User talk:Sjakkalle/July and August 2005

New messages at the bottom please! If a response is needed, it will usually be on your talkpage. Some times however I will post the response here instead. Sjakkalle (Check!)  1 July 2005 07:42 (UTC)

Archived discussions
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/March and April 2005
 * User talk:Sjakkalle/May and June 2005

RfA Thanks
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA nomination. I appreciate the vote of confidence you have provided me. --Allen3 talk July 1, 2005 14:16 (UTC)

Hi Sjakkalle, thanks for the vote of confidence on my RfA. I'll do my best to use my new admin powers responsibly! --Spangineer (háblame)  July 4, 2005 03:52 (UTC)

thanks!
Thanks for your kind words on my talk page, Sjakkalle! Glad you like my work on chess articles. -- Frederick R July 6, 2005 (still too much of a newbie to know how to do a time-stamp :-) )

Thanks, I appreciate your support. Everyking 6 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)

Napoleon Opening
I was inspired by your article on the Napoleon Opening to write one on the equally ridiculous Parham Attack (2.Qh5). Frederick R 6 July, 2005
 * Wow. I didn't know there was so much to write about that opening. Both Frederick and Quale have done a good job with that one. My article on the Napoleon Opening was placed there to prevent anyone thinking that the Napoleon Gambit article should be moved to that title. Sjakkalle (Check!)  7 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)

Actually, now that I know more about the Parham Attack than 99.9% of all chessplayers, I think it's definitely less ridiculous than the Napoleon Opening -- maybe even reasonable (!!) Frederick R 7 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)

St. George Defense
As you suggested, I have merged my "Birmingham Defense" article into the "St. George's Defense" article. I had forgotten about that name. One quibble, though: the text of the latter article calls it "the St. George Defense," not "St. George's Defense," so shouldn't the "'s" be deleted from the article title? I don't know how to do this. If you do it, make sure a search for "Birmingham Defense" goes to that article. (I don't know how to do that, either.) Then you can also delete "Birmingham Defense." Frederick R 7 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

Good point. I wonder too whether we want the canonical name to be St. George or St. George's. It's confusing, because we, just like the chess world itself, aren't consistent. We can use redirects to cover all the bases, but it's nice if the main article uses the "best" name. Sometimes though I think it's nearly impossible to pick the best one out of all the choices: Petroff, Petroff's, Petrov, Petrov's, and some even use Petrof and Petrof's, I believe. (And then Defence vs Defense--it's a good thing you like to create redirects!) If I were starting from scratch I think I might just use the continental names for most of the openings: Russian Game, Spanish Game, and Scandinavian Defence. Quale 8 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)

Since the article's content used the term "St. George" I have gone ahead and moved it. There were a few double redirects which had to be fixed but I think avoiding the "'s" is preferrable when possible, although it really doesn't matter as long as the redirects are many and well placed. Regarding the Russian Game and Spanish Game, I prefer the common "Petroff Defense" and "Ruy Lopez" because almost all the English chess literature I have seen uses those terms, the Oxford Companion is so far the only exception I have seen. As for the biggest nightmare-to-name opening I think the prize goes to Van 't Kruijs Opening. (When I try to access that article I normally use the redirect at 1.e3.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  8 July 2005 08:17 (UTC)

The problem with using the name Ruy Lopez is that you don't get to use puns like "Spanish Inquisition" to refer to the experience players of the black side have had to endure against Karpov or Kasparov. On the other hand, maybe that's a benefit. Quale 8 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

New name
Hi, it's (the former) Frederick R. Upon learning that the cooler name "Krakatoa" was available, I grabbed that name and want to use that henceforth. I hope that doesn't violate any rules. I moved the text of the Frederick R talk and user pages onto corresponding Krakatoa pages. If there's some easy way of reflecting "Frederick R" contributions as "Krakatoa" contributions instead, that would be great. If not, I'll survive obviously. Thanks for any help you can provide. Krakatoa 7 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Legal/Legall's Mate/Trap
Believe it or not, I actually had posted a third article,' entitled I believe "Legal's Mate." I guess because I wrote the "M" in "mate" capitalized I didn't get redirected to the already-existing "Legal's mate" with a lower-case "m." I was chagrined when I stumbled upon that article. It was virtually identical to mine, so I just deleted mine. Krakatoa 23:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"Buckwheat"
...but there is absolutely no excuse for calling him "buckwheat

If I understood what the hell you were talking about, I might actually care. In other words, what are you getting on about? --Calton | Talk 11:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

You're clearly a very sensitive soul, so to avoid upsetting you further I'll limit myself to simply saying two things:

1) That you're misguided, incorrect, and ought not rely upon your mindreading skills too heavily.

2) The fact that you had to resort to Google to dredge up support for your "absolutely no excuse" statement -- and that they actually don't support the "no excuse" statement -- tells me how knee-jerk your reaction was. --Calton | Talk 04:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I will still assert that your post on SPUI's talkpage, calling him "buckwheat" constitutes name-calling which is most unwelcome at Wikipedia. I have not been doing any "mindreading", the only reading I have been doing is that of your post on SPUI's talkpage, and a read of some pages found using google, which indeed confirmed my belief that "buckwheat" is an insult, a referral to an easily frightened black character in The Little Rascals. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * And if anybody is wondering about which posts I am talking about it is these two. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * ..maybe you can explain... Look, sport, you are not entitled to an explanation, nor am I required to give one.

From the tone of your notes to him, I have a hard time believing that it was meant as a compliment You're not as tone-deaf as I thought, eh, sparky, given your odd claim that Everyking is not a troll. But you're only halfway there, pal. You just keep thinking there, Butch, it's what you're good at.

Meantime, chum, keep your attitude away from me. --Calton | Talk 01:45, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

If you won't give an explanation to me, then so be it, but be assured that I won't forget it. I would have thought that it was in your interest to explain why you called SPUI "buckwheat" if it really wasn't an insult. As for Everyking, I disagree with many of the things he does, but I recognize him mostly as a dilligent RC Patroller, and excellent contributor to the article namespace. He is not a troll, and calling him one borders quite closely on what I would call a personal attack. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

217.33.74.20
Hey Sjakkalle, I'm hot on the tail of for messing with VfD votes, but I'm not getting any help at Admin Intervention. Since I noticed you were around, I thought I'd ask you if you'd mind to take a look at his edits and give him a good vandal whacking. -- Essjay ·  Talk 09:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've given the anon a last warning. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I can't wait to get that rollback button...Just five more days (hopefully)! -- Essjay ·  Talk 09:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently he didn't take well to your warning: See here -- Essjay ·  Talk 09:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for the revert; I hadn't even seen that yet! -- Essjay ·  Talk 09:13, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours now. Kids these days.~.. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I know! It's about time for the troll that usually comes after me & a couple others to show up...The excitement here never ends! -- Essjay ·  Talk 09:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Shared IPs
Please don't block shared IPs (such as 217.33.74.20) for 24 hours as it prevents many registered users from making edits too. If a block is required please just limit it to an hour at the most.

OK, sure. Sorry. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Not a problem - I've unbanned it (myself) now. I'll check through the logs at this school to see if I can spot if it's someone from here messing around, but I doubt it will be.  It's probably someone in a library.  violet/riga (t) 10:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC on SlimVirgin

 * I have removed some entries under the "evidence of disputed behaviour" that had been inserted by another editor that went beyond the original intent of the RFC (including the "personal attacks" that you objected to). I have ammended the summary of the RFC to list its two specific goals: that SlimVirgin's edit contains too many errors to be reinserted into the article and that she has held herself above any criticism of her edit. There seemed to be a misunderstanding of the scope of the RFC. Hopefully this clarifies. FuelWagon 19:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, but I saw the RFC has been deleted now. I saw that the section in the RFC which I disputed was removed, so my comments were no longer relevant. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Hey Sjakkalle, I may not know you but I would love to thank you for your support vote :). I also liked your reply to splash on the RfA of Steven8877... With respect, Redwolf24 08:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. While I haven't interacted with you, I have seen you in action, and I liked what I saw. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Making RfC for Germen
I'm putting together an RfC for Germen's behaviour on the Islamophobia article and associated pages. Since you have been involved in disputes with this user before I was hoping you might be able to contribute to the draft before I publish it on WP:RFC. Axon 12:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the only interaction I can remember which I've had with Germen was voting "keep deleted" on one of his VFU nominations. His behavior there was stubborn, but not a violation of any policy which requires an RFC. With so little knowledge about this case, and so little experience with this user I cannot endorse or certify the RFC. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for getting back to me. Axon 09:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for moving Xinjiao - I'll continue working on it in its new home! Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 11:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay ·  Talk 15:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Stockport cricket club
You closed the VfD with a result of "keep (no consensus)" but the article seems to have been deleted. The deletion log reads "09:08, 21 July 2005 Duncharris deleted "Stockport cricket club" (per vfd & author request)". What should be done? -- Jonel | Speak 18:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks strange, I'm bringing that one to VFU. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've posted a disclaimer to my speedy undeletion just in case I'm out of process, but I'm sure I'm not. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 09:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks for supporting me
Hello, just a quick note to express my gratitude for your support of my RfA. I'm sure I'll become a familiar face on places like the Administrator's Noticeboard and Requests for Adminship, as well as the murkier parts of my new job. "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:48, NIV) Never was a truer word spoken. I feel empowered, yes, but not in the "oooh cool delete button!" way I was kind of expecting. Already I feel the weight of the responsibility I have now been entrusted with, a weight that will no doubt reduce given time. Thank you for believing in me. :) GarrettTalk 10:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for closing Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses. I understand how much of a pain it was. I've closed a number of large VfDs in my time, but never anything close to having to remove 124 tags (but just think about how many spots you'll move up on List of Wikipedians by number of edits). - SimonP 13:34, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's an unpleasant task, but it should probably be done to prevent these articles from being relisted on VfD yet again. I have some time this morning so I'll do it. - SimonP 13:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi
About events with Muhammad, what happen now, where/what is "transwiki" ?

Peace!

--Striver 13:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

--Striver 14:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Howabout1's RfA (again)
Hi. I am copying this message to everyone who voted on my last RfA. By some strange twist of fate, I have been nominated (within 48 hours, it's probably a record). Please vote again. Howabout1 Talk to me! 21:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

/*Thanks 4 Suggestions*/
Thank u 4 caring... I'm a newbie and getting a Wikipedian, Thatz Y I wish u 4give

Tux_the_penguin.

- Happy to help... - Usrnme h8er 09:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Nimzo-Indian and Bogo-Indian
The articles on the Nimzo-Indian Defense and Bogo-Indian Defense are under the names Nimzo-Indian and Bogo-Indian. Although of course people do colloquially leave off the "Defense" sometimes when referring to them, it seems to me that the proper name requires use of "Defense," and that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia ought to use the proper name rather than a colloquial abbreviation. I think the articles should be moved to "Nimzo-Indian Defence" (the British spelling, since that's what the article uses in text) and "Bogo-Indian Defense" (or "Defence"), with redirects from "Nimzo-Indian" and "Bogo-Indian." I mentioned this issue to Quale, who responded on my talk page "I agree 100%." He suggested that I broach the subject to you, as a chess-knowledgeable admin, since we non-admins can't make such a move. Thanks. Krakatoa 18:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Responded on Krakatoa's talkpage. Both of the articles have been moved. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sasquatch's RfA
Thanks for your support on my RfA! Happy editting! Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;T&#08596;C 04:54, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

You make no sense!
Hi Sjak: Kindly explain your math please at Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews: 34 "keeps" is better than 66 "deletes"...the "deletes" had almost DOUBLE the votes and you decide against them? This makes no sense! I will call on others to object to your dictatorial move! IZAK 10:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Basically to delete an article there has to be what is called a "rough consensus". From WP:DP we have "what constitutes a rough consensus is not set in stone, some do consider a 2/3 majority a "rough consensus", while others believe consensus implies a higher ratio" Basically, I will usually not delete an article if there is less than a two thirds majority to delete. The vote count here, was slightly below that, especially when we add the two merge votes on the debate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, you admit yourself that "rough consensus" is "not set in stone", thus who are you to determine what the "rough consensus" should be in this case when it is possible that a clear majority (basically close to double opposed in this instance) want the article deleted? Why did you not consult with others, especially a number of other informed admins who partook in this vote? By what "divine right" did you come along and just make the decision on your own without any obvious consultation with at least your peers? After all, this is a vote and not some ambititious writing of an article alone. Your move is very troubling to me as a Wikipedian and I am sure to quite a few others who will be contacting you about your seemingly pre-emptive act. Justice should not only be done, it should appear to be done, and you have failed to do that... and now you bandy about some unclear Wikipedia guidelines that you well know can be applied differently than the way you have chosen to apply them. IZAK 11:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It is the decision of the closing administrator, and there is no rule which says that the decision has to be consulted with anybody. The fact that other administrators voted "delete" on the debate has no bearing on my decision, adminstror's votes don't count any more or less than other people's votes. I believe my closure of the debate was entirely within process, after five days the debates are moved to the "old" section, and can at that point be closed by any administrator who has not taken part in the debate. I have not read the article, and in fact I have no opinion of what should be done with the article. I spent about 20 minutes tallying the votes, discarding sockpuppet votes and reading some of the comments. After reviewing the debate I saw no reason to go against the "two-thirds" guideline. I was in doubt, and in such cases I cannot close the debate as a delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well then, you have allowed mere (technical) process to over-rule sound judgment. This is not a game of numbers "ping pong" alone, this is also about a serious issue within humanity, and had you but looked into it you would have read for yourself that is this case, that Jews who are themselves victims of Anti-Semitism are being falsely accused of religiously "persecuting" others. It is hard for me to believe that no-one can have a view about this. I am sure that if you even merely read the heading, the name of the article tells it all. So how does it feel to help create a world of falsehood? IZAK 11:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that the humanity-issue does not affect my decision. I believe most strongly that the persecution of Jews, which culminated in the horrific massacre of more than 6 million Jews in the holocaust, is perhaps the greatest evil ever in World history. But the issue of whether or not to delete the article is left to the 100 or so users who participated in the debate. I looked at the debate, and I concluded that there was not a sufficiently strong consensus to delete the article, even after I discounted three of the keep votes. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Rough consensus: NO 2/3ds mentioned
Here is what Wikipedia says about "rough consensus" at Deletion guidelines for administrators:


 * An aspect of Wikipedia that confounds many people is the fact that there is essentially no formal voting, and informal votes or straw polls are rare. The general rule on disputed topics is that Wikipedia has to come to "rough consensus", though the meaning of this is disputed. The exact method of determining rough consensus varies from time to time, case to case, and person to person. The lack of voting has caused some long delays for some proposals, but most Wikipedians who have witnessed rough consensus after acrimonious debates feel that the delays often result in better results... Administrators necessarily must use their best judgement, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" votes include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article.

Kindly note that in the above policy guideline there is NO mention of the 2/3 quota you claim is needed. Since this is a HIGHLY controversial article (witness the number of votes) you should have sought more input before jumping into the vote when there was still room to leave the vote open and the debate continue. IZAK 11:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The "two thirds" which I follow when closing debates is mentioned in the deletion policy. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that consensus is rather ill-defined in policy, but I also agree with IZAK that this article should be deleted. As some voters pointed out, the article is a POV magnet, reproduces material covered extensively elsewhere, and just opens another front for incessant edit warring. With such a pitched discussion, it is nigh-impossible to get anywhere closer to consensus than what we have achieved.

I have never formalised VfD decisions as an admin, so I can only imagine how hard your decisions sometimes are, but I urge you to reconsider and delete the article. JFW | T@lk  12:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Alright: What I am willing to do this: There are two administrators in particular who I look up to when closing debates, User:SimonP and User:Rossami. Both of these administrators have displayed very sound judgment when closing close and controversial debates where the result hangs in the balance. Neither of them have involved in this particular debate. I can ask for their opinions. If they think that my decision was faulty, I will not protest the reopening of the debate. That may take a whil, perhaps a day or two. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your efforts. "A day or two" is too long to wait. You did not give it a "day or two" to do what you did, so why should you get better treatment than others you dealt with? Kindly re-open the Vfd ASAP as advised (and for the additional reasons given) by User:Danny at Talk:Religious persecution by Jews. Thanks again. IZAK 12:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm most certainly not accusing you of abusing your position because you wanted it kept. I just object to such a finite and dogmatic interpretation of consensus, particularly where the voting population was so large and the fact that it only very, very narrowly fell below 2/3. Ambi 13:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The vote
By the way, if you have 100 eligible voters voting, and 34 say keep vs. 66 who say delete, then aren't the 34 only one third (i.e. 33%) outvoted by the two thirds (i.e. 66%) majority ??? IZAK 13:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You are forgetting the two who said "merge". They shoved it further from my two-thirds bar. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way there are two things listed in WP:WIN. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't have things decided on simple-majority votes. Also, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy... yes, I know that my sticking to the two-thirds guideline can seem dogmatic, but on such a contentious VFD-debate, I feel that it is a good time to stick firmly to the rules. Finally, I don't have a trouble reading, so there is no need to bold that message. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That Wikipedia is "not a democracy" so then how does an admin get "elected"??? And why are there votes at all for VfD and many other such things? It does not give you the "licence" to shoot down a vote that has a vast majority voting to delete. The article is crappy, it's not even well written and even on those grounds could have been shot down. I hope a series starts on:


 * 1) Religious persecution by Sweden;
 * 2) Religious persecution by Denmark;
 * 3) Religious persecution by Norway;
 * 4) Religious persecution by Holland;
 * 5) Religious persecution by Spain;
 * 6) Religious persecution by Italy;
 * 7) Religious persecution by France;
 * 8) Religious persecution by Switzerland;
 * 9) Religious persecution by Finland;
 * 10) Religious persecution by Germany; etc,

....this should be quite interesting, and if VfD are held for them, it would be interesting to see the responses, and your reactions. IZAK 14:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * IZAK asks "That Wikipedia is "not a democracy" so then how does an admin get "elected"???".  That's easy to answer.  An admin is appointed by a bureaucrat, and the standard of consensus used for this purpose by bureaucrats is 80% in favor, 20% against. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

All your VfD are belong to us
Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews Sjakkalle - Tough call, this one. I'd like to go on record as saying that: By Darwin's dog, though, you're sure to cop an earbashing! Have fun, brenneman (t) (c) 13:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A) I'd have voted Delete if I'd seen this vote, and
 * B) I think you did the right thing by keeping it.

Thanks. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I also think you were in the right to close this as a no consensus keep. My interpretation of the two-thirds rule is that it is the bare minimum needed to have consensus, and for especially controversial topics, like this one obviously is, the bar should be higher. My view is that for now the page should be kept, with its various dispute tags in place, and the participants should try and see if the page can be cleaned up or merged. If in another month or two this effort has failed then there is no rule preventing it being relisted on VfD. There was a very similar situation recently at Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland, and after a controversial no consensus vote the page was merged and redirected and the situation was resolved without anything being deleted. - SimonP 13:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I will keep the debate as closed as "no consensus". Anyone reading the VFD debate again should note that the last vote was added after I closed the debate, and was therefore obviously not counted. I will be logging out now, so if anyone adds a comment, expect no reply until tomorrow. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I still think that the name for the article is not encyclopedic(and this regardless of Sjakkalle opinion regarding people that uses the anti-encyclopedic argument to vote), and I believe Sjakkalle decision is symplistic and autoritative. Besides, my Keep, for the Muslim entry, should not have been included as keep if the name of the article was to be left there, I know that would not have influenced the vote, but at least, I want my votes to be counted the way they should. Fadix 15:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If the name of an article is poorly chosen it can be moved to a more suitable name. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I voted keep in this discussion, so I won't discuss the merits but will address your decision as VfD closer.

When I close VfD discussions I don't consider a 66/34 split to be even close to consensus, and I consider it unfortunate that somehow there has arisen a fairly popular idea that a 3/2 vote amounts to a rough consensus. To support article deletion I'd want at least 70/30 and, in a very contentious case like this, would probably want to err on the 'keep' side unless the result was close to or higher than 75/25. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sjakkalle, I was involved in Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland on the delete side and went through the anguish, similar to that of some voters in this one. However, I did spent time reading VfD policy and deleting guidelines, checked the past VfDs and ... I support you and other admins making though decisions even though I might not personally like them. --Ttyre 20:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Sjakkalle. I sympathize with your situation; drawing heavy criticism is almost inevitable for an admin making any decision in a case like this. Anyway, I'd just like to suggest keeping the vote open for a little while longer, since it still seems to be attracting some new attention. This way, either the no consensus will become more obvious, some consensus will emerge, or the vote will just die as it is from lack of new votes. If the latter happens, I suppose no consensus will be declared again. Just a thought. Thanks, HKT talk 03:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is much room to reopen a VFD-debate unless it was closed out of process, and from the input I have been getting here I believe that my decision to close this as "no consensus" was in line with policy. If this discussion is reopened, it will need a new VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I had been unaware of the 5-day rule. Cheers, HKT talk 17:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Canderson7's RFA
Thanks for supporting my RFA, I really appreciate it! --Canderson7 16:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your vote of support on my recent RfA. I was quite surprised by the amount of support I received, and wish to extend my thanks to you for taking the time to support my nomination for adminship. -- Longhair | Talk 12:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your support on my RfA! When I submitted it, I was unsure of how I'd do, but the support was great. I promise that I won't do anything too stupid with the trust you've given me. humblefool&reg;Deletion Reform 19:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Stop by Deletion reform! And enjoy your wikibreak!

re: Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. I also put myself on a Wikibreak for a few weeks recently.

This was a tough one. In addition to being long and factually complex, the insults and sarcasm made this a very difficult thread to interpret. (Hint to anyone else reading: In writing, your sarcasm is not nearly as obvious as you think it is.)  Reading through the discussion, I might have called a couple of individual votes differently but not enough to change the overall decision. The difference, I think, would have been in the weighting of the earlier votes in light of the concurrent changes to the article. I also might have been more aggressive in discounting of a couple of voters as trolls. But the abuse was offered on both sides of this debate. The ratio of opinions would have been about the same.

You exercised your judgment as you thought best and thoroughly documented your findings. Your decision is well supported by policy. Remember that "Votes for deletion" is not really about "voting" at all. Which, I think, you did. In your shoes, I think I would have been more aggressive about reminding the nay-sayers of that when they challenged your decision after the fact. Lots of people still fundamentally misunderstand the deletion policy. We are not and never will be a democracy even though we do occasionally use a few quasi-democratic tools.

If someone wants to re-open the VfD decision, that is certainly their right. But you are exactly correct that they must do so through a new nomination. This one failed to reach concensus. Without a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaulted to "keep for now". Rossami (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your response, Rossami. Welcome back by the way, I hope you enjoyed your break. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The matter is settled as long as nobody else does a unilateral deletion. Do let me know if this happens. I;m really quite angry, in a quiet way, to see administrators going around arbitrarily deleting stuff like this. Because I think Wikipedia has probably had all the controversy involving me that it can take for the time being, I won't be undeleting it any more, but I may try to make myself useful in dispute resolution; I can do research and stuff. --Tony Sidaway Talk 10:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, if I see this thing disappear again without a VFD debate to support it, I will undelete it as an obvious "out of process". Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that would be in order. You've got your sanity check on WP:ANI.  I've no doubt arbcom would back you to the hilt on this (I'd probably be off to pastures new if I thought otherwise). Please continue to invite those who object to your close to take constructive action, such as relisting on VfD--which I am sure would be in order, say after 28 days, in such a controversial case. --Tony Sidaway Talk  11:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

While I personally think this page is questionable, it is clear to me that its deletion is a subversion of process, and it should be undeleted. As near as I can tell, at the present time it is still deleted. Nandesuka 16:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sigh* I wonder what hot water I'm getting myself into this time :-/ Undeleted. Kim Bruning 18:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The article and its talk page were deleted again, by the same guy, and then resurrected by yet another sysop. --Tony Sidaway Talk 18:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA. I will do my best to serve the Wikipedia community as an administrator. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

User:J. Jones
It's best to leave the decision to arbitrators. We'll remove them if necessary - although it's more likely that we will leave them and vote, even if they appear to be disruption -- sannse (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As an arbitrator, I have no opinion on that. I'd see what other admins think on AN/I (but with only one edit, and that an offensive one, I doubt you would get much argument if you blocked) -- sannse (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathion talk 08:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Religious persecution of VFD closers?
Aside from the issue of whether Neutrality was an involved party that shouldn't have acted - this is turning into a broader issue that requires some thuoght. What if User:Admin closes a VFD debate as and then User:OtherAdmin reads over it and disagrees? If he had been the one to close the VFD, he would have closed it as. Should he now override Admin's decision? Does the first decision stand because it was the first? Must the debate be reopened? How do we deal with this in the first place? And what if it happens weeks later? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see there is no rule which allows for the overturn of validly closed VFD debates. It is common to see disputed results on VFU, but then of course it is usually a "delete" result which is disputed. We then usually see a scurry of votes of "keep deleted the administrator is right to use the discretion here", and while I disagree with that often, the VFU debate over Vince DeMentri for example, I occasionally do agree with it, like I did now with Fyksland. One thing is for sure, it would be highly improper for me to unilaterally undelete Vince DeMentri and say that CesarB's decision was wrong.
 * To me it would make sense to apply the same guideline for close debates where the result is a "no consensus" keep. If the original administrator's decision is plausible, there should be no basis for overturning it, and reopening the debate would mean making a second nomination. It is acceptable perhaps, barely, to go ahead and overturn a debate where an administrator closes a near-unanimous "delete"-result as a "keep". But in this case, I must say that I am disturbed by User:Wile E. Heresiarch saying that it was okay to let Neutrality overrule a decision, particularily one in which he participated. Overturning debates like this undermines the VFD process severely. Indeed at the end of each closed VFD debate is a bold red message "Please don't edit this page!". I don't know if I should ask the arbitration comitee to look into this. Sigh... by closing that debate I feel as if I've stuck my left arm into a beehive, my right arm into a guillotine, my left leg into a beartrap, my right leg into a pool of lava and my head into the jaws of a gaping lion. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, we're having many cans of worms these days, and I'm sorry to see you strung between a rock and the proverbial hard place. But this is becoming quite an issue (beyond this simple case). Now I agree that Neutrality shouldn't have acted unilateral here - but while it is obvious that people shouldn't overturn validly closed VFDs, the point is that he asserts that the closing wasn't valid (or at least, that it could equally validly have been closed some other way). AN/I might be an option. As a side point, there is also at least one admin that, with some regularity, unilaterally undeletes articles that had a VFD to delete - so the problem cuts both ways.
 * I personally would advise against taking this to RFC or RFAr. There have been quite some of those regarding admin conduct lately, and it isn't really helping. If possible we need to find some way to make closing of borderline VFDs more obvious and less dependent on whichever admin does the closing. But that's another can of worms :( Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I can say that before I set about the task of making a vote count, I decided to adhere strictly to the "two-thirds" guideline, because when the debate was so extremely contentious, I thought it best to base my result on what I thought would be an undisputably objective criterion. My vote count totalled 66 delete votes, 2 merge votes, 1 redirect vote and 34 keep votes, and that was after discarding three of the keep votes. It was short of the two-thirds majority, so Neutrality was wrong when he said that there was "at least" a 2:1 majority for deletion. Also, I am confused by those "keep deleted" votes on this debate, because to me this issue seems rather obvious. (I was quite tempted to just write "Undelete. Valid VFD debate"). Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I see your point but I believe it's less bad than that. There are a few people that have voted "KD because it's a stupid article" but most of them actually want to KD because they agree with Neutrality's assessment. Note that on a page with ~100 voters, it's not unlikely that many admins can be considered to be involved or at least opinionated. There is strong opinion to not simply count the votes (as recently reaffirmed by Jimbo) and that knife cuts both ways. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:15, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * You are correct - most 'KD' voters have voted to delete the original article. However, 'most' in this case is 'slightly more than half of them'. I should also note that Tony Sidaway voted to keep the article and also expressed that opinion on VFU. I should also note that there is a significant number of people voting on this issue that generally don't vote on VFU.
 * So you are probably correct in that several participants in this discussion are biased (that doesn't mean that the majority is biased, nor that all biased people are biased in the same direction). That is annoying, but I'm afraid there isn't really a neutral party to ask. Maybe you should ask Jimbo's opinion, though. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:33, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Rollback for self-revert
Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with that. Everyking 11:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

re: advice
On my Talk page, you asked for advice. My best thoughts sound trite but I mean them sincerely.

First, take a deep breath. This is not personal. It appears to be an honest dispute over process between two people who both care deeply about Wikipedia's greater goal - to build an encyclopedia. Second, step out of the discussion for a bit. You've made your case clearly and have alerted others to the problem. Let us join the fray and take some of the heat. You're not in this alone.

Yup. Re-reading it, it still sounds trite. But it's advice that I wish that I'd been able to follow all the time. It's very easy to take Wikipedia too personally.

You specifically asked whether an RfC or other action is appropriate. It seems premature. First, it may be unnecessary if/as this one dispute runs its course. Second, even if that weren't the case, I'm not sure you've done the necessary pre-work. I don't see any comments from the other party on your Talk page. I see only one very politely worded comment from you on his Talk page. That comment seems to have worked. Unless there are other communications that aren't immediately obvious which show more evident hostility and an inability to work together, an RfC is unlikely to do anything but increase hostilities.

I'm not sure how much those thoughts are worth but that's what I have. Good luck. Rossami (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The article in question is not one which I have many feelings for, and if I thought there were a consensus to delete that article I would have done it without blinking. I know that there are a number of users here who have very strong feelings about it. But it upsets me when a majority uses it's size and sheer number to try to force it's opinion in violation of all process. (First delete the article out of process, and then have the majority say "keep deleted" on the VFU debate.) In general my view on following or bending or breaking policy is that it is alright sometimes, barely, to act in violation of policy if it won't upset anybody. We shouldn't follow policy just for the sake of following policy, common sense is a virtue, and I am a supporter of WP:IAR. But when breaking or even bending policy upsets or wrongs people we should follow the policy really tightly. Not for the sake of following policy, but for the sake of ensuring that everybody is treated fairly. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)
Thank you for supporting my RfA, Sjakkalle, much appreciated! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 22:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD
Sjakkalle: I just had an edit conflict with you in the August 3rd VfD archive. Are you closing all the open VfD's there? If so, let me know, and I will move on to the 4th (and also let me know any you don't close in the 3rd and I'll go back and close them.) -- Essjay ·  Talk 08:58, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Checked it out, and it has been properly nuked. ; - ) -- Essjay ·  Talk 10:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

How's the ear bashing going?
Sjakkalle, Well, I did say this was coming, didn't I? ^_^ I never thought it would go quite as far as it did, I must say! Just wanted to drop another note of support in, seems like things are starting to settle out a little bit. I think you've handled everything very well. brenneman (t) (c) 12:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your support. It's tough, but I'm hanging in there. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for putting the link back in 48 Hours, I didn't have time to check it out properly before it got zapped, then I couldn't find it... Looks like a "novel interpretation" of the links between the movies, interesting but not official. Kappa 09:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. The original version was a clear speedy candidate (nothing else than an external link) but after you made a proper article, I saw no reason to not put the link back in. (History only undeletions can be made without any debate.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Fortitech
You deleted it and it just got recreated. I put a speedy tag on it. But I am sure they will try to remove it. Just wanted to let you know. -- Etacar11   14:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC).
 * And they just did it again... Can it be protected from recreation? -- Etacar11   15:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And now it's there for a third time. This is tiring... ;) --  Etacar11   18:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete tags
Hi Erwin! Thanks for spotting that Maximum delay was something which ought to be deleted. It's gone now. Remember to use the -tag, or  -tag for suggesting speedy deletions, because the  -tag is used for category deletions. ( Also -tags are used for "regular" deletions,  for image deletions and  for redirect deletions. A lot to keep track of there, isn't it? :-)) Cheers, Sjakkalle  (Check!)  13:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm surprised there hasn't been some kind of innovation in the field of detecting spam/vandalism.  Of course, I'm happy doing my bit.  If there's ever anything I can help with, just let me know. Erwin Walsh

Vfd Nimrod Kamer
I have nominated the article Nimrod Kamer for deletion. The vote is found here []. Woohookitty closed the VFD vote on the grounds of "The result of the debate was no consensus." However, I disagreed (on his talk page). All votes for "keep" (except Babajobu's) were either by sockpuppets, anonymous people, or users who's first edit was this vote. The majority of real wikipedians voted for deletion. Woohookitty responded on my user page, saying "If you think I was in error, then you can put it up for vfd again. Sorry for the delay, but as I said on my user page, I'm on a semi Wikibreak right now. Apologies." I don't think it's fair to open a second vote, for the reasons I stated above. Do you think you can delete the article? DMTsurel 08:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is my personal opinion and other administrators may give you different advice, but I would recommend against just deleting it. I have been involved in two cases of administrators trying to overturn my VFD debates, and both have resulted in controversy and ill will.
 * Votes for deletion/Stockport cricket club was the lesser of the two, but made a few users angry at User:Duncharris.
 * Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews was a controversial VFD from the get-go, and my closing of that one as a "no consensus" was extremely controversial as well. Then a participant of the debate, User:Neutrality decided that my decision was all wrong and set about to delete it himself, then half of the "delete"-voters on the original debate turned up on VFU to vote "keep deleted", much to the chagrin of me and a number of other administrators who had not taken part in the debate. This one may lead to greater controversy later.
 * In short, my experiences with overriding VFD debates, especially by ones which have participated in the same debates, are very poor. Filing a second VFD will be far less controversial, so even if that may be more difficult, and more time-consuming, I think it is worth it. Finally, the acceptance of votes by anonymous voters is at the closing admins discretion, contrary to popular perception, there is no automatic "discount all anonymous votes and votes from new users" rule. The guideline is written at the top of the VFD page "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith." , Note the word "may". With that said, I would have closed that debate as a "delete" had I closed it, simply because the sheer number of anonymous votes makes me believe that sockpuppetry was taking place. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Luke darwin reyes
Yes, I've had that happen to me a lot. While I'm busy nominating an article for VfD, someone else goes and speedy deletes it, and when I've nominated the article, I've effectively resurrected it. It annoys me to no end. There should be some kind of system preventing such things from happening. &mdash; J I P | Talk 11:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, before I became an admin it happened to me all the time when I was on New Page Patrol slapping -tags on test pages. I ended up recreating them. But don't worry too much, it is better to delete things twice, than to have those articles slip through the scrutiny of the NPP. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  11:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:CP vs. WP:VFD
As requested, your VFD nomination has been nuked along with the speedy deleted article. In fact, you might want to read the excellent advice Uncle G posted at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage for new page patrollers. Even if the article (How to stop masturbation) had not been a speedy deletion, it was a copyvio as a quick google check affirmed. The copyvio track to deletion at WP:CP is much simpler and easier to use than the VFD track. Thanks for your help in defending the integrity of Wikipedia! Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Sjakkalle &mdash; actually I had checked for copyvio (I always do if a newbie posts a complete article in one edit). While there were several sections that were copyvio (all that stuff about bulls) and quotes that were also elsewhere, it didn't look to me like the entire article was copyvio; rather it seemed pieced together from several sources and with a fair amount of POV ranting in the middle. I could have removed the copyvio sections, but I figured if it's going to VfD there wouldn't be much point.
 * I was actually confused about how it got speedied. I couldn't see anything in WP:CSD that the article would fit under. I therefore went by the safer route and VfD'd. I guess Rama thought otherwise, though I don't know that "ridicoulous rant, not a chance of survival in VfD" is a criteria.
 * Anyway, no matter. Obviously the article should have been deleted, and the end result is the same. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  14:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * When I checked for copyvio I found the text at several different pages at the same website. If there is any copyvio, even a copyvio with comments attached to it, it's quite safe to tag it as a copyvio. Otherwise, I agree with you that it might not have been a speedy deletion, but if anyone tries bringing that to VFU arguing that it wasn't a speedy candidate, I will be voting "keep deleted" without hesitation. Thanks again for your efforts! Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks
Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

VFD
I have no problem with that, I'll just add in a keep-vote. It's not that I mind people disagreeing with me, I just don't like it when a people criticise me if they also do similar things themselves (by which I emphatically do not mean you). Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Digg
Eep. I just noticed Votes for deletion/Digg is an old debate. I've put the VFU back. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Category problem
Hei, I was wondering if you could help me with something. I can't seem to get Category:Inclusionist to work. It only shows the template in the list, and not me. Cheers! Havok (T/C) 18:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Takk for all hjelp. ;) Havok  (T/C) 07:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thanks for reverting it off of my user page. Any info on this particular vandal and what his problem actually is? I can't glean why I'm a target from his contributions. --TJive 08:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Search me, the vandal was working on an AOL IP which is shared by thousands of users. You must have done something truly terrible to upset him, the usual possibilities are:
 * You reverted some vandalism s/he made. If somebody vandalizes, leave the vandalism alone so that everyone can see how smart and clever the vandal is, by being able to vandalize a free content encyclopedia which anyone can edit.
 * You voted "delete" on one of the creations. Always vote "keep" on everything, even vanity and hoaxes, because voting "delete" always upsets people, and that is much worse than having the integrity of Wikipedia compromised.
 * You told off the vandal by sending him one of the test-templates. Never tell off a vandal. They know very well that they are vandalizing, so they don't need to be told that. Leave them alone.
 * Keep up the good work. :-) Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, am I alone in no longer seeing the little orange stripe at the top of the screen when receiving messages? That makes twice in the past 24 hours I have gotten them but no bar.  That's odd.  --TJive 08:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I always get the orange bar. It might be a delay or something. At any rate, it's a good idea to add your main userpage (and thereby your main main talkpage) to your watchlist. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, and I do; that is really the only reason I got the messages in this case (at least when I did). To make things even stranger, this time (right after mentioning the fact) I indeed received an orange bar once again.  Oh well.  --TJive 09:02, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

my poor call
Sorry about mistagging Alberto Martin as a speedy - I've been going through dead-ends and you lose patience with the rubbish that eveyone's missed sometimes. BUT, I watch my speedy tags so I can learn from mistakes. --Doc (?) 11:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Digg
No, it probably shouldn't go to VFD. If I understand correctly, it wasn't undeleted per VFU consensus - a new (and better) article was created. So VFD isn't procedurally necessary. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:30, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Willy
I used Firefox too. :) What I do is:


 * 1) Load up Willy's contributions page.
 * 2) Middle-click each instance of a "Willy" or "on wheels" page, loading them in new tabs.
 * 3) Going through each tab clicking "Move".
 * 4) Going back through each tab and finishing the move process (I uncheck "move talk page" since I move those separately)
 * 5) Going back through each tab and clicking the "on wheels" link.
 * 6) Going back through each tab and clicking the "redirected from" link.
 * 7) Going back through each tab and deleting it.

I don't wait for any action to finish. I'll click delete, then go on to the next tab, and do what's left to do there (some tabs may lag behind others). So I've constantly got an assembly line of activity going in Firefox, with half of them moving articles, some deleting, some loading, etc. :) --Golbez 13:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

History only
Well, history-only-undelete is a sort of recent innovation. When it was invented, it seemed to be only so that Anthony, in particular, could fork the article over to his McFly. It didn't take any debate because there were a couple of people who wanted to encourage Anthony (either as a sop or because they believed in what he was doing, I don't know). What it wasn't, however, was putting a history into an article that had been deleted as a way of sticking around. At least I didn't know that such a thing was being done, much less that it was commonplace. However, I haven't kept up. It seems to me, though, that if a history has resulted only in something that should have been speedy deleted, there is no recreation of it. After all, the speedy delete criteria are a collective declaration that "what fits these is stuff we feel should not be on the site, and we feel it so strongly that we don't even want to debate it." So, create a new article at the same space, but with valid content? Sure. Then paste in the history? No. That is, in effect, recreating the speedy delete, and it makes it fun and easy for a malicious person to revert to the speedy delete status. In the case of a substubber, that's not likely. In the case of a hate page, it's more likely. That's why I don't think that pasting a deleted history of a CSD article into a recreation is good, nor that it should be done without discussion. Geogre 17:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Holy smokes! Wholly enflamed!
BTW, the article on the fictional ship should be with its fictional fleet, I still think.

As for the issue of Persecution.... Well, I can see both sides. My count was D: 68, K:37, Merge/redirect:6. That's sure close enough to 70% delete to go that way. It's also far enough away from 70% to say that it's a no-consensus. It's just that articles like that, and votes like that, ought, in my humble opinion, never result in "remove the tag and keep." They're divisive enough that, it seems to me, the vote alone should be taken as justification for a Requests for Comment/arbitration on the article's contents. When an article has that deep a split, I think we should have two writers who had voted "Strong X" (strong keep or strong delete) appointed/volunteered to work on drafting language that will be as NPOV and verifiable as possible. An actual RFC should/could be opened on the "Persecution by X" series. Once we let one in, we have to let the others in, and it seems that a lot of the delete votes were delete on the whole series. The series itself needs a good, hard look by the community. However, once we have it, this particular one needs such TLC that we ought to arbitrate over it, IMO. Geogre 18:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for taking care of the deletion of El effecto, my first nomination for deletion. Rkevins82 03:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Clarification
Thanks for the clarification on the test templates- from what I had (briefly) read, for the most part I had thought that the assigning of templates is for the most part based on merit, and I admit, I probably jumped the gun a bit on that one. Thanks! Chris Saribay 07:38, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Re Lawson Mountain
I removed the text from Lawson Mountain, which was linked from Blue Mountains. I accidentally put it there instead of Lawson, New South Wales. The link from Blue Mountains was wrong but I corrected it. I don't know anything about Lawson Mountain. Thanks for your discussion about this. User:JonathanBest

Eric
Hi, I discover today the delation of my "page" on James D.Allen. My former user was 82.67.43.50. Sorry for that. I understand. I am a new member. I wish I won't have any trouble in the future! I am currently trying to improve other articles. I gave more explanations about the Shannon number and I tried to improve the page on Frank Poole, etc. You can tell me what you think of my little work! Thanks! --Eric Guez 23:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Historical persecution
Hm, I was unaware that it had been undeleted. That's pretty messy (and strictly speaking, Rossami shouldn't have closed the VFU debate that way, since what he does runs counter to VFU process and he was not a neutral party). Anyway.

I've noticed a long time ago that many VFD outcomes depend on who exactly closes them. I've heard at least two accusations that certain admins deliberately do VFD closing to further their agenda. It's not currently relevant whether or not those accusations are grounded - my point is that the current "best judgment" rule for VFD closing makes such accusations easy.

What would also help is better guidelines on what percentages are expected, and what votes stand for what outcomes. I've heard some outrageous examples lately of people counting 'merge' as 'delete', or 'bjaodn' as 'keep'. Apart from that, it may be useful to establish whether 'redirect' means 'keep' or 'delete'. Finally, it may be desirable to establish if VFD is even supposed to be binary; some people assert that 'merge' and such are not valid outcomes, but they do happen frequently - and that matter would influence voting behavior. I'd say some straw polling may be in order, but let's discuss it first.

What we need most is a guideline for how and where to contest a VFD closure - does it go on AN/I, on VFU, or on VFD again? While I agree that the original closer should be informed, it seems relatively pointless to actually discuss it with him because it's a binary issue. I'm rather hesitant about simply getting a third-party opinion, as it's relatively easy to find a biased third party if you must. It seems to me that VFU is the most appropriate forum to discuss if a VFD closing was appropriate (even if the article wasn't actually deleted - we have a lot of misnamed processes these days).

Let's see...
 * A VFD closing may be overridden. That's pretty much a given - anybody can make mistakes, and simply being first to the punch doesn't automatically make one right.
 * If there's disagreement on such an issue and either party has voted in the VFD in question, then that party should withdraw to avoid conflict of interest (of course, he's free to explain himself, e.g. by pointing out socks).
 * If there is no conflict of interest, then I propose that the issue be taken to VFU. Rather than revert warring over the VFD page, it should simply be edited to state "this outcome is disputed, please see VFU".

852 years? Wow. I'm only up to 676. You win! I find it funny that both were founded before America was even discovered; I've heard some people from America bragging that their school was almost 100 years old :)

Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, Neutrality was also not an uninvolved party so should not have undeleted like that. Now I agree with your opinion that merge=keep etc, but there are some people that don't (and close VFDs anyway). I could think of some reasons to dispute the quantum sort closing, too, but that's hardly relevant.
 * The point, however. Suppose that User:Deletionist closes a VFD debate to delete. User:Inclusionist disagrees. Now the first two questions that come to mind is, are either or both of them admins (or at least, established users)? And did either or both of them vote in the VFD? I think it's reasonable to establish that if either is an involved party, then the other "wins" to avoid conflict of interest. If neither is involved, User:Inclusionist can 1) take it to VFU as an improper delete, 2) open up a new VFD, or 3) recreate the article. Which is best?
 * Now suppose the issue is reversed. User:Inclusionist closes a VFD debate to keep, User:Deletionist disagrees, and neither is involved. Again, should the latter 1) take it to VFU as a disputed VFD, 2) open up a new VFD, 3) simply delete the article, or 4) delete the article and then take it to VFU?
 * Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not in favor of overriding VFD results. However, the possibility must exist because closing admins can make mistakes. Currently, there is no real consensus on how to do it (it generally starts on VFU but some people ignore VFU and take it to VFD). The problem with throwing in a new discussion is (at least theoretically) that people can dispute that one and reiterate. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Posted on behalf of anon User:66.82.9.79
Hi i am new to wikipeda. wikipdia look like it have a lot of Vandalism. and your user page have a lot of Vandalism  for the look of your history. Vandal so how can i help you stop Vandals

fix wikipdia it is a good webpage

page was blanked to post this message, I'm just cleaning it up FreplySpang (talk) 05:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome
We have to look out for each other. :) Zoe 06:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing my user page; I hadn't even noticed that Willy had moved it. Everyking 07:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandal
Who's your friend? Zoe 08:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * If only I knew. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

stop baning me and i stop vandaling your page ok 66.82.9.32 20:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a threat. I bet he's shaking in his boots.  You sure are one tough cookie. I bet he's just terrified of big bad old you. Nandesuka 21:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Erwin Walsh
Are you sure you blocked the right one? See the admin noticeboard. If so, how'd you manage to block the unicode impostor? Lupo 11:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope, it's the same account; see the block log. The blocked account is the same as the "real" account. However, s/he should be blocked for 24 hours for vandalism; Fernando Rizo had just blocked for it. -- Essjay ·  Talk 11:33, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused. You blocked both of them? -- Essjay ·  Talk 11:44, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. He's still happily editing:
 * 11:46 User talk:Erwin Walsh (diff; hist) . . Erwin Walsh (Talk | block) (Delete)
 * Lupo 11:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Blocked users can edit their talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I get it; you're going to let Fernando's block clear both. Makes sense. (I think mine had already cleared when Fernando placed his.) Anyhow, I'll leave it in you're capable hands. -- Essjay ·  Talk 11:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll keep watch. ; - ) -- Essjay ·  Talk 12:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Username
Hi Sjakkalle, thank you for your comments and assistance! I was not aware of being blocked, and, on re-reading the pages on usernames, agree with you that such a block seems inappropriate. I presume that this has been brought to the attention of Wile E. Heresiarch, but do not think that pressing the issue with him is necessary, he seems, otherwise, to be responsible and productive. Thanks also for your comments re my username, I havn't actually noticed any hostility aside from Wile's brief outburst of vitriole, but I will try to be aware of that. Thanks again, Trollderella 15:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My talkpage, thanks
Hi Kooo! Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem! I was testing the irc-channel #en.wikipedia.vandalism (irc.freenode.net) :-) Seems to work. —kooo 20:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

VT/VB
Okay, I'll keep that in mind. Regarding the VFD/talk, pleas visit VFU/talk? I'm formally proposing what we've discussed earlier, about "disputed closings" and would like your opinion. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Redirect
This may require a straw poll... of course, redirecting never requires hitting the 'delete' button, so from a technical point of view redirect != deletion. But from a logical point of view, the content is gone. The issue is mainly this... suppose we have 6 deletes, 2 keeps, and 2 redirs. Should that be 1) a default keep because there's no consensus, or 2) a redirect because 80% of voters do not want the article? Whether the history is actually deleted is not quite relevant. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * The content is not gone. The fact that the history is there makes all the difference.  Information can be merged from a redirected article, but not from a delete-plus-redirect.  A redirected article can be reverted and cleaned up by any editor, a deleted article cannot. Mediawiki soft redirects enable the Wiki principle by putting control of the encyclopedia'scontent into the hands of the editors, not a bureaucracy of high priests. --Tony Sidaway Talk  11:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Geogre, Radiant, Zoe, et all
Hi, I'd like to ask you to negotiate some kind of cessation of hostilities by these chaps. They seem to be convinced that my activities in closing VfDs are damaging, and the presence of even a small rump of determined and noisy opposition, convinced as I am that what underlies this thing is their evident disagreement with current deletion policy, is causing a degree of collateral damage that I could not have foreseen. In short, the slightest move I make, even relisting VfDs for more discussion, is instantly seized upon as if it were evidence of some personality defect. Although I'm convinced that a second RfC would fail just as the first did, a second RfC against a closing sysop would probably not be a good matter for Wikipedia. As my primary focus is editing I'm going to return to that. --Tony Sidaway Talk 11:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See also User talk:Theresa knott, who attempted mediation until Tony walked away from it; and User talk:Susvolans, who offered mediation which Tony rejected outright. Can of worms? Probably. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear... I am not a mediator, and I don't really think my skills at mediating are any good. Another problem is that as an endorser of your response at the RFC, as well as a defender of some of your actions, and a person who believes that your actions have been in good faith, I cannot really be sure if I will be able to be neutral or not, and that is an important thing to look for with a mediator.

For example, I think that none of your history-only undeletions are out of line, because the undeletion policy says that ""History only" undeletions can always be performed without needing to list the articles on the votes for undeletion page, and don't need to be kept for a full ten days." I think the best bet of what you can do to avoid further controversy is to avoid closing the contentious VFD debates for now, and concentrate on the easy ones which are clearly "delete" or clearly "keep". There is plenty of work to do there. Also, it will be a benefit to avoid using angry words, even when you feel that people are being unfair to you. Of course, such a thing goes both ways, and I dislike the calls from Geogre that you should be de-adminned, but the only words you have control over are your own.

If you really want a mediator, I would suggest that you go to User:MacGyverMagic who is uninvolved as far as I can see.

I see that Theresa Knott attempted mediation, but since Tony's actions are the disputed ones, I think he should be allowed to select the mediator. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I do think you're right that the best thing to do is to close the "easy ones". This is a doddle, but is something I've shied away from, conscious always of the growing pile of listings that few others would touch.

On mediation, on reflection I just don't think it would stand a chance. I think this is a policy issue that has somehow become personalized and I think the only thing to do is to continue to ignore the personal attacks in the hope that they'll be seen as attempts by a few people to effect policy change by throwing their weight around. I'm strongly heartened by the fact that so many people endorsed my original response to the RfC and so many more experienced sysops have shown strong support for my interpretation of policy. It seems to me that still have a consensus on VfD closing and in the circumstances I can continue to do so with confidence. Moving to close only those discussions that have a strong keep or delete result will have the desired cooling effect. while permitting me to participate in the Sisyphian labors to which I have already devoted much effort.--Tony Sidaway Talk 09:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Mediation wouldn't stand a chance because Tony never listens to what other people are saying. The issues are his condescending holier-than-thou attitude, refusal to consider points of view other than his own, and gratuitous personal attacks. Also, he keeps being misleading about his RFC, which he falsely construes as a strong endorsement of his actions. It in fact contains substantial criticism that he chooses to ignore. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ironic how that short edit precisely proves my points. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, lay it off now. The next one who continues this thread on my talkpage will see it deleted on sight. Frankly, there are a whole load of other things I would rather be spending my time on. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer's RFA
Thanks for your support on my RFA. Jtkiefer T - 05:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Relisting
I don't object to relisting a VFD in principle, if it has no votes other than the nominator, or if it has few votes and no consensus (depending on the arguments used really, from your comments so far I'd say you're quite good at interpreting those). What I object to is Tony's recent WP:POINT of relisting VFDs with three or four votes when all of them are clearly to delete. If few votes do show a consensus, no point in relisting. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:43, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * You know, this Wiki would be a lot more pleasant if people like you responded to the issue, rather than attacking the person raising the issue. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, my comment about deleting all comments which continue the argument on my talkpage apply on this thread too. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Valladaras
Hi Fvw. Let me clear up some points Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A "consensus" to delete implies a general agreement, and to me, a single voice cannot really constitute that, so when I close VFD debates without any votes apart from the nomination, I send them back to VFD for further discussion. It is not a way of saying that your reason for wanting the article deleted is wrong.
 * Yup, I totally agree with that, sorry if that didn't come across. While it's true that not only did I have consensus but I was unanimous, more opinions are necessary, especially for something that isn't exactly clear-cut.
 * I decided to mention the subst:vfd vs vfd because I noticed that the link to the debate was red. That was a reminder targeted at everyone, and not just you.
 * Ok, I still don't agree but by all means remind those you've convinced.
 * There are about a thousand articles around with VFD tags on them, and it is a load on the server if all of them need to be transcluded.
 * Not that much really. VfDed articles get very little traffic on the grand scale of things, if you want to talk major load savings, try substing stuff like current and the main page templates. We could subst in lots of templates, and yes it would save CPU cycles, however in the long run the software is working for us and not the other way around. Transcluded templates are the right thing to do design-wise. If using this feature causes load problems (which it doesn't, the load problems were caused by people editing meta-templates that were included on huge numbers of pages like the meta-stub template) we need to either fix the servers/software or decide that for stuff like tags transclusion isn't technologically feasible (which would be bollocks, but at least we'd be consistant in our bollocks).
 * It wasn't my idea to start a revert war on the VFD template... I have never edited it.
 * Nope, I didn't mean to imply that, just venting a little, sorry you got in the way.
 * Pretty much everyone's, --fvw *  13:33, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

no votes

 * Do you think that my extension of VFDs with no votes apart from the nomination is OK? Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Y'know, thinking about it that's a reasonable course of action. With four delete votes (and no keep) many will pass it by thinking it's getting deleted and doesn't need their vote.  But a nomination with no votes doesn't have any votes and can't really be called anything.  I'd agree with that approach. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for relisting that Tompkinson Unit of Cultural Incongruity nonsense. I don't know whether I screwed up when I listed it for VfD the first time round, but it certainly seems to be attracting votes, rather than just vague "a man in a pub said his mate had heard of it" stuff now. Tonywalton [[Image:Pentacle_1.svg|15px]] | Talk 18:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

grok-ing Sjakkalle
I just read through your entire talk page for the first time. I have more respect for you for my having done so. I like the even way you respond to all situations. Keep up the good work and DLTBGYD. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Aroura redirected to Aurora

 * Can you explain why it would make sense to redirect Aroura (a Greek word for field)
 * to Aurora (a visible disturbance in a magnetic field) ? Rktect 18:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * That debate was quite tricky to close. There was certainly a consensus that the article should not be kept as it was, but there was not a consensus to delete either. I decided to call the result a redirect, but I was unsure of whether it should be to Aurora (as a misspelling) or some of the other articles suggested. If you think that it is better for Aroura to redirect to a different article, feel free to change the target. (You might also consider to make a disambguation if there are several plausible target articles.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Gjøvik rail service
Liked your addition on the Gjøvikbanen. Is there other rail service to Gjøvik? Williamborg 18:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no other rail service to Gjøvik than Gjøvikbanen. Thanks for the kind words! Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar
Sjakkalle, I hereby award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Award for your dedicated efforts in cleaning up vandalism by User:BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB (Willy). Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Let me know of any other admins who have cleaned up against Willy; they all deserve barnstars as well!


 * Thanks for the barnstar! I'll put it on my userpage. Golbez is one user I know who deserves this barnstar as well, he is faster at reverting the vandalism than I am. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, Sjakkalle, thanks for responding so quickly to the vandalism of my talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. We need to look out for one another! Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)