This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 28 sections are present. |
The Original Barnstar | |
For being posistive and a good attitude Hulkster1 ( talk) 11:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
When KCS stated "With all that said its apparent that this ain't going to pass so if someone wants to close it feel free." [1] on the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard I think it is as close as a proud man will come to withdrawing. Please recognize the propriety in following through with that suggestion. My76Strat ( talk) 19:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Your first impulse was definitely correct. Of course nobody wants to see the autobiography of a peacock. Did someone pressure you to revert? Even if you do think the guy merits an entry, I think his notability is based primarily on the Qworty scandal, not on his self-proclaimed literary merits - has he ever received a single decent review? I'm discussing the possibility of a Project Qworty on my talk page - might want to take a look. It's going to be a lot of work, undoing the damage Young has done to Wikipedia. And yes, we can start by dealing with his joke of an autobiography. NaymanNoland ( talk) 23:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I have just written an article caled Norops (clade) which covers all the information in this article and more,and in furher detail,only my article treats Norops as a clade(which is the more widely accepted view) rather than as a genus.Please consider erasing the Norops article and then moving "Norops (clade)" to "Norops' as well as redirecting any links to the original page,the reason I propose this action is to try and avoid any confusion that could result from having two pages,both named Norops,and both covering exactly the same material.-- Jamaican college grad ( talk) 03:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.243.186 ( talk)
Hi! Please see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 May 20 - It is an XFD debate over images of deceased people in articles about their deaths WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it a fact that Bureaucrats will soon loose their ability to rename user accounts? -- My76Strat ( talk) 22:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I have my real name registered with no edits. If I wanted to rename as such, would I have to usurp it before August, or would I be able to do that gloabally at an indefinite point in the future?-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 18:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
IP made some edit [2] Single-sideband modulation, please revert this. -- Raghith ( Talk) 06:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Good closing comments there, but I wrote in the same thread, actually. It's hard to get a bird's eye view of the loose baggy monster of a thread when you read it, but if you check out the TOC, you'll see that it's all one thread, and the section I started (the "new policy proposal") is merely the last of the ===-level subsections. I'd recommend you archive the whole thing in one fell swoop, removing the various partial archivings. (Or leaving them, for that matter, if you prefer. I think the archive template is infinitely recessive; I know the collapse template is.) Bishonen | talk 21:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC).
Good close, even though I don't agree 100% with the outcome. Well-stated, thoughtful, and fair. Granted, my opinion and a nickel will get you a cup of coffee, but I figured I'd say so anyway. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
These were "good closing comments" in the sense that they were very diplomatic, in that they made the rights nods in the right directions, that they were worded in a way which made sure that no one can accuse the closer of wrong intentions or bias, in that they were a well designed to end drama and in that they made an appearance of "resolving" the situation. But it was still a bad close.
But you strip away all the rhetoric and fancy language and what it boils down to is this:
What that means is that Horologium's indefinite block stands, until such time either Horologium or another uninvolved admin (after consulting with Horologium per our blocking policy) are convinced that the behavior (i.e. accusing another of misconduct without evidence and in such a way that reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct) will not be repeated
You can put all kinds of nice words on it but what it amounts to is 1) Kiefer is indef/infinitely blocked and 2) you authorize the interpretation of his comments as suggesting sexual misconduct (please, look up the difference between the words "imply" and "infer" in a dictionary!) which was not supported by many of the commentators and by not unblocking him and, more importantly, making it very difficult for ANY admin to unblock him you imposed consensus where there was none.
Was it a good close? No, despite all the ass kissing above. Was it well played? Yes, yes it was. Volunteer Marek 01:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, I'm sorry you found my close unsatisfactory, but I think I was clear as to what I thought was needed for an unblock: a convincing assurance that he'd avoid making accusations without evidence (it was what I blocked Demiurge1000 for a while back, remember?) and to avoid phrasing things in such a way that reasonable people could infer – accurately or otherwise – were accusations of pedophilia. (And yes, I did mean "infer", not "imply". "Imply" would mean I know or knew KW's intent, which I do not; I only know how other people interpreted his statements.) Given the number of reasonable people calling for an outright ban in that discussion, I don't think that's too onerous of a condition. 28bytes ( talk) 04:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Countdown til some admin who has been lurking through all this decides to unblock without discussion and claim, "Oh, I was just responding to the open unblock request, I didn't know about all the drama related to it." 10…9…8… - Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 14:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I just thought the close was fine, because of the perhaps unintentional allusion to the famous
political charges regarding protection of the poor impressionable young men and boys and that such charges have well known scurrilous history.
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 15:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, I noticed recently that Category:Wikipedia administrators has about 1090 admins in it but I know there are only about 650. I think someone might want to do a cleanup run to remove the outdated ones. I think this might be generated by outdated usersboxes and directly transculded categories on user pages but I'm not sure. Kumioko ( talk) 20:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 28 sections are present. |
The Original Barnstar | |
For being posistive and a good attitude Hulkster1 ( talk) 11:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
When KCS stated "With all that said its apparent that this ain't going to pass so if someone wants to close it feel free." [1] on the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard I think it is as close as a proud man will come to withdrawing. Please recognize the propriety in following through with that suggestion. My76Strat ( talk) 19:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Your first impulse was definitely correct. Of course nobody wants to see the autobiography of a peacock. Did someone pressure you to revert? Even if you do think the guy merits an entry, I think his notability is based primarily on the Qworty scandal, not on his self-proclaimed literary merits - has he ever received a single decent review? I'm discussing the possibility of a Project Qworty on my talk page - might want to take a look. It's going to be a lot of work, undoing the damage Young has done to Wikipedia. And yes, we can start by dealing with his joke of an autobiography. NaymanNoland ( talk) 23:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I have just written an article caled Norops (clade) which covers all the information in this article and more,and in furher detail,only my article treats Norops as a clade(which is the more widely accepted view) rather than as a genus.Please consider erasing the Norops article and then moving "Norops (clade)" to "Norops' as well as redirecting any links to the original page,the reason I propose this action is to try and avoid any confusion that could result from having two pages,both named Norops,and both covering exactly the same material.-- Jamaican college grad ( talk) 03:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.243.186 ( talk)
Hi! Please see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 May 20 - It is an XFD debate over images of deceased people in articles about their deaths WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it a fact that Bureaucrats will soon loose their ability to rename user accounts? -- My76Strat ( talk) 22:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I have my real name registered with no edits. If I wanted to rename as such, would I have to usurp it before August, or would I be able to do that gloabally at an indefinite point in the future?-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 18:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
IP made some edit [2] Single-sideband modulation, please revert this. -- Raghith ( Talk) 06:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Good closing comments there, but I wrote in the same thread, actually. It's hard to get a bird's eye view of the loose baggy monster of a thread when you read it, but if you check out the TOC, you'll see that it's all one thread, and the section I started (the "new policy proposal") is merely the last of the ===-level subsections. I'd recommend you archive the whole thing in one fell swoop, removing the various partial archivings. (Or leaving them, for that matter, if you prefer. I think the archive template is infinitely recessive; I know the collapse template is.) Bishonen | talk 21:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC).
Good close, even though I don't agree 100% with the outcome. Well-stated, thoughtful, and fair. Granted, my opinion and a nickel will get you a cup of coffee, but I figured I'd say so anyway. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
These were "good closing comments" in the sense that they were very diplomatic, in that they made the rights nods in the right directions, that they were worded in a way which made sure that no one can accuse the closer of wrong intentions or bias, in that they were a well designed to end drama and in that they made an appearance of "resolving" the situation. But it was still a bad close.
But you strip away all the rhetoric and fancy language and what it boils down to is this:
What that means is that Horologium's indefinite block stands, until such time either Horologium or another uninvolved admin (after consulting with Horologium per our blocking policy) are convinced that the behavior (i.e. accusing another of misconduct without evidence and in such a way that reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct) will not be repeated
You can put all kinds of nice words on it but what it amounts to is 1) Kiefer is indef/infinitely blocked and 2) you authorize the interpretation of his comments as suggesting sexual misconduct (please, look up the difference between the words "imply" and "infer" in a dictionary!) which was not supported by many of the commentators and by not unblocking him and, more importantly, making it very difficult for ANY admin to unblock him you imposed consensus where there was none.
Was it a good close? No, despite all the ass kissing above. Was it well played? Yes, yes it was. Volunteer Marek 01:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, I'm sorry you found my close unsatisfactory, but I think I was clear as to what I thought was needed for an unblock: a convincing assurance that he'd avoid making accusations without evidence (it was what I blocked Demiurge1000 for a while back, remember?) and to avoid phrasing things in such a way that reasonable people could infer – accurately or otherwise – were accusations of pedophilia. (And yes, I did mean "infer", not "imply". "Imply" would mean I know or knew KW's intent, which I do not; I only know how other people interpreted his statements.) Given the number of reasonable people calling for an outright ban in that discussion, I don't think that's too onerous of a condition. 28bytes ( talk) 04:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Countdown til some admin who has been lurking through all this decides to unblock without discussion and claim, "Oh, I was just responding to the open unblock request, I didn't know about all the drama related to it." 10…9…8… - Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 14:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I just thought the close was fine, because of the perhaps unintentional allusion to the famous
political charges regarding protection of the poor impressionable young men and boys and that such charges have well known scurrilous history.
Alanscottwalker (
talk) 15:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, I noticed recently that Category:Wikipedia administrators has about 1090 admins in it but I know there are only about 650. I think someone might want to do a cleanup run to remove the outdated ones. I think this might be generated by outdated usersboxes and directly transculded categories on user pages but I'm not sure. Kumioko ( talk) 20:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)