User talk:Shortfuse/Archive1

Blanked my talk page.

OnStar Privacy

Welcome, but ... I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article OnStar Privacy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:OnStar Privacy. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fram 08:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) I've done the same for Bo Bo Hotel Fram 08:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The following is from the talk page on Talk:OnStar Privacy.

I disagree with the proposal of this article being proposed for deletion. The website is notable on the issue. In fact, its one of the only sites I could locate that is dedicated to the privacy concerns of OnStar

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/onstar5.htm

About.com cited it as a resource for its article, if its deemed worthy of being used in as a source for an article by a publication of that size, I would say its notable enough. Just because other sites haven’t put articles up citing it doesn’t make the information any more or less valuable to Wikipedia users.

I created the sub for it rather than taking up more space in the main OnStar article. A smaller mention of it is part of the main article, and its quite relevant there. Its easy to say that articles should be deleted but you need to look at the whole picture, including other articles dependant upon the proposed article to be deleted. In this case, the other artical relies on this one. While this one may not be significant when viewed all by itself, I do think it adds to the value of the main one. --Shortfuse 20:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Internal Revenue Service

Dear fellow editor: I found some materials at the IRS web site regarding "Phishing" in connection with your edit to the above-referenced article. See the talk page for the article. I'll leave it to you as to what specifically if anything you think should be added to the article. Yours, Famspear 18:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Its back up now. Shortfuse 03:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

UPS hubs

The UPS hubs article I created to clean up the main UPS article has gotten hit by a few templates, including a deletion proposal under WP:NOR and collection of links. I'm a bit new at this, and would greatly appreciate any help you could offer! Thanks. Adamkik 04:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I killed the prod and so it wont be deleted unless they want to run it through the formal deletion process. I am getting ready to head out right atm, but I will look at how to address the other concerns this evening. --Shortfuse 14:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

the 9/11 removal of bias project

I wish you luck with this. It's a brave try, but I suspect it is doomed to failure. I looked at the aims and objectives and they seem to me to be wholly congruent with WP:AGF and total neutrality. As you can see from the deletion discussion I support your creation of this project, and hope it survives. Fiddle Faddle 15:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the support. Read your comments, know that I struggled to find a good name for it, and I decided against 9/11 Association because I didn’t want it to be confused with an actual organization outside of the Wikipedia. However, I agree the name wasn’t the best and I am open to any suggestions for a name change. And yes, it likely is doomed to fail but it can never hurt to try. --Shortfuse 18:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone is going to come out of this with honour. May I suggest that you ask for a highly experienced and uninvolved admin to look at the various areas and guide all parties (and I suggest you include yourself for total transparency) to a civil, reasoned and decent conclusion whcih is in the spirit of Wikipedia. So far neither "side" is acquitting itself with honour here, I'm afraid. There is always the danger of standing too close to anything one has created. We've all done it. Equally there is the reverse danger of lashing out against anything we disagree with. We've all done that, too. Fiddle Faddle 18:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree its getting paticularly nasty. But how do I go about finding an admin who would be willing to get in the middle of this cesspool? After all, this involves miscounduct by admins, too. Dont they usally stick together? Shortfuse 09:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think one cannot say they all stick together. They are as human as anyone, with human frailties and human biases. But they have agreed by being admins to come under closer scrutiny that "ordinary" editors. Since the whole process is meant to be about continuous peer review it seems probable that using the Admin Noticeboard would be useful.

As you know I am not going to get involved with editing these articles, nor in the project. All I will be involved in is the letter and spirit of the policies and guidelines we have before us. To that end I have placed already a notice on one of those sub-boards asking for a clear head and an unbiased eye.

This is a two edged sword, of course. An unbiased eye will view both sides and their actions and is likely to call any editor's actions into question. This can only be a good thing, but one must be always careful what one wishes for. Fiddle Faddle 09:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove names

I suggest you remove the names from that list at Wikipedia:Association of 9/11 All Sides Editors.--MONGO 18:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We've already discussed this on the AfD page for this project. --Shortfuse 18:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So you refuse to remove the names?--MONGO 18:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Orginally, yes. But I went and did some more reviewing of WP:Civil and I think the goals of the organization can still be accomplished without a public list of people I consider to be misbehaving floating around. Editing should be about the edits and the content thereof, not about the people behind the edits. And after reviewing my comments on the straw pull concerning editors removal of warnings, I have concluded that a list of "bad users" would be another a badge of shame and would be unfair. Trouble users will be watched by me personally, using the watch functions built into Wikipedia, and I will list only the articals and issues as they should come up. I think its a reasonable compromise. --Shortfuse 18:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Good choice. I suppose I could watchlist you as well if I was real bored, but since you may only be around a short while longer before some admin gets tired of you, it's not worth my trouble.--MONGO 18:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Was that a threat? I'll be around until I leave, because I respect rules and know how to work to change them when I dont like them. And I am not George Bush, I am capable of admitting when I am wrong and correcting myself. --Shortfuse 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Controlled demolition AfD request

Hi, an admin recommended I ask someone else to make note of this, per this comment by User:JoshuaZ. Would you be willing per that advice to post that/draw attention to the fact of the previous AfD and the people involved? It seems that this article was AfD'd again immediately after the last ended. I suspect that MONGO will become incensed if I do it myself, as we both MONGO and myself got blocked over this from edit warring. I'm asking 1-2 other editors as well. I am asking you as you've participated in the AfD, and Joshua recommended I do this. Thanks. · XP · 04:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being dense, but I'm not sure I understand the request. I'd be happy to put it forth provided its in line with policy, but keep in mind that Mongo and I are currently going at it on the so he is not likely to be any less incensed by me. But honestly, I dont care about who gets incensed and who dosent. Being civil is one thing, but being a confirmist is another. The result on that one was Keep, are you seeking a deletion review or something else? I guess I just need some help connecting the rest of the story here. Thanks in advance. :-) Shortfuse 09:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Morton. Read down a bit. Mass spam. He still does it routinely. But on a somewhat smaller scale. He's quite a weasely pov-pusher, this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bush_Crimes_Commission_%282nd_nomination%29

I'm very much aware. I just filed for ArbComm on him, with any kind of luck they'll hear the case and do something about this. Shortfuse 03:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Page I made

I created a special page for my own use at User:XP/PendingDeletionsofNote. If you should happen to see any AfDs, MfDs, etc., that you think I should know about, please feel free to update this page to notify me--it works for me as an include to both my User and Talk page, so I will see it. I unfortunately don't always have time to look at the whole listings of those sections, or keep up. This will help a lot. Also, if you want, feel free to help yourself to using it as well on your own page. I added instructions for the curious in case they don't know fancy wikicode. Feel free to let anyone else know about my page and it's function--I don't mind more people knowing about, so that I can be aware. · XP · 06:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, will keep this handy as well. Since my project is likely to get deleted this could be the backup. --Shortfuse 09:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, related to ArbCom

[1]. Also, when reviewing this yesterday, he had received other warnings for abusing AfD process and for vandalism (and had been called on it on AN/I archives previously). · XP · 03:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have a chance, can you list the ones in the archives? I'm sure I'm gonna need every bit of ammo I can get ahold of, because this guy is undoubtedly gonna pull every single stop out he can now to save his skin. Which is fine, I am sure there is more than enough misconduct here now to satisfy all but the most biased of judges. For some reason, I seem to be having a problem linking to alot of the evidence from the ArbCom page. I cant seem to get the links to behave for some reason. Shortfuse 03:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I advise you to withdraw your ArbCom request. For one thing, you may come out of it badly yourself, with the posting of names on Association_of_9/11_All_Sides_Editors. ArbCom can rule on all involved parties. Regardless of this, we should work towards a collegiate atmosphere. You know that I share some of your concerns. However they have been given a good airing recently on AN/I, and Morton has amended his user page. He has also received attention from two other admins about this. As his attention has been drawn to his actions, let us AGF and allow him the chance to modify them.

If you still feel that his actions are not in line with wiki policies, then I suggest you keep a log of such things with diffs and, in a few weeks, bring it up again. It would be less provocative to keep such a log off wiki. Study Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and use the preliminary methods first, including WP:RFC on users if necessary. You also need to engage in dialogue with him to try to resolve matters. Feel free to email me, if you want to discuss any concerns privately.

Tyrenius 14:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If ArbCom wants to ban me for any misdeeds I may have committed, that’s fine. It got heated and I am fine with taking responsibility for my actions. I honestly don’t care what happens at this point, but I want to publicly air this issue and if nothing else it will be decided in a fair forum. Or maybe not, I don’t know if he has friends on the ArbCom board who might try to save him at my expense. Nor do I really care.

What is the point of bringing this up months from now? There is plenty of evidence to hold up the charges now, why wait? How many articles will be damaged in the mean time? This guy (and those working in concert to protect him and working with him) are the absolute worst types of users to infect any project that requires a lack of bias. They are good at manipulating, very good at twisting words and situations around to suit them and very good at misusing and abusing policies.

Assuming good faith can only be done to a point. When evidence exists to show that someone is not working in good faith, continuing to AGF is one of those "perfect world" type of responses. And to that end, I don’t care what the policy on that says. If a user is acting in bad faith, turning a blind eye to it and pretending that he is acting in good faith is a pile of bull.

There were plenty of attempts to try and work this out, he resisted all of them and his user page hasn’t changed that much to suggest that he is going to stop abusing the XfD process. I too would love to work for a consensus, but the fact of the matter is its impossible to work towards consensus when the parties involved have absolutely no middle ground to build off of. Shortfuse 18:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's important to take one step at a time, and not be alarmist, but to first AGF. If that fails, then there are a number of ways to attempt solution, but ArbCom is the final one. The first one is to put your points to the user and seek an accommodation. I suggest you initiate a dialogue on his talk page to start with and see if you can get any satisfaction that way. Please study Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and see the recommended steps, which may involve mediation. Certainly before ArbCom, you should initiate a WP:RfC. As you have indicated above that you see a problem with a number of users, then you should identify and seek dialogue with them first, and again, if that fails, involve wider participation, probably via the WP:RfC process. The important thing is to seek to resolve the dispute and show that you have given the community the chance to do so. Tyrenius 12:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Link for ya

answers.com - they just mirror WP so are a tad behind, just in case you still were looking to read the article :) Glen 10:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just checked and that is pretty much the exact article that was deleted - I have to say its not really Wikipedia's best work on such subjects (calling Kennedy a servant of the elite is a tad overthetop...) Anyway, hope it helps Glen 10:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Accusations

I am wondering what you feel are the breaches in policy when someone nominates an article for deletion? If articles are deleted it is because either the consensus to keep was too low or the arguments presented that an article should be kept failed to be convincing enough to do so. Afd's and other mechanisms are not based on the number of votes, but on the arguments presented. A consensus is one good rule of thumb to go by, but due to spamming by proponents that prefer to see an article kept due to personal biases, if their arguments are weak as to the reasons for keeping, then the article is generally deleted.--MONGO 21:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I presume the above refers to SPAs and new users making their first edits to an AfD, i.e. meatpuppets. Of course, established editors' opinions on whatever side of the debate are given weight, and if personal biases produce weak arguments to delete, then the article will be kept. Tyrenius 12:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny

hi, the source is now available:

• User:Xiutwel/9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 25

— Xiutwel (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you please look at my proposal re 911tRtT? Thanks, — Xiutwel (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments

I see you need to please examine WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL if you expect to be able to establish a working relationship here on Wikipedia. A few of your comments lately such as this one are a bit over the top. Thanks.--MONGO 19:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)