator is really rather shocking to me. The alternative on DRV is not 70% on anything, but rather a simple view of the arguments as to whether the deletion processes were followed properly. In an actual discussion on this DRV, as an example, we have at least two editors showing that the process was not followed, and no one having any good argument about it. That's how it was broken here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, we trust admins. The alternative to majoritarianism at DRV is requiring a 70% consensus to overturn admin discretion. There is no other reasonable way -- requiring 70% consensus to ratify each speedy is truly "process-hell" as newbies and garage band members would flood things endlessly.

I understand that you're frustrated that your view (seen by you as objectively correct) is often outnumbered, but appeal to a larger group is the mechanism available for a check on admin power - if "bad" admins are routinely ratified in making "bad" decisions (hypothetically... I don't think that has happened here, but you do), then the problem -- it seems to me -- is RfA, where we make admins, and the lack of De-RfA, where we could fire them. My thoughts on this matter are not surprising, as I have long felt RfA standards are generally a tad low. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, my frustration stems only from the point that we have a venue that's specifically for process-related decisions, and even when the process is so obviously ignored, we still let it slide. There's nothing correct about that, and it shows that our appeals process in these matters, the things designed to protect from admins overstepping their bounds (which, whether we trust them or not, happens) simply don't work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There will never be an appeals process which divorces the human element from its choices. It is true that, by the strictest possible reading of CSD A7, one could see an assertion of notability; however, there is no requirement that A7 be read this strictly. It is, in my view, impossible to write anything which by its nature is limited only to one interpretation. Any forum applies the given text to a given instance by interpreting, and that application will not always be the strictest. I cannot imagine any way to change that. Short of repealling A7 (a practical impossibility, I think), I still think your best shot is get more thoughtful admins, who don't delete so quickly.

As an aside, so there is no confusion, I admire what you (and other committed "inclusionists") do. I believe in balance, and I know this place would be very paltry if some editors weren't dedicated to defending articles that most feel are unimportant or marginal. I'm only making my suggestion because, objectively from my POV, it seems a good way for you to focus your efforts. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Invite to Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit

Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 16:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's see how the noticeboard works out, first. BLP is rushed and flawed enough without expanding to some sort of "protection unit." --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Drini and the CVU deletion

You, like so many other Wikipedians, seem to have felt that Drini's actions in the CVU deletion proccess were wholly inappropriate and did not follow policy. As a result, I'm forming an ad-hoc group of sorts composed of people interested in removing Drini. If you'd like to be involved, just drop me a note. ShortJason 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty disheartened by it, but not to that point. Drini's wrong about IAR, but Drini's also one of the good eggs around here. I don't think this is the answer at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

I was wondering if you've had a chance to take a gander at the above essay. You have reversed a few actions claiming it didn't fit a speedy criteria. When the vast majority of editors vote to keep or speedy keep, the discussion may get closed early to let the article get back to its normal evolutionary process. Is there any particular reason you felt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Poet's Life might end up in a delete consensus? Shell ^babelfish 20:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it will or not. I can't predict the future, and since an early close was already contested once, it seems completely inappropriate to do it again. As for the essay, it's one of the worst parts of Wikipedia, and I discourage its use and citation whenever possible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also quite obviously wrong to invoke SNOW in the face of diverging opinions on an issue. "In dubious or contentious cases it is best to settle it through the full process." SNOW is not a tool to suppress the minority's right to voice their opinion on an issue within the allotted time frame, not to mention that early keeps can still turn into no consensus, which create quite a different precedent for later nominations. On the other hand Jeff should've sent this to DRV rather than just revert the closure. ~ trialsanderrors 08:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In this specific case, an early closure had already been to DRV once. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, it's one of those cases that cause eye socket inflammation from too much eyerolling, but reverting an AFD closure will never stick. There's enough people around to protect the process itself, no matter how flawed the decision itself. You'll always get re-reverted and possibly weaken your position in a DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 18:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

IAR

I've been interested in your various comments on IAR. Are you saying you would you prefer people to obey innappropriate rules even if this made the encyclpaedia worse? Stephen B Streater 22:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that we have processes in place to change inappropriate rules. I can't think of any that are grossly inappropirate to the point of significant opposition, of course, but we have ways of working with our established way of doing things whereas we don't need to ignore rules. IAR is just carte blanche for people to do what they want because they think it's right, never mind if it actually is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly. IAR is in place so that editors can do what they want because they think it's right. It works very well, in practice, since when someone IAR's and is heinously wrong, they tend to get reversed in short order. Nandesuka 02:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"keep for the hell of it"??

I've noticed that you spend a lot of commenting on Articles for Deletion, and that you invariably vote "keep" on every single one of them. Is there anything you've ever voted "delete" on? Your edit summary on your keep vote for How to Write Haiku was especially disturbing: "k for the hell of it". It's one thing to be an inclusionist, but that doesn't mean you're supposed to ignore policies and guidelines and say "let's keep it for the hell of it", especially after many other editors have already pointed out it's a direct violation of WP:NOT and a copyvio, to boot. Furthermore, the speed at which you are voting (you voted "keep" on Katatonia/Primordial Split 10" and Waynehead within seconds of each other, for example), indicates that you don't even seem to be actually looking at the articles you're voting keep on. wikipediatrix 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice what the keep vote on Haiku was for? I wrote a keep Haiku for the hell of it because there wasn't one and there's no chance it's going to be kept. It was a joke, sheesh. As for the "speed" of the Katatonia and Waynehead ones, dunno. They were quick? I know both articles deserve to be kept - one's a record by two notable bands (and I did look it up first), one's a notable TV show. Not too much question there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it a bit contradictory that you are always so rabidly insistent about following process, yet when you participate in process yourself you often don't take it seriously. Do you actually care about process at all, or do you just like griefing on admins? --Cyde Weys 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

One light-hearted joke becomes often? I find it a bit contradictory that you'd even bother commenting on it, given your complete disregard for any processes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord, Jeff gets enough flak for being an inclusionist (lover of reality show participants he), but even I recognize this as a little joke at the end of a fairly lighthearted AfD that was headed for (speedy) deletion. Your comment reads very mugh like "I don't like this guy, now I'm clutching at straws to accuse him of disruption". ~ trialsanderrors 18:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, god, I'm already "bizarre sex acts" guy, I don't wanna be "reality show guy," too... --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We allo have to sleep in the bed we made... ~ trialsanderrors 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

He's voted delete ~9 times? On the other hand, the latest vote was rescinded, and one was for WP:SNOW, so maybe "~7 1/2" is more accurate. --Interiot 19:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Neat list! I'd likely take back 3 of those, and I recognize the mistake in the Cap't Underpants one. So it's closer to 5? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment here

I have noticed that an admin's propensity to cite WP:IAR is directly proportional to their justification of actions as per WP:SOME ESSAY. Someone needs to write Wikipedia:Ignore all essays. -Nscheffey^(T/C) 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

SNOW is grounded in IAR, and IAR is definitely policy. So just substitute IAR in your mind whenever SNOW is mentioned. Voila, problem solved. --Interiot 09:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was also thinking of other essays. My point was the disconnect between Ignoring All Rules and then citing essays as unchallengeable justifications. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 10:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know many of us aren't mature enough to work within processes and instead feel we have to ignore the rules to get our way. Acceptance is unacceptable, or something. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

DRV Encyclopedia Dramatica

I'm blocking you for 1 hour for disruption. Do not reopen debates that have been debated endlessly and have no chance of changing. You are trying the community's patience at this point. The consensus is very clear. You are acting against it. You are also an interested party as an editor on that encyclopedia, so your actions constitute POV pushing. --Doc 10:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're disrupting DRV by closing things early out of process. After all, you've even said yourself that the beauty of WP:SNOW/IAR is that it can be reversed easily - I did just that.--badlydrawnjeff talk 10:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Interested parties are not necessarily POV pushers. That is to say, affiliation with the subject of the article does not constitute a prima facie violation of NPOV. Please assume good faith Doc. DickClarkMises 15:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an isolated incident. There eventually comes a point when WP:AGF no longer applies. wikipediatrix 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And at what point have I shown that I have bad faith motives in trying to keep these processes in place? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to speculate about your motives, it's your methods I disapprove of, as I've already told you before. You keep beating dead-horse arguments long past the point of constructive value. wikipediatrix 15:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock reviewed|reversing an out of process close is not disruption, blocking by an involved party is also wrong, for that matter.|continual provocative campaigning like this is disruptive}}

Isn't the continued out of process lunacy the disruptive part? I'm actually rather disappointed that you're the one who came over here. What happened to "easy to reverse?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've also reviewed the block and would decline to remove it. This crusade you're on to balk the consensus of the community isn't going to end well. You'd be much better served by discussing the areas you have issues with. Shell ^babelfish 12:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What consensus? The block is expired anyway, but it's not disruptive to challenge disruptive closes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Block

I have temporarily blocked you for disruption on WP:ANI. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on already. Now this is simply absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again

{{unblock reviewed|Discussion isn't disruption.|Numerous people went to some lengths to try to detail the reasons behind Doc's block. Insisting that everyone else is wrong, and incessantly arguing against well-established policies like IAR, is getting close to exhausting the community's patience --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 15:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)}} Wikipedia is not about Wikipedia. I suggest you take some time off and cool down. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't about you, but thanks for the input. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You're very welcome for the 'input'. Unfortunately, I assume you're ignoring my advice and not cooling down, as evidenced from your response. Again, I earnestly suggest you just 'let go' and stop disrupting to prove a point. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Your accusation is without merit, and I'll kindly ask you to not offer advice to me in the future when it comes to these things. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll offer advice when I think it's warranted - for after all, if we all knew what the right thing to do was at all times, you wouldn't have been blocked in the first place. A bit of humility and self-examination can do wonders. In any case, cheers. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Indeed, it can. Think about it sometime. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I am and do - and that's why I posted it here. I'm concerned by your apparent unwillingness to consider that your POV might be incorrect - which is why I suggested a 'cool down' for you, to avoid further alienating yourself from the community on such a meaningless issue as this DRV redux. In any case, be well! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
            • If I were concerned about making friends, I'd stay far away from DRV, AfD, and the like. I'm concerned with helping make this a good encyclopedia. Again, thanks for the input, but your continued suggesitons and assumption about my motives and actions aren't welcome. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
              • 'Making friends' isn't the issue. Respecting the community is the issue. I wish you well! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
                • You're right, it is the issue. Please start. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
                  • I'm sorry, that sounded a bit like an attack, and I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
                    • I'm sorry, you seem to not have understood my subtle requests to stop harping on me in the past. I'll be more direct, then: your continued statements are on the border of trolling me for the sake of contining to want to get me fired up over the crap that I'm being blocked for. So I suggest "respecting the community" and doing your supposed good deeds elsewhere. Your assumption that I was attacking you simply proves to me what I already suspected - you don't actually care about the outcome of this, any sort of justice, or improving the encyclopedia or the community. So please, for the final time, cease. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
                      • I was actually just offering you advice to cool out, which I felt was both in your interest AND WP's. I said what I said because you responded in a hostile and accusatory way to my advice - and since your hostility is spinning up and up, I'll refrain from engaging with you further. I do wish you well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the above exchange I know this dialogue is a couple of weeks old but the topic is not stale. I got here because the block on badlydrawnjeff was used on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy as an example of a "cool down block" that the contributor was expressing concern about.

I have been tracking at least one or two discussions that badlydrawnjeff has expressed opinions on (this whole Carnildo/Giano/ArbCom/b'crats thing). While I do agree with some of the things that badlydrawnjeff has said, I also think that the rhetoric has gotten a bit too sharp at times. Unfortunately, the use of a "cool down" block can be problematic if a single editor is blocked from making any edits in Wikipedia for a period of time. It would be nice if blocks could be applied to a specific article or, at least, a namespace.

Moreover, it takes "two to tango". I would think that there are many times when more than one editor in the discussion should be blocked. Also, there is a difference between "cool down" and "shut up". "Cool down" should mean just that, as in "tone down the rhetoric". It shouldn't mean "shut up", as in "stop posting on this topic". This could be done by notes on the Talk Page rather than via blocks.

Now, as for the above exchange, I'm sorry that that the dialogue turned out the way it did. I think RyanFreisling had a valid point that badlydrawnjeff didn't want to hear and RyanFreisling kept pushing the point so badlydrawnjeff got a bit truculent about being pushed.

In summary, to badlydrawnjeff, tone down the rhetoric but please do not "shut up". The points you have made are worthwhile and I'm glad that you are making them.

--Richard 14:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Very disappointing, Interiot. I'm very disturbed that discussion of such a thing can be considered disruption at this point. You'd think that discussing it instead of simply reverting him again once my last unjust block was up would be desirable. Apparently not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk page protected

I have protected your talk page for the duration of your block, because it is clear you are intent on hurting yourself with your mouth. When you return, please try harder to internalize the constructive criticism that other editors are offering you. Regards, Nandesuka 15:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to other admins: there are only 2 hours remaining in this block. In case I'm not online at that point, I'd appreciate it if someone would unprotect this page at 17:45 UTC Nandesuka 15:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. Let me dig my own grave next time, or actually go after the troll instead of piling on next time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude

Looking at how Wikipedia evolved, it seems pretty clear to me why the culture is the way it is. A huge part of that culture is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". We don't need to interpret the exact wording of some policy page to know what to do- we do what we think is best for the project. I really, really think you'd do more good for the project if you raised objections only in cases where you think we arrived at the wrong outcome, and worried less about whether we followed the exact process- the essential conundrum of policy is that what's written down isn't the real policy. Sometimes it's close, sometimes not. Policy, in many cases, is whatever you can do without causing a ruckus. Remember that all of Wikipedia, including all policy and guideline pages, is a work in progress. Friday (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I was blocked today for doing exactly what you suggest I do. Regardless, I'm aware of how we evolved, and I'm no spring chicken here, either - most major "policy-by-fiat" has caused a lot more grief than the times where people have actually gone and tried to reach a consensus. I have no qualms with my contributions, both in article space and in terms of policy. It's just going to take a lot more people who stop being afraid to reverse wrong decisions, whether it's for the sake of process or for the sake of the encyclopedia (which are ultimately one and the same). --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I hear ya. For what it's worth, I didn't think the block today was justified. Of course, one man's "beating a dead horse" is another man's "arguing for what he thinks is best". I don't know if you've already done something like this, but you may find it useful to make a user subpage outlining your wiki philosophy. For those who care to take the time to read it, it may make your position more clear. To me, common sense and consensus build an encyclopedia more effectively than trying to exactly follow a rigid process. Maybe what I really meant above was, when you disagree, always focus your comments on why you think the outcome was bad for the project, rather than why you think it was against policy. The real policies exist in the minds of editors, not on some wiki page somewhere. Friday (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Prior to my change today, it'd been sitting on the front of my userpage as the meat and potatoes. No one listens anyway, so I'm not really sure it matters how I do it, as long as people who hold the power are hellbent on doing it their way. Strongarming goes much further than anyone's willing to admit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

It just seems that everywhere I look, you're in the middle of controversy. ED, MONGO, CVU, AfD, where you invariably vote keep. It's your confrontational approach, it seems. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really ask to be involved in the ED or MONGO one, honestly, it just sort of happened. CVU, of course I'm involved, it ended up at DRV and was out of process. AfD, yeah, I vote keep. Is that really my "only intent?" Do you think I bring nothing to the table? Honestly? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your input requested

In light of your recent experiences I would appreciate it if you could take a look at my proposed change to WP:BLOCK and, if desired, add your thoughts. Thanks. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 00:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not too shabby. I'll reply and keep an eye on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thing...

Here is a copy of a comment I posted on User:Alexjohnc3's talk page. Thought you'd be interested as well.--Nscheffey^(T/C) 03:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed your dissatisfaction with the way the Encyclopedia Dramatica article was deleted, so I thought I'd let you know something I recently discovered. I was surprised to see that of the four AfDs[1] [2] [3] [4] and two DRVs[5] [6] concerning ED, there is never any mention of this article which was published in the British Sunday Magazine The Observer or this posting at the well known blog Kotaku. Both of these sources are generally considered reliable, and both are indexed by Google News and LexisNexis. That neither of these was ever mentioned by anyone in any of the reams of discussion generated by this controversy, I find amazing. Although I personally have not made up my mind as to whether the article merits inclusion, I thought it only fair to notify you of what appears to be a major oversight in the deletion process. Thank you, and please feel free to contact me here or on my talk page. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 03:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Guardian one has been dismissed as not actually about ED, or something. No, it doesn't make sense to me either. As for Kotaku, I don't know if it was brought up, but Wikipedia currently has an aversion to blogs. The best course of action is to wait until people cool off and try again, unless ED does something blatantly newsworthy in the meantime. It's a shame, but what can you do? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Blatantly newsworthy is unlikely to cut it, considering how personally-motivated the deletion was.  :-( Karwynn (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing my mistake on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Mcilvaine, I think I must have been editing from an old diff without realizing it. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I assumed it wasn't sinister in this case, you're not the type. --badlydrawnjeff talk

Short interview WRT The Reputation

Hi Jeff,

Can you help me with my English assignment? Man, I feel stupid writing that. I've been on Wikipedia for a while, and am an admin, and have so far resisted the temptation to use it for stuff like this.

But we have been assigned to show the evolution of a text. Most people went with things like corporate reports, but I thought Wikipedia, and especially the history, would be an excellent medium to work from. So I looked through WP:FAC for a relatively new and relatively short article with a single primary author, and The Reputation best met those criteria.

So, if you're willing, can you answer all or any of the following questions? Don't overexert yourself; getting answers soon is vastly preferable to getting big answers.

• Why did you pick that article?
• Do you do any drafting outside the wiki?
• What people provided feedback before the final version? (i.e. anyone outside FAC or the talk page?)
• What were the most important issues addressed in the composition process?
• Do most of the articles you write follow a similar process? Why/why not?

Thanks a heap for your time. —Ben Brockert (42) 04:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply at your talk in a couple hours, happy to help! --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that was exactly what I needed. —Ben Brockert (42) 19:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Your (alleged -bdj) personal attack

You write: It harms us now by falsely assuming it's agreed now, and it'll falsely make people assume so later. Which, of course, is your intent. [7]

That false accusation of blatantly dishonest intend is absolutely unacceptable. Please remove it at once. --Tony Sidaway 22:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? Is it really untrue? Are you simply harping on me because you can, or did you go over to Zoe's talk page for her actually blatantly dishonest statement? You tell me what I violated, I'll either explain why I didn't or remove it then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Linkin Park's third studio album

I don't understand completely why you deprodded this article. Shouldn't an article wait until it at the very least has an appropriate title? Sparsefarce 20:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's absolutely necessary, no, especially since the article already exists. We have a move button, after all. --badlydrawnjeff talk

Go raibh maith agat!

Thanks again for your support Jeff! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, thank you for being a good dude. Best of luck to you, hope I'm not cursing you in a week. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: closures

Is there any specific AfD I've closed where you think the consensus would have been different had it been left open longer? -- Steel 21:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure, but I'm not sure either of us can predict the future. The point is that it certainly doesn't hurt to get true consensus and see if anything comes up that isn't glaringly obvious over the full time. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"I think I might actually meet WP:BIO."

Except no, because if anybody actually started an article about you it would be deleted in nanoseconds. Even as a joke that statement is evident of some terrible personality defect. Also, which Wikipedia are you using? The one I visit certainly doesn't work in a way that one person can "take credit" for articles. Christ, even the picture in your profile reads as "Look at me! I can play the guitar! IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU BE IMPRESSED BY THIS". You'll get your article when somebody specs out WP:CUNT. The Mekon 22:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ! 66.231.130.102 07:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable collectible card game players

I noticed that you recently participated in the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (4th nomination). You may also be interested in the following discussions for the following collectible card game players:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin Kastle
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivier and Antoine Ruel
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommi Hovi
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Selden
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Budde (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Long
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering people

Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at them and gave input where I felt necessary. Thanks for the heads-up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyway

Thanks for the support there, and being brave enough to stick your head above the parapet. Tonight I am sad for wikipedia, it had a chance to foster and encourage academic brilliance (No, not me others!) and it has blown it in favour of backwoods mediocrity. It is not a case of last one out turn off the lights because the power supply is already broken. I appreciated your support. Giano 18:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, good luck to you in any case. I'm hoping that you've shifted something, no matter what that something is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MacGyverMagic - Mgm|^(talk) 22:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sex moves

I hear you're the local sex joke expert. Maybe you'd like to chime in on the AfD's for Carlsbad grimple and Rusty trombone, which I personally AfD'd because it was a redirect to anal-oral contact and should have stayed that way. I'm wondering, is your username at all drawn from Mindy Kaling's cartoon in the Daily Dartmouth, "Badly Drawn Girl?" Billy Blythe 00:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Damn reputation. Also, no, it's from Badly Drawn Boy, who's pretty frickin' awesome. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 22#Finger Lakes Christian School

Thanks for your persistent follow up on this Deletion Review. The point I stated was that the closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finger Lakes Christian School seemed to apply a standard of acceptability to Keeps that wasn't applied to any of the Deletes, including ones that used the ever-insightful justifications of "very small", "NN" and "crufty", with the word "very" thrown in a few times to add weight to the arguments. As I have stated, and as you clearly emphasized, there seems to be no minimum size designated to justify an article, nor did anyone appeal to an existing standard to justify the delete. Thanks again for chiping in on my remarks and for bolstering support to undo the damage already done. Alansohn 02:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. This is a win-win for what I'm trying to accomplish regarding keeping articles and DRV as well, so it works on a number of levels. Hopefully it ends up properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

close reason

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause... SK#7 does apply, the page has over 650 backlinks, many of them are used in official contexts. I agree that there's a dispute over whether it should be active, but based on the existing backlinks, it was historically active at the very least, and I don't think it's prudent to make so many close reasons have redlinks in them. At this point, at most {{rejected}} should be used. This is discussed on the 3rd nomination's talk page. --Interiot 15:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We're close to "rejected" at this point anyway, but I won't get in a silly edit war over it. We disagree, but it's not that big a deal, it's a simple difference of interpretation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Close to being rejected?? How so? The straw poll can be interpretted so many different ways that it's almost irrelevant (eg. it's hard to tell whether the votes meant 1) No = {{rejected}}, 2) No = stop edit warring over it, leave it as {{essay}}. 3) No = stop edit warring over it, leave it as a corollary, 4) Mu = stop edit warring over it, leave it as a corollary, 5) Mu = Tag it with {{guideline}}). In May, when it had {{essay}} on it, 1 voted delete, and 16 people voted keep without mentioning putting a {{rejected}} tag on it. What's changed so much since then to make it any less of a landslide? --Interiot 15:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at the overall discussion, and it's never going to get approval as a guideline. As it's plainly clear that it's not going to get there, and people think the essay tag is inapppropriate, the rejected tag seems like the logical conclusion. I'm not ready to propose that yet, but it appears to me that it's heading that way. And what happened in May has no bearing on now - people weren't asininely treating it as "de facto" policy or ramming it down our throats the way they have been since then. The pushing back we've been seeing on the talk page is a direct result of the actions of many of its proponents. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The current tagless state is only because it's the one solution that hasn't had edit warring over it. That doesn't mean there's small support for either {{essay}} or {{guideline}}, it's just that people don't see the point in edit warring when SNOW is backed by IAR policy. There hasn't been much support for the ideas that either 1) SNOW doesn't follow from IAR, or 2) that IAR will be overturned soon, so there is little need for SNOW's supporters to bother with the discussion. Maybe it would have been good to let the deletion discussion go just to make this clear. And people do continue to use it in official contexts, so I don't quite understand the de facto bit.

Anyway, I just think your efforts would be more productive if they were focused on formalizing when and how uses of IAR and its corollaries could be overturned. I think almost everyone could support that, since it's inarguable that IAR/etc are somewhat subjective and can be misused at times. --Interiot 16:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, given that Sidaway, either accidentally or purposely, tipped his hand as to his motives in using it, I think we're seeing a rather interesting evolution. SNOW should be completely separate (if it's going to exist at all) from IAR, as the corrollary argument makes less and less sense as time rolls on. Anyhow, whatever, we're just going in about 30 directions currently. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion from the SNOW talk page

Hi Badlydrawnjeff.

I'm bringing a discussion here from Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause#How are "rules" actually made? because I think we were drifting rather off-topic, but into some rather interesting waters. In particular, I'm thinking of this exchange:

GTB: I take it your position is that no matter what the source of the opposition to speedy deletion, and no matter what form that opposition takes, whether or not it's constructive or reason-based, that we should be required to do a full 5 days on AfD."

BDJ: I'll take that challenge: Yes, we are required. We're compelled by the policy, which refers to the process...

First of all, please understand that I don't think your position, as stated, is stupid or unreasonable or inconsistent. I think that's important to get on the table, and I think I may have not been clear about that to Gene, because he got pissed off by the question and stopped talking to me. I happen to disagree with your position, but I can understand why one might hold it.

Now... I'm not sure exactly where to start. Let me ask you this: why do you say "we're compelled by the policy"? When did you decide that Wikipedia policy is "compelling"? I ask, because I don't think of it that way, and I think it surprised me when I first learned to think of it in a different way. I suspect that most people, by default, assume that written rules are meant to be followed in all cases, but is there anything else that told you that Wikipedia does, in fact, work that way, or that it has worked that way historically? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. My entire experience here, really. It sounds like a simple answer, but the times things work the best is when they're done the way the community has requested, and the only time there's really any major problem is when people think they're above them, and it's typically the same small group who thinks that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I wonder whether your problem is with that small group of people, more than with the flexible and fluid nature of policy. Do you think that's possible? I ask because I've had lots of experiences with cutting corners working out really well, and not causing any problems, the difference being that it was done with respect and acknowledgement of the dignity of everyone involved. I tend to think that arrogance and contempt will cause problems in any kind of system, and that courtesy and respect can make all kinds of weird systems work out just fine. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, actually. The "flexible and fluid nature of policy," to me, refers to the ease of being able to propose and change policy when it makes sense to do so. I can think of few times that ditching such things ended up well as a net gain. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Like I said, you're presenting a coherent and sensible picture of how a project like Wikipedia might work. You seem to be taking it upon yourself to lobby for Wikipedia to work the way you're envisioning, which puts you against a lot of people who've participated in the site since its early days, and who see it differently. Still, I understand where you're coming from. I wonder if you believe that the opposing position is coherent and understandable, or do you think that those of us who advocate a looser interpretation of "rules" are actually suggesting something unworkable and insane? Or something else entirely - please don't think I'm trying to put words in your mouth. I'm not even trying to argue with you right now, just to increase mutual understanding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not like I'm all that "new," this is how it has worked. We have a small, but vocal, number of people who believe it's always worked a certain way when it really hasn't. I don't find the "opposing" position understandible, because it's not working, and it is somewhat insane, to be blunt. The best way to see how something proposed can work is how it's used in the past, and I've never seen a useful instance of SNOW in this case, and no one's been able to present one. I'm merely told "yeah, it's worked plenty of times," and I'm dismissed when I point out why it didn't or why it shouldn't have. It's tiring and no longer amusing, and it hurts the project. Those advocating it poisoned the well by misusing it, and there's absolutely no reason why these ideas couldn't be incorporated into existing policy by consensus. Why isn't it? Because they know it lacks actual support. It's an end-around. I'm rambling now, so I'll stop before I get completely incoherent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff, please don't think that I'm trying to dismiss you. Also, I don't mind you being blunt; I was the one who suggested the word "insane", without sarcasm. I agree with you about the well-poisoning; I think you know that. The only thing I would take issue with is your claim that "those advocating it poisoned the well by misusing it", because I think you're tarring more people with that brush than is strictly accurate. In particular, I'm advocating SNOW, but I don't think I've been engaged in any well-poisoning. If I have, I hope you'll point out where, so I can apologize.

I'm sorry you don't understand my position, and I'm not sure how to communicate it to you. Our impressions of Wikipedia's past seem to be different, although we've both been around, and it's my impression that those advocating for strict process-following are the small, vocal minority. How can we say which of us is correct?

I guess the best SNOW example I could think of right now is the Speedy Keep criteria, before they were written down. Then, they were examples of SNOW, and despite being contrary to existing process, they had enough support that someone finally wrote them down, creating the conditions for someone to later come along and accuse any speedy keep not meeting those particular criteria of being a policy violation. It's almost an argument against writing stuff down - it gives people the impression of being received wisdom, set in stone, once it's written down. Maybe you can tell me why that's not a good example. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

(Fixing indent) I know you aren't trying to dismiss me, but others have and will continue to. I don't believe I'm tarring more people than I need to be, as I don't think there's yet been a proper, uncontroversial use of it. It's funny you bring up speedy keep, as well. I made an attempt earlier this year to incorporate some of what SNOW would do into the speedy keep criteria. What happened? People spoke up, and said they didn't want to incorporate it into the guideline. So if people have spoken and said "We don't want things closed early if, for instance, they've been nominated numerous times for deletion" (which is a time SNOW has come into play), why would we possibly allow it for WP:SNOW? If it's something the community wants, we write it down and codify it. There's no reason not to, because we work within consensus here. WP:SNOW is anti-consensus building, and is against our basic tenets. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What about before any Speedy Keep criteria were written down? That was actually my example, and not some putative additional speedy keep criterion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about it? If things were kept like that beforehand, they simply shouldn't have been. And even now, it's not properly followed, but that's a different discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But the point is - that's how we got the Speedy Keep criteria. "What about it?" is that it's an example of SNOW working so well that it got written into the guideline after being applied enough times. Those criteria weren't determined by someone thinking of them out of the blue - they were hammered out based on what had worked many times previously, despite it's being SNOW. Without that experience, people would have been guessing; with that experience, they knew what to write down. It's an example of how some of us are saying policy really is formed here. It happens in practice, then it's written down. You don't seem to be disagreeing that that's what happened, just that it shouldn't have happened that way, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But see, WP:SNOW is different in that case. WP:SNOW is being forced down people's throats, while people saw a legitimate need for certain keep processes to be sped up. There's no legitimate reason to push SNOW that way, and they're not in the same boat, either. In fact, Speedy Keep was more than likely a response to Speedy Delete than it was any sort of "this is what's done" thing. The fact that the same folks who hold Speedy Keep in high regard can't be brought to incorporate WP:SNOW-style things into its fold speaks volumes to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It turns out I'm not arguing for forcing anything down anyone's throat; at least I'm trying not to. Regarding Speedy Keep, it doesn't really have much to do with Speedy Delete - it has to do with clearing out some AfD discussions that are obvious keepers before the 5 days run out. Ever since AfD has existed (and VfD before it) there have been some discussions that don't need to keep running once everyone realizes there really was a president named Rutherford B. Hayes, or whatever, so it's not a hoax. It's worth mentioning that an early closure resulting in a Keep is much less controversial than an early closure resulting in a Delete. Now, I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand your last sentence. Are you referring to your attempt to add an additional Speedy Keep criterion? Have you got a link to that discussion? I'd be curious to see it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not accusing you of doing so - you seem to have a good faith motive in your advocacy, which I can't say for others. I'll dig up some links for you later when I'm not on an eterm. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, in response to "WP:SNOW is anti-consensus building," I refer you to Centrix' last comments at the SNOW talk page, where he points out that it's not anti-consensus at all, but about recognizing that sometimes, consensus has already been established, and there's no need to spend another five days hashing out the same arguments again. WP:SNOW is a way of recognizing consensus, not ignoring it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. See WP:JAMAICA for an explanation. There's also an essay called "consensus can change" out there, but I don't know the exact link. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok... that's an interesting essay. "Consensus can change" is the renamed version of "No binding decisions", so it can probably be found via WP:NBD... ah there it is: WP:CCC. The example at the bottom of the Jamaica page is an article (Captain underpants, etc.) that seems to be utterly unreferenced and talking about the future, and thus shouldn't exist unless or until there's something verifiable to say about the putative book. I don't think it's a very good example, but I have seen other examples of things that were thought to be hoaxes and turned out to be real, and even verifiable, so point taken.

However, that's not really related to what I was trying to say, because that particular book had never been discussed before. I'm talking about cases where consensus has actually been established through previous repeated discussion of exactly the same thing, over and over again. Why continue to have precisely the conversation we've already had? That seems to be what Radiant! and Centrix are saying WP:SNOW is for - it's for short circuiting what would otherwise be an endlessly repeating loop. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, because consensus can change and we can't predict the future, we have no way of knowing if it's an endlessly repeating loop. My other issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Without an example to talk about, I just don't see this conversation getting anywhere. I don't want to waste your time, so I'll come back when I've got a good one. Peace. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

List of famous left-handed people

This article is up for deletion, and I think it's just as legit as an article about a list of gays or people of color. I'm a lefty, and we're definitely discriminated against. Please help. Billy Blythe 10:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination against you

I've looked into your history, and it looks like you've been treated unfairly by the Powers That Be. If I were you, I'd stay away from policy matters for a while, and draft things in secret for a few weeks. Then come back with cogent arguments and good text. Meanwhile, just edit articles and go to AfD and DRV and save things that need to be saved. I support you, man. You're being bullied, intimidated, and abused. If you want to open an RfC, I'll second it. I'm kind of a newbie, but I've read extensively the policies, so I know what I'm doing. Also, I've worked in Wikipedia namespace. Billy Blythe 10:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay. I set myself up for it, I can handle it. Thanks for the advice, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:STEAM

At first, I thought you had written it, but it's 100% true, and an admin, brenneman, said so on the talk page. I think it needs to be an official essay, not a parody. Can we change it? I support that. Mr. Kelly Martin/Scott Groehning was notorious for that, and I'm glad the guy is gone. Billy Blythe 10:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's meant to be a parody, and I have no problem with that. To turn it into anything else would make it no better than what it's parodying. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Boston Dirt Dogs

Thanks for the keep vote, I hope you can find a cite for that Gammons quote (be good in there), and I hope you check out the expanded article and help me continue to improve the article. SirFozzie 02:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Just tracked it down, adding it. This one's a bit obvious, it'll be interesting to see what happens. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)