I just got my first block, Bet you can't guess why Options

[Pussy Galore]

Just look at the unblock request I have on my talk page and the sections I've linked (particularly the link to the section at the bottom of my talk page) it will tell you everything you need to know.

This post has been edited by Pussy Galore: Sun 4th May 2008, 6:20am

[dogbiscuit]

Kudos on the block reason:

"Failure of common sense"

They just get better!

[everyking]

I can see the merit in this block. Trying to get the ED article undeleted, despite past consensus and knowing full well that it's a touchy subject, and then warring over the closure of the DRV, I think that could be reasonably considered disruptive.

[Gold heart]

Kudos on the block reason:

"Failure of common sense"

They just get better!

In Sadaam's Iraq, and Hitler's Germany, a uniformed person could do just about anything, and get away with it, there was no true law.

Same with Wikipedia. The admins make up the law on the trot, and it's lump it or leave it. It's "FU", even if you are a messiah.

[Pussy Galore]

I can see the merit in this block. Trying to get the ED article undeleted, despite past consensus and knowing full well that it's a touchy subject, and then warring over the closure of the DRV, I think that could be reasonably considered disruptive.

The user (Sceptre) who closed it wasn't even an admin so he had no business doing so.

[Giggy]

He sure did, on Wikipedia we call it the [[WP:SNOW|snowball clause]].

[Pussy Galore]

He sure did, on Wikipedia we call it the [[WP:SNOW|snowball clause]].

I hope you were being sarcastic. The "snowball clause" is an essay, not a policy. And if you think that the snowball clause means that once an article is deleted, users should be banned for even suggesting a recreation, you're wrong. He simply doesn't have any right to play the role of an admin and close a deletion review simply because he is at odds with the article's subject. Nor does he have the right to label my edits as vandalism and revert my report on WP:AN of his disruptive behavior. Yet somehow he got away with it all without being blocked while I end up blocked for supposedly starting an edit war. Oh wait, no I didn't!

This post has been edited by Pussy Galore: Sun 4th May 2008, 2:00am

[Robster]

The only rule on Wikipedia is whatever an admin says, goes, unless another admin overrules it, and then they wheel war until a decision is made.

Once you understand that, life is so much easier...

Oh... there's one more part to that rule (almost forgot!)... or until the Sole Flounder bumbles in and makes an ill-informed and erroneous decision.

There, that's better.

[Giggy]

He sure did, on Wikipedia we call it the [[WP:SNOW|snowball clause]].

I hope you were being sarcastic. The "snowball clause" is an essay, not a policy. And if you think that the snowball clause means that once an article is deleted, users should be banned for even suggesting a recreation, you're wrong. He simply doesn't have any right to play the role of an admin and close a deletion review simply because he is at odds with the article's subject. Nor does he have the right to label my edits as vandalism and revert my report on WP:AN of his disruptive behavior. Yet somehow he got away with it all without being blocked while I end up blocked for supposedly starting an edit war. Oh wait, no I didn't!

I wasn't being sarcastic. There was (and is) a very clear consensus on ED related stuff, and you knew this. Starting discussion with the purpose of making a fuss is something that should be closed to avoid epic dramaz. Sceptre did well there.

I agree with you, though, that he shouldn't have labelled your edits vandalism, or reverted your report. I'm not fully aware of context on that, so I won't comment further (simply commenting on what you've said). But that's neither here nor there - you weren't blocked because of an AN revert.

[dtobias]

Not so much a true consensus as it is a small faction of loudmouths who are adamant that there never be an article about that site, and a somewhat larger group that thinks it's best to humor that faction by avoiding the subject... anybody who believes otherwise gets shouted down.

[Giggy]

I'm happy to hear a good reason to have that article recreated, if you'd like to provide one.

Seriously, I am.

[Pussy Galore]

I'm happy to hear a good reason to have that article recreated, if you'd like to provide one.

Seriously, I am.

Cut and pasted from the deletion review that Sceptre closed:

First we will address the idea that the site is not notable. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" (with quotes get 152,000 Google hits. Without quotes, it gets 286,000. This contrasts with "Essjay", on which we have the article "Essjay controversy", which only gets 128,000 Google hits. "Essjay controversy" only gets 10,600. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" also ranked above "Encyclopedia Britannica" on CustomizeGoogle (a Firefox add-on) searches until it was removed from the list of searches. So notability is not a concern. The outcome of this review will be based on whether or not the sources which cite Encyclopedia Dramatica are reliable or not. If consensus says that they're not, then there will be no reason to propose a recreation of this article unless it is mentioned in reliable sources in the future. Period. If consensus says that the sources are reliable then the article will be recreated. What it boils down to is whether or not the sources are reliable. A link to a draft of the article with all of the sources can be found [[here]]. And also, I ask editors to remember that Wikipedia is not censored and to only vote against recreation if they truly believe that the sources are unreliable, not simply because of personal feelings they have toward the site. Pretending that something doesn't exist just because one hates it is juvenile. So are the sources reliable or not?

I would link you to my draft that contains the sources but I'm afraid you'll nom it for deletion. And also, I'd like to know how you determine whether or not my intent in proposing a recreation of that article was to "make a fuss" in your own words. With that reasoning I guess any nomination of any sort can be arbitrarily shut down by any non-admin on the grounds that the user's intent was to "make a fuss".

This post has been edited by Pussy Galore: Sun 4th May 2008, 2:48am

[michael]

No need, it's at User:Urban Rose/ED, and the first two paragraphs are ripped off from User:Shii/ED without proper GFDL attribution.

[Ryulong]

I read Rose's draft. Each of the sources mention "Encyclopedia Dramatica" no more than twice (including the one solely about it); and one of them was in a comment to the news story.

Sure, it exists, but none of those really say much of anything about it. All in all, I would say ED is about as notable as Daniel Brandt. Everyone on Wikipedia seems to know about it, but the real world doesn't give a shit.

[JohnA]

Sure, it exists, but none of those really say much of anything about it. All in all, I would say ED is about as notable as Daniel Brandt. Everyone on Wikipedia seems to know about it, but the real world doesn't give a shit.

That same standard applies to most of Wikipedia. Consistency in these things is not one of WP's strong points.

I mean where would we be without the hundreds of articles on Japanese railway stations or the Pokemon archive? Or the articles on never-heard-of Norwegian heavy metal bands that released a single and then died?

[Ryulong]

Sure, it exists, but none of those really say much of anything about it. All in all, I would say ED is about as notable as Daniel Brandt. Everyone on Wikipedia seems to know about it, but the real world doesn't give a shit.

That same standard applies to most of Wikipedia. Consistency in these things is not one of WP's strong points.

I mean where would we be without the hundreds of articles on Japanese railway stations or the Pokemon archive? Or the articles on never-heard-of Norwegian heavy metal bands that released a single and then died?

At least those things exist and had an impact in the real world. (Except for the bands, probably. If you went through a list and tagged each one for proposed deletion, they'd eventually disappear.)

[Pussy Galore]

The bottom line is this: Sceptre (a non-admin) disrupts Wikipedia by arbitrarily closing a legitimate deletion review, by reverting as "vandalism" my report of his disruptive behavior on WP:AN, my posts on his talk page asking him to stop, and my reversions of his disruptive edit, and he gets away with it, while I get blocked for twelve hours without any clear reason ever being given as to why. One admin says it's because I started an edit war, while another one says it's not and that it's simply for "disruption". Another says not using common sense is grounds for a block.

Also, take a look at Sceptre's latest edit in which he removes from the article "Internet privacy" the name of the site which Jason Fortuny uploaded the images of those men (which happens by coincidence to be Encyclopedia Dramatica). And my how I do love his edit summary!

This post has been edited by Pussy Galore: Sun 4th May 2008, 4:48am

[michael]

That same standard applies to most of Wikipedia. Consistency in these things is not one of WP's strong points.

I mean where would we be without the hundreds of articles on Japanese railway stations or the Pokemon archive? Or the articles on never-heard-of Norwegian heavy metal bands that released a single and then died?

lol WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument.

All Pokemon have been prominently featured in several commerical, best-selling video games or on an anime show that was so successful that it has been dubbed into many other languages other than the native Japanese. That doesn't necessarily make them notable enough for their own article, so they've been combined into 25 lists that feature 20 Pokemon each.

Thousands of people use railway stations on a daily basis, though there is probably not very much meat in each article. I'd support merging them into the line they originate from.

[Pussy Galore]

That same standard applies to most of Wikipedia. Consistency in these things is not one of WP's strong points.

I mean where would we be without the hundreds of articles on Japanese railway stations or the Pokemon archive? Or the articles on never-heard-of Norwegian heavy metal bands that released a single and then died?

lol WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument.

All Pokemon have been prominently featured in several commerical, best-selling video games or on an anime show that was so successful that it has been dubbed into many other languages other than the native Japanese. That doesn't necessarily make them notable enough for their own article, so they've been combined into 25 lists that feature 20 Pokemon each.

Thousands of people use railway stations on a daily basis, though there is probably not very much meat in each article. I'd support merging them into the line they originate from.

But that still doesnt explain why people choose to delete this crap over other crap.

[KamrynMatika]

That same standard applies to most of Wikipedia. Consistency in these things is not one of WP's strong points.

I mean where would we be without the hundreds of articles on Japanese railway stations or the Pokemon archive? Or the articles on never-heard-of Norwegian heavy metal bands that released a single and then died?

lol WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument.

Please don't quote crappy Wikipedia essays at us to justify your argument.