User talk:Bdj

Comment here and I reply here. If I comment at your talk page, reply there. I don't play chasing games. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a question about something I've done, read this first. If you don't understand it, then ask. If I remove your comment without warning, you're part of the problem, and need to shape up. That's all there is to it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Archives

• /Archive01: All of 2005.
• /Archive02: January 2006 -> April 2006.
• /Archive03: May 2006 -> June 2006.
• /Archive04: July 2006 -> August 2006.
• /Archive05: September 2006
• /Archive06: October 2006 -> November 2006
• /Archive07: December 2006 -> January 2007
• /Archive08: February 2007 -> March 2007
• /Archive09: April 2007
• Archive10: May 2007

Arbitration case

I want to publicly express my strong support for you in the totally unjustified case that's been brought against you. You are absolutely right to fight the circumvention of process by those admins who seem to think that "BLP" means "when in doubt, delete". Although I haven't always agreed with your stance, I'd like to also repeat the statement I've made at the RfArb talk page:

I firmly support Jeff's stand in this case. BLP is not an excuse to ignore process and other users' opinions, nor is it a call for a crusade to censor Wikipedia. The only reason for having BLP at all is to avoid the spread of false and libellous information; it isn't to protect people from the spread of the truth. If the truth hurts someone, then so be it. Any article in which all controversial information is sourced and verifiable, and multiple independent sources are cited, should not be deleted. Nor should process and consensus be circumvented by the few admins who seem to regard themselves as a kind of BLP police. Unfortunately, a number of the admins involved in this case seem to believe that "consensus" consists of arguments which they agree with, and trot out the "voting is evil" line as an excuse to ignore other people's opinions.

If the ArbCom makes a judgment against you, I may well consider resigning from Wikipedia in protest. I don't like the way the encyclopedia is going. Walton^Assistance! 18:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for the support. It's early to say what will come about, but the evidence page has been predictably telling. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, looking at the evidence page, several admins seem to share our broad stance on this issue. At the very least, it looks as if some of the BLP Police will be reprimanded for incivil edit summaries (I doubt ArbCom will let a certain admin get away with "F**k process. This will die.") and unilateral deletions. Walton^Assistance! 19:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Re [1] I was curious just how long it'd take you to fix that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I swear, I think my typing is getting worse as time progresses. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You think maybe we should start a new team to track down people with these dubious BLPs written about them and ask them what they think of their articles? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? I don't care that much. If they get deleted through AfD, they get deleted through AfD. I'm just sick of one person thinking they know better than the rest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious how the "This must die" crowd would react to a person who says "yeah I like that article" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably that they can't be expected/trusted to protect themselves from themselves. After all, they go after self-promoting entities as hard as any other. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, please reply to my e-mail

You promised to get to it by Wednesday night. You clearly have no shortage of time, given your posting here. The way, the truth, and the light 20:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not where my e-mail is right now. If I don't get back to you tonight, I authorize you to release the hounds. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh snap

Oh wikidrama (see my talk and WP:ANI) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw, tough break. Are you going to add it onto my case (it is related) or start a new one? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's not worth it, just an amusing misunderstanding. It felt like FCYTravis was out to get me though. (since he said "email her!" and then "OH NO YOU'RE GONNA EMAIL DESYSOP") Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I just opened an RfC on my conduct and actions during the dispute surrounding the Gary Weiss article. You participated in the AfD for that article. The RfC is here and I welcome any comments or questions you might have. CLA 23:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

man

I'd give you a barnstar but I'm too lazy to dig up an appropriate picture, so accept this star as a token of my appreciation for your respect for Wikipedia's principles and your own:

[ * ]

Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Best barnstar ever. Keep on keepin' on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Spyware Terminator

HELP WANTED : hi jeff, the article is under debate for AFD - 2nd nomination. there is consideration for G4 & G11 deletion posted in the debate. it is still said it is not notable. would be grateful if u could have a look at it , explain others point of view about the article and consider pariticipating the AFD 2nd nomination debate. thanks a lot

DYK

On 3 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Adventures of Lucky Pierre, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Sean William @ 03:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tori Anthony

Do you see any problems with this article? Centrx said the sourcing was bad, but I'm not sure how much better it could get. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Dunno how anyone could say the sourcing's bad - that last part about UCLA could probably use something, but that's about it. Other than that, it's simply too bad it's so short. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just left off an inline reference because pretty much all of the articles report it, so one would be redundant. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Entirely sensible. Did Centrx explain what was bad? -badlydrawnjeff talk 21:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Wyatt

I've protected Charlotte Wyatt (expiry time of six hours) to allow for discussion on the talk page. Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I know, wrong version and all, but protecting the redirect isn't really going to do much for discussion on the article itself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

I am not going to explain 3RR to you, I am sure you understand this rule already. Please follow it, I don't think a block is needed at this point, but please do not violate this rule(it applies to us all). ^(H) 15:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not dumb. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Stokke

DRV has endorsed the removal of the meme information per WP:BLP. I know you don't agree - but there it is. Don't reinsert it, or you will be blocked.--Doc^g 20:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV has done nothing of the sort. There's nothing to block me for, as my edits are well within the BLP guidelines. Do not make false threats, do not make false statements. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you really need to play it cool here. Don't use the article as yet another forum for argument about whether the 15-minutes-of-fame stuff should be in there. Friday (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I need to play it cool when I'm threatened with blocks for following policy. You want to be helpful? Reign in the guy who's being quick with the trigger and rollback buttons. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg

As so ordered by DRV, Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg is again nominated for deletion. Please see the debate at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 23	4 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, banned	Admin restored after desysopping; dispute centers on suitability of certain biographies
Controversial RFA suspended, results pending	Dutch government provides freely licensed photos
WikiWorld comic: "John Hodgman"	News and notes: Another Wikipedian dies, brand survey, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you've gone a little over the top here

Hi, I know we have our differences, but I hope we can discuss them with respect. One or two of your most recent comments in discussion cause me particular concern, because they don't sound like you at all. I think if you think about them a bit you'll agree that they don't show you in your best light.

The particular statements I'm concerned about are as follows:

• "And let's start blocking people for multiple reverts when they lie about BLP issues. And blocking them for civility/NPA when they make blatantly false statements about other editors." 13:49, 5 June 2007 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop
• "When your counterargument is dishonest, we call it what it is. I've been lied about enough already." 13:48, 5 June 2007 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop

In those comments, you overstep the line, calling those who disagree with you "dishonest" and saying that they "lie" about you and other matters, and that they make "blatantly false statements". This kind of behavior isn't right for Wikipedia, is it? --Tony Sidaway 14:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, lying about people and situations to gain a upper hand or demean others certainly isn't right for Wikipedia. I find it incredibly telling that you come to me with concern, rather than the folks who are actively making the false statements. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't be the only one who saw this

• "Does somebody have a bucket handy?" 5 June 2007 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (second nomination)
• "ever met someone who converses in English, but the way?" 5 June 2007 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (second nomination)

Seriously. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If I've interacted uncivilly, mea culpa, I'm human. However to point to my incivility is not very productive, when we're discussing unrelated cases of pretty personal attacks by Jeff on other editors than myself. Feel free to address those issues on my talk page in order to leave this discussion uncluttered. --Tony Sidaway 14:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, go pester the people who are lying to gain advantage and leave me alone. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

All editors should interact in as civil a fashion as possible. Newyorkbrad 14:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's OK to disagree strongly, and it's even OK to use strong words. But from a purely utilitarian perspective, Jeff, surely you can see how it damages your case to go around calling people liars instead of recognizing that there's an actual difference of opinion. People can interpret things differently without one of them having to be dishonest, and, no offense, but you come off sounding like a crank sometimes with your rabid, everyone-but-me-is-wrong style of communication. You come off sounding like someone who's here for the fun of arguing, rather than someone trying to present their position in a persuasive way. Friday (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't especially care. I've made my persuasive argument, people lie in response, and the lie gains traction, so you must respond by demonstrating where the lie is. That's what I have done. Now, if you want to be productive, fix the lie and don't go after the person trying to do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that's all well and good, but can't you see that you can demonstrate that an assertion is untrue without assuming that the person who holds that position is doing so dishonestly? It's unnecessary and, as a personal attack, it detracts from your point by turning the focus on your conduct. --Tony Sidaway 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I already have. Numerous times. Tony, go bother them. Doc just accused me of trolling, what are you doing here? My conduct isn't the issue, so stop trying to make it one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, can you cede Tony's point, whether or not you agree with his method? By your approach, you give people (especially those neutral or predisposed against you) a reason to oppose you. Whether or not it's bad behavior, it's bad tactics.

And Tony, perhaps the time has come to see that your particular interaction with Jeff may be unproductive, based on past history and whatnot? It's not that what you're saying isn't correct; I just suspect that your saying it to Jeff isn't helping.

Although I default to inclusion, I have no particular opinion on the underlying issues in this matter. I'm just hoping I can interject a perspective that might help you both. If it doesn't, that's ok, too. --Ssbohio 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to bow out on this occasion, though I have to say I'm unaware of any past history until the latest kerfuffle. It should be pretty obvious now that those whom Jeff has tangled with lately share one thing in common, and it isn't anything to do with Jeff. --Tony Sidaway 15:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Further evidence that you don't get it. Bow out, immediately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ssbohio, Tony has no point other than to try and crank me up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot to be said for being calm here. Let me propose two hypotheses:

1. TonySidaway is well meaning, just has his mouth run away with him occasionally.
2. TonySidaway is evil incarnate, and is specifically trying to discredit you.

Don't you see that under either hypothesis reacting as calmly as possible is the best action? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point that others haven't articulated as well. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce

Hello, I've just discovered your GA review. I was wondering what you'd like more citing for? There's very little information on this topic, due to the fact it was one of over 100 episodes produced that year for Sesame Street, and it never aired. As such, there's not many public records to cite. -- Zanimum 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just cited some of the stuff at the top of the article, about their death, adoption, marriage, and birth plotlines, but of course that's not terribly related to the article itself. -- Zanimum 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Benchley

Nice job with Benchley. Sorry I couldn't pitch in. Real life and such.--Silverscreen 03:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, please expand where you can. I got on a roll, hehe... --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Stokke DRV

Hi Jeff,

I'm not sure where on the talk page you wished me to comment, so I'll do so here. I closed the DRV with the intention to validate the BLP concerns as they existed at the time. My conclusion wasn't just about sources; but also, about the spirit of moral rectitude BLP is intended to require in cases where someone's fame is neither of their own making, nor desired by him/her. (This is the all-important distinction between Stokke and QZ -- I still maintain that QZ deserved an AfD on the question of whether BLP concerns were quasi-estopped by QZ's alleged attempt to profit from his fame.)

Having said all that, consensus can change, and no DRV can serve to bar discussion of an issue forever. I think it would require really powerful evidence for the AfD's closer to take account of meme-notability (in light of the DRV), but it is not impossible, especially if circumstances have changed through the production of a large number of new sources. I leave that issue in the hands of the AfD closer, and will very likely support whatever conclusion s/he comes to. Incidentally, since I have !voted "delete" in opening the nomination, I am disqualifed from closing the AfD. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant for you to comment at the talk page - essentially, did your DRV close invalidate any mention of the internet notoriety? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My first reply answers that question about as well as I am able to. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The best you're able to is "yes" or "no" in this case. Your reply really doesn't answer it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, but..." or "No, but..." are equally valid short-hands for my answer to your question, given in fuller form above. ;) Sorry, but sometimes there is no simple answer. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

blank and protect

Hi Jeff, Have you seen this type of blank and protect strategy before? See Carla Baron. This seems like overkill to me and but it is a wiki policy area that I think you have a lot of experience in. For reference Psychic profiler (talk · contribs) is Carla Baron and she was complaining that the article had links to a web site that was critical of her role in the non-fictional TV show she hosts as a 'psychic profiler'. David D. (Talk) 19:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Only with {{deletedpage}}, but this was an m:OTRS issue, which is usually a bit more problematic. I'd say that if you're interested in seeing the article created in this case, do the userspace thing. The OTRS stuff is problematic, and is almost always justified, so I'd suggest getting what detail you can from the deleting admin and seeing if it's fixable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds more trouble than it is worth. I'm not even sure how i got involved now. The criticism itself is the usual from skeptics, in this case James Randi, hardly libelous. It just seems like a bad precedent especially with politicians etc. trying to cleanse criticism from their respective pages. Would m:OTRS do the same for them if they just whine enough? I would hope not. David D. (Talk) 19:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right - it usually is. I don't know what the rate of action/ignore is with OTRS, but I've only run into one that I've noticed and said "well..." --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

If my memory serves me, you are/were a part of the ATT working group. Is anything happening with it? I'm getting kind of tired looking at the big question mark on the policy page. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If anything did, they didn't fill me in on it. I've obviously been a little distracted, so I haven't followed up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I found the project page and saw that nothing has really happened for over a month... do you think it would be inappropriate to re-establish ATT as a policy rather than a proposed policy? Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I do, because I think the poll raised a bunch of questions that were never answered. I'm honestly not married to either side of the dispute at this point, but I'm not sure people are accepting of the change as of yet - I hardly see ATT referenced anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I should stop referencing it. I'm just getting sick of pointing new editors to ATT, only to be told "that's not even a policy..." IMO, if nothing is going to happen with it, we should at least change it to say so. But then again, I guess I'm not in the group. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke

Am I doing something wrong here? Why am I being targetted? Any input you can provide would be appreciated. McKay 15:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The only suggestion I can give you is not using the blog as a reference. Other than that, you simply walked into a shitstorm, and, eventually, we can hope the people causing the problems will be dealt with accordingly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. Viridae^Talk 16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tanya Kach

I really don't like the current climate of "Admins can do anything as long as they claim BLP". Especially when interpretations of this vary. Here's a turn of events that will probably piss you off, I lack the time and energy to properly follow this up though to a satisfactory conclusion though:

• Tanya Kach is speedily deleted
• Tanya Kach DRV ends in overturn
• Tanya Kach is speedily deleted again
• WTF?

You can catch up with some musings here and here. - hahnchen 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, so this is the article this is about. Was it sourced? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. - hahnchen 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm adding to the ArbCom case in the meantime. Someone should really just reverse him in the meantime. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I fixed a few typos in your evidence. Meanwhile, another article was also nuked today in a bizarre way, but this might have been a simple mistake (redirect was blanked and the page was tagged for CSD A3). Prolog 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks. That's...uh...interesting. I wonder what prompted the salting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Input appreciated

I've jotted some thoughts down at User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP and I'd be interested in what you think about them. JoshuaZ 03:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave some comments later on today. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 02:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be looking for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My e-mail's apparently down at the moment. If it's semi-urgent, [email protected]. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeffree Star

Odd, I removed the protection a minute or two after the DRV, so I can't see why it's currently still treating it as protected. I'll look into it. --pgk 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems ok now, guess it must just be the job queue or something. --pgk 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks! And an edit conflicted thanks x2. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How to make and win an argument

I've been following your actions through the whole Stokke mess. When I saw you brought it to WP:DRV a second time, I was tempted to give you a lecture about disruptive behavior, but I think I'll try something more positive and give you a few hints on how to be a more effective debater.

Your debating strategy seems to be based on the idea that more is better. You respond to virtually every statement that somebody makes. I count 39 comments from you between the 2nd AfD page (13), its talk page (7), and the article's talk page (19). That does't count who knows how many comments on the first DRV, and random user talk pages. Now you've moved onto trying another DRV, and when that was nipped in the bud, arguing your case on WP:ANI.

All of your comments said pretty much the same thing. After a while, people get sick of it and stop paying attention. You will be much more effective at winning people over to your side if you say less, and make each thing you say be worth listening to. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, you could preach to the people who don't know policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of people would disagree with you on this point. Just because you say you're right doesn't mean that you are, and you should notice that you end up facing off against an awful lot of old-timer Wikipedians — you know, people who have been around longer than you here and really know what's going on. Wikipedia is not about policy for policy's sake or process for process's sake. It's not an experiment in governance. It's an encyclopedia. And a lot of people think you forget that all too often. --Cyde Weys 15:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If they disagree, then they're free to prove it to me. If people instead want to be dicks about it, I can't stop that, but it doesn't mean I need to stand for it. Preach to them, not to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to explain to you why you perpetually seem to be in conflict with the people who "run the place". --Cyde Weys 15:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in conflict with them because I dare challenge them. If they spent even five minutes doing things even remotely properly, there wouldn't be a problem. They'll get their comeuppance eventually. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The irony is smothering me. --Cyde Weys 16:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I've felt the same way since you've commented here the first time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

personally, just show this doesnt look to one-on-one, I think this particular article, where nothing but praise about the person is said, and where the person is legally an adult, and where there will almost inevitably be an article from the further career, was a very good one to make a stand on. -- a much strong case than the ones on embarrassed or nasty or criminal people, or involving children. The closing just now surprised me, but you might look at the top of the closer's talk page.

Clyde, my feeling about building an encyclopedia is that deletion of articles like this gives WR and the like the perfect opportunity to attack the encyclopedia in a harmful way. DGG 20:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. I thought Brandt and the WR crowd most often scolded us for keeping intrusive biographies. However, I don't really care what they think. Do you?--Doc^g 20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

William A. Brady

On 9 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William A. Brady, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

I just realized that this edit could have been taken the wrong way. I was commenting on the general idea of calling a spade a spade, whereas we often pussyfoot around too much. It was most definitely not directed toward you specifically. I apologize if my wording was not clear and you or anyone else gathered a meaning I did not intend. Raymond Arritt 00:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I just assumed it was par for the course at this time. Thanks for stepping up, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF?

I know there are philosophical differences and quite a lot of heat here, but what the hell kind is statement is that [2]?? That's stepping over a line you should not cross? And frankly, I'm surprised at you - you are normally quite civil even when you are brisk and bad tempered. You 'can't wait' for someone to get hurt? Please consider retracting that remark. I'll assume your temper just got the better of you, but I think an apology is in order. Don't you?--Doc^g 00:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, stop already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You think that's a reasonable remark?--Doc^g 01:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[3]...what's that about pots and kettles?

--JJay 01:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an awfully restrained remark, and i could have a few choice words for you, too, given how you again misstate my remarks in an attempt to besmirch me further. Do you have anything useful to say, or are you done pissing on me? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm not infallible. If there's a good faith way I should have interpreted "I can't wait for the day you piss off the wrong person, Tony" as a helpful remark, then tell me and I will apologise immediately. Seriously. I can see no reason for our sharp disagreements about wikipedia to descend into the gutter, and if it is my failure to assume your good faith, then I really am truly sorry.--Doc^g 01:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How's this - first take back the accusation that I've made any insinuation that I want harm to come of anyone, and then maybe we can talk. Maybe. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

KISS AND MAKE UP. (messedrocker • talk) 01:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Step up to the plate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm offering a full apology here, if I've failed to assume good faith.--Doc^g 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And why should I believe this for a second? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I retract my previous accusation. Sorry. I genuinely don't understand what you remark meant - perhaps you just typed something foolishly in the heat of it - I do that sometimes. I get things wrong. Did you? Or, if not, what did you mean?--Doc^g 01:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant it. I can't wait until he pisses off the wrong person. The fact that you automatically assumed violence of any type is incredibly telling of your pathetic attitude toward me as of late. Par for the course at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, Chairboy did nothing of the sort. He asked you what you were hoping would happen when he pisses off the wrong person. That was not assuming anything at all. Sean William @ 02:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to Chairboy. See if some of your IRC buddies can parse the conversation for you next time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Jeff, leave the computer and come back a few hours later when you've cooled down. Sean William @ 02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You should be very glad an edit conflict killed my previous statement. Otherwise, maybe you would have a reason to conspire again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well what happens when he pisses off the wrong person? And why would it give you joy? Isn't it easier simply to admit the remark was foolhardy - as my assumption you meant violence was. Why do you find it impossible ever to admit you are wrong?--Doc^g 02:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Like Jeff, I'm articulate enough to answer the question without being trapped. And if I had been beating her - I'd apologise. Would you?--Doc^g 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. In fact, I'm not sure I understand the question. All I was trying to point out is that "Why do you find it impossible ever to admit you are wrong?" is not a helpful thing to ask. You can choose words that raise the temperature, or you can choose words that will lower it. What do you choose? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, the remark wasn't foolhardy. It was serious, it was deliberate, and I'd say it again. When will you admit you've been an absolute world class asshole to me for the last month? When will you stop misrepresenting me? When will you stop making shit up? Answer those questions, maybe shell out a couple of apologies of your own, and then come preaching to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have said many fool hardly things. I ask you again, since you stand by this remark to explain it.--Doc^g 02:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you an answer when you get around to actually owning up to the bullshit you've been spewing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Badlydrawnjeff just meant by "pissing off the wrong person" a situation similar to the on that caused him to resign under a cloud of controversy. --MichaelLinnear 02:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You're getting there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he can explain it for himself. I'm still waiting.--Doc^g 02:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside view

I hope Jeff doesn't mind my posting here. If my observations are unhelpful, then please remove them.

I think I can understand where Jeff's coming from. Tony is a pretty disruptive guy. In my interactions with him, I've seen very little indication that he's open to adjusting his approach. I've suggested ways to him that he could generate less drama, and he's indicated that he thinks I'm asking him to coddle people's irrational fantasies and that "Wikipedia is not a mental hospital". Apparently, what I see as basic communication skills, he sees as "coddling".

I'd love it if Tony were to somehow learn that it's possible to be just as effective as he is - no, much more effective than he is - without pissing off so many people. If it takes "pissing off the wrong person" to wake Tony up to that reality, then I guess the best a friend could hope for him is that he do so, and soon. What's the best way to teach someone who doesn't want to learn?

To be fair, most of what I just said about Tony also applies to Jeff. They're both incredibly stubborn, and prone to poor communication when dealing with perspectives that differ from their own. They're also both very smart, very committed to Wikipedia, and quite often right, although they both manage to undermine a lot of what they attempt. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I no longer think Tony is committed to this project. At least not the goals of this project. Let's get that straight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Another outside view

For God's sake, what is the matter with you all? This whole situation is ridiculous and, frankly, I think both sides know it. We have a lot of Wikipedia's most experienced contributors slinging mud at each other like petulant children. As an outsider, I see the following (in no particular order):

• Jeff being immovably stubborn
• Doc being equally stubborn and somewhat supercilious
• Tony making a mixture of valid and dubious points, most of which lose much of their intended weight because he phrases them harshly or is downright uncivil
• Assorted other editors taking sides (seems to be IRC vs. others) and dropping in at random to stir the shit
• In the mean time, any half-sensible person who dares to say "shut up the lot of you, calm down, come back in a week and compromise" gets ignored or told they're "missing the point".

The whole BLP thing (which, in my opinion, is being made far too black and white) is getting lost in the noise. Yes, we need a policy to cover rapid deletion of unsourced attack articles. Yes, we need to take "do no harm" into consideration. No, we don't need to use BLP to do that if the articles are sourced and neutral - doing so undermines valid uses of BLP. Maybe we need a separate policy on ethically-inspired deletions... but nobody seems to be proposing that, you're all too happy to yell and stamp your feet and pick up on every little thing that your opponents say.

So, I won't expect this comment to make any difference whatsoever (in fact I fully expect everyone will either claim they're blameless, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, or point out the vital thing I missed that makes it all justifiable).

Fine, I probably regret wasting 5 minutes writing this... I'll leave you all to get on with it now. Just bear in mind that you are, collectively, kicking up a ludicrous fuss which is likely to do more harm and reduce Wikipedia's credibility far more than the presence or absence of an article about a high-school athlete or a fat Chinese kid. Your bickering is very visible, very distasteful and very offputting to people who just want to write a decent encyclopaedia and give it away. Think about it, please. --YFB ¿ 02:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The project's credibility is already going down the tubes. I'm trying to fix that, but those with the actual power to do so don't seem to care. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Charity

Jeff, I have to admit that I don't understand the dichotomy you are drawing, at all. Newyorkbrad 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I might; his comments are not too divergent from those on my own user page. Raymond Arritt 01:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think we're actually here to build an encyclopedia. Or, well, maybe most people are, but certainly not the people who appear to be running the show. You've busy with board elections, I'm not going to get you involved in this nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, wasn't that nice

And I was just about to notify you. I shouldn't have to explain, but your incivility lately has been beyond what would normally be tolerated from most users. I have therefore blocked you for a week. --Coredesat 02:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. Which is why I've had to put up with much worse with absolutely no repurcussions. Typical. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If the blocking admin doesn't remove your block, I will ... rediculously inappropriate block. --BigDT 02:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will do the same. I cannot fathom how this block is preventative in any way. Coredesat, please remove the block or justify it here, or I will be lifting it in 15mins. As much as I disagree with Jeff on many things, and believe he should tone some of his comments down, this won't help a bit. Daniel 02:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. --Coredesat 02:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Good. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Should be un-autoblocked now. Friday (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

(copying from ANI) Civility blocks rarely help. Civility blocks for a week have even less chance of being effective. Civility blocks for a week on experienced and established contributors achieve the opposite to the desired effect. If this block was for twenty-four hours, I would still object, but I wouldn't see it as such a pressing problem. One week is ridiculous.

However, Jeff, can you please just tone it down a tiny little bit? I know you're annoyed, angry, or what not, but Wikipedia won't die if you take a couple of hours off, away from the PC, to calm down. I actually find you much more convincing when you are rational and calm, and I'm sure others do too.</pleads> Although you didn't bring the one-week block upon yourself totally, you did contribute to it a little bit. Daniel 03:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No. The continued preaching to me about the problems when I get no backup from anyone for the bullshit I put up with is what's stoking this. You want it to get toned down? Start getting as frisky with the people causing the problems as you people get with me. Get to the root of the goddamn problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Who are "you people"? Daniel and I both expressed displeasure for the block and would have unblocked you, but wanted to give the blocking admin a chance to correct his own error first. To be perfectly honest, when you use abusive language and make accusations about people trying to help you, you don't make it easy. --BigDT 03:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)