Apparently, Slim's Cabal Club Card was just snipped Options

[Tarc]

A rebuke that would have been unheard of a few years ago.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard (T-H-L-K-D)

[Doc glasgow]

A rebuke that would have been unheard of a few years ago.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard (T-H-L-K-D)

Death to all drama-doomed noticeboards.

[Ottava]

A rebuke that would have been unheard of a few years ago.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard (T-H-L-K-D)

Death to all drama-doomed noticeboards.

"(fuck off)"




Wikiquette is still around.


I say remove that you all noticeboards, barnstars, user pages, user talk pages, and wikiprojects before you are able to get rid of the "drama-doomed" centers of the Wiki.

[Doc glasgow]

I say remove that you all noticeboards, barnstars, user pages, user talk pages, and wikiprojects before you are able to get rid of the "drama-doomed" centers of the Wiki.

What about removing drama-destined editors?


Oh, yes, they started that with you. A long way yet to go, though.

[Ottava]

I say remove that you all noticeboards, barnstars, user pages, user talk pages, and wikiprojects before you are able to get rid of the "drama-doomed" centers of the Wiki.

What about removing drama-destined editors?


Oh, yes, they started that with you. A long way yet to go, though.

I like you. You know I do. But you've been rather nasty lately. Like the above, was that necessary? You are pursuing SlimVirgin in a way that makes it hard to assume any kind of legitimacy, let alone good faith.

Then you went after Raul and had to get Lar to help tag team here. Was that necessary? It seems like you put your "enemies" as your top priority. The original source Raul used was a pro Allan Stern website and you say it is not a "reliable source" for negative info about Stern. How about consider it as a possible mistake and not go all rabid right from the get go?

You were in IRC and I posted it up there but you left just as soon as I did. Those like PeterSymonds agreed that you were really harsh. Your having to turn to Lar to back you up shows that you aren't doing the right thing.

There are a lot bigger problems to deal with that you can focus on instead of people who honestly want to help write an encyclopedia. The drama areas are primarily those who don't even touch the writing side of the project. You are losing focus and using Wikipedia Review to canvass as part of what looks to be a vendetta. Legitimate concerns, sure, post them, but this is just outright nasty lately.

I'm disappointed in you.

[thekohser]

I'm disappointed in you.

Wear that badge of honor proudly, Doc.

[carbuncle]

I like you. You know I do. blah blah blah

You were in IRC and I posted it up there but you left just as soon as I did. blah blah blah

They let banned users on the official WP IRC channel?

[Kelly Martin]

They let banned users on the official WP IRC channel?

They let just about everybody onto the IRC channel. Makes for more drama that way.

[Lar]

I'm disappointed in you.

Wear that badge of honor proudly, Doc.

Can I get one of those too?

[Doc glasgow]

I like you. You know I do. But you've been rather nasty lately. Like the above, was that necessary? You are pursuing SlimVirgin in a way that makes it hard to assume any kind of legitimacy, let alone good faith.

Then you went after Raul and had to get Lar to help tag team here. Was that necessary? It seems like you put your "enemies" as your top priority. The original source Raul used was a pro Allan Stern website and you say it is not a "reliable source" for negative info about Stern. How about consider it as a possible mistake and not go all rabid right from the get go?

What a load of nonsense. I don't do "enemies" never have - I just call what I see.

Where am I "pursing SlimVirgin"? As I recall the last time we interacted I was asking for her help. She and I have disagreed over many things, but the relationship is pragmatic and "issues based" - we often agree and have been happy to collaborate when we do.

As for Raul654, I found the material in that BLP while doing my usual (not so) random checking. I removed it as a clear violation, and then looked in the history and was surprised to find he'd be the one to recently add it. I asked Lar to review, precisely because Raul is experienced and it might be me that was making the mistake in my reading of the material.

I've always hated personality politics. I deal with issues. There are, naturally, a few editors with whom I am almost always at odds on the issues, and that may cause me to question their general judgement - but I never presume that an argument is wrong just because of who is contending for it.

If you check my history you'll find I've fought with most long-term editors at some point - that's because I take issues on their merits and not on my history with the editor.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow: Sat 29th January 2011, 7:51pm

[Ottava]

What a load of nonsense. I don't do "enemies" never have

Sure fooled everyone on chat.

You have turned into Lar - using WR to help further your war waging against other people on Wikipedia that doesn't result in anything but replacing one problematic group with another.

[Somey]

Man, this thread went off-topic pretty durn quick, didn't it?

The main gist of this issue appears to be that Jehochman (T-C-L-K-R-D) made this suggestion, in the midst of a heated discussion about the behavior of Carolmooredc (T-C-L-K-R-D) :

We need to resolve the problem, even if it doesn't neatly fit into one of the pre-assigned noticeboard categories...

Slimmy then posted a more concrete suggestion:

We have Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for articles, but not for users. What might be helpful is the creation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (editors). People could make reports there of users who consistently edit aggressively from only one perspective in contentious areas...

...Not that Slimmy has ever done this herself, naturally! She then created the new noticeboard, sparking the negative reaction from the WP folks - when even they are rejecting new and unnecessary noticeboards, that's a pretty good sign that there are just too many noticeboards, as Ottava et al have already pointed out above.

I guess the real question is, if it hadn't been SlimVirgin, and if the person (other than SV) who created the noticeboard had waited a couple of weeks first to let people forget the Carolmooredc incident that precipitated the action, would the gambit have worked? Presumably it would have depended on who created it, how much support that person had, and whether or not that person had a history of "forum-shopping" - but since it's so obvious that there are too many noticeboards in general, it's possible that it would have been rejected no matter who created it.

[EricBarbour]

I've always hated personality politics. I deal with issues.

Gosh, sonnyboy, if you don't like personality politics......you're in the wrong wiki.

[Milton Roe]

I'm disappointed in you.

Wear that badge of honor proudly, Doc.

Can I get one of those too?

They are dispensed automatically. The only living people Ottava seems never disappointed with, is the pope and himself-- and I wouldn't bet much money on the pope.

[Cla68]

Man, this thread went off-topic pretty durn quick, didn't it?

The main gist of this issue appears to be that Jehochman (T-C-L-K-R-D) made this suggestion, in the midst of a heated discussion about the behavior of Carolmooredc (T-C-L-K-R-D) :

We need to resolve the problem, even if it doesn't neatly fit into one of the pre-assigned noticeboard categories...

Slimmy then posted a more concrete suggestion:

We have Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for articles, but not for users. What might be helpful is the creation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (editors). People could make reports there of users who consistently edit aggressively from only one perspective in contentious areas...

...Not that Slimmy has ever done this herself, naturally! She then created the new noticeboard, sparking the negative reaction from the WP folks - when even they are rejecting new and unnecessary noticeboards, that's a pretty good sign that there are just too many noticeboards, as Ottava et al have already pointed out above.

I guess the real question is, if it hadn't been SlimVirgin, and if the person (other than SV) who created the noticeboard had waited a couple of weeks first to let people forget the Carolmooredc incident that precipitated the action, would the gambit have worked? Presumably it would have depended on who created it, how much support that person had, and whether or not that person had a history of "forum-shopping" - but since it's so obvious that there are too many noticeboards in general, it's possible that it would have been rejected no matter who created it.

Looking at the MfD votes, it appears to me that there were three reasons why the majority of respondents voted for delete. I think a few of them don't like SV, a few of them truly think there are too many noticeboards, and a good percentage of them are afraid they or their friends would be among the first ones taken before the board and asked to explain their editing behavior.

RfCs on editor behavior can sometimes be effective at correcting the situation. A big problem with an RfC is how time-consuming and torturous it is to put one together. Also, it can sometimes be hard to get enough uninvolved, supposedly objective editors to participate in it to give it credibility.

A noticeboard, such as this one, might have made it easier and faster to address alleged POV editing. Sometimes such editing is obvious, because an editor will make their opinions clear on the article talk page.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

A rebuke that would have been unheard of a few years ago.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard (T-H-L-K-D)

Specifically, I'm hoping that SlimVirgin will explain why she created a new venue for complaining about editors who "promote" minority POVs like, say, animal rights—because when word gets out about this noticeboard, I expect editors (mostly inexperienced) to be lining up to complain about SlimVirgin's own "advocacy", and even her "gaming the system" by continually re-writing the content policies. Why would the target of so much invective encourage more hatefulness by creating another page dedicated to it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You would think that she would have seen that coming from her vantage point inside her glass house.

[Jon Awbrey]

Repukiated ???

Jon