User talk:Xoloz/archive21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Patrick Alexander (Cartoonist)[edit]

Morning! You may remember closing the discussion for the above article last month. It appears it was recreated under a different name on the very same day by a disgruntled supporter of the aricle. Please see my post on the subject here. It has already been independently renominated for deletion but the discussion was rather stunted due to only those who took part in the article's stealth recreation being present! :D Given it's a straight reproduction of this previously (twice and one review) deleted article I'd request this be deleted straight off the bat. At the very least it should be relisted in AfD. Many thanks. Hen Features 04:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


On Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5 there is a review of Patrick Alexander (cartoonist). The user who recreated that page got very frustrated, created a puppet, and used the puppet to create nearly identical text at Patrick A. Reid (that is not GFDL compliant, given the deleted history of the original title). (No I didn't. DollyD (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)) You closed the DRV as "Deletion endorsed. Interested parties are welcome to compose newly sourced drafts in userspace, and bring those to DRV for discussion. Title protected-blank (salted) per consensus below." The other article went to AFD, and got a keep closure yesterday from User:Hut 8.5, an admin, which is quite reasonable on the evidence of that AFD. But it sure feels like abusively asking another parent. (I've blocked the puppet, though since it was only used once over a month ago I haven't done anything about the puppetmaster.) The editor that flagged my attention has also flagged Hut 8.5's. GRBerry 05:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: Admin Hut8.5 has called the article back in for a deletion review. To my mind it's a speedy delete, and I've made my point on the review. Hen Features 08:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a novel procedural headache. Unfortunately, the closed AfD could be argued to form a new consensus (even though it was obviously concluded without full information.) A DRV is probably the proper course, to ensure that the invalidation of the latest AfD also has community support, if nothing else. I don't think a speedy close at the DRV is appropriate, but I won't argue with anyone who does so. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 11:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Reagan image DRV[edit]

Hi Xoloz. I added a warning to Happyme22's page. It may need more than that, so I asked Angr to look into it. Thanks for the note.[1] -- Jreferee t/c 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User box on my page[edit]

Is it normal not to give the person who created something time to respond before you go and delete it? That tag was put on my USER page at 4 pm local, and was deleted before I even had a chance to respond to it. I am still at work and had intended to mark respond top the tag when I got home.

Bad Mojo.

Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Cheers[edit]

I replied on my talk page. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx spam[edit]


Thank you, Xoloz, for supporting my RfB, which I withdrew at a final tally of (33/12/1). I failed to overcome the not unforeseeable opposition, but I am humbled by some extremely supportive, encouraging words I could read. In order to honor your trust, I once again vow to continue working and improving. Please contact me should you have any advice or recommendation to give. Or, should you need assistance. I am, as will always be, at your service. Again, please accept my most sincere gratitude.

Best regards, Húsönd 02:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

To you, Xoloz, I would like to express even greater gratitude for the way you defended me, in circumstances where should I use my own words, I could be rest assured that they would be manipulated right against me. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 02:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious...[edit]

I'm not quite so sure you did the right thing by endorsing that deletion, but I guess it's done. I did mention that the original seemed to me that there wasn't actually consensus...but what I really want to say, is I'm willing to bet a few people will be flaming you about this. Possibly digging up to see if you've ever mentioned the spoiler issue before...so just a heads up in case you didn't realize just how hot a topic this is and how passionate both sides have taken the issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind warning. :) Fortunately, I've never said anything about the spoiler issue before; if anything, I have a little history of disagreement with Guy's controversial closures (though not enough to amount to a bias.) In this case, the consensus was just overwhelming: about 2-1 in favor of endorsing, which, for a contentious DRV, is quite a large margin. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. In I dunno, 3 CfDs and maybe 2 Deletion Reviews, the "consensus" ranged from 2-1 to 3-1 for either Keep the Erdos Number Categories, or Overturn the deletion of the categories. But you ruled the "consensus" was opposite to the count in all those cases, correct? So the meaningfulness of the count varies around, from significant, in whatever this case Melodia mentions, to misleading, in the Erdos Number Case? I had been arguing the "consensus was just overwhelming" but it got me nowhere. So far. Pete St.John (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely correct, Pete, to suggest that numerical support can have varying importance. In cases where policy is clear, only good arguments will succeed, irrespective of numbers. In cases where there is no over-arching policy, numerical support can have more meaning. You'd do well, Pete, to stick to your own case (and I never heard back from you on those issues), and not to confuse two cases, since (by your own admission), you don't really know what Melodia is talking about. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just struck by the vivid contrast. So we agree that more should be said than "the count was overwhelming". And indeed, I'm not familiar with Melodia's issue and don't mean to butt in on that. And indeed, I'm spread a little thin just with my own case. If there is a particular specific thing you'd like me to answer sooner than later, please point me and I'd be happy to. Elsewise I'm taking my time building my case for RfA as it's so complex over so much material. But I really don't mean to neglect any particular questions. Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More crossposting. You wrote at my page (thanks):
  • "Oh no, I have no specific questions for you... I simply would have expected a relevant reply before a tangential one, but -- this being a wiki -- you are free to comment as you wish, more or less. Good luck with the RfAr -- if it is accepted, it will certainly be trail-blazing and unprecedented, and I'd look forward to the result. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
I consider the "overwhelming counts" as admissable evidence for consensus, as you do too in some cases, so I consider this relevant and not tangential. And yes, I have to read through some RfAr. Hopefully there is precedent for overturning administrative fiat that flatly and blatantly contradicts strong, vivid, professionally debated consensus, in favor of ill-enunciated theories being only now proposed as new wiki guidlines, after the fact. (It's too early to say that they are not being well received, maybe they will be). Thanks for the good wishes, and I hope you look forward to participating, and not merely awaiting the result, as I think at the very least you can help maintain the civil tone of the discussion :-) Pete St.John (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is to review if the deletion discussion went how it should. Regardless of the inevitable fate of that template, you closing the DRV as delete is a disrespectful slap in the face to everyone involved. The deletion did not reflect consensus, and it did not reflect deletion policy. Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with the template being dead, but this is not how you handle things. I'll be relisting this for another DRV. -- Ned Scott (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah, who the heck am I kidding. When I stop and think about it, I'm mildly irritated by the situation, but really can't blame you for doing what you think is right. Especially given that the outcome of all of this doesn't actually change anything. Sorry for my harsh words, and my over-reaction. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Since you said that arguments matter to you more than anything else, I suppose I might ask why you would delete a template for a guideline that is still in effect. There has been no consensus at WP:SPOILER to eliminate spoiler warnings; even those who wish to see them gone admit this. Indeed, all but the most ardent opponents of the warnings have conceded that the tags are occasionally appropriate (that is, there is consensus for at least a minimal usage of the spoiler warnings). So why eliminate the means of fulfilling the guideline? If we are to have spoiler warnings then ipso facto we require a warning template. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point, PoMo Beatnik, but here's the problem: unlike policy (which can outright override a fallacious XfD consensus in certain circumstances), guidelines exist only to guide consensus, hence the name. They cannot overrule the course of a discussion; the folks at the DRV were well-aware of WP:SPOILER, and spoke little of it. I suppose they assumed that the guideline could be adapted to account for the template's loss, that "current fiction" could be reinserted in place, or that a new template (to cover whatever other exceptional needs may arise) could be designed. One could say that the DRV result -- which was decisive, even overlooking an unfortunately defective XfD close in the interest of the right result -- serves as evidence that the guideline is now dis-established. While guidelines exist to "guide" XfD discussion, they are relatively fragile, and a strong result saying "ignore this!" can be fatal to a guideline. Policy, above the consensus of any one XfD, is obviously a different matter. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response; and given the information available to you, I respect the decision you made. For what it is worth, I have exposed the fallacious reasoning in every major argument used in support of deletion since the beginning of this discussion in the talk history, though I have not yet gotten around to collecting it all into a single essay as I have promised. Obviously, it is unreasonable to expect you (or anyone) to scour the talk history in search of something you didn't even know was there. However, would such an essay—assuming it was convincing—warrant relisting or re-creation of the template? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, we also run the risk of un-trackable in-line warnings that don't use a template at all. -- Ned Scott 23:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This just sounds like an attempt to re-litigate a discussion that didn't turn out the way you had hoped. Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that I don't support the use of the spoiler template, you are wrong about that. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The in-line warnings are tracked at User:Tony Sidaway/searches/spoiler. There are about half a dozen of these per day, not enough to cause serious problems.
I think it's worth noting, however, that in my experience there always seemed to be more of those than transclusions of {{spoiler}} every time I checked over the past few months. Mainly for that reason I don't expect the incidence of such home-made spoiler tags to increase significantly now that the template is gone. --Tony Sidaway 12:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of the Deletion Review of the Template:Spoiler TFD[edit]

When closing this deletion review, I think you ignored that the TFD was closed early by JzG. WP:TFD says "Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised." The nominator's timestamp was 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC) and the closing admin's timestamp was 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC). The TFD was not listed for more than seven days. Could you please review your decision? --Pixelface (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Pixelface, I'm sorry. There were valid process complaints against JzG -- he did have prior involvement (this received much discussion), and he did close a little early (this received less discussion, but was noted.) I don't like the way JzG handled this, personally, and I don't like past cases where he has behaved similarly either. I, however, am constrained in closing to abide by consensus. The deletion supporters at the debate discussed JzG directly, and uniformly came to the conclusion that his process-defects shouldn't overturn the result, which they judged proper. The deletion supporters also addressed the template directly, arguing that it was unencyclopedic, having a net negative effect on the project. The deletion supporters also had numerical supremacy, a factor which is not determinative or conclusive alone, but can weigh heavily in certain circumstances.
The deletion opponents largely didn't address the merits of the template itself, a key oversight on their part. They focused instead on past history (the depopulation of the category, which is not a subject for deletion review -- ArbCom saw that case, and rejected it), together with JzG's problematic conduct. Again, personally, I'm sympathetic. JzG was the wrong person to close that debate, in my personal opinion, and was being provocative in doing so. As an impartial closer, however, I cannot ignore that a sizable majority met that argument head on with a rejoinder of "small defect, right result", an argument permitted under WP:NOT a bureaucracy. I also cannot ignore that deletion supporters were alone in reaching the issue of the merits of the template, and that their arguments, unrebutted, where convincing. By the argument and by the numbers, deletion supporters succeeded despite JzG. His involvement was a regrettable error, judged by consensus to have been insignificant in reaching the right result. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent, well-constructed answer, Xoloz, and I think people should take note of it. I'm glad you participate in DRV. :) DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response Xoloz. I'm glad the deletion review was closed by an admin without a prior position on the matter. I did not discuss the merits of the template because WP:DRV says "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question". I don't really consider DRV as TFD Round 2. And I really don't think arguments such as "dead horse" apply to deletion review, or any deletion discussion really. I think the TFD was brought to deletion review because Nydas felt that JzG interpreted the consensus at the TFD incorrectly. Nydas said "Abruptly deleted by JzG, a strident opponent of spoiler warnings, despite being a clear example of no consensus." WP:DRV says "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly" and "It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." Jreferee seemed to be the only person who endorsed the closure of the TFD who mentioned consensus. The deletion review was closed earlier by JoshuaZ where he overturned the deletion, but some editors told him that may look like a conflict of interest because he has shown support for the template in the past, so he reverted his closure. Nevertheless, I will support your decision. Thank you for explaining your reasoning and thank you again for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider "numerical supremacy" and the "majority" as you said and go "by the numbers", I think it should be noted that 22 people argued to keep and 22 people argued to delete in that TFD and only 4 people who argued to delete mentioned the {{current fiction}} template, which JzG said had consensus. The administrator JoshuaZ said the TFD showed no consensus, so you may want to re-evaluate how you examine deletion reviews in the future. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what do you think is a valid reason for overturning or relisting an Xfd? --Pixelface (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply at Pixelface's talk. Xoloz (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mass del[edit]

No worries! All those redirects were starting to give me headaches! — xaosflux Talk 04:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
For doing hard and quality work, I award you this Barnstar in recognition for all that you do here. Acalamari 18:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School consensus[edit]

I've created a project page: Wikipedia:SCHOOLCONSENSUS, because of a village pump proposal. I thought you'd might be interested in participating. --victor falk 06:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Szantyr[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jamie Szantyr. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Emurphy42 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capture-bonding[edit]

I was requested by User:Jreferee to provide a new reference version. I asked where and got no answer. So I posted it in the deletion review after consulting User:Chick Bowen who had closed the deletion review (he said) 11 hours early. The new version was was deleted by User:Trialsanderrors four hours later who said "Rm draft article. This is not the sandbox. Please post on separate page and link to it." Trialsanderrors had posted hostile remarks on the deletion review.

Then you closed the deletion review 3.5 hours after that--I am sure without seeing that there was the requested new version or evaluating the references.

I have no idea of where it is considered the correct place to "post on a separate page."

Please advise what (if anything) I should do. Thanks, Keith Henson (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC) hkhenson@rogers.com[reply]

I didn't realize that Keith meant to post his new version directly into the debate; I moved it to User:Hkhenson/Capture bonding. I also mentioned to him when I unclosed the debate that someone else was likely to come along quite soon and close it. I don't see any point in reopening the debate again; a new DRV is a possibility, I suppose, but I'm sufficiently familiar with the history here to judge. Chick Bowen 18:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry--I meant insufficiently familiar. . . Chick Bowen 23:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To my eyes, the draft is substantially improved, more than enough to escape CSD G4 (deletion of reposted content.) I'm not even sure it requires an AfD, but that is at editorial option. It now seems like a fine article to me, and I will move it to mainspace. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Keith Henson (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA/Communication Skills[edit]

In my RfA, you opposed because partially because of my communication skills. As I hope to work on them before attempting another RfA, I would like some advice from you on how best to improve my communication skills. What suggestions can you give to help me fix this? Captain panda 21:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV closure[edit]

One thing that was totally lacking in these discussions (which you referred to and no one else did) was Wikipedia:Consensus can change. I seriously was waiting for it and was hoping for such a discussion. But that wasn't present. And honestly, your closure may seem to suggest that such "non-discussion" by participants indicates "consensus". - jc37 15:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be "consensus by silence"... or it could be a lack of abstract thinking. Folks are so accustomed to thinking that "precedent matters" in their daily life (especially if, as Americans, their popular media is deluged with approximately 300,000 versions of Law & Order, CSI, and other nifty cop shows) that they don't question the application of it. "Precedent" -- oh well, must abide by that!
When I was developing my wiki-identity in deletion policy discussions, "precedent" was basically a forbidden word. "There are no precedents -- WP:NOT a court of law" -- it felt like I saw that thirty times a day. I always thought that view was excessive -- precedent can be useful, if applied with care and discrimination, and with fair chance of rebuttal -- but I never thought CfD would boil down to closures where "precedent" was cited with basically no explanation. Times can change, I guess, and that is a natural and good thing; but, whatever one takes the force of precedent to be, when one invokes it, one must give the reasoning behind it. Otherwise, it's merely an empty word. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TO respond to your post, yes and no...
But before delving into that, I don't think you understood my post. I have no problem with the rap on the knuckles for not more clearly explaining my nominations. (And think for a moment, with the statements that were being made, I could very well have done so, or at the very least added a link to the previous discussions.) The thing is, that never was asked, and discussion never happened. Are you missing the irony that no one explained their POV, and were themselves relying on "precedent"? : ) - This was a great opportunity to teach Wikipedians how to participate in discussions, which instead will likely lead to more drama.
Anyway, I really think that overturn/keep is a rather bad "precedent" to set, especially with what I am sure will be a mis-using of your closure comments.
So that said, I'm asking that you a.) expand/clarify your comments and b.) change it to a relist, since, as I think I clearly noted, there was little to no actual "discussion" of the category. - jc37 15:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodness, this is that "overturn" problem rearing itself -- I never meant to chastise anyone in particular, and especially not you. Sorry for the confusion. Nominators may use whatever rationale they like: given that force of habit sometimes reduces AfD nominators to nominations of the manner "NN", and that these are accepted, I will never fault a nominator for not explicating every possible point of objection in his nomination: to do so would be demanding clairvoyance of you. If there is an individual at fault, it is the CfD closer, but even he can't be blamed over much for not thinking of a good objection no one brought up. What the DRV consensus said was: "bad result" -- no blame was placed or is meant to be placed on any person, just an outcome.
As to the relisting, I didn't specify it because someone at DRV said that other similar cases exist; in anticipation of the possibility of seeing them, I didn't want to suggest that an immediate relisting was mandated. However, as my restoration log makes clear, relisting remains at editorial option. You, or anyone so desiring, are free to relist immediately, if you wish. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any particular sentence that could amend my closure to make it clearer to those with your POV, please suggest the phrasing. I'm a little blind here, because I thought I was being quite precise, and I seem to have failed. I'm sorry. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, (I almost feel now as if I should apologise for making you feel bad, which of course was never my intent.)
As for me, I sincerely was expecting the rap on the knuckles. My only defense is that I initially made the noms as such because the "precedent" was recent; and after-the-fact realised that this "could" be a way to see a discussion occur. Sadly, I was disappointed.
Anyway, what you just wrote above:
  • Nominators may use whatever rationale they like: given that force of habit sometimes reduces AfD nominators to nominations of the manner "NN", and that these are accepted, I will never fault a nominator for not explicating every possible point of objection in his nomination: to do so would be demanding clairvoyance of you. If there is an individual at fault, it is the CfD closer, but even he can't be blamed over much for not thinking of a good objection no one brought up. What the DRV consensus said was: "bad result" -- no blame was placed or is meant to be placed on any person, just an outcome.
Would you please add that to your closing rationale?
And maybe (though probably not necessary) - slightly refactored from your comment above:
  • I'm not specifying relisting because someone below said that other similar cases exist; in anticipation of the possibility of seeing them, I don't want to suggest that an immediate relisting is mandated. As my restoration log makes clear, relisting remains at editorial option. Anyone so desiring, is free to relist immediately, if they wish.
That should resolve my concerns.
And again, I apologise if I came across in any way untoward. - jc37 16:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that whole thing to my closure would make it the longest I've ever seen at DRV, something I'd prefer to avoid. I'll notate the closure with a reference to see the remarks here at your talk page. I hope that will suffice. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but we can't be trend setting? : )
Hopefully a link will be fine. I can always link to this discussion (here or its eventual place in your archive) should we have further issues/drama along these lines.
Thanks for your help, clarification, and consideration : ) - jc37 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, oops. I just saw you linked to my talk page. Which I suppose is fine, though it only has half the discussion : ) - jc37 06:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capture bonding[edit]

Hi Xoloz, I was surprised to see this article in mainspace again. The only significant change between the current version and this old version is a citation to an article by Keith Henson--all the other sources are the same, except that Henson's article in The Human Nature Review has been taken out. Henson's article in Mankind Quarterly was discussed at the DRV, where there was consensus that Henson's article wasn't a good enough source. This looks like reposting of deleted content to me; what am I missing? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture bonding (2nd nomination). Trying my best to wrap this thing up once and for all. . . Chick Bowen 18:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xoloz, Thanks for the reply--and no worries, I'm sure the AfD will give us an unambiguous result. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV notice[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jamie Szantyr. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swalwell, Alberta[edit]

Do you think it's worth pursuing the AfD close by a non-admin who participated in the discussion? This really is a nothing place without any news coverage. The only reason this stand-alone article exists is because Wikipedia Review has decided one of their pet targets lives.AN -- Jreferee t/c 19:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coredesat already addressed the matter. Thanks anyways. -- Jreferee t/c 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott5114's RFA[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my recent RFA nomination. I have withdrawn the nom early at 17/13/3. I am presently going to undergo admin coaching in preparation for a second candidacy somewhere down the line. I hope to see your potential support in the future. Regards, —Scott5114↗ 07:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PaperWings147[edit]

Hello Xoloz,
You speedily deleted this page which I had put up on MfD yesterday. I was wondering if you could place a temporary copy of it into my userspace, User:Onorem/Temp would work, so that I can let the people who were using the page retrieve the information. I've been following along a thread on their forums, and they seem pretty upset about losing a lot of info that wasn't being stored anywhere else. As a sort of peace offering, I'm planning on starting up a free wiki for them over at wikispaces and posting the info that was previously at User:PaperWings147. If that sounds acceptable to you, I'd appreciate your help with getting the old info. Thanks. --Onorem♠Dil 12:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. I appreciate the help. --Onorem♠Dil 13:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Parliament opinion polls[edit]

Could you undelete this, so it can be moved to a more appropriate title and tidied. See Scottish Parliament election, 2007 and Talk:Scottish Parliament election, 2007. Catchpole (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg you express your vote at meta[edit]

Hello, I am lmo:user:Belinzona from Lombard wikipedia (A Swiss user). We met in DEc 2006 while votine against the confirmation of the steward Snowdog (you told his behaviour to be very unbecoming). I beg you take a look at this page: [2] : someone has proposed to close the wikipedia I work at: I beg you read the page and check what kind of request it is. In my view it's a racist one, with a political vein, against a minority working hard to spread knowledge in its language. If you agree, I kindly ask you express a vote for keeping our project. Many thanks anyway, --85.2.133.37 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (lmo:user:Belinzona)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Na (daughter of Mao Zedong)[edit]

I noticed you made a comment at the above AFD. I was wondering if you wanted to qualify your "keep" with regards to individual articles. Are all 5 individually notable or do some of them not qualify? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring I'd like input on[edit]

I raised a thread at AN/I: #Edit warring at a set of Israeli/Palestinian articles; admins please review my action. Back in early September, you closed the AFD I mention therein, in a way that somewhat suggested splitting the article. After recent edit warring, they tried the split, and that was being edit warred over. I protected both articles, but am looking for a better solution. Thanks. GRBerry 23:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Across America[edit]

I saw you were involved in the deletion of Kanakuk camps, and was wondering, not being actively involved in deletions often myself, whether a similar case could be made for Kids Across America.D-rew (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffanie Story[edit]

Still kinda fail to see how she's notable, and it never even states "former Miss Nevada" on the page. wondering what to do... Bouncehoper (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If i where you i would re read the text regarding Tiffanie Story... it does say she was a former Miss Nevada and she has probably done more noteable things in her life than you ever have!

She does alot for the community and cancer research, works two jobs, hosts an ever growing TV show.

It would be greatly appreciated if you would remove your comment as Tiffanie is someone who is just staring off in her caree.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.74.115 (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Xoloz. Mine's on my talk page.
Bouncehoper (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there again, Xoloz. I did put it on AfD and would love your input. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffanie Story Thanks! :)
Bouncehoper (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks[edit]

One of my favorite places Dear Xoloz,

Thank you for your support comment in my recent RfA. That meant a great deal to me. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence and perceptiveness.

Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My (Deskana's) ArbCom candidacy[edit]

Hello Xoloz. I was wondering if you still planned to oppose my candidacy for the Arbitration Committee. Your concerns may now be alleviated, since we have a new bureaucrat and four new checkusers. I've found myself substantially less busy. I understand either way, I am simply curious. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I understand your position more thoroughly now. --Deskana (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou re: Image:Carlos-Smith.jpg[edit]

That was one of the worst copyright-paranoia deletions I've yet seen, thank you for restoring it. <eleland/talkedits> 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment[edit]

  • " The fact is that there are several candidates who frighten me, so great is their unfitness to the task."

I suppose this is one reason to feel relieved that ArbCom is actually by appointment, not be election. - jc37 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the single worst candidate worked as the secretary to the guy who makes the appointments. I have little confidence in Jimbo's ability to discern that folks he is close to might be horribly unfit. Jimbo appointed Kelly Martin and Essjay without community input, after all. Point is, I have much more faith in the community than in Wales; I concur with GRBerry's assessment that, as he moves further and further away from daily involvement in Wikipedia, his choices resemble a "random action generator" more than anything. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only one word to describe that: Ouch! - jc37 10:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in looking over the elections so far, I'm guessing that they will be one of the following:

In looking through the comments, the main concerns of some seem to be lack of activity or experience. Do any of these 8 "frighten" you? - jc37 19:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - One does, but only mildly. Two years is a long time, so perhaps she's reformed. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if (AFAIK), there's only a single female in those 8, I suppose that's an easy guess : )
I will say that if this is the group, I'm a bit more relieved that I was at the outset. Though I have noticed that there are those who are voting against everyone except their "faves", in order to "weight" the election. (One is even admitting to it : )
Personally I'm not done reading the Q&A for each cantidate (and I'll likely not vote on every cantidacy), but I'll be voting for or against regardless of whether they are "ahead" or not : ) - jc37 02:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with you that the community has better judgment than Jimbo Wales (if it had been up to him, Kelly Martin would still be a sysop and arbitrator). It just proves the point that no one can be trusted with too much power. Luckily, the current leading candidates don't frighten me too much (I trust Newyorkbrad, and although I don't know FayssalF or FT2 all that well, they both seem OK). I'd prefer not to see Deskana or Raul654 elected simply because of the concentration of power issues (no one should be both bureaucrat and arbitrator IMO; as a lawyer, I'm sure you'll agree that Wikipedia needs ArbCom to be a genuinely independent tribunal, not the apex of a wiki-"establishment" power structure). WaltonOne 11:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I missed it, but anyway, added User:Sam Blacketer to the list above as well.

Unless they increase the size of the tranche this year, however, it looks like a couple people that I supported won't make it (pretty much due to concerns of inactivity): User:Manning Bartlett and User:Raul654. - jc37 05:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general note: Voting against everyone but your choices shouldn't be something you "admit" to, implying there is something wrong with it. It's a basic function of the method of pseudo-democracy chosen. Look at how different that list would be *cough Ginao snort* if there was no oppose column. In fact, if you don't activly oppose everyone you don't support, you've misunderstood the system. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the counter view: What if the support columns were removed? : ) - jc37 05:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked. Deskana, Raul654, and Rebecca leave the top 9, replaced by Shell Kinney, John Reaves, and David Fuchs. - jc37 05:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Well I struck out the ones who can't seem to stay in the 70s (and one dropped to 59). If it's 5, then (unless there's a sudden upswell from "somewhere"), then it looks like we have our 5 new members. - jc37 23:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you've been closing tracking it...[edit]

It occurred to me that six ArbCom members might well be appointed, since (sadly) Flcelloguy has apparently stopped editing altogether. Thankfully, the last frightening candidate is still on the outside, but just barely... Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I'm not happy that I missed that. Impressive Wikipedian, in my opinion. He was one of the few I voted for last time. I noticed several people concerned on his talk page. I also hope he is doing well. - jc37 01:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flyweight (mechanism)[edit]

Hi there. I notice you deleted Flyweight (mechanism) on 2007 08 27. I'm unable to find discussion of the matter on AfD, and it seems to me a legitimate subject for an article (perhaps starting out as a Mechanical Engineering stub). I would ordinarily go ahead and create the article, but as it's been previously deleted, I thought I'd ask why before proceeding. Thanks. --Scheinwerfermann 19:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block 198.143.78.122[edit]

Could you consider blocking 194.153.71.122? I'm really gay so I want this feller banned

Some insight[edit]

Before I ask, I want to make it clear that I'm not looking to see another person's closure overturned.

But rather I'm just curious as to what your insight would be.

In looking over the Dec 5 DRV of Eagle Scouts, ignore (don't read) the closure, but please go through and tell me how you would have closed it. I don't intend to quote you or anything, I'm just curious. (I'm asking both you and Chick Bowen. You, for obvious reasons, and him because he rather impressed me recently : )

Thank you in advance : ) - jc37 10:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I already saw it. It was closed early, in a fashion I would call anomalous. As I have no special authority to overturn another's DRV closure, I'd suggest you ask Johntex to revert himself: he's a good fellow, and I think he'll realize that he was unduly seized by enthusiasm. If he doesn't, an RfC would be a good way forward. My comment is not intended to suggest that the ultimate result was necessarily wrong, only that the closing rationale looks insufficient to support an early DRV closure, leaving the result suspect, and open to claims of possible bias on the part of the closer. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly wasn't requesting that of you (and was trying, though apparently unsuccessfully, to make that clear).
That said, in reading what you did say, I can see that it would probably not be prudent for you to now comment on how you may or may not have closed it.
I already have left a note on his talk page about the "fictional" category part of this group nomination. I think for now, I'll wait and see from there.
Thank you very much for your response. - jc37 10:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't say how I would have closed the thing, because I would never close a contentious debate a day early. My mind is sufficiently slow (or robotic -- either adjective works) that I cannot extrapolate from an incomplete set of data: I'm too obsessed with what might have happened tomorrow. :)
I knew you weren't asking me to overturn the thing -- mostly, I typed that just to remind myself. :) Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and understood. Thanks again : ) - jc37 11:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I suppose I more fully responded at User_talk:Chick_Bowen#Some_insight. Rather than paste it here, I'll just give you the link : ) - jc37 01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Rachel Hyde[edit]

Hello, Xoloz ... FYI, Rachel Hyde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a "clone" of the Rachel Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article (i.e., same fictional character, but a different surname, and the logs show that they have ping-ponged through redirects/moves), a WP:COPYVIO that you recently pruned when you noticed it in this AfD ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.199 (talk · contribs) 20:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red State Update[edit]

Please recreate Red State Update as it was and renominate for normal deletion so that I may have time to defend it. Thanks. --AStanhope (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked politely. I have been editing here for more than 3 years and have appx. 4000 edits. Please reconsider your response. Thank you. --AStanhope (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why the assholism? --AStanhope (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin[edit]

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Thanks so much for your strong support. That means a lot -- I don't know if you know it, but I've always looked to see what you and the late, great Crzrussian have had to say about various RfA candidates. --A. B. (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks[edit]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful with a vote of 33/7/4.

Special thanks go to Epbr123 for nominating me and Pedro for the offer of help.

I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great success[edit]

Paul McGuire[edit]

Thanks for that, I should really have thought of that myself, especially after I originally salted the real article by mistake. The perils of late-night editing when tired :) BLACKKITE 19:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks[edit]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 24 support, 3 oppose, and 3 neutral. I promise to work my hardest to improve the Wiki with my new tools.

--Michael Greiner 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Watt[edit]

Please unsalt this article so it can redirect to Club Cupid. Catchpole (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Gracious close - decision inevitable, if regrettable. RfD would be predictable, so I'm done with issue myself. Although, I have this feeling it won't be the end of the matter somehow. --Docg 14:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the surprising thing was for 6 days no-one noticed the deletion. If it hadn't been for Durova's foolishness of asking on ANI for someone to see the deleted edits....as they say "...and I'd gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for those pesky kids!".--Docg 14:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

Um, heh, whoops! You deleted the Mfd by accident. I am glad to see you are human, though. It gives me a fightin' chance!--12 Noon 2¢ 15:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt Housekeeping[edit]

You should probably move the earlier merged content back under the Brandt redirect to help preserve GFDL. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much care if I'm fully reverted here now. Although the GFDL is not a reason to do it, being perfectly well protected as it stands.--Docg 17:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the history under; having it elsewhere makes it hard to find and arguably violates the spirit if not the letter of the GFDL when we don't need to and also breaks many links that people have to difs of the article. I hope that we can all leave this matter alone for a while. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now that you've got things as you want them, we can all leave them alone? I think not.--Docg 22:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever thought a Daniel Brandt closure would be the quiet closure of the day? Well done! IronGargoyle (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN[edit]

Hello, this is a friendly notice that Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN is up for deletion. Since you were the closing admin in the deletion review, I thought I should let you know. Thanks! Taric25 (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of Fun University -- AfD[edit]

Hope my rewording has sufficiently clarified the closing decision, please drop me a note if it hasnt. Gnangarra 16:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV[edit]

You know I like you, but that is one of the strangest closures I've ever seen, I'm sorry to say. We're welcome to let it drop, since its been reversed; but, I'm open to discussion, if only to clear up my befuddlement. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Yes, I'd like to discuss it, and a few other things with you, but I'm in the middle of setting up something for the new year. Perhaps when I'm done, if you're around. - jc37 23:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okey dokey - That was a really quick reply... I'll leave the pending dialog to the convenience of your schedule. Just let me know when you'd like to take it up. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope "quick" didn't mean that I was coming across "short" or in any other way "bad-tempered". If so, I apologise. But yes, let me finish with the myriad of open windows I'm working on now, and I'd welcome discussion with you. - jc37 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no... "quick" exclusively in the sense of "rapid"... this point is sufficiently minor such that I won't ring your talk page, but leave it here for you to notice later. :) Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More DRV stuff[edit]

Hi,

Per Hiding, I don't want you to become despondent over this. I appreciate the depth of your analysis as demonstrated by the extended rationale. The one major point where I disagree with your analysis is the apparent centrality of "divisiveness." First, I'm unclear whether it is warranted to apply the same standards to userboxes as to categories: it seems much more difficult (though not impossible) for the latter to present divisive ideological problems. I don't see much critical analysis when you apply the concern from a userbox policy to a category.

Secondly, "divisiveness", when claimed, is quite often a "red herring." While it is a definite offense when proved, nominators (even experienced ones) too often confuse "this thing annoys me" with "this thing is divisive". Recalling the great tempest over the implementation of CSD T1, a closer should be absolutely sure that a finding of divisiveness is proper, because declaring it in the wrong place is bound to start more fires than it stops. I can't say whether this category is divisive, but I can say that, in your analysis, you seem to accept that charge without fleshing out its merits -- in the end, I believe only a minority of commenters saw divisiveness, and you accepted their appraisal, always a recipe for discord.

That's the last I'll say on this, but I believe you had other matters to discuss with me, and I eagerly await await any discussion. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were concerns, concerns, and concerns. Being "divisive" was only one of the concerns. And note that in the explanation I intentionally didn't list who supported keeping or deleting, nor those that felt it was or wasn't divisive. One point that was interesting to me was that there were more than a few commenters who seemed to think that this was already in Wikipedia-space. And here's the direct links to explanations of why "divisive" is a "keyword" to note: Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions (for userboxes) and Wikipedia:Userboxes#Category_inclusion (which states that those restrictions apply to categories).
I'm still trying to decide what, if anything should be done next in relation to this. Note also my response to Hiding on that page's talk page:
And finally, the DRV was flawed to say the least. the nominator didn't explain my closure (it was framed as if it was merely a delete close). And reading the comments, it's clear that most of the commenters didn't bother even looking at the close actually was. I'm still trying to decide what the next course of action is regarding this. I honestly could care less about the category, this is more about the abuse of process to push POV. And it should be curtailed. And in my recent experience this isn't the first time that this has happened. - jc37 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I take no position on the DRV -- especially now, since I've already discussed the question of basic merit with you -- but it clearly was closed very early, and if you wanted to pursue that question, I would not blame you in the least. Despite my reservations regarding the original closure, I probably wouldn't have commented in, or closed, the DRV, given my involvement in the creation of the category.
I believe the second policy link you cited explains why the "divisiveness" language applies to categories that have associated userboxes. This one did not. Although that language was one of several issues, if I read your closure well, I thought it was a key issue, and my problem with the application of that label to this category remains. I don't think the original debate justifies applying that label to the category, and I don't follow from your analysis how you came to do so, unless you did so in the manner of an assumption. No big deal -- at worst, you made a mistake (of which, I make six million a day!); or, at best, I've missed some point in your analysis (which would be mistake six million and one for me today.) That remains, however, the major point of my disagreement with you here. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the first and best place to voice your discontent with the WP:SNOW closure is with User:Krimpet, who did the deed. He's already gotten some feedback, but I would hope he would take your concerns (as the closer who decision was at stake) most seriously. It is always possible to: 1.) Take the issue to a new CfD; 2.) Take the issue to RfC, either on the category itself, or on Krimpet; 3.) Start a new DRV (in a week or two, please) to review the issue: DRV doesn't have many WP:SNOW closures (because the regulars are firm believers in due process), but -- when one like this arises -- a second DRV doesn't seem out of order to me, as long as there is a delay to avoid dramatics. Xoloz (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Stay out of my head! : )
I think you were reading my mind... The latter option was exactly what I had finally decided on. There are, of course, more options than you listed (and probably even more than I've considered), but a new DRV seemed the most appropriate in this case. It seems/seemed to be the least potentially disruptive of the various options. Thanks (again) for your thoughts : ) - jc37 00:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can be of service here. While I disagree on the CfD closure itself, being a firm believer in DRV due process, I'll be happy to watch the review very carefully: it would be wrong for me to close it, but it would be in keeping with principles of fairness for me to revert merciless anyone who attempted to close it before five days had elapsed. I'll keep an eye out. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further thought[edit]

I've done quite a bit of reading/research concerning this, and was/am fully prepared to do the renom. However, in that time, I've started to wonder at the benefits of it.

  • Is it to assuage my ego? No. Though I must admit to being more than slightly disgruntled at not even being allowed to comment in the DRV.
  • Is it to make certain that such an action (ridiculously speedy "speedy closure", and my other concerns above) doesn't become a recurring precedent? This was one of my main concerns, but I think (and sincerely hope) in hindsight that this won't be the case. Especially now that it's been clearly established that DRV closures can be re-opened, despite what you mentioned to me above.
  • Is it to more accurately determine consensus on whether my closure should be endorsed or overturned? Yes, but all things considered, I guess I just don't care that much anymore. Especially since there is a possibility that the whole thing may be ReOrg-ed soon. (Which I think would be a "good thing".)

So while I may have "wasted my time" in the ongoing research, and finding/pasting links, and lengthy explanations, and so on, in the end, I'm hoping that we all (or at least me) have gained at least "something" by the experience. That said, I'm, of course, interested in your thoughts. - jc37 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that[edit]

Hi,

You were quite right in guessing that I had missed your note of the 27th -- I'll have to be more vigilant! Regarding your concerns, I would never have considered the possibility of ego. Every thoughtful closure is for the benefit of the Project: if you believe strongly that yours was the best solution, there is no ego in being an advocate for it through due process. The danger of ego is the out-of-process action, the wheel-war, the refusal to accept contrary consensus once process has run. You're a considerate person; the simple fact that you're already having "second thoughts" shows that you would never pursue an ego-driven course, which is a good thing, because that is the path to obsolescence. So, no worries. :)

Having said that, I regarded the DRV on the trout-slapping admin category (which ran full-time, and was closed with due thoughtfulness) as a companion to the speedy-closed, flawed Admin Recall DRV. I don't see the results being any different in an Admin Recall redo. Of course, note that I am in opposition to you on the question of the merits here, so my bias is obvious. You have every right and reason to pursue a second DRV, and I will support its full hearing to the best of my ability.

On the issue of whether a DRV can be reopened: this is, of course, technically possible on a wiki. It is also technically possible to delete the main page. While this can happen, it really, really shouldn't. The case that you're probably referring to is the Daniel Brandt mess, which was reopened four times. Apparently, several biased parties got into a bit of edit-war about who should close the thing. If that hadn't been resolved smoothly, it would have made a good recipe for an ArbCom case. I'm glad a calm, reasonable result was reached that time, but the underlying circumstance was bad. Ideally, biased parties should not close, and the question of reverting them should never arise. In sum, I guess I'll say that reopenings are like spider-bites: Although we should do everything to prevent them, they do happen; they are almost always painful and a net negative; but (once in a blue moon), they might yield a weirdly positive result. :) Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed the closure of the trout one with Iron Gargoyle. I think he may have been a bit vague to my detriment in the closure (unintentionally, which was made clear in further discussion), and part of me would like to have seen it relisted (and part of me thinks that to do so immediately would have added more unnecessary drama), but otherwise, I had no real concerns with the closure. (Honestly it was one that I was wondering how it would be closed.) As I've said elsewhere, it may be a bit of "ego" (smile) to say it, but it felt good knowing that I wasn't "way off base", noting that all the cfd/ucfd regulars (save one who said weak oppose) endorsed. It definitely wasn't another speedy snowy "discussion", as doc glasgow presumed/(semi-threatened me) that it would be.
And no, I wasn't referring to that case. I was referring to one that I attempted to helpfully close speedily myself, concerning angela beesley. (I thought I would be helping reduce the obvious ongoing drama... To quote Yoda: foolish, I was.) I don't know if the various talk page discussions regarding that are still around, easily to find (I seem to remember moving some to the DRV talk page), but you may understand the admin categories situation better after reading that. (I won't accuse anyone specific, but I did get the feeling that I was getting at least "some" animosity after the admin categories closure more as a result of that, than actual caring about the categories in question.) As for the closure, I was reverted twice, after which I decided it wasn't worth the drama, and though I somewhat disagreed with GRBerry's direct comparisons to the Brandt situation, after some thought, I could see what he was attempting to say in the "spirit" of the thing. Hmm. I don't think I ever mentioned how much I appreciated his calmness that day, I felt that he was one of the more civil "opposing" people that day, and appreciated it greatly. I kept wishing I could comment here, or at least ask you your advice (not the first time I have had that feeling of late), but as I felt it possible or even likely that you could be a potential closer (as a DRV regular), I decided asking you might cause you to decide to disqualify yourself, so I stayed silent.
Anyway, I hope that lengthy sprawl of text clarifies : ) - jc37 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


MfD Intro[edit]

Hello Xoloz! I was taking a Wikibreak (ack!) but I noticed this edit and was wanting to initiate discussion here. Regards.--12 Noon 2¢ 16:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:New user log[edit]

Hi, do you think it would be a good idea to remove all links to this page, like from welcome templates so new users aren't encouraged to use it? Thanks. Redrocketboy 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, wouldn't full protection for this page be suitable? I realise full protection wouldn't normally be used for pages like this, but it would stop people editing it. Thanks. Redrocketboy 17:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi![edit]

Ive been a guest looking at pages for about 3 years, but now im a user and want to find a list of users on here, how do I do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikachu247 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princehailla[edit]

Um... it was somewhat an attack page, if you count the last sentence/line on that page --KelvinHOwiki flight simmer(talk) 16:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • either that or he/she is trying to say something about blocking a user here or another site... sry about the excessive tagging, noone told me...

--KelvinHOwiki flight simmer(talk) 16:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding UPRW redirect[edit]

UPRW is not really a plausible search term. For one thing, UPRW does not exist as a reporting mark. Searching for UPRW on google does not return Union Pacific in its results. It should also be noted that the user who created that redirect has a history of less than constructive edits. I can recall four pages he created that were speedily deleted for being either devoid of content or complete fabrication. Hellbus (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lceurope[edit]

According to the original report, it was promotional and intended to be used for promational purposes. Daniel Case (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

beer categories[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4 and the request to overturn this name change--which was unsuccessful. Regardless, this change was never fully implemented by me or anyone else. Another editor announced on my talk page that he was reverting all my/others work to get the categories back to how they were prior to the CfD and its affirmation. He then did so so WP is back to where we started. This seems an abuse of the CfD by ignoring it/deliberately going against it. Am I right? If so, what is to be done? Thanks

Joyeux Noël[edit]

The composer of my favorite Christmas carol.

I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bush userbox[edit]

Where did you get the Bush userbox? Did you make it? Basketball110 (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replay Baseball[edit]

You deleted this as an A7, but it is a pencil and paper game, and as such is not "real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content". PLease reconsider your deletion. Dsmdgold (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm fine with it running its course at AfD. I'm not sure that it would have qualified as a G11, as it was written in a fairly neutral tone. "Simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for (G11)". Dsmdgold (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Replay Publishing[edit]

Hello Xoloz. I'd like to ask you to take another look at the Replay Publishing page, which was nominated for AfD. I've added a number of references to the page, as well as beefing up the article text and links. Any further constructive criticism you could give would be greatly appreciated. I'd be happy with rolling all the content into one page, with redirects from the others. Thank you. Kezzran (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD result question[edit]

Xoloz, I saw that and appreciate the closure. I will continue working on this as I have time, but will take my time. One thing I would like to attempt, and to that end garner your input, is to retain the name AA for the reasons that the page has more recently added. Most of the latter comments on the MfD were Keep w/o Rename, and I believe that reflects the emerging content, specifically that "Admin Abuse" also refers to the abuses that you and other admins often must endure from others. I seek to document these too on that page, and thus the name actually represents two different meanings of the phrase. To use "errors admins make" would narrow the focus (and take away the latter points). Please let me know your thoughts on the matter. Thank you again. VigilancePrime (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since writing this (I wrote it initially on my talk page after your comment; figured you probably haven't seen it yet), I noticed that you had moved the page. I thought you were going to wait for a moment o I could come up with a better title. Regardless, I do appreciate the attempt to help and it was helpful except for the above. I thusly wanted to ask you what, if anything, may be good for the article in order for it to be acceptable at the original name. I think the two-word phrase summs up both major points best (abuse BY admins as well as abuse OF admins, an equally disrupting condition). I very much want to be able to keep the original title and I would like your thoughts on the matter. Thanks in advance! VigilancePrime (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there[edit]

Could you email the version of the article on Naftali Tzvi Weisz please I want to create an article on the event as you suggested - Would "Spinka financial controversy" be a neutral title. Also could you please provide me with the raw data, preferably of the last version I edited, since it took me a while and don't want to have to reformat and re-read all the sources again. Best regards, I am happy to send you a copy before I put the article up for you approval if you like. Lobojo. Lobojo (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Lobojo (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video games![edit]

Hi! does anybody here play video games?Pikachu247 21:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Who, in your estimation, would you consider to be the DRV regular closers? You can answer in whatever format/way seems most comfortable. (I'll probably be asking a few others as well.) - jc37 10:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of regular closers, my list carries no weight (which you know) and I might miss someone, but (in no particular order) -- GRBerry, trialsanderrors, Cordesat, IronGargoyle, me, Chick Bowen, Kurykh, Spartaz, Sr13, W.Marsh, Daniel, pgk... that's what comes off the top of my head. When a new closer shows up, I watch him very closely for a week or so, and may end up giving a hint or two about semantic issues; but, regular new blood is invariably good. If an admin shows up to close only one discussion a year (as happened in your speedied DRV), that is usually not good.
Also, there's Splash -- he never closes DRV anymore, but I must give him all credit as my wiki-mentor for pioneering systematic VfU/DRV closures, and for knowing nearly everything, wiki-wise. As you've read, he's even part of my family now. ;)
Is there a particular reason you've asked? If someone has struck you as egregiously "off-point", feel free to email with complaints. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a great list.
And no, not exactly. I was just giving DRV a lot of thought the other night and it occurred to me that (other than dispute resolution/arbitration), DRV is the last chance point of no return. It's to deletion what arbitration is to blocking. (A terrible analogy, but I hope you get what I mean.)
And as you note above, people who aren't regulars there typically don't perform as well as the regulars in closures.
So I was thinking that it should requre a bureaucrat to close. That said, even suggesting it will receive the age old cry of we don't have enough bureaucrats for it. So I was asking, to get a pool of those who I could ask if they'd like to be nominated. Not to mention that such Wikipedians are likely to be helpful in other areas of the encyclopedia as well.
In looking over your list, though I can see some who I've disagreed with about this or that in the past (either in reading or actual discussion), I see a list of people who genuinely are Wikipedians worthy of admiration and trust, and none "jump out at me" as untrustworthy for the b-tools.
This may be a "lead balloon", but I think it's worth trying. Though I'm, of course, interested in your opinion. - jc37 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness, no[edit]

Hi,

Personally, requiring a b'crat to close DRVs would put me out of the loop, as I readily submit (and have before) that my own views on adminship are much too atypical and strict to allow me to serve in that capacity. More significantly, the structural change would be awful as the pool of closers would drop from 1450 to ~20, and many of these 20 have no desire and no experience doing the closings. Finally, according to a "side-opinion" from the Giano ArbCom case, even regular editors can close DRVs, as long as they do so wisely, in the same spirit as the deletion guidelines allow non-controversial XfD closures. To implement this change would either kill DRV, overload and mire RfB, or -- most likely -- both. A slightly better idea is to create a new functionary, but even that risks terrible bureaucracy creep.

The idea that DRV is a "final step" is a good thing to promote among newbies, as they should be taught to respect its decisions, but it is an illusion for experienced users. I outlined three alternatives for a bad DRV to you last time, and there are others. The most important thing to remember is that -- for issues in the mainspace, anyway, which should always be our main concern -- any new reliable content "resets" all XfDs. If anyone comes with a new source, every precedent goes out the window.

Remember also that only about 10% of DRV's are at all controversial. B'crats would be doing massive "poop-shoveling" if we consigned them to it. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously don't think the dozen of you (plus whatever other bureaucrats may decide to help) could handle closures at DRV? - jc37 16:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on DRV[edit]

Hi,

Happy new year! Maybe we're misunderstanding each other a bit: if b'cratship became a pre-requisite to closing DRV, I wouldn't be closing any, because I consider myself ill-suited to b'cratship, on the basis of the position's role at RfA. I am a known vocal advocate at RfA, and that is a role I chose knowing that it would render me unfit for the impartial b'cratship. Even if I could pass an RfB (which I doubt), I couldn't serve in good conscience. But, this is a minor personal quibble... (as an aside, it is one that I know many DRV closers probably share... like me, GRBerry, T&E, W.marsh, and others are likely not eager to take up a job that includes closing RfAs.)

The major issue I have with any special "office" for DRV closers is that new blood is a good thing. Some new admins may make mistakes in their first few closures, but most hang around as regular commenters for months before they begin to close: in contrast to AfD (and more akin to CfD), the abstraction of DRV means that one cannot expect to make sound calls without a little specialized experience. However, the bar of experience is not so high that a separate role is required; any admin with patience will pick the habit up quickly enough.

I don't know the particulars of Angela's latest, as I was handling Brandt that day. I appreciate your eagerness to help, and your calm head; but, given the polarized situation there, it would have taken a miracle for someone who is not a regular closer to have hit all the right points. I'm not surprised your action was disputed and considered unsatisfactory by some: Angela's case had a deep background, and (by tension level) was really in the top 1% of controversial DRVs. Although one percent of the closures will call for an exceptional level of experience, I don't see the need for an additional bureaucracy. Thinking back, I believe that -- with the exception of Angela Beesley, Brandt, and your own uCfD cases -- I think you would be more than fit to close any other DRVs since October. For some reason, you just picked a bad case with which "to wet your feet." If becoming a regular DRV closer is something you'd like to do, close the "grunt cases" (the three or four "deletion endorsed" DRV does on average daily), field the flame replies from the newbies who don't understand why their appeals died, and you'll gain the insight (and "street credibility" with DRV regulars) to close any controversial cases you see that need closing. As in all things, practice makes perfect -- and the more normal DRVs you dispose of, the keener your insights and reasoning will be when the time comes to tackle the "ugh" ones.

Of course, it is presumptuous of me to type all this to you: you are already a regular closer at CfD, and I'm sure you've observed a similar dynamic there. CfD definitely requires specialized skill; although I know enough to deal with controversial DRVs that arise (and these cases sometimes require thinking "outside the box" of normal CfD logic anyway), I wouldn't dare pretend that I'm well-qualified to handle a regular load there. The finer points of CfD logic, the common arguments, the regular players -- these important facts are not instinctive for me, and I'd probably have to watch CfD for a month before I'd feel sure I wouldn't make silly mistakes. I'd be asking you (and Radiant!, another of my long-time wiki-mentors) for help all the time. Again, although it requires specialized knowledge, make b'crats close CfDs would overload them, and -- given that they were selected on the basis of an entirely different skill set -- most of them are probably even less well-versed in CfD logic than I am.

B'crats do RfA and bots: these portfolios are already disparate enough. Adding more random jobs to their work would drive them loony, and make whatever areas were added hopelessly inefficient. B'crats are really the "high priests" of Wikipedia -- their selection is so strictly regulated by social norms such that they must be impeccable, Solomonic figures. WP has few of them, and should preserve their mandate for functions that require deep thought. DRVs can be closed by a well-trained monkey -- I know, because I am a well-trained monkey! :) <Xoloz scratches chest, eats termite he finds in his fur> Oooga oooga! Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. B'crats also do renames... I ignored that, because I believe renames could be done by a monkey like me, and I've never understood why regular admins can't handle it. Xoloz (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't understand why, the more tools that someone is trusted with, the less discernment the person is presumed to be allowed to use. I would think that such a person (in most cases, anyway) would be exactly whom we'd want excercising such discernment/discretion. SO, I think I disagree with your characterisation of bureaucrats (I think that, using your implied definition, they're monkeys like the rest of us : )
Also, I wasn't proposing this as a result of my closing the AB case. It was more as a result of subsequent comments (not necessarily there), and some research I was doing. IN my opinion, DRV seems to be one place where we really do want our more trusted admins closing. And to me that could = bureaucrats. I guess I just don't place "trust with tools" in an ivory tower of mechanisation.
And also, I would presume that bureaucratship is just like adminship in that you only are required to help out in whatever way you prefer. (See a recent discussion on my talk page about just that.) Just as because you're an admin doesn't mean that you have to close discussions, or vandalism patrol, neither does a bureaucrat have to close RfAs or be involved in bots or changing usernames. (Incidentally, I think they have to do that because transfer of user-rights may be an issue.)
That said, I have no problem respecting your wish to not be nominated for bureaucratship.
I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 00:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your comments are observations I won't dispute (although my POV continues to be different); however, I will add one caveat to your analysis. While no one is required to do any particular function on Wikipedia, I do think b'crats (who otherwise might not want to do anything at DRV) might feel compelled by the workload there to chip in even if their skills are not attuned for it.
I'll also make this observation -- after looking over the list of current b'crats again, I can honestly say that I've only seen one (WJBscribe) close a DRV.
To carry forward our working analogy here, if we accept that bureaucrats are just "monkeys", they are still an "endangered species", and they do not have the current numbers to handle the workload. :)
Another point that sprang to my mind: b'crats manage to close RfAs without much ill-feeling; their closures are sometimes explained, but rarely very elaborately. If they start closing DRVs (an issue of encyclopedic content), they're going to get much "dirtier": inevitably, they're going to make people very angry, and be perceived as belonging to "factions" of some kind. I've worked very hard to avoid being drawn into these problems as a DRV closer -- I'd say it has been my single biggest objective from a large-scale point of view -- and there are still quite a few folks who appear to really dislike me. Giving b'crats the job is going to taint the relatively exalted respect they generally hold.
One last empirical point, mentioned briefly above: b'crats have never held special authority over issues of encyclopedic content, only administrative concerns. Your proposal would be a first in this regard. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1.) I was planning on nominating all of you (willing) DRV regulars for bureaucratship, so we would have such a knowledge-base to draw from.
2.) According to your previous comments, give the existing bureaucrats a week or so, and they should be just fine? : )
3.) Bureaucrats are all Wikipedians just like the rest of us, and (AFAIK) they're also admins. And in my experience, as such, they do (and often) get involved in content discussions. So I don't think that this is unprecedented at all.
4.) "Exalted respect"? - As I mentioned above, they're just Wikipedians like the rest of us. They've just been trusted with a few more tools. Some I do respect, and well, and there may be one or more that I may not respect anywhere near "exaltedly". To repeat, they're just Wikipedians like the rest of us.
I hope this clarifies : ) - jc37 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to my previous comments, it would take a month for them to get the hang of it, since they're wholly unaccustomed. I would expect only one or two of the current DRV closers could pass RfB, if we're very lucky. Before you go nominating all these folks for b'crat, I'd suggest you try to get consensus for change at a centralized discussion, or take it to WP:BN. I don't expect there to be consensus support for this, and will oppose it for the reasons I've outlined, but you might as well try it. Xoloz (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the "was" in #1 : )
Though I'm still thinking that it might be a good idea, you've dissuaded me a bit in thinking how necessary it may be. - jc37 15:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly have a different impression of b'crats in general. How involved are you at RfA? There are a few b'crats for whom I have low regard; but, most of them are truly exceptional, and the office is one of highest respect. It has to be, to keep RfA running. With a standard of appointment that requires ~90% consensus, they must meet higher standards of community regard than even the ArbCom. While they are equals as editors and Wikipedians, the standards expected of them do, indeed, place them in a position of "exalted respect", and nothing you've said has changed my view on that one iota. Being an RfB regular, I see how difficult it is for them to get appointed, and the high standards of impartiality to which they must adhere. Miring them in a deletion process will complicate their workload, make the position even more contentious, and require them to learn and employ a skill-set for which they were not appointed, and to which (based on knowing them) they have little aspiration. Xoloz (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather involved (though more as a reader these days).
As for the rest, I agree totally with everything you say above, until the part that starts with "miring". I think even the vandals can keep process pages separate in their heads. As I noted above, these same bureaucrats can and do close discussions elsewhere, so I have to disagree with your last set of comments above. - jc37 15:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, and likewise, why a current DRV closer would aspire to b'cratship (a position created to deal with user rights at RfA) is beyond me. Since I failed to persuade you, the wider community is the place to take this idea. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you continually reaffirm my position on the current proposal for granting/removal of rollback. they've currently a plan to allow admins to grant rollback, and I'm opposed to it because I don't think that admins should be granting/removing admin abilities; I think that the ability should be given to bureaucrats. (See Wikipedia:Non administrator rollback for more information.)
Anyway, I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 15:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

former[edit]

I have long respected your work on DRV. I noticed the recent spate of edits on the former admin page [3]; I was surprised to see you were one of the two editors reverting there. If Majorly wants to be listed in some strange way, it's worth discussing it with him and the bureaucrats. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD close for PRIVATE[edit]

I saw your close at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Private Correspondence (etc.). I commented at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Private Correspondence (etc.), and would appreciate it if you could respond there. Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to WP:FORMER.[edit]

I have fixed this edit which I WP:AGF assume you did not intend to make based on your edit summary. I have also added a new more clear footnote. Mercury 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects with quotes[edit]

Hi. Redirects with quotes are not searchable. Try to check an article that already exists.In the last days i have deleted 500 items in that way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC) If an article exists then using or not using quotes has the same result. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC) ok, thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xoloz/archive21&oldid=1094582713"