BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) |
VanishedUser kfljdfjsg33k (talk | contribs) Undid revision 541488680 by BrownHairedGirl (talk) - bullshit |
||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
Thank you Danjel, —[[User:MelbourneStar|<font color="#E62020">Mel</font><font color="#FF2400">bourne</font><font color="#FF7538">Star</font>]]<font color="#FF9F00">☆</font>[[User talk:MelbourneStar|<sup><font color="3D0376">''talk''</font></sup>]] 06:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you Danjel, —[[User:MelbourneStar|<font color="#E62020">Mel</font><font color="#FF2400">bourne</font><font color="#FF7538">Star</font>]]<font color="#FF9F00">☆</font>[[User talk:MelbourneStar|<sup><font color="3D0376">''talk''</font></sup>]] 06:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
|} |
|} |
||
== Outcome of the discussion at user request for comments == |
|||
Hello, [[User:Danjel|Danjel]]. The [[WP:RFC/USER|RFC/USER]] discussion at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche]] has been closed. <p>The outcome was: ''There is a clear consensus here on two main points: a) that Epeefleche is broadly correct to remove unsourced content; b) that Danjel has often acted wrongly in restoring unsourced content.<br />There was also a clear consensus that Danjel had previously been made aware of the community's support for the core policy of [[WP:V]], and had previously been advised at ANI to desist from reinstating unsourced material.<br />The result was that Danjel's opening of this RFC amounted to [[Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot|shooting themself in the foot]]. The consensus is that Epeefleche has acted correctly in support of [[WP:ONUS]], and the problem here is with Danjel's conduct; there was strong support for describing this conduct as [[WP:HOUNDING]].''<p>--[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 10:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:21, 2 March 2013
Anyways ...
Whatever the reason, I'm glad you're back. All this because you lost an argument with someone? Slight Smile 01:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
No. I don't care all that much for winning or losing arguments. The behaviour (particularly from admins) that surrounded the argument was what has made me decide to look elsewhere. e.g.:
- AfD is fun, it's all about getting a high score;
- deleting critical and obvious, but unsourced, information that could be easily sourced is far more important and praiseworthy than spending 3 seconds to find the source;
- The way to win any argument is to canvas offwiki;
- The people that you bring in to the argument have to loudly proclaim that you're God's gift unto editing, and that any criticism, no matter how it is spelt out, is harassment, bullying and so on (i.e., wikidrama is the best defense);
- Equally, those people that you bring in should search for and highlight as many issues with your opponents (whether they are actually issues or not), and raise them, preferably simultaneously, in as many venues as possible;
- Adminshopping is fine, if you didn't get the response you wanted the first time;
- Admins can act against a decision to IAR generated in consensus, and block away;
- Admins are above question and consensus once established by one admin once, never changes;
- Admins can decide when the dispute resolution process can be used, typically this means that it doesn't apply to them or their friends;
- Admins can call for oxymoronic "one sided interaction bans", and that's fine;
- Admins can call someone an "angry incompetent drunk" (I'll admit that I was angry), and that's A-OK, but saying that calling someone an "angry incompetent drunk" might be problematic is probably going to involve sanctions being suggested of some sort (that was pretty much the final straw);
- Admins rather deliberately misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting a situation (accompanied by baying for blo
ckod) is A-OK; - Battleground statements and polemic are acceptable on user talkpages, whatever is said in the policy (because, see point #3);
- And, finally, the entire rulebook goes out the window if a person who is "retired" points out a problem.
All in all, the culture here is broken. I've gone from seriously advocating for my colleagues and students to use and get involved with wikipedia to the complete opposite end of the spectrum. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- As someone involved in that discussion (albeit briefly), I have to say that the ANI about misuse of the "Retired" template was so laughable it was unbelievable. I agree with some of your points, but not others, and understand why you feel aggrieved. You made mistakes, but so does everyone, and I've not really understood why everyone seemed to want your head on a stick, figuratively speaking. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar | |
"The Special Barnstar is awarded to a user as a gesture of appreciation when there is no other barnstar which would be appropriate."
I'd like to personally thank you, Danjel, for helping me out over the years, showing me around the Project, telling me the do's and don'ts. Your help has been significant, and I will always appreciate that. On your retirement, I wish you well, and all the very best. Wikipedia's system does manage to drive off a lot of talented and respected editors, and you're an attest to that, and I don't blame you. I understand that there will be a big void in the WikiProject Schools, now that you have retired, and Wikipedia will be worse off without you. Hope you can come back, whether it's weeks, months, years ahead - put this all behind you and start off fresh. There are many people, including myself, who would advocate for that. Thank you Danjel, —MelbourneStar☆talk 06:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC) |