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

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

Anything that has a negative history with Wikipedia will be much more closely guarded than noncontroverisal articles. As the Daniel Brandt AFDs began stacking up, for instance, I was sure that people were voting to keep just to piss him off, as they did when someone nominated it for Featured article status. Even the WP:LAME entry noted this at one point, saying that people added to the article just to piss him off, "resulitng in an article more detailed than that of some movie stars."

I am sure that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO's workshops evidence and final decision hold more information about the animosity between Wikipedia and ED.

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

It was sarcasm. That's why I wrote "lol" in front of it.

This post has been edited by michael: Sun 4th May 2008, 6:02am

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

WP:IHATEIT, maybe? It's a working link, apparently...

I suppose they have every reason to dislike Encyclopedia Dramatica - heck, we all do - but at some point they're just going to have to accept the fact that ED has much more porn than they do, and give them their "due props" on that basis at the very least.

My latest unblock request is declined. And again, no specific instance of policy violation is attributed to me. And he completely ignores my links to Sceptre's violation of policy. Just read the post for yourself.

This post has been edited by Pussy Galore: Sun 4th May 2008, 6:49am

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.

lol you spoke of the ED article You must have wanted to be blocked

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Sun 4th May 2008, 6:43am

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.

lol you spoke of the ED article You must have wanted to be blocked

I didn't recreate it. The long and short of it is that I proposed a recreation, Sceptre removed this multiple times as well as a notice of the dispute I placed on WP:AN on the grounds that he was "reverting vandalism", and the end result is I get blocked without a straight answer ever being given for my block, while Sceptre's actions are ignored and he isn't even warned let alone blocked

This post has been edited by Pussy Galore: Sun 4th May 2008, 6:54am

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.

That's where the state of play was already, before you started a DRV. That and loathing of ED from some influential users.

the end result is I get blocked without a straight answer ever being given for my block, while Sceptre's actions are ignored and he isn't even warned let alone blocked

Even to suggest such a thing makes a person appear to be an ED user in some people's opinion, and existing just to cause trouble on wiki. They said they don't see how your recent edits are constructive. They think you've gone to the dark side.

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.

That's where the state of play was already, before you started a DRV. That and loathing of ED from some influential users.

the end result is I get blocked without a straight answer ever being given for my block, while Sceptre's actions are ignored and he isn't even warned let alone blocked

Even to suggest such a thing makes a person appear to be an ED user in some people's opinion, and existing just to cause trouble on wiki. They said they don't see how your recent edits are constructive. They think you've gone to the dark side.

Well if you want to get technical, I am an ED user. But I've thought the site has deserved an article for a while. Even if I completely hated the site (which I don't, as beneath its many grotesque shock images there is a margin of humor to be found) I wouldn't try to pretend that something doesn't exist just because I hate it. That's just juvenile. And in order to justify my block, they have to have substantial evidence that my behavior was disruptive. They can't just block me on a whim that I may have done something without good intention (well I guess they can, but they can't justify it).

This post has been edited by Pussy Galore: Sun 4th May 2008, 7:19am

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,

He has an article about him on ED. Most of the admins on there who have an article on there themselves will be sympathetic to his cause- as will their followers.

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,

He has an article about him on ED. Most of the admins on there who have an article on there themselves will be sympathetic to his cause- as will their followers.

Don't I know it.

And in order to justify my block, they have to have substantial evidence that my behavior was disruptive.

In their minds, opening a deletion review about ED is disruptive.

On its own without providing significant new information - maybe. Twice without providing significant new information. Probobly.

On its own without providing significant new information - maybe. Twice without providing significant new information. Probobly.

The first time was speedy closed just because I didn't have a draft at the time. And the second time would have gone on like it should had Sceptre not tried to play admin and intervened where he didn't belong.

This post has been edited by Pussy Galore: Sun 4th May 2008, 7:45am

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.

Until recently, the "unauthorized page creation" message for the page "Encyclopedia Dramatica" read "The article Encyclopedia Dramatica will never be recreated. Ever."

My latest unblock request is declined. And again, no specific instance of policy violation is attributed to me. And he completely ignores my links to Sceptre's violation of policy. Just read the post for yourself.

I just can't bring myself to click on the link - too repetitive, I already know it will be some variant of "you stepped out of line, now you're getting the cattle prod". This is the way of wikipedia.

Here's a question - without making reference to WP "policies", what do you believe would be gained from having this article, and what do you think is motivating them to slap you down?

My latest unblock request is declined. And again, no specific instance of policy violation is attributed to me. And he completely ignores my links to Sceptre's violation of policy. Just read the post for yourself.

I just can't bring myself to click on the link - too repetitive, I already know it will be some variant of "you stepped out of line, now you're getting the cattle prod". This is the way of wikipedia.

Here's a question - without making reference to WP "policies", what do you believe would be gained from having this article, and what do you think is motivating them to slap you down?

I honestly believe that the article is only not on Wikipedia because of people who have had personal issues with the site trying to censor any mention of it, and I also honestly believe that the primary motivation behind my block was simply that I was in favor of its recreation. Contradictory reasons were given for my block with no clear reason ever being given, and to be honest, even if Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't cited by reliable sources, I think Wikipedia should make an exception in its case and give it an article just to avoid any possibility that its exclusion from the article namespace is not due to resentment of the site that many editors have toward it.

even if Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't cited by reliable sources, I think Wikipedia should make an exception in its case and give it an article just to avoid any possibility that its exclusion from the article namespace is not due to resentment of the site that many editors have toward it.

Well good luck with that. They give Wikipedia Review and Wikitruth articles (which probably have more sources anyway- at least the WR one) partly so they can't be accused of being like that I imagine. But they would never do that with ED unless it becomes a household name, because it would be like giving free advertising to a site where there are very cruel articles about some of the admins and editors themselves.

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

Very true. That is what we philosophers call an 'argument from sufficient reason'. There has to be some reason to prefer A over B. If not, you can A and B, or neither, but not one without the other.

I honestly believe that the article is only not on Wikipedia because of people who have had personal issues with the site trying to censor any mention of it, and I also honestly believe that the primary motivation behind my block was simply that I was in favor of its recreation. Contradictory reasons were given for my block with no clear reason ever being given, and to be honest, even if Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't cited by reliable sources, I think Wikipedia should make an exception in its case and give it an article just to avoid any possibility that its exclusion from the article namespace is not due to resentment of the site that many editors have toward it.

I basically agree with you, but you do come off as somewhat obsessed on the ED issue... and I'm speaking as somebody prone to obsessive-compulsive behavior myself, so I can recognize it when I see it. Maybe you'd get more sympathy if you toned it down a bit, and also showed that you had some interest in the encyclopedia other than its coverage of this one pet subject.

Still, I can understand your frustration... much of the opposition you're fighting seems thoroughly irrational, motivated by fear and loathing rather than calm consideration. There's something about the subject of ED that turns otherwise reasonable people into raving lunatics foaming at the mouth whenever it comes up.

I can understand your frustration... much of the opposition you're fighting seems thoroughly irrational, motivated by fear and loathing rather than calm consideration. There's something about the subject of ED that turns otherwise reasonable people into raving lunatics foaming at the mouth whenever it comes up.

It's probably the brashness of ED that's so off-putting.

One might call it "Fear and Loathing in Lost Vagueness".

In their minds, opening a deletion review about ED is disruptive.

Oh, please, let's not be facetious (that's their schtick). Creating an ED article is baiting them to ban you (or block you, or whatever).

Most "lifer" Wikipedians hate that place. And fair enough. Much of it is offensive. To their sensibilities.

Ergo, writing an ED article (and insisting that it stay) is basically sticking your tongue out at them and placing them in a position of admitting that there isn't perfect free speech on the machine. Which is fair. They hate it.

I don't condone their tag-team, hypocritical, rule-avoidant approach to content control, but at the end of the day, it's their site, and it's a pretty clear majority that hates ED. Hands down losing proposition.

Writing a WR article would be more sanguine, since most WP-ers read this site religiously, and many respect the content. Still, they wouldn't allow a WR article, out of wounded pride. They hate to admit much of what WR says is right on the money. And even so, they'd kill anyone who wrote a WR article faster than an ED article. For the reason I said: WR is far too often right on the money, and no one likes being "called on their stuff". Esp. in public.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sun 4th May 2008, 1:42pm