Jimbo's meat trauma gets "courtesy blanked", Aaah - it hurt his liddle feelings Options

[Kato]

Did anyone notice the afd for Mzoli's Meats get "courtesy blanked" by minions in deference to Der Jimbo, due to "many accusations of bad faith" against poor Mr Wales. According to leading Jimbo-DeathEater WjBscribe:

We should aim to be courteous whenever possible. If someone who participated in a discussion, reads a discussion, is the subject of a discussion on meta page which contains both (a) negative comments and ( b ) the real name of a person requests a courtesy blanking it should be done unless there is a very good reason not to.

Aww. Isn't that loyalty sweet. The afd hurt Jimbo's liddle feelings and those Death Eaters won't stand to see their master publicly challenged. Shame that 100s of other people aren't treated with the same courtesy having fallen prey to Der Jimbo's grand public humiliation chamber.

This also started a discussion about how afd's don't appear on google anyway, as they are exempt from the robots.txt thingy (I don't understand how these things work either). Again that's nice to know. Shame that they can't extend that to user pages, something that right minded people have been demanding for aeons. But courtesy at WP is only afforded to Der Jimbo and those in the WP aristocracy. Just as courtesy oversights only apply to those on the inside (if yer know wadda mean... shhhh!).

[LamontStormstar]

The afd hurt his liddle feelings and those Death Eaters won't stand to see their master challenged.

That's an awesome name and metaphor for abusive Wikipedia administrators who are Jimbo Wales's minions.

[blissyu2]

I don't see why AFDs should be publicly viewable EVER. I mean they can get pretty freaking nasty, especially against newbies, and once they're done, they're done. While active, obviously they should be there, but once a decision is made, why can't it be deleted? I mean from the whole database. If it is up for deletion a 2nd time, wouldn't it be better to have the second discussion done on a fresh plate, without being biased by the first discussion?

This gets to what is one of the inherent problems with a wiki - you can never really delete anything, not completely at least. This is good in some ways, but bad in others.

Things like completed Arb Com cases and AFD discussions really don't need to remain forever. Its all good and fine to have article page revisions exist forever, to show a history, but not discussions. Once its done, its done.

[Kato]

The afd hurt his liddle feelings and those Death Eaters won't stand to see their master challenged.

That's an awesome name and metaphor for abusive Wikipedia administrators who are Jimbo Wales's minions.

They're easy to confuse as well:

Death Eater and apprentice

David Gerard and unspecified admin at the first Wikimedia UK meet up

[LamontStormstar]

I am lucky the below posted after I spend a long time writing it because Wikipedia Review's server died once I posted...

I don't see why AFDs should be publicly viewable EVER. I mean they can get pretty freaking nasty, especially against newbies, and once they're done, they're done. While active, obviously they should be there, but once a decision is made, why can't it be deleted? I mean from the whole database. If it is up for deletion a 2nd time, wouldn't it be better to have the second discussion done on a fresh plate, without being biased by the first discussion?

This gets to what is one of the inherent problems with a wiki - you can never really delete anything, not completely at least. This is good in some ways, but bad in others.

Things like completed Arb Com cases and AFD discussions really don't need to remain forever. Its all good and fine to have article page revisions exist forever, to show a history, but not discussions. Once its done, its done.

An article will go up for deletion and maybe the first time it got kept or deleted. The next time, the people who voted the first time aren't there and lots of different people vote and a different result happens. Even with referring back to the first AFD, if a lot of people who like the article either show up or don't show up the article is kept based purely on votes of those with 50 or more contributions (called "consensus").

The afd hurt his liddle feelings and those Death Eaters won't stand to see their master challenged.

That's an awesome name and metaphor for abusive Wikipedia administrators who are Jimbo Wales's minions.

They're easy to confuse as well:

Death Eater and apprentice

David Gerard and unspecified admin at the first Wikimedia UK meet up

good point

[BobbyBombastic]

This was blanked because it was the subject of an LA Times article and they want to make it hard to find. The AFD is a decent example to show the outside world the dysfunctional interactions that take place. I guess no one had the balls to delete it outright.

[alienus]

Are you daring them to oversight it?

Al

[jorge]

Are you daring them to oversight it?

Al

I already have it saved. I note that Josiah Rowe has now added a direct link to the history which makes the deletion slightly pointless.

[BobbyBombastic]

I wouldn't mind seeing them oversight it. Whenever you can use WP's own rules and customs against it to make it look foolish, it is good. See the "attack sites" fiasco.

[thekohser]

Mzoli's is now of high importance, according to WikiProject South Africa.

[Happy drinker]

Mzoli's is now of high importance, according to WikiProject South Africa.

Not according to the project. In the opinion of one editor, NJR ZA (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

[dtobias]

Well, I don't like suppressing history... sounds too 1984ish ("Memory hole").

[thekohser]

Mzoli's is now of high importance, according to WikiProject South Africa.

Not according to the project. In the opinion of one editor, NJR ZA (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

You're wrong again, Happy Drinker.

[Happy drinker]

You're wrong again, Happy Drinker.

On the contrary, I'm right. My point was that it was not the entire WikiProject South Africa that made the claim, as you wrongly stated. It was one editor, who made a careless mistake. I'm sure we all look forward to your apology to the membership of the project.


This post has been edited by Happy drinker: Sat 14th November 2009, 12:52pm

[thekohser]

You're wrong again, Happy Drinker.

On the contrary, I'm right. My point was that it was not the entire WikiProject South Africa that made the claim, as you wrongly stated. It was one editor, who made a careless mistake. I'm sure we all look forward to your apology to the membership of the project.

I know you were right. I was just seeing if you could resist making a lofty-sounding rebuttal to my stupid barb. I was right that you wouldn't resist.

I think the odds are 3-to-1 that you'll not be able to resist responding to being PWND again.

[Zoloft]

I know you were right. I was just seeing if you could resist making a lofty-sounding rebuttal to my stupid barb. I was right that you wouldn't resist.
I think the odds are 3-to-1 that you'll not be able to resist responding to being PWND again.

You know, that post would have been a lot shorter if you had merely repeated the word "neener" three times and then kicked some dirt.

[NuclearWarfare]

Why are you bumping old threads?

[Zoloft]

Why are you bumping old threads?

Accident. Sorry. I will pay more attention to the last post date.

[Somey]

It's perfectly OK to bump old threads, as long as you're posting something that's germane to the topic - i.e., an update on whatever the specific situation is, a new revelation about a past event, etc.

Whereas, in this case...

[Zoloft]

It's perfectly OK to bump old threads, as long as you're posting something that's germane to the topic - i.e., an update on whatever the specific situation is, a new revelation about a past event, etc.

Whereas, in this case...

*Eats one more cup of dirt*
Mea culpa.