They want to delete us again

Post by **Dalton** » 2005-08-30 08:59pm

Alyeska wrote:The admin who deleted the article as per the VFD results signed up on SD.net for the sole purpose of explaining the results of the VFD. Since I questioned the results in the discussion page, the need for him to post here disapeared and so he isn't going to bother.

Then I shall delete his account.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2005-08-30 09:53pm

Adminisitrative ruling in cases of no consensus.
Admin decides to rule "keep(no consensus) since there wasnt a two thirds majority for deletion" If 17 keep and 27 delete votes were counted, the delete votes fall short of a two thirds majority.

Wikipedia Deletion Policy

"In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete!"

The deletion guide also states

"What is important is not your name, but whether your nomination is in good faith"

Which it clearly was not. Also, Wiki spockpuppet criteria says

" However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sockpuppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sockpuppet without justification, they will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia."

If they want to discount 23 of the keep votes, then surely they must firmly establish that they are sockpuppet accounts, and should be tagged as sockpuppet accounts.

Also, could the continual attempts to discredit the arguments of supporters by analysing their contribution history be considered elitism? If so, that may be in violation of the don't bite the newbie rule.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-08-30 09:57pm

Rogue 9 wrote:So anyway: Now we've established that Wikipedia is fascist, along with being editable by any idiot, possessed of an absolutely retarded absolute neutral point of view policy (thus meaning that facts have no weight if they're disputed), and prone to have incomplete articles and information. Yep, I really detest the place.

Oh grow up. The vast majority of the Wiki doesn't have the popularity contest bullshit that articles like the ones for SDN and such generate. So we got deleted from an encyclopedia, big damn deal. I'm frankly indifferent concerning the whole thing.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-08-30 10:22pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:So anyway: Now we've established that Wikipedia is fascist, along with being editable by any idiot, possessed of an absolutely retarded absolute neutral point of view policy (thus meaning that facts have no weight if they're disputed), and prone to have incomplete articles and information. Yep, I really detest the place.
Oh grow up. The vast majority of the Wiki doesn't have the popularity contest bullshit that articles like the ones for SDN and such generate. So we got deleted from an encyclopedia, big damn deal. I'm frankly indifferent concerning the whole thing.

It's the principle of the thing. And they still suck for the other reasons mentioned besides being fascist.

Post by **Dalton** » 2005-08-30 10:31pm

The plot thickens...maybe.

csheehy01@comcast.net wrote:How's the wikepedia article on sd.net going?

For the record, this guy is a fucking crybaby who sent me many unpleasant emails because he didn't have the patience to wait to be activated like everyone else. He bitched me out to Mike when I responded in kind.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2005-08-30 10:41pm

Graeme Dice wrote:It's unmoderated because the voice of an ignorent troll is considered to be equally as valid and informed as the voice of an expert. As was made clear, post count is what matters, not the quality of your posts.

That just means the moderators are incompetant. That's not the same as it being unmoderated. NObody thinks the TFN Lit board or SW.com is unmoderated, rather that the moderators are dolts. That makes them a real threat, as opposed to good moderators that should be next to invisible to well-behaved members (that's why I know SDN has good moderators: I almost don't notice them).

Besides, ASVS was dying before then. When the battle was still going on, of course it was fun. I think it was when the two Mikes had their debate that it really began to end.

That "debate" happened long after the creation of these forums.[/quote]

I was referring to the death of ASVS, not the birth of SDN. At first, people posted in both, then increasingly many of us transferred our ops to SDN altogether. I took the chance of News.Individual.Net (ex News.CIS.DFN.DE) not allowing me access to quit my by-then token membership.

Alyeska wrote:Second item. Some idiot recreated the SD.net article and now got SD.net protected deleted. This makes any attempt to recreate the article almost impossible.

Damn. That means we'd have to come up with an euphemism. How about a branch off the STvsSW page called "Sites of Historical Significance in the ST/SW debate"?

We stick not only SDN this time, running through its history in even more absurd detail, but stick in USVSD as well. Enter a brief mention of SWTC, emphasizing its value for the pro-SW side (link it to the main SWTC page).

For the pro-Trek side, enter DITL.org. It might be shit for its firepower analysis but it is a site with a long history. We don't write in STvsSW.Net (or whatever DarkStar's site is) because it arguably does not have a long enough history to be of historical significance. And we don't have to pretend to listen to worthless criticisms of SDN, because they have no place in a historical description.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-08-30 11:26pm

Spyder wrote:Adminisitrative ruling in cases of no consensus.
Admin decides to rule "keep(no consensus) since there wasnt a two thirds majority for deletion" If 17 keep and 27 delete votes were counted, the delete votes fall short of a two thirds majority.

Wikipedia Deletion Policy
"In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete!"
The deletion guide also states
"What is important is not your name, but whether your nomination is in good faith"
Which it clearly was not. Also, Wiki spockpuppet criteria says
" However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sockpuppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sockpuppet without justification, they will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia."
If they want to discount 23 of the keep votes, then surely they must firmly establish that they are sockpuppet accounts, and should be tagged as sockpuppet accounts.

Also, could the continual attempts to discredit the arguments of supporters by analysing their contribution history be considered elitism? If so, that may be in violation of the don't bite the newbie rule.

Spyder, I recomend you post this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_ ... royer.net2

At the very bottom we are still discussing and talking with the admin. You might be able to force some honor out of this guy.

LMSx · Post by **LMSx** » 2005-08-31 01:31am

skyman8081 wrote:I would say that this VfD was analogous to a secret election.

We were not allowed to tell anybody about this, because that would be vote-garnering, and meatpuppeting.

Strange that a site ostensibly about the spread of information is demanding that we cannot be informed. Looks like the Tanizaki troll successfully kicked up enough dust with his tantrums that the Wiki admin didn't even want to bother figuring it out.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2005-08-31 01:41am

It's in there, if someone wants to fix up the formatting.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-08-31 02:42am

He reponded without even bothering to adress your points.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2005-08-31 02:46am

Wow, he's really got it in for this board for some reason.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2005-08-31 03:45am

LMSx wrote:Strange that a site ostensibly about the spread of information is demanding that we cannot be informed. Looks like the Tanizaki troll successfully kicked up enough dust with his tantrums that the Wiki admin didn't even want to bother figuring it out.

Actually, he knows what is happening. But he needs a convenient excuse and Tanizaki gave him one. The power to ignore certain votes is the most easily abused of all powers. He just exercised it to make the vote to what he wanted it to be. Once he got over half, he can ignore precedence (precedence is not a rule) and kick us out.

Best not to argue with such a fucktard. He's not interested in justice. He's just like DP4M and Dark Moose and the like. If you make him look bad enough, he just bans you for "disruption".

Most rulebooks ultimately gives unlimited power to the powerful. Police need "reasonable" cause, but "reasonable" is defined by them and courts that would often side with them. It is the executors, not the rules, that count.

LMSx · Post by **LMSx** » 2005-08-31 04:35am

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:
LMSx wrote:Strange that a site ostensibly about the spread of information is demanding that we cannot be informed. Looks like the Tanizaki troll successfully kicked up enough dust with his tantrums that the Wiki admin didn't even want to bother figuring it out.
Actually, he knows what is happening. But he needs a convenient excuse and Tanizaki gave him one. The power to ignore certain votes is the most easily abused of all powers. He just exercised it to make the vote to what he wanted it to be. Once he got over half, he can ignore precedence (precedence is not a rule) and kick us out.

Best not to argue with such a fucktard. He's not interested in justice. He's just like DP4M and Dark Moose and the like. If you make him look bad enough, he just bans you for "disruption".

Most rulebooks ultimately gives unlimited power to the powerful. Police need "reasonable" cause, but "reasonable" is defined by them and courts that would often side with them. It is the executors, not the rules, that count.

People who are not part of the Wikipedia community are not entitled to manipulate the process by stuffing the ballot box.

That's what you're talking about right there.

Let's look on the bright side though-The way FCYTravis is framing it, the only advantage the vocal minority of stupidity has right now is seniority. I suppose we can revisit and win this issue in a couple months anyways if the posters who registered for this VFD discussion start becoming valued contributers to Wikipedia.

I can't wait until they start instituting loyalty tests, so only those who joined for the "right" reasons can vote

Post by **Dalton** » 2005-08-31 05:35pm

Man, this dude is dangerously obsessed with me. I think he may be stalking me!

csheehy01@comcast.net wrote:I think its a laugh that sd.net bans for no reason and then when they get banned themselves(from wik) they complain about wik being fascists. Thats the pot calling the kettle black, kid.

Wow! He must be either crazy or 13.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-08-31 06:02pm

The good news, the bad news.

Because the SD.net article got moved over to my user page, it is now entirely under my control. Meaning I have final authority say on the article. Many normal Wiki rules no longer apply including the infamous 3 revert rule. Furthermore, Tanizaki got banned from Wikipedia for 24 hours for posting personal attacks against me in my own section.

So, we can continue to work on expanding the SD.net article where it is currently located and it is safe from attack by vandals and people who want it deleted. I don't know the rule on linking to this page in other articles and for the time being have placed a rule on the top of the article telling people not to link to any other articles.

You are all welcome to help in further expanding this article. I would recomend those who have not registered to do so and then begin your editing. I also recomend everyone have a user page created for themselves to tell about who they are.

Anyway, link to the SD.net article again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alyes ... troyer.net

Just a note, one of the delete voters appears to be interested in helping the article, so don't automaticaly revert his edits, look at their content first and decide if he's helping the article.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-08-31 06:02pm

Man, this dude is dangerously obsessed with me. I think he may be stalking me!

Maybe he finds you sexy.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-08-31 06:08pm

Alyeska wrote:The good news, the bad news.

Because the SD.net article got moved over to my user page, it is now entirely under my control. Meaning I have final authority say on the article. Many normal Wiki rules no longer apply including the infamous 3 revert rule. Furthermore, Tanizaki got banned from Wikipedia for 24 hours for posting personal attacks against me in my own section.

So, we can continue to work on expanding the SD.net article where it is currently located and it is safe from attack by vandals and people who want it deleted. I don't know the rule on linking to this page in other articles and for the time being have placed a rule on the top of the article telling people not to link to any other articles.

You are all welcome to help in further expanding this article. I would recomend those who have not registered to do so and then begin your editing. I also recomend everyone have a user page created for themselves to tell about who they are.

Anyway, link to the SD.net article again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alyes ... troyer.net

Just a note, one of the delete voters appears to be interested in helping the article, so don't automaticaly revert his edits, look at their content first and decide if he's helping the article.

I've also mirrored the article on my user page; feel free to edit it there, if Alyeska's version becomes mired down in revert wars or whatnot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neocapitalist/SDnet

A backup, you might say.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-08-31 06:11pm

Revert wars shouldn't be a problem. Anyone that causes trouble can be blocked. Normal rules don't apply because this page is considered a personal page. I am granting editing rights only to those who wish to help the article. I even posted that members banned from SD.net may not edit the article, but may post ideas in discussion.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2005-08-31 06:20pm

okay, I need help. when I checked the block page a couple days ago, it said my block expired on 0830, then yesterday I checked it and it said 08/31, NOW it's saying I'm blocked until 0901 at 22:17. NO admins are responding to my requests to unblock. According to radiant, I've been blocked for being a sockpuppet, and his evidence is that like 5 of the 8 edits I have are from the SDN VFD's so I MUST be a sockpuppet, (I guess) Can anyone who actually has contact with an admin over there tell them that I said WTF?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-08-31 06:33pm

Well, I just got an account on Wikipedia to do what I can. Mostly it's there for future utility, though; I don't know if there's much I can do with the article.

Post by **Dalton** » 2005-08-31 06:40pm

csheehy01@comcast.net wrote:You can't be surprised at what happends on public places like wik, after your wretched treatment of outsiders on your own private site.

"But luck next time!"

- Bob Uecker

Cocksucker blames the Wiki problems on us not letting assholes like him parade around the place.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-08-31 07:03pm

Chardok wrote:okay, I need help. when I checked the block page a couple days ago, it said my block expired on 0830, then yesterday I checked it and it said 08/31, NOW it's saying I'm blocked until 0901 at 22:17. NO admins are responding to my requests to unblock. According to radiant, I've been blocked for being a sockpuppet, and his evidence is that like 5 of the 8 edits I have are from the SDN VFD's so I MUST be a sockpuppet, (I guess) Can anyone who actually has contact with an admin over there tell them that I said WTF?

I posted a querry on your behalf.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2005-08-31 07:29pm

where's the link to where this is still being discussed, anyway?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-08-31 08:02pm

Hmmmmm. Whoever wrote the entry for the Knight Hammer in the Star Destroyer entry made several grammar errors... *Edits*

So how do we go about creating a personal page for ourselves?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2005-08-31 08:10pm

Thanks, Aly, I see it now on FCYTravis' page. I'm still new to navigating around wiki, and the format for posting. I'll get it eventually.