OK, so I took an interest in his curious interest in Playboy centerfolds, that was bound to get him some support from the grubbier corner of Wikipedia but can anyone explain this self-flaggelation to me and the run up to it ... Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2?

I am surprised it passed without critical review. It seems SarekOfVulcan did the very noble thing and handed in his admin tools before seeking the confirmation of Teh Community and re-adminship/re-sysopping.

Strong criticism on the WP:INVOLVED front but 166 Support against 63 Oppose makes it a success ...

Do I need to link to another Playboy centerfold to make this more interesting?

Please, I'm distracted enough as it is!

So Sarek wrote in, he had doubts coming in
And his good name and tools was in peril--
But when pimplefaced kin reconfirmed him admin
Came the wreck of young Garrett Fitzgerald....

Just as he puts himself through re-RfA, Sarek gets sucked into a typical 'he should not have, I should not have' spat at ANI with Treasury Tag (T-C-L-K-R-D) who passes on his sentiments rather candidly. Such is the response, Sarek's attentions garner.

Staying on another recent topic of defending Playboy centerfolds from deletion ... whatever happened to that ... there is a surprising amount of 'notable' vintage Playboy on Flicker worth defending too, include the pneumatic studies of Alberto Vargas. I have been "defending" it all evening.

However, my concerns are that younger Wikipedia might be traumatized to discover that as recent as the 1970, mature women actually had pubic hair.


Does this really go on in adult environments ...? It read more like what would happen in a kids' playground or a cult.

Is this what you do all day? Look up old Playboy mags on Flickr?

There are worse hobbies. Using young women's images as your alt identities for example.

Non-professionals will never appreciate the amount of time, effort and sacrifices one must make to sincerely research such topics ... and find suitable for work images that make a point (see the gagline).

It is a running joke/critique that goes back to the stuff about Masonic Vampire Sex Fantasies and now pops up again over a defensive interest in Playboy centerfold BLPs which, to be honest, have really no value to any real encyclopedia. Especially in one also targeted at children. It runs parallel to our discussion about the pornographization of the Wikipedia and, as such, education.

Where such individuals are also INVOLVED in the education business, it does suggest some internal paradoxes, but I think you'd find it hard to fit in Playboy centerfolds either way. Let's not be wet behind the ears. It is a hot issue in many areas.

Meanwhile, back at ANI, Sarek's re-RfA becomes a topic of discussion and a focus point for "admin for life" questions ... Re-Running for Adminship. A breakdown of the statistics are raised.

Support: Admin 72, Non-Admin 94
Oppose: Admin 12, Non-Admin 51
Neutral: Admin 2, Non-Admin 8

Can I just underline again what Playboy actually is, and the mores it has propagated within society? Personally, over the decades, I would say it has had a subversive influence on Western society and has been particularly sexist towards women. What I found was the early stuff was far more soft, fresh, natural and innocent ... but it has all hardened over time and become more artificial and codified. Womens' and mens' attitudes are now being corrupted around that artificiality.

Our own Nuclear Warfare makes a good point on the whole "Admin for Life" / "House of the Wikipedian Lords" issue ...

But, hey, let's keep a British Isles theme about what this is all about and educate ourselves a little ...

"Kay jewellers: after one of these, she'll pretty much have to..."

Trying to change the subject?

"In particular, I've observed that a painfully high proportion of admins either disregard or do not understand the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INVOLVED#UNINVOLVED| conflict-of-interest provision in the policy that governs their behaviour. Any reform should address this. We also need to tackle the trigger-happy tendency of an increasing number of admins to block well-established and faithful editors, rather than engaging with the underlying reasons for ruffled waters and frayed nerves. Nowadays, we can't afford to lose good, loyal editors who might happen to get into a scrap occasionally—the trends in the statistics of participation are sobering." -Tony

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=428588073