User talk:Ed Poor

Recent talk

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

Personal comments at the bottom of the page, please. All others, please contribute at Wikipedia talk:votes for deletion. --Ed

enjoy

enjoy the vacation! Gabrielsimon 01:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, G. Take care. Uncle Ed 01:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

I can go to bed happy now that I know I've caused at least one person to have to change his pants. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Cyrius, returning the favor ... See Got Deleted at Ward's Wiki. Uncle Ed 12:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I've had enough!

I'm feeling rather unappreciated, of late. Maybe I'll just take another vacation. :-(

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD for my parting shot. Goodbye! Uncle Ed 11:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

why leave when i just got back? Gabrielsimon 15:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dude! Are you off suspension again, lol? What am I going to do with you ... Uncle Ed 16:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

i intend to stay off suspension Gabrielsimon 01:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Ed, don't delete an RFC about something you did. Fine upstanding contributors to this site, such as yourself, do not endeavour to supress discussion about things they have done. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, I wish I had seen this notice before my second delete. I'll abstain from a third, simply on your say-so.

But the rules (which everyone is so fond of) approve of my deletion of the vfd rfc, if not of the original deletion of vfd.

Please do not chide me for breaking rules and for following them. That would make me crazy. Uncle Ed 17:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have listed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD on VfU. Please don't delete RfC pages where you are involved. DES ^(talk) 17:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed, nobody deletes their own RFCs. Make your case and leave it for someone else to delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Add that rule (even post facto) to the RFC-removal policy, and I'll gladly follow it. I removed the RFC because it was in itself a violation of the rules.

Don't you care about rules? Or did I compute the 48 hours wrong? Uncle Ed 17:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

You did, Your timestamp is 17:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC), it must be 21:07 3 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I read the rules on this, you have to wait 'till 21:07 3 August 2005 (UTC) . (which is still a couple of hours away), because folks get 48 hours to get their business in order. I suggest you let someone neutral do the deletion this time. :-) Hope this helps! Kim Bruning 17:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

See my apology below. Uncle Ed 17:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, though the RFC is worded in particular about your deletion of VFD, the broader point is that you are not exempt from the standards of behavior that everyone else follows. This is a recurring theme, and many (dozens?) of people have taken up this matter with you in various forms at various times, beginning some time prior to my participation here. You up and deleted VFD, well, fine, you better be prepared to take your lumps from the community. Deleting your own RFC is childish and, coming from you, is a terrible example to set for the rest of the project. If you're going to be the elder statesman around here, then start acting like it.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

See my apology below. Uncle Ed 17:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies

1. Kim, I'm sorry, I messed up the time zone thing. The "history" link of the page is 4 hours off. I mistakenly relied on that, and then deleted the vfd rfc 4 hours early.
2. Uninvited, if I understand you correctly it was not the 'letter of the law' that was being discussed (pursuant to the specific incident named in the RFC), but a broader pattern or "recurring theme" implicitly obvious to all but those with tunnel vision. It was not for 'this shooting' but for 'shooting from the hip' that the RFC was started. I'm sorry that I failed to make enough effort to appreciate this point.

Shut Up

Just shut up. Don't type on wikipedia. Something! Shush! I'll apologize later, talk to me on irc or send me email before you say or do anything. Kim Bruning 17:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, we spoke. I shall now do something, if you don't mind. Uncle Ed 19:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose everyone had their own problems with what you did at VFD. I myself was not particularly concerned about the "rulez." Rulez are tools and have their place. My concerns were:

1. Due to the extensive history of VFD, the deletion and subsequent undeletion bogged the database. This sort of thing has happened before and you should have at least considered the possibility that technical problems could ensue from your edits.
2. It appeared that, overall, you were acting impulsively. We just spent weeks discussing and voting on some fairly minor tweaks to the criteria for speedy deletion. Would it not have made sense to at least discuss what to do with VFD for a day or two? Sure you got everyone's attention. But wasn't there a better way?
3. By deleting VFD you have exacerbated the perception in the community that there are two sets of rules: One for the senior admins, and one for everybody else. Of course you can get away with it, but demonstrating that you can do so alienates people who are getting their hands slapped for comparatively minor faux pax. Look at how much reaction User:Master Thief Garrett got when he deleted the Ass hook article (and several others of equal long-term value to the project) out-of-process.
4. All the business about it being "against the rules" is a red herring. I think the tone of the RFC should have made that clear to anyone reading it with an open mind. I hope you'll find a way to recover from the wikistress of this all, and take a lesson from it, and stick around to continue the great contributions you make here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand all four of your points. I wish I had thought about the database stress of deleting vfd; I had forgotten that it really is a delete, as opposed to a "mark as hidden" function. If it ever gets deleted in the future, we better do it off-peak. I'm ashamed that as an experienced database programmer, I neglected the performance aspect. Your point about two sets of rules is also well taken. I'm not sure what to do about that at the moment, but making it worse is certainly not on my agenda! I must ponder this point, because I had also been neglecting it. I also regret my utter lack of perception, of the tone of the RFC. In retrospect, it seems ridiculous that I should approach it with a closed mind; re-reading it has been rather painful to me, chastening, and wounding my pride. Therefore, I think instead of it being deleted it better be archived somewhere handy; I certainly won't be the one to delete it when 5:10 P.M. (my time) comes rolling around. It has been somewhat stressful, but your mention of "hand slapping" and "alienation" puts this into perspective. I'm not supposed to come here for my own amusement, but to work on a project which is really of planetary importance. Uncle Ed 19:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• • Might I suggest a happy medium between work and amusement? If editing not a fun thing to do, why bother? Just an impartial onlooker, throwing my two cents in, hope you don't mind. See you 'round! Hamster Sandwich 21:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD Deleted

I've been out for awhile and catching up. I gather you simply deleted VfD meanwhile. I applaud the action and gather you've taken some heat for it -- but I would like to know why you can do this and survive the action at all. I simply nominated TfD for deletion and spent weeks in socialist struggle session hell. — Xiong熊talk* 18:17, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

I went and read the article you linked; that is horrible! But to answer your question, I only survive because:

1. I believe in the project
2. I will do what I'm told (after enough brow-beating ;-)
3. ...and the community knows me well enough to take me at my word

Perhaps I should spend more time helping other people out of hell, rather than moaning about how Life Is Hell for me. Uncle Ed 19:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

BE QUIET ALREADY

Just because I'm friendly and polite doesn't mean I don't mean it. I explained my reasons, now you're messing with it. Don't Do That.

Kim Bruning 20:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It's 21:08 now - can I talk again, Kim? Uncle Ed 21:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free! :-) Kim Bruning 21:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Price-Anderson Act

Sorry to pile this on you Ed.

Nuclear Power and Price-Anderson Act were unprotected. PAA is under mediation, nuclear power is not - but we advised against unprotecting it lest it spill over into PAA. Which it has done.

Ben made numerous changes to Nuclear Power. I reverted them with comments, including that nuclear power wasn't under mediation. Ben insists on linking the two - his last modification to PAA says he's quitting Mediation.

I'm afraid this is going to Arbitration, as Ben said in his earlier message to you. What would you like to say to this? Simesa 20:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC) :(Words in other people's mouth) Benjamin Gatti

Really - it is Simesa who initially linked the two, and has persistently linked the two when it is to his benefit - but denies any link at all when it so suits his fancy - ah the integrity of it all. As for Arb - I thought protecting an article because another (Apparently unrelated article) needs protection was bad form and tantamount to book-burning - censorship for the sake of sterility, and ought to be arbitrated - the arb request would be to unprotect the article - clearly unnecessary at this point. Welcome back, don't wikistress. Benjamin Gatti

It's in the Discussion that Ben said if Nuclear Power were unprotected he'd leave it alone if we did, yet he made numerous changes (after Ultramarine, not a party to PAA, did). Therefore I made changes also. Now Ben wants to cry about that and leave Mediation of PAA (this is all exactly as I predicted would happen if Nuclear Power was unprotected). My integrity in this is fine, Ben's is what you'd expect based on his past actions. Simesa 13:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I offered that the page be unprotected during Ed's Leave on a conditional basis - the offer was rejected - you think I am bound by offers of compromise which are rejected by the other side? - Get ***ing lost.

Uncle Ed, are we still in Mediation? Simesa 20:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I've been kind of pre-occupied. I have some fresh ideas for Mediation which I'll run by you guys. Uncle Ed 21:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

If you have ideas and can get Ben to mediate, I'll participate. Starting by reverting to the last mediated version. Simesa 14:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I see Kim deleted the RFC

I just came online to answer your post in the discussion on the RfC (I haven't been able to go online since lunch), however, only minutes later Kim deleted it while I was working on it. I guess this means that further discussion would simply be academic and thus fruitless. It is obvious that you wont get any reprecussions more than you already have gotten (I am not reffering to the block, but to the critisism from the community). I will not press the point further (even though I still think that what you did was totally out of line, dont get me wrong :P). Lets shake hands and make peace shall we? gkhan 21:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

gkhan reluctantly extends hand

Ed Poor shakes extended hand

Well, it turns out that the Uninvited had undeleted the page so the discussion is still on. I will go write a response. However, it is still good that we shook hands on it anyway. gkhan 21:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Or not.......hmm, this is interesting, a deletion/undeletion war. I'll let them duke it out gkhan 22:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's deleted and stays deleted! :-) Feel free to talk here, of course. Kim Bruning 22:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't act like you are some sort of authority that has the last word in this matter, Kim. You're not. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you know, if you continue, you can make a bid for WP:LAME! :D gkhan 22:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Nah! I think UninvitedCompany is wise enough to not play along with that :-) Kim Bruning 22:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, as I said originally, deleted or not I feel that the discussion is going nowhere. Ed wont receive the punishment (I think) he deserves, and all that can be said, has been said. I am bowing out. Ed, just promise that you wont pull crap like this in the future, ok? Atleast check in with me first or something :P (that last part was intended as a joke, but if you want to do it, sure, go ahead) gkhan 22:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I promise not to delete an important page with a long history (such as vfd) again, without first ascertaining that there is consensus for this. Fair enough?

P.S. That's all you had to ask for - we could have saved all the bother of an RFC, if only you had asked me this in the first place. And now, even if the RFC were to be undeleted, you wouldn't even want to certify that you had tried and failed to resolve the dispute, because my promise has resolved it. Agreed? Uncle Ed 12:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The reason I posted the RFC was not to solve a dispute between us two specifically, we have after all barely interacted. I felt that this was something that should be discussed as a community, see what users thought what. I was therefore requesting comments (hmm, can't see to fit an f in there anywhere). I could have done it on the Village Pump but that would have been basically the same thing. I just read your response to the RfAr and that left me totally satisfied, that was excatly what I wanted to hear. I have no gripe with you, and I hope you have none with me. I doubt that we will be part of any more disputes, excepting perhaps on the same side of it. Oh, and yes, fair enough, and agreed. :P gkhan 13:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

This is the standard notice to let you know that a RfA ([1]) has been filed against you. Sorry, but we're not happy with the way certain recent events have been handled. Rob Church 01:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, I think it is clear you have conducted a Breaching experiment "it is a social rule that ordinary citizens should not pick up garbage from the street, or mend street signs, or otherwise fix problems." Certainly you have drawn attention to an issue you believe needs to be fixed and mended - and quite likely it will get fixed and mended as a result of you drawing said attention. Meanwhile, we must kill the messenger because killing messengers is the instinctive social reaction to bearors of negative news. I am going to follow this as I'm sure many are and going to argue for Wikiblower protection. What you did proably violates rules - however, if that which you blew the whistle on was worse than the minor interuption you caused, then wikiblower protection applies. (There are two standards of rules - one for wikiblowers and one for the rest. It is not and should not be your status as a wikielder that ccreates a different standard, but your status as a wikiblower.) May i wish you Godspeed and recommend that you use the process and the platform to argue your cause. Benjamin Gatti

Talk about rubbing salt in the wound! Simesa 13:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just going to ignore Ben, but I have to point this out: it was not an experiment of any kind, and certainly not a breaching experiment. Furthermore, the article he quoted from is incorrect in at least one respect: there is no rule against ordinary citizens picking up garbage, not where I come from anyway. Ironic he should choose that quote to make his point, because many admins describe their job in terms of a "mop and bucket" or call themselves WikiJanitors. Tidying up the place is most of what being an Admin's job actually is. I wish Ben understood this.

I will comment elsewhere about the meaning and repercussions of this. Uncle Ed 13:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox/...

Hey, I noticed you've made a load of articles beginning with "Sandbox/..." eg. Sandbox/template2 and Sandbox/template with multiple word title. I doubt this is allowed. Making articles to test coding certainly isn't, and adding Sandbox/ before it isn't going to cover that. Try using Wikipedia:Sandbox or User:Ed Poor/sandbox for edits. And if you could use {{delete}} on pages you no longer want, that would be great. Cheers — CuaHL 02:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about all those. I don't even remember why I made them. Feel free to delete them, if you can't see any use to them. I never intended them to be permanent pages; I thought I ever wrote "temp - please delete in 3 hours" or something like that in the edit summary when creating them. 68.174.14.29 12:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

hey ed

what you think of me protecting Vampire, Vampire Fiction and Therianrtropy, inthe hopes of avoiding DreamGuy's stubborn edit warring?

also check out SlimVirgion's talk page to see just how rude that guy gets ( still referring to dreamguy) Gabrielsimon 02:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Ed. :-) I've been the first one on your doorstep chastening you before...so I think I'll take a break on this one and just say hi. I haven't done that in a while, and I figure everybody needs a quiet friendly chat in which they are neither being asked for a favor or being confronted about something. Consider this my invitation for a friendly chat at your leisure. :-) Thanks for your hard work, and good luck in the upcoming arbitration (which I personally am hoping will set a wikirecord in Wikipedia:Civility, if not Wikipedia:Wikilove, or as much as any arbitration case can). If you really want a good chastening from me, you can let me know, and I'll share my perspective on events (I almost offered my services as mediator, but it looks like this is getting beyond that stage), since I think I'm in a reasonably moderate position here. May we both survive our wikistress, and someday see this place even more committed to the principles of wikilove, consensus, and collaboration...sometimes I forget them, and I always pay the penalty. All my best, as always, Jwrosenzweig 05:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Delete-?

Just wondering what all your "Template:Delete-smurfs" stlye edits are about. --Commander Keane 12:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

An experiment in transclusion, which did not succeed. I think I'll make another try today, if you don't mind. Or is there a way to put templates in my own userspace somehow? As subpages of my user page, maybe? I don't want to 'pollute' the main namespace. Uncle Ed 13:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Transclusion works for any page, it just defaults to the Template namespace, so that {{foo}} inserts a copy of [[Template:foo]], but you can also use {{User:Ed Poor/foo}} to include the contents of [[User:Ed Poor/foo]], and similarly for any other fully qualified page name on en. For tests and experiments, it is recommended that they live in your user space. Dragons flight 14:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Very new talk

Moving on?

Hello Ed,

Once this has somewhat blown over, I wonder if you would be interested in working on a Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting, or something like that... initially beta-testing a set of deletion categories, then (absent loud screaming objections) creating the categories and applying them to VfD subpages to show that categorized deletion actually is a viable solution.

Great show, by the way. Someone needed to stir the pot. In recognition of this brilliant act of subversion, I hereby award you the Deletionist's Barnstar. I would put it on your user page, but I'm not sure if that might be a violation of Wikiquette. Of course, you could always cut and paste it there yourself.

Hope you're feeling OK about the Ed-Wikipedia relationship. We need you here.

Happiness,

Visviva

Wow, the community really is divided on this one. A dozen attaboys (and a barnstar) on one hand, and a lynching party or the other. It's almost as interesting as real life. Sure, I'll join your project. Uncle Ed 14:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Now, that barnstar does inspire me. I'd like to give you one too, one that you more than deserve, and if you haven't gotten it already I can only wonder why... JRM · Talk 17:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that you've fixed the subheads, I can post this :) VfD is broken and stalled, mostly a timewaster for those who vote. IMO whether they're ultimately deletionist or inclusionist, clearer rules are needed. Most deletions should be the result of an admin applying the rules after an article is nominated for deletion. Wyss 18:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot to say my only complaint is you didn't get away with it ;) Wyss 19:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I, Visviva, award you the Deletionist's Barnstar, in recognition of your much-needed act of deletion.

For being bold beyond belief and inimitably inconceivable, I, JRM, hereby award Ed Poor this Surreal Barnstar. JRM · Talk 17:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not a big "Barnstar" fan: If I think you did a good job, I'm likely to just say it, ...but in keeping with the theme...

I no doubt award you "The Tireless Contributor Barnstar," Uncle Ed, for especially tireless Wikipedians that contribute an especially large body of work without sacrificing quality. In this case, your "large body of work" is being a good manager and addressing disputes of all sorts fairly, be it deletion of certain controversial VfD pages or enforcing NPOV standards on other controversial pages, like Terri Schiavo. --GordonWattsDotCom 18:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

For brazenly abusing his power and thumbing his nose at the Wikipedia community, I, Lifeisunfair, hereby award Uncle Ed the Vigilante Barnstar.

For being an absolute prat, and managing to somehow spark a vital debate into the workings of Wikipedia, I say thank you with this pretty flower. :-) [[smoddy]] 22:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Odd post on my talk

Howdy, I thought that I may draw your attention to the post of 213.138.128.13 @ my talk page. The anon is rambling about attempting "vandalise Wikipedia". See my talk page for the whole thing. Sincerely, JDR 17:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• 213.138.128.13 (talk · contribs · block log)

Suggestion

Ed, I have been watching/following this whole situation from basically the beginning, and I would like to humbly offer a suggestion: Talk to your friends before being really bold.

I see now that you are up on RFAr and are being quite contrite and willing to accept your lumps (though suggesting resysoping will be "no biggie" is a tad immodest as well). I am not a fan of punishing people just for the sake of whacking them, so I am hoping whatever comes of this will be a remedy that truly helps make things better in the future rather than merely being punative. You've already promised never to do this particular thing again, so there really is no more issue surrounding the deletion of VFD, but I think there is a larger pattern to be concerned with.

You are a bold administrator (certainly one of the boldest). This in itself is not a problem. Sometimes being bold is an expression of that spark of leadership which helps point things in a new and useful direction. Unfortunately, sometimes being bold is like throwing rocks at a hornet's nest; it is very painful and doesn't accomplish much. It troubles me that you sometimes don't seem to know which is which in cases which strike me as obviously the latter. Which brings me back to my suggestion. If you are going to be really bold (like deleting pages out of process, desysoping people, going against a vote, etc.), then I think you would save yourself a lot of trouble if you talked about your proposed actions with someone in advance. Not to mention saving the community from days of whining about what quirky Uncle Ed did now. Having a couple people to say "Yeah, that's a great idea, Ed." or "No, that's absolutely nuts" would have to be better than taking a chance at annoying hundreds of people.

I am bringing this to you here because I think you are a reasonable person and may well see the virtue in this without any further prompting. However, should the arbitration proceed, I am contemplating suggesting something similar as a remedy there. Call it "bold acts mentorship", wherein there would exist several people with whom you would be expected to communicate before taking any radical actions. You know better than I do whom you trust, but I would suggest that people like Angela and UninvitedCompany are sensible choices. You have already suggested at RFAr that you will talk with other admins before making controversial deletions, and what I am suggesting is not that much larger a step.

Hopefully, this is a good way to get all the benefits of the friendly, sometimes nutty Uncle Ed without having to worry about the Ed Poor who deletes process pages with very little discussion, and then is so anxious to delete opinions critical of his actions that he rushes to quash the associated RFC as soon as he thinks time has expired.

Best wishes, and here's hoping for a brighter tomorrow.

Dragons flight 20:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Darn good suggestion there, lots of food for thought. Lemme chew it over a bit, d.f., okay? Uncle Ed 21:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Dragons flight 22:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The RfArb: Invitation to a Meeting with a view to withdraw

Dear Ed,

I am most truly sorry that we have had to bring an RfArb against you, and I appreciate that you are a pleasant, rational and civilised Wikipedian, not to mention that you are also an exceptional contributor to the project. I am of the opinion, in hindsight, that this matter can probably be resolved without attention from the arbcom, as you are clearly trying to do your very best for the Wikipedia community at large and have the best of intentions at heart.

Rob Church, Phroziac, UninvitedCompany and I (Party 1 of the dispute) would consequently like to ask if you would be so kind as to participate in a private meeting with us via IRC (or other similar real-time chat system, depending on your preference) so that we may discuss our concerns - primarily with a view to withdrawing the RfArb against you. We would be most grateful if you could spare the time to do so; please inform us of your preferences regarding chat medium, date, time and individuals present, if you wish to do this.

Thank you very much for your assistance, consideration and continued immense contribution to Wikipedia.

Best regards,

• NicholasTurnbull 23:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Let's try mediating. Rob Church 23:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Phroziac (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Party 1

My e-mail address: nicholas |dot| turnbull |at| gmail |dot| com

Dear Ed, May I boldly suggest that you decline the offer of a private settlement. You set this in motion publicly, and the public wants to hear you out. If VfD is half as bad as has been suggested, then a bad process deserved a public flogging. It might mean putting the project's interest before your own comfort, but I think that's what you had in mind all along. Benjamin Gatti No you may not. Now, shoo! Uncle Ed 02:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of mediating, and I have sent Nicholas my AIM address. Uncle Ed 02:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Ed, tomorrow is great for this. I'm in the same timezone as you, by the way. --Phroziac (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for introducing me to mIRC, even though it's not "free". But darn it, I stayed up past midnight with it! See you this evening. :-) Uncle Ed 13:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I stayed up till 12:30 am! You have trillian, use it! Anyway, you're welcome. --Phroziac (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Digesting Meatball

The Meatball website offers many perspectives relevant to the online community of Wikipedia.

• Fair Process - which I seem to have violated by suddenly deleting vfd

  ...although that didn't upset so many people as my deletion of the subsequent RFC!

Ward's Wiki led me to:

• "The basic advantage of XP is that the whole process is visible and accountable."

  I think I confused the visibility and accountability of XP with a license to "simply try anything". Also, there are simply far more people at Wikipedia than at even the largest XP project.

Ed, are you talking to yourself? --Phroziac (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Am I?

Well, he seems to think so.

Yeah, but what if he thinks I'm crazy?

"We're all mad here."

Come on, stop fooling around.

Oh, lighten up, he'll realize I'm just parodying JRM's mock MPD above.

What mock MPD? I don't see any! Is he delusional now, too? :-P Oh, and Meatball really is good reading material for Wikipedians. I've come across a page and went "that's exactly what happened!" more than once. JRM · Talk 20:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Wisdom from Larry Sanger

"Who dat?" (oh, right, the co-founder / *yawn*)

Larry Sanger mentions 2 problems:

1. perception of unreliability - justified or not
2. "a certain poisonous social or political atmosphere in the project"

"Wikipedia does have two big problems, and attention to them is long overdue. These problems could be eliminated by eliminating a single root problem. If the project's managers are not willing to solve it, I fear a fork (a new edition under new management, for the non-techies reading this) will probably be necessary.

"A few of the project's participants can be, not to put a nice word on it, pretty nasty. And this is tolerated. So, for any person who can and wants to work politely with well-meaning, rational, reasonably well-informed people--which is to say, to be sure, most people working on Wikipedia--the constant fighting can be so off-putting as to drive them away from the project."

"Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise."

I already identified my two problems: Lack of pay -and- lack of stability to a finished product. (The first simply means we don't get paid, so I'm hoping to spend less time on Wiki; The second means that a finished product article is vulnerable to all sorts of changes, to be contrasted with a New York Times web page, which, once posted, STAYS THE SAME.)--GordonWattsDotCom 16:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course, having LOTS of people edit ALSO brings in "good" info, and that's why the Terri Schiavo page is the THIRD highest page in Google.com, even higher than CNN.com, and only beaten by the family's official site and some hot-shot lawyer character.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, I've stated MY two main problems, but I have Question 1: What are your two problems? (I don't see you list them.) Scratch that: I see you just posted them.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I take it your proposed solution includes a new wiki, but that leads to Question 2: How would this new wiki solve the problems you outline?--GordonWattsDotCom 16:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

UPDATED COMMENTS: I see that your perception of unreliability is an analogue to my "lack of stability" above. (No, I didn't change my words to mirror yours: Brilliant minds do think alike.) However, the lack of civility may be due, in part, to low (read: NO) pay of the wiki editor "employees." The lack of civility may also result, in part, from frustration of the lack of stability -or, reliability, as you put it. Eh? What solutions offer ye?--GordonWattsDotCom 16:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, see Wikipedia:anti-elitism. And yes, I have another wiki in mind. I'm organizing a conference next month to introduce it. Uncle Ed 17:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise." You raise a good point here too. I did better than Jeb Bush in MY Schaivo lawsuit (my expertise), losing only 4-3 before the same court on the same issue, but I have been made fun of by certain unnamed wiki editors. (Oh, my goodness! I think I'll survive though - grin) I just now see your fast reply here, but, unless the new wiki pays -AND is in my field (I'm hoping to find a job in genetics), I might find it hard to justify my participation: I have bills to pay -big ones. But, Wiki still has positives.--GordonWattsDotCom 17:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Meeting time changed! :(

There was some sort of silly daylight savings time confusion and Nick and Uninvited aren't going to be available until 6:30pm, our time. Sorry. --Phroziac (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon

He showed up on Vampire and Werewolf, tried to claim in the articles that both of them were real, I removed them as POV and unencyclopedic, and obviously so... for all I know those were his first edits here. He sees me as enemy #1 ever since then. He follows me around on articles undoing my changes to spite me -- sometimes even when he admits later that he agreed with the changes but just didn't want to see me get my way. He's consistently rude and calculating. Whenever anyone else posts on my talk page upset about some edit I did, Gabriel jumps in to try to help them edit war over articles. At one point I removed most of the articles on my watch list that I knew he edited because I knew that his constant warring was getting me nowhere, but then he ended up following me elsewhere. He conspired to try to get me banned via false claims of vandalism, and then later filed an RfC with a couple of other problem editors, another of which is also currently undergoind RfAr for his conflicts with others. No matter how nice I am to the guy, no matter how many times I calmly explain the same things (NPOV, verifiability, no original research, civility, etc.) he doesn't listen. His constant stalking and abuse has caused me more than a couple of times to snap at him. I've been the one to report him several times for his latest policy violations, mainly because he happened to be doing them on articles I had on my watchlist (often because he followed me there). Look at the RfC he filed on me. Look at his current RfC (signed by a large number of editors, by the way) for the number of times he's erased my comments from talk pages, swore at me, etc. Look at the RfAr evidence. The guy is simply a major troublemaker who refuses to take responsibilit for his own actions and instead tries to blame other people, and since he's always hoping to try to find a way to get back at me, when it inevitably fails he just gets even more upset. I'm sorry to hear you are trying to mentor the guy, as it's a job I wouldn't wish on anyone. He hasn't appeared to have learned one thing about the proper way to do things in the months he has been here, and it's apparent that it's based upon unwillingness to do so, because he has learned to be more sneaky each time he tries to get away with anything. Lately he's progressed to coming up with complicated and implausible stories to try to justify why he shouldn't be held responsible... his roommate did it, he did it against me so the end justifies the means, he was tired, he was sick, whatever. Even minor things like following the 1RR policy he agreed to as a way to attempt to show that he was willing to change fell completely by the wayside, and he just didn't even try. Blamed it all on me, even the articles I had nothing to do with. If you want to help him, suggest that he either take responsibility for his own actions and follow Wikipedia policies or just leave the site entirely. Wikipedia isn't for everyone, and I don't even see a glimmer of hope that he will ever become a useful contributor here. DreamGuy 13:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

All that (about gabrielsimon (talk · contribs · block log) makes sense. I will do as you suggested. Thanks for dropping by. Uncle Ed 13:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Ed! It's FL (as in Florida), Cello (as in violoncello), guy. I should probably list that on my user page... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 15:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks (I figured out the 'cello part myself, though ;-) --Uncle Ed 15:07, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Main page intro

I felt that the two articles were greatly different in quality, and that we should present our best articles first to newcomers. I would revert it, but seeing as it's a part of the main page, it would be a little ridiculous to argue over the welcome mat. I'm hoping that over time, free encyclopedia can get to be as good as free content. --Merovingian (t) (c) 15:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe putting it there will attract the attention it needs. Anyway, thanks for talking with me about it. I won't re-revert (see: Wikipedia:text move).

I didn't think about it that way; thanks. --Merovingian (t) (c) 16:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9's RfA

Ed, I'm interested in why you made two particular edits on Lucky 6.9's RfA.

The first edit [2] placed your oppose vote at the top of the list. The votes are always in chronological order, not determined by strength of opposition or support. I have moved your vote back into order.

The second edit [3] was to state "Note that "voting" alone will not determine the outcome" at the top of the page. It's already known that bureaucrats can exercise discretion, especially in close votes. I don't know what point you were trying to make. I'd like to assume good faith here, but combined with your first edit, it appears that you're trying your best to sink Lucky 6.9's nomination. In any case, Func has removed the statement from the top of the page. I really hope I'm misreading your intentions, but your edits do have me somewhat worried. Anyway, thanks for listening. Carbonite | Talk 17:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I was calling attention to what I thought was an important issue, lest the closing bureaucrat simply go by the percentage of votes. I disagree with the idea that Wikipedia is a democracy. But for the sake of harmony, I won't oppose the edits you and Func made (in fact, I look forward to func's adminship promotion).

Wikipedia is currently going through growth pains. There is tension between unilateral action and "consensus". I tend more toward the former. I'm not really sure how consensus is defined, but if it means requiring people to abide by majority rule it sounds like a form of democracy to me.

I do not consent to the transformation of this project into a democracy. I would advise you to look into Jimbo's remarks on Wikipedia and democracy. Uncle Ed 17:26, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

The only two bureaucrats who regularly promote admins are Cecropia and UninvitedCompany. I have complete trust that they'll use judgment when necessary. In my opinion, the notice was unnecessary.

Still, you're certainly entitled to your opinion that 78% support (Lucky 6.9's current %) isn't enough in every case. I'll have to look into Jimbo's remarks a bit more. I know I've read them in the past, but it wouldn't hurt to peruse them. Carbonite | Talk 17:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

possible RFC help

if you have the time, pleae check with my RFC's evidance, and look at any 3rr invilving DreamGuy , to check his edit summaries for rude and ilsulting and incivil behaviour, which would, in itself constitute baiting. i believe the majority of those would show at least some baiting, hich would help proove his vendetta. If this Vendetta of his is shown, specially by an admin, it might help to proove that im not as bad as hes trying to make me seem. thanks in advance. Gabrielsimon 01:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)