User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive13

Admin nomination

I have nominated you for adminship. I hope you will accept the nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Did not know of your pledge of ""six months of unblemished behavior", so I am sorry if I jumped the gun... Nevertheless ... please answer all the questions in the nomination page so that it can be transcluded to the main WP:RFA page. Good luck. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I've given (somewhat impressionistic) answers to all the questions. Certainly I might clarify if voters raise other concerns. But I think it's OK for a start. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the number of edits I stated in the nomination are the ones on the Wikipedia namespace (not in the article namespace). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, right, sorry I misread. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jossi beat me to it!

Well, the fact that you can build bridges with an ape like me, and that Jossi can move beyond any recent disagreements he had with you is excellent evidence of your ability to work with others. Good luck, my friend!--MONGO 06:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm very pleased to say that three of the editors (and admins, as it happens) with whom I have the best working relationship at Wikipedia, and who were the first to jump in with support of my RfA, are folks whom I first encountered by way of discordant edit conflicts (you, Jossi, and Karmafist). I think being able to disagree while still maintaining a sense of respect for another editor is an important quality to cultivate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If only I could find these bridges with other editors... Sometimes I find myself trying really hard, but it does not work. I guess it takes two to tango... As for your RFA's progress, from experience I can telll you that it is a stressful time. RfAs brings both the best and the worst in people, IMO. Hope you have a think skin. :)≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Need to grow it thicker :-). Apparently my "six months unblemished" isn't strict enough for several oppose voters, who cite some admittedly rude stuff back in April 2005. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but in the land of Wikipedia, 8 to 9 months is like ancient history. I saw your very polite cmment about my admin performance and I deeply appreciate that...I certainly don't think I deserve that much credit to be called "excellent" though. I feel that editors like you make the best admins because they have been in the thick of things. I noticed one opposed based it on your opposition to another candidate from October, who had definitely been wrong to nominate your personal article and then solicit votes from those that had previously voted to delete it during it's first nomination. Keep your chin up though Doc...I had the attitude that if my nomination had failed ( and it did barely squeak by), that I was going to continue doing what I had been doing on my little articles and do what I could to defend NPOV and by turning red lines into blue ones. Regardless of the outcome, your ability to work with those that you have had prior disagreements with is the testiment to your maturity and professionalism.--MONGO 04:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... thanks so much for the encouraging words. I needed the cheering up. I hadn't expected the nomination... in fact, a bit higher on this page I mentioned to Jossi that I wanted to wait longer before accepting one (a few editors had approached me with an offer to nominate). But it's way too easy to get invested in the outcome once I accepted the nomination. So I indeed need to just realize that if the nomination fails, I can keep on editing, as I expected to do anyway.

You handled that well, and in retrospect I'm certainly glad yours did squeak by, despite my oppose vote. Some of the oppose votes I pretty much would have predicted: they're really old grudges from the "style wars" of last spring (Should formal styles be used, not just mentioned, in articles? Encyclopedic says no). I was a bit caustic (though also right; and less caustic than folks on the other side). But some other oppose votes are mysterious to me; I think I should try to learn something from them, but I'm not quite sure what. Thanks again. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Six months? Geesh, that seems like good time, I might want to change my vote. Oh...and tust me...I am sure that you can "use preview" :).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

SoothingR on RfA

Yes, thanks. I'm aware of my mistake. I apoligize for the whole hassle..and I have changed my vote. Once again, sorry for the mess.SoothingR 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

What do you mean exactly by vandilism, could you please clarify that? By the way, no offense, but are you gay? I dont mean to discriminate, be rude, or disrespectful (I have an open mind) but that is kind of a fruity name. Fighterforfreedom 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand why you call my edits vandilism. Could you elaberate in more than one sentence. I dont mean to be insensitive. Please answer my previous question too. Fighterforfreedom 22:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The article was refactored to respect WP guidelines on article size. The child article got part of the same content (unchanged), and the main article got another part. The parent and child are conspicuously linked to each other, and this refactoring was previously discussed on the talk page. You have repeatedly reverted the page to one that is simply inappropriately large, for no apparent reason other than disruption.

As to demanding I engage in some sort of confession about my sexual orientation or "fruity name"... well, it's generally offensive, and sort of suggests a homophobic undertone. I really don't see what it has to do with this conversation (I actually have commented about such things in other talk pages; but not because some editor made a demand). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The George W. Bush article is much bigger than this article even though there are many forks off of it. Its really important for me to know whether you are gay or strait. I assure you I am not a homophobe.

I have not edited the GWB article; but if it is overly large, it should be refactored. As to my sexual allocution, I'll just say this much: I do not wish to have sex with you, regardless of what sort of genitalia you might happen to have. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It is very hard for me to judge you if I dont know if you have sexual relations with other men, women (please do not take any offense). Admins, please do not block me, I am not trying to harrass this particular individual.

Chick Bowen on RFA

Thanks for your note--I understand it and I appreciate it, and note that I wouldn't (and didn't) vote oppose for something that happened in October. I hope it's clear, too, that my comment only goes as far as it does--you're obviously an excellent editor, and it's clear that the period from October to now has been a lot smoother for you than the period from April to October. The six-month standard you mentioned above is probably about right; if this one doesn't work out (and I think it could still go either way), and you go up in another couple of months, do let me know. Thanks again; I hope to see you around. Chick Bowen 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I found that diff and RFC troubling until I realized they're eight months' old. I've changed to support, and dropped Starblind and Grue a note of this. Yours, Radiant_>|< 11:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Fighterforfreedom

I have warned Fighterforfreedom to stop posting those unusual enquiries. Bishonen | talk 01:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

Darwinek on RFA/CFD

It was a few weeks, maybe more than a month ago. Consensus is for example "Things in X" [1]. Remember it is a democratic consensus. I think an admin should follow consensus and not go against it, if it is clear it have a support of a vast majority of users. - Darwinek 16:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I voted against a rename. I still think "Place-Adjective Noun" sounds better than "Nouns in Place". My vote was the second one (and earlier than yours), it wasn't disruption after a lot of other editors voted. Two other voters agreed with me, and described their vote as such agreement, 11 voters voted rename. But beyond casting the vote, I never even bothered to follow what the result was. I have no resentment about losing that vote (apparently, I honestly did not know I had until just now). How is that "not following consensus". Do you think CfD voters have an obligation to vote unanimously, and change their vote if they are in the minority?! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My vote

Like I said, I don't really remember the main reason I wanted to oppose, and without that, I don't feel comfortable switching my vote. If I can figure it out, I'll let you know. If you don't pass this time, I'll think really really hard about supporting next time. Good luck! --SarekOfVulcan 18:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuck you

What, cant handle questions about personality? You can go to hell, and I hope you lose the right to be an admin. you flaming homo Communist bastard, and yes I know I will never be aloud to edit anything again Bishonen you dumb assed bitch truckstop prostiute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fighterforfreedom (talk • contribs)

Dumb assed bitch truckstop commie prostitute, if you don't mind. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

I know that the guilty pleasure I take in such misguided invectives against me is perverse. Somehow the fact they almost always are misspelled gives me this little smile. I guess that's not a good trait for me to have though :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No need to worry about this one any longer: User:Zoe has blocked this user indef. At least he/she will leave you in peace until the next sockppuppet account. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, funny how the vandals never seem to be able to spell. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Somehow the fact they almost always are mispelled gives me this little smile :D Arniep 18:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Was on your RfA, clicked on contribs and a minor edit with summary "Fuck you" flashed up at me... but having cleared that one up, I guess you get my vote. And yes, vandals' predictability at misspelling words is almost comical. Maybe you should consider blocking users as vandals on those grounds :-) haz (user talk) 21:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

NSLE on RFA and autobio

Since Daniel Brandt and Seigenthaler, et. al., I'm of the view that editing your own page is not the best thing to do (I was even before, but all the more strongly now). This vote is nothing personal, but I'm a firm believer in WP:AUTO (and would revert anyone else editing their own article). However, upon further investigation, you have not edited your own article since October. Keep that up, and if you can stay away from your article for six months (March), I'd be glad to support. NSLE _(T+C) 00:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess so. But neither of these is by a long shot the worst pages on WP, in terms of POV-mongering and whatnot. In fact, Seigenthaler seems to be an example of the virtue of autobiography, since it was Seigenthaler himself who fixed the errornous information (though indeed, it was also subsequently removed from the edit history). I actually didn't follow the Brandt thing, so I'm not sure of the details: something about him going a bit ape-shit on his own bio, right? If so, that's a more prominent example of the same thing I dealt with and mention about Jeffrey Vernon Merkey.

Another good example of why autobiographical editing is affirmatively good is at: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-16/Subjects defend Wikipedia. Cory Doctorow discusses there how a great virtue of WP was his ability to correct, himself, an error in his biography.

But if you get really serious about taking WP:AUTO what is IMO too far, you should want to ban:

• Jimbo Wales
• Angela Beesley
• Larry Sanger
• Florence Nibart-Devouard

Among others. All of those Wikimedia board members contributed as much to their autobiographies as I did to mine. Not as closely associated with WP, you see figures such as Richard Stallman, Marvin Minsky, Mike Godwin, etc. See Category:Wikipedian autobiography for a still very partial list.

I do not specifically plan to contribute to David Mertz prior to March; but neither do I for one instant think there is a principled reason for me not to do so. The WP:AUTO guideline is a really bad rule, at least as applied in practice (I see the good motivation underlying it), and I'd certainly much rather forgo being an admin rather than pledge a false obeisance to it. 01:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUTO says nothing about banning ;)... you're a good editor, but it's just a personal view I take. Good luck in your RFA though, it would be nice to see you become one, I just don't condone editing one's own articles. NSLE _(T+C) 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean "banning" like an IP block. But would you really vote against an RfA of the above people on grounds of WP:AUTO?! That just seems so very wrong to me.

I guess I've been over this a lot since I first encountered WP:AUTO, which I first learned of when the article on me was at its first AfD. I do regret that I myself copied the first draft of the text from another Wiki; but that was right after I signed up for a username (I did that in part specifically so as not to create the biography as an IP address). In fact, I created Category:Wikipedian autobiography specifically in response to misuse of this guideline.

Given my experience with some of the worst of the autobiography abuse, I am hardly unaware of the underlying issue (i.e. Jeff Merkey). But at the same time, those abuses are neither the most frequent nor the worst I've tried to wade through, and preserve WP:NPOV in spite of. For example, the Ward Churchill article that I've become informal protector of has suffered much worse POV-mongering from single-purpose editors than any autobiography I've ever seen. In that example, they are anti-Churchill, for the most part. But it's not hard to imagine some other biography with a fervent single-purpose fan (I understand there are quite a few of those, actually; though I haven't personally worked on them). There is absolutely nothing special about the POV dangers of autobiography versus those of any other topics that people can become excessively invested in!

Moreover, the rule is too fuzzy at its boundaries. Should people also be prohibited from editing topics they are genuine experts in? I've noticed that Mike Godwin has contributed significantly to Godwin's Law, for example. Well, the law is named after him even, but is not per se about him. Or if the moderately widely used Gnosis Utilities free software package that I am principle author of gets a WP article (it's borderline notable; but not obviously not so), am I prohibited from editing that, even though I know about it. What about Richard Stallman editing Emacs (which I think he has)? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Question

File:Fidel-recent-bw.jpg

this man is a hero. he has had democratic elections that are free and fair despite Fox News's attempts to demonize him. Anyone who disagrees with me is a rightwing ideological POV pusher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.217.244 (talk • contribs)

---

The file [[:]] has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted. You can comment on its removal.

Why do you have a hammer and sickle on your page? Stalin killed millions of people!!!!! By the way, Are you gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fighterforfreedom2 (talk • contribs)

Answer the phreaking question man, and maybe he'll leave ya alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.217.244 (talk • contribs)

Aaron Brenneman request

How come I don't get cool awards like these? -_-
Anyway, I'm here about something else...

I've spammed two other people on this, but with you I'm taking a different tack. One reason that I haven't yet given my support is that I'm always wary about people whom I think haven't had "enough" policy experiance, whatever that may be. So if you could look over Seth Ravin AfD 1, discussion at WP:DRV, and the newest Seth Ravin AfD 2 and tell me what you think about the whole thing: you know, what policies apply, what you'd have done as closer, what you'd do if you were closing the newest one, etc. If I thought you had the slightest tendancy to curry favour, you'd never get my support anyway so I feel ok about asking you this.
brenneman^(t)(c) 02:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You know me so well (about currying favor) :-). So is this a pop quiz? Or just an incentive to feel better if my RfA fails?

Anyway, it looks like things proceeded about right to me. The first AfD did indeed look like no consensus, but given the deletion of the proposed merge target, relisting the AfD seems very reasonable. It looks like the second AfD is running very weak "no consensus", but depending on the rest of the votes it could go "delete". I'd probably be inclined to vote "weak delete" myself, FWIW (very borderline notability). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Proto RFA vote query

Hi Lulu. Thanks for your views. Don't know if I got my thoughts across fully on my vote - I have no problems with editors who edit "controversial" topics, although it's regrettable that people who are unsatisfied with any ensuing consensus will bear a grudge. My gripe was the rfc and the vandalism, reverted or otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proto (talk • contribs)

Hi Proto (you forgot to sign... no problem, I added it). In terms of your concern: my one act of vandalism was childish and stupid. I could go on about just how badly the (now banned) editor whose user page I vandalized was behaving, but that's no excuse. It was wrong to do. However, that bad edit was prior to 95%+ of my editing history (I think it was the Interiot tool shows pretty graphs of editing... basically, I edited not-so-much last [Northern hemisphere] Spring, increasing greatly through the Summer and into Autumn). I certainly won't do something like that vandalism again, whether or not I am promoted to adminship.

On the RfC, I really encourage you to look at it (not just that it exists). The "style-wars" issue got hot-headed (less by me than by many on the other side of things), and an editor named Jguk wrote a spurious RfC against me (it did not state any particular issue, and there was zero effort to "resolve" it before the RfC). FWIW, that editor has himself been through a zillion RfC's and RfAr's and whatnot since then, none of them involving me. Anyone can write an RfC; and I am more-or-less certain that if I continue to work on promoting NPOV on controversial topics, someone else will name me in one again, at some point (whether or not I am an admin).

I am confident that if you look at my interactions with users over the last 6+ months, you will find that I have remained much more professional and non-confrontational in the face of POV-warriors, insults, and general efforts to bait me for promoting NPOV, than have or would 90% of the existing admins. I've been snippy from time to time, but nothing (at least in 6 months) that I would not still endorse. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the editing on your own article, I have a bit of a distate for that I'm afraid. Wikipedia requires everything to be verifiable - if it's something that should be on the article, someone other than yourself should be able to provide it. Sorry, but it's how I feel. Proto t c 18:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please here actually look at the edit history of David Mertz. The first version was copied (by me; I should not have done it myself, but asked someone else to) from another Wiki (about computer science people), not written by me; I copied it only because I had seen my writing and name mentioned in several WP articles prior to that time, not out of personal vanity. The edits I've made have been for stylistic consistency and slight corrections to minor facts like publication dates; but the substance of all the publications, memberships, etc. were added by other people. Most certainly, anything I ever added was added with an explicit citation for readers to verify, and was factual rather than commentary. In truth, I would actually have written with a somewhat different emphasis if I really wanted an autobiography for vanity reasons... nothing is wrong in the existing vesion, but the particular publications selected to mention are not necessarily the ones I'd single out. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Derex on source of David Mertz

Well, i do view your explanation there as reasonable. actually, the reason i pulled it is because i noticed 'vendetta' comment. i wasn't sure on net whether it would help on net. some voters are a little excitable about comments like that -- the miss manners police. i think what would be most helpful is if you were to comment (possibly at the top) that you included a public domain writeup by someone else to fill in a reference added by someone else in a pre-existing wikipedia article; and that at that (distant) time you were relatively inexperienced about the culture here. but, if you think it would be helpful, i'll be glad to restore my comment. or, i can add a question about it, to give you a chance to explain yourself. Derex 21:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... I'm brusque at times, I must certainly confess. At top of what should I comment about the PD writeup thing? That's mentioned on the talk page of my bio, but it's not really encyclopedic for the bio itself. I kinda think that if I add much more to the RfA myself, it turns off more voters than it helps (if that's what you meant). However, if you wanted to make a brief comment on the RfA (either in the comment section, or as part of your vote), that I had done the copying thing for the bio, and it was a mistake of inexperience, that might help assuage some editors concerned about autobiography. Then again, I guess I'm not really going to see eye-to-eye with them ever on construing WP:AUTO as a blanket policy (which it ain't). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

ok, i just added a comment, per the above. Derex 23:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Greg Asche on RfA

I've changed my vote to netural. Two things though. Provide a diff of you reverting yourself and promise you won't edit your own bio and I'll support. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The diff of my self-revert of my foolish user page vandalism in April 2005 is in my comment on Starblind's oppose vote. Specifically: [2]. 3 minutes of error, when I was still pretty inexperienced as an editor.

I'm afraid I cannot make the promise you ask though. Most likely I will not edit my own bio in the future (especially since it's now on enough people's watchlist that any vandalism would get rolled back; and as to content, it's pretty much as complete as it needs to be). But as a matter of principle, I simply cannot agree that I should not do so as a general rule. It's more important to me to maintain encyclopedic principles than to win an adminship.

However, I thank you very much for your reconsideration, and your change of vote to neutral. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ronabop on RfA

(Copied from my talk page) Any chance I might persuade you to reconsider your opposition? Since I was nominated, I'd like it to pass. You raise several issues, that others have mentioned. One is vandalism: indeed, I committed exactly one act of vandalism, and reverted it myself after 3 minutes, 9 months ago, and prior to 95%+ of my WP editing. The other is the 8 month old RfC. That RfC remains as insubstantial now as it was when written: no complaint was stated, and no effort at "resolution" had ever been made. Unfortunately, I think a lot of RfA voters who are unfamiliar with a particular editor assume "where there's smoke, there's fire"; and the effect is that a few early oppose votes with old grudges can kill a nomination.

The truth is that I will probably continue to strive to bring a number of controversial topics toward NPOV (whether or not promoted to adminship), and the chance of encountering another spurious RfC against me at some point is almost guaranteed. I've found, over time, that most of those threatening to write one get themselves blocked from WP (either long-term or indefinitely, prior to writing it: I can list about ten examples, literally, of editors who threatened an RfC against me, and have been blocked... not by me, obviously, and for reasons little related to anything I ever did). I really encourage you to look at my answer to one of the questions about how NPOV editors in conflict-prone topics seem to be de facto prevented from adminship, even though such are very much needed.

On the last thing, however, I certainly cannot in good faith make any recusal from editing David Mertz. I may well, in practice, not do so, since it doesn't look like there's going to be anything needing fixing, and it's watchlisted against vandalism by enough editors now. But the principle is just simply wrong, and winning adminship is not worth violating my principles, and more importantly, encyclopedic principles (though it seems pretty clear I could win some votes by telling an untrue sob story about how wrong I was to edit the page on me while conforming with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). That's not going to change with a couple months, or a year, or a decade: an unreflective ban on editors working on topics they are knowledgeable is just plain wrong. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of my work is in difficult topics like Jesus, Scientology, and the whole middle east mess (too many articles to mention).

It can be brutal, and trying. IMSNHO, good WP editors *must* rise above their own opinions, and be able to present many sides, in such a way that "Truth" (with a capital T) is never presented as such. Admins must go even higher, in that they may feel they personally *know* the Truth (with a capital T), but defer to the many editors, with their own perceptions, even if the majority seems "wrong". I'm not sure you're ready for that yet. (sorry) Nothing personal, as I like your work, but depicting truth is elusive, and I hav'nt seen many edits. Ronabop 00:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh well... I can't argue with your reasoning here. Obviously, I don't reach the same conclusion, but you're coming from a very reasonable line of thinking on this. Thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually... I do want to comment slightly more. Does it seem right to you that if you are nominated on RfA it will fail because of the topics you've edited? I have not looked through your edit history, but I know a priori that if you've worked on those topics, there are a lot of POV-warriors in the wings who would come forward to oppose your nomination. If you look at my actual edits, and at my talk page comments on whatever issues POV-warriors raise, I am certain that you'll see exactly the "rising above" that you mention... but nonetheless, no matter how one acts otherwise, insisting on NPOV on certain topics pisses off the POV-warriors (such as many of those most vocally opposing my RfA). Were you nominated, I can say with pretty good certainty that a half-dozen people with strong opinions on Jesus or Scientology would come forward with quick criticisms, and another dozen will casually look at these comments and think that "there must be something to these objections". Which then means that you need quite a large number of active supporters to reach 75-80% support votes on an RfA, because of a small number of spoilers. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You are assuming that editing on a controversial topic implies that an RfA will fail because of opposition, which pre-supposes that an editor has been over[t]ly POV-ish. While it's quite possible to work on a difficult topic and make enemies, it's also possible to work on a difficult topic and make friends who can respectfully disagree, and thus, support an RfA, because while you may be vehemently opposed on an issue to them, they can still respect you, and trust you in an admin capacity. Ronabop 11:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, no, exactly the opposite. An editor who rigorously follows NPOV on controversial topics picks up opponents in POV-warriors. For example, a really active RfA that I voted in was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramallite; that one did squeak by as approved, but it is overwhelmingly clear that the opposition was quite specifically by editors who were apoplectic about Ramallite's NPOV editing in controversial areas (because they had a POV they wanted in the articles). In my own case, most of the most strident supporters of the nomination are well-meaning folks whom I first encountered by way of strong conflicts over content. There are indeed a large number of editors who put disagreements behind them and work together... but there is also a significant minority who hang on to grudges for a long time (which in my case is exactly the first few and most vocal "oppose" votes).

I guess you don't believe me now... but should you get RfA nominated, and accept the nomination, I am 98% certain you will then be unpleasantly surprised to learn I am correct in this. Everyone who ever wanted some POV pushed in Jesus or Scientology (or whatever, if you were an active editor, and insistent on NPOV) will come out of the woodwork with these vehement oppose votes. And some Ronobop-like editors you don't know will also vote oppose (without themselves having any malice) with the comment "Per whoever and whatshisname, too many conflicts". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, well, I'm going with the other 2%, then. I think it's entirely possible to have a personal opinion, kept to talk pages, without same opinion ever showing up in the articles. It look like you might squeak by in the vote, so I hope you use your powers rarely and wisely. wrt Pile-on voting, I think it's lame myself, but I lack a better system to propose. Ronabop 16:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This feels really nasty, I'm afraid. Do you have any evidence that I ever put a personal opinion on a content article?! I am quite certain you can scour my entire edit history without finding one example. It seems to me, that you are really just arguing that you were right to vote oppose because your first impression was oppose, and without being willing to look at evidence more closely. Which I guess is your right, but this new allegation of me putting POV on article pages really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa whoa WHOA!. (can you tell I grew up on a farm?) I was talking about having a general detached mindset, with a resulting reduced personal-conflict ratio. Nothing to do with *your* actual personal behavior. I wasn't accusing you of anything. However, you might want to fess up to arguing every point of contention to death (*ahem*), without letting it just slide by.... or not. Along with easily taking personal offense when interpreting communications (*ahem*)... or not. And taking everything personally (*ahem*)... or not. To summarize: I have no doubts as to your intelligence, I have doubts about your humility. Ronabop 17:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

“Humility is like underwear, essential, but indecent if it shows” Helen Nielsen. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Danke Sehr.

Thank you much for the star. I do try to do a bit o' cleaning on the GLBT lists. Greatly appreciated, and hope your bid for administrator goes in your favor! Good luck! ExRat 06:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Rune Welsh on RfA

Hi there. It's a bit late (or early, depends on how you look at it) in my timezone and I saw your message just before going to bed. I'll explain my reasoning sometime tomorrow, and I hope you don't mind. Cheers till then. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 04:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks much for the preliminary note. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, thank you for your patience. The way I see it (and it may strike you as being a bit draconian) is that replying to objections should be done by the nominator only. Let me explain:

The first thing I think of when I see an RfA I'm interested in are the reasons why the nominator chose to nominate this person on the first place. Obviously there must have been some degree of (mostly) positive interaction between the two, which allows the nominator to get an idea of the candidate's suitability for the mop. Thus I expect that prior to the RfA both nominator and nominee sat together and went through the nominee's contributions highlighting both strong and weak qualities. During this process, possible objections should have been anticipated and a way to address them during the nomination agreed by both parties. It sheds a bad light on the whole nomination when a nominator cannot address objections to the point the candidate has to do it himself. Granted, it is impossible to anticipate all objections. However "behind the scenes" cooperation between nominator and nominee should be at its highest during the RfA, specially if it is a highly contested one, as in this case.

Well... the sequence you describe certainly didn't occur. As I mention in my comments within the RfA, I was surprised by the nomination, and had actually asked Jossi (and a few other folks who wished to nominate me) to wait a bit longer. But since nominated, I decided to accept. And since I accepted, I want it to go through. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, during an RfA it is the nominators' responsibility to take care of the damage control (just as it is in FAC, for instance). From my perspective, the only job for the nominee is to answer the questions he's directly asked and to sit down and look pretty. No campaigning, no soliciting. Otherwise it makes me doubt the nominator's judgement about the candidate. Nominators must do their homework and know all they can about the nominee, and it is up to the community during the RfA to agree or disagree with his judgement. I see all this as a way to increase accountability in the RfA system by forcing nominators to think twice and go extensively through the candidate's history. That's why I like Durin's criteria for RfA nomination, for instance.

FWIW, Jossi has told me in email that he feels it is inappropriate (at least mildly so) for him to "take care of damage control" because he is nominator. I don't necessarily opine in either direction, but you and he clearly have a different take. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope this helped to explain a bit better my position. About WP:BIO, I really don't have a strong opinion towards it since I think the current guideline is well written, although people's interpretations are of course a different matter.

Feel free to drop me a line at any time. Good luck and happy editing -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting perspective on the nomination process, but in my experience, when nominators or candidates intervene to reply to comments, it is frowned upon and usually create more animosity from oppose votes. What the RfA process shows is that if you are en editor that chose to participate in controversial topics, you will be penalized when you go through the nomination process, unless you are a saint, that is. This is a pretty bad way to reward editors that care about NPOV and this project, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more frowned when candidates intervene, and I recall seeing a few nominations where the nominator did so successfully (unfortunately I don't hang out in RfA too much since I only vote in nominations I can actually vouch for, but otherwise I'd love to give examples). I must really stress that I have not opposed for POV issues, but rather lack of preparedness for a process both of you knew may have ended up like it did. Proceeding to nominate Lulu regardless of him asking to hold on for a while reflects on the whole debacle, methinks. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"Would this user make a good admin?" The answer is "I don't know anymore". You're an excellent editor and that's why I voted support originally. I had assumed good faith I thought you people had done your homework. However, the "campaigning" thing showed me you didn't (for the reasons detailed above) and in doing so my trust in your future actions as admin stands on a shaky ground. I'm thinking that outright opposing was too harsh and changing to neutral would be a more adecuate response, yet my objections still stand. And I would kindly ask you to stop implying that I'm voting on my whim ("Voting on any other basis than that one question just seems to wrong to me.") until you've heard my side of the argument. Thank you. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel I suggested something other than your own above comment. That's all I meant: you state that you vote oppose based on the nomination process, rather than the underlying candidacy. I don't think that's a "whim" exactly, I just don't think it's the best basis to use for deciding a vote (on any matter within WP administration: e.g. I sometimes see votes—not by you, but by others—that vote on AfDs or CfDs based on a voter's feelings about the nominator rather than strictly on the article topic). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, no hard feelings. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Jayanthv86 RfA ,vote

I have especially voted for you because of your apparent support to Marxism as well as communism.Keep up the good work. I am a big fan of Stalin as well.--Jayanthv86 17:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking this is a little tongue-in-cheek because of the "award" my recent vandal put on this user talk page. At least I hope so. While I indeed am a Marxist philosopher (of very minor note as such), I don't have pinups of Uncle Joe by my bedside; nor even, for that matter, do I have a lot of sympathy with totalitarian states (nor with mass murder) given my anarcho-syndicalist tendencies. But I appreciate the support. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

From LV...

Well, I can feel some sympathy there, and what you are saying has been brought up at various RfA reform discussions (people who edit POV topics might have a limited window to seek Adminship). Take me for example (not a great one, but it will work). I have a few "mistakes" in my editing past and I generally edit articles pertaining to American politics. That is as POV as any. I am a little worried that if I wait too long, I will make too many enemies from what I personally feel are good-faith edits to these articles. But I know that if I just keep NPOV, and disagree respectfully, that even people I disagree with will support me. I know how personal remarks can haunt user's pasts because I watch RfA fairly closely. I'd encourage you to keep being yourself, and the past discretions will be just that, past. People do forgive here at WP, even though it may not seem that way at times. Just keep up the good work, and I'm sure next time (if you go through it again) you will soar through RfA without a hitch. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are quite mistaken. It's a nice thing to believe; I can't say I did believe it before my own RfA, since I had followed Ramallite's before that. But it's definitely been driven in hard in the course of my RfA that a large share of the opposition to my RfA are specifically from me doing exactly the right thing in contentious areas (i.e. from me being respectful, but still insisting on NPOV). See also, please, the discussion with Ronabop earlier in this page.

I've developed a pretty good sense of the exact breakdown of the oppose votes:

1. About 8-10 votes from hard line POV-warriors I've been in conflicts with who will always and forever vote oppose to my nomination, should this fail an I'm subsequently renominated. There's a minority of editors who will never forgive NPOV, or who will hold an utterly silly grudge indefinitely.
2. About 5-7 votes from editors who are vehement about (what I think is a misreading of) WP:AUTO. For those, I'm permanently tainted too (though you presumably would come out clean on this). In a sense, I can't argue with their criteria, since it's an honest disagreement.
3. A couple voters, like yourself, you picked up the "campaigning" issue (which I think is silly, but it's also good-faith if that's the rule you hold). And a couple other voters who picked up the edit summary issue, where I confess a genuine failing, having really never thought enough before this about consistent use of summaries.
4. A remaining 10-12 voters who are "soft oppose" votes. That is, people who saw some other oppose votes, and just figured oppose was the safest course. It is to this last group exclusively whom I've written messages (and several of them indeed decided to take a closer look at my edit history, and then judged that the opposition was not well founded).

Basically, none of this would change in the future. The timing could accidentally wind up a bit different. If the "old enemies" didn't notice to vote right away, the "soft oppose" voters might have already voted "support", which probably turns the tide. And maybe the autobiography folks wouldn't pick up on the trivial issue quite so readily, as a matter of chance. But there's nothing that another 3 or 6 months of exemplary editing would do that my last 6 months of, frankly, exemplary editing has not.

FWIW, I remain utterly convinced that if you were to actually look at my edit history, you would enthusiastically support the nomination. But obviously, it's up to you to just choose a simple principle of "imposed radio silence during RfA" and vote that. I think it's wrong... not just for me personally, but as a principle. But then, I've edited as a non-admin quite productively for a year and a half, and a few more buttons and screen won't really change that. It's not exactly "no big deal" for the process to be broken, but it's also not going to harm me if the nomination is rejected. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what else to say. All I know is that you seem like a decent editor who made a couple of mistakes in the past that some people just can't seem to get over. I appreciate your frankness, however, as many RfA participants just cower to anything an oppose voter says. I do not encourage "complete radio silence" while being nominated, just the language you used was irking me a bit. I have nothing wrong with seeking clarification or noting the opposition with an explanation of why you did this or that. I do have a problem with people asking for vote changes, which is what you did. I am sorry. One thing would change if you ran again... as long as you didn't ask people to change their votes... I would probably support you. (And I think I could probably bring a couple of more support votes your way, if I'm not thinking too highly of myself and my techniques of persuasion.) Oh well, even if you never make Admin, your contributions to WP are helpful, and I applaud you for that. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Alai opposition to RFA

I'm not clear on what basis you're asking me to reconsider; indeed, I'm not sure you really addreseed the specifics relating to the autobio issue I raised (most specifically, your subsequent rationalisations, over and above the numerous edits per se). Nor do you indicate any weakening of that guideline that you would abide by (or even like Jimmy Wales, affirm as a good idea, regardless of whether one actually follows it oneself), though I did notice a comment from you that you express regret on having "physically" created the article (though on the whole you seem to be extremely keen to have it here). I'll grant you do deserve credit for doing so openly, and for being more consistent in your lack of regard for the guideline than many, but I'm just not comfortable with endorsing a "go ahead and autobio freely" stance, which I think would make outright vanity and autobios of marginal notability even more prevalent than they already are. After all, you yourself cite far less intensive autobiographical editors in defence of your actions, and you'll doubtless be cited in turn by still-more-blatant cases.

I think there is a danger in autobiography attracting editors towards POV edits. But it's not a particularly special danger. Of course an autobiography is still subject to notability, just as much as any other biography. A non-notable subject should be deleted on AfD, of course (I've nominated some, for that matter). I completely do not believe there is any special notability issue involved. FWIW, many of those I cite are not less intensive autobiographers. Not if you look at the content of edits, certainly. It's a mixed bag.

But for all the danger of autobiography edging into POV, I have found a far greater danger of other editors falsely assuming POV by the bare fact of autobiographical edits; or probably even worse, assuming non-notability without any actual examination. It's absurd to pretend that because someone edited their own bio, that instantly makes the person less notable as an encyclopedia subject... and yet I see this assumption over and over again. The guideline started out with best of intentions, but it does a lot of harm as blindly applied (as written it has more subtlety than this, but a lot of editors don't really read past the title, and maybe the first sentence, of the guideline).

Yes, I'm aware that it's "only" a guideline, but I'd also be concerned by an admin candidate who was adamantly opposed to following guidelines on article style, size, and whatnot, especially if they'd been repeatedly prevailed against by other editors to follow them in specific instances, and declined to do so. (I'm not familiar with the circumstances of the suggestions you were involved in "style wars", but you certainly wouldn't be the first to do so.) You're doubtless correct that much of your opposition relates to controversial areas you've edited in, but I don't agree with the conclusion that it's not possible to edit in those areas without gaining that. (Not easy, mind you, given that on wikipedia one can be called OCDish, a troll, wikipolitician and WP:OWNer just for soring stubs...) It's certainly a weakness of the system that doing nothing contentious for three months and reverting a lot of obvious vandalism tends to make one such a shoe-in for admin candidacy, but that's another day's work. Incidentally, I'm a little surprised that when three months ago you suggested you weren't a suitable admin candidate, that you're now to some degree "campaigning" for it. Alai 07:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIZE is an interesting analogy here. I've been accused of somehow pushing some POV twice (making up three of the oppose votes) for refactoring articles to conform with WP:SIZE. I'm not sure the moral there, since in those cases I was advancing conformance with the guideline rather than arguing for limitation in its application. But at the same time, I've never heard of anyone take WP:SIZE with the sort of religious dogmatism that many editors have towards WP:AUTO. I guess the analogy would be arguing that any editor who pushes an article over 32k through edits should be categorically rejected from adminship, and maybe blocked for the violation. It sounds absurd even to write down, but that's how a lot of editors act about WP:AUTO.

Btw. On the 3 months ago comment... I'm a little surprised too. I had asked not to be nominated of several editors who wanted to do so, over that time. But when I looked at Jossi's nomination, and thought about the work I've done in pushing WP:V in some very thorny list areas, I decided that I have gained a maturity and facility for negotiation that would make me a very good admin. I suppose it will go down by a slight margin... and that disappoints me on principle. In practice, I have no trouble spending far more time than any sane person would on WP, even as a non-admin. So having a hundred other chores I would be enabled to perform isn't exactly something I need. But the grounds on which many voters are opposing my nomination are bad grounds... one's that I do not believe should be applied to any RfA, and that really bugs me. I confess to being fervent at time about bad procedures and bad results... which motivates me far more than any ego issue does (for better or for worse). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Jguk on RfA

Thank you for your note on my page. It would be a shame if your nomination fails. I've never agreed with using RfA as a place to settle old scores, just somewhere to decide whether, based on someone's contributions thus far, they can be trusted not to abuse the few additional powers sysop status brings. In your case, the answer's clearly yes - it's just disappointing others don't ask themselves the right question. All the best, jguk 12:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Animals

By accident, I discovered that wikipedia does have a page for Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Recognition, containing the same list. It seems like either one of the pages needs to be merged onto the other, or the duplicate information removed. What do you think?

Also, do you have a citation for the fact that Franz Kuhn and Borges were acquaintances? --Pierremenard 16:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Vilcxjo on RfA

Just to let you know I've changed my vote to Neutral. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since eight months ago (and you were far from being the only offender anyway - some admins were among the protagonists in that affair, as I recall.) Weighing it all up, I'm afraid I can't go as far as an actual support just at the moment, but I decided I at least didn't want to be dragging you down. (I couldn't help being struck by the fact that people like User:Sam Korn, who I think instigated your second RfC, and User:Jguk, are now supporters of your RfA.) Vilcxjo 17:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

More than that: some admins who were far more pugilistic throughout the affair than I ever was for one moment (as a brand new user) have held a grudge long enough to vote "oppose" on the RfA. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Old Scores...

Looks like your RfA is filling up with people opposing just to settle old scores...when I saw Outerlimits there I just wanted to puke. I hope for the best though :).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 17:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

from jayanthv86

sorry about that stalin thing,it was only after much reading of your talk page i realised some freedomoffighter was troubling you. i think you have a lot of patience and tolerance,all the more the reasons,why i would like to see you as a admin. PS:why dont you clean up your talk pages? --Jayanthv86 18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean remove my special awards? :-). Two reasons (one noble, one ignoble):

1. I have a policy of never removing stuff from my user talk page, except to move it to archives. (I did refactor the awards off the top of the page; and some other editors reverted blanking-plus-hundreds of "FUCKYOU" copies). I know those particular things aren't really "discussion" that I would be trying to cover up... but this is a thing I like to stick to.
2. The awards kinda amuse me. These broad attempts at scorn that so utterly miss any target give me this little schadenfreude smile... which is probably a criticism of me (though I am never equally pleased if the insults are directed at other people than myself, since I am concerned about the feelings of the targets).

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You disgust me

You disgust me. If you ran the US, I would build a cardboard boat and row all the way to France, yes even France. Just like they do in Cuba. I'm prepared to negotiate the freedom of my friends if you are, but first here's a memorabilia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.69.87 (talk • contribs)

This editor also put a bunch of images of historical mostly-leftist political leaders with various messages insulting my presumed similarity or identification with them. See User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/vandal_gallery

Hi, Lulu. See also this thread on WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

I hope those aren't fair-use images you've got in your gallery there, Lulu. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)