User talk:Purplebackpack89

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
User talk:
Purplebackpack89
Archive
Archives

Category:en:Named roads[edit]

I don't know if you noticed, but Category:en:Roads is supplied by a {{topic cat}} subtemplate, so you don't need to hard-code it into the category itself. I only removed it after it became redundant.

Using the sub-template method means that the appropriate category is present in categories for all languages, not just in the categories you hard-code it into.

Hard-coding categories into entries that have {{topic cat}} in them makes it harder to change categories down the line, since you end up having to go to all the [[Category:<language code>:Roads]] categories to change the hard-codings.

Chuck Entz (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Why the hell didn't you TELL me that in your edit summary? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, why the hell didn't you ASK? —RuakhTALK 23:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
And why did you not examine the effects of Chuck's edit more closely, rather than just undoing it? And why didn't you leave an edit summary yourself? —CodeCat 23:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Ruakh and User:CodeCat, stop trying to shift the blame to me. CodeCat is the one who screwed up by not leaving an edit summary clearly explaining her actions, and she should be admonished for that. Instead of an edit summary, I explained, which also does your ASKING, Ruakh. At the time I edited, the module was broken, and the category wasn't showing up. We'd probably be better off if people didn't use modules. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't think my actions needed explaining, as I was just reverting a bad edit. What confounded me is that you then reverted me, implying you thought the page was actually better the way you left it. —CodeCat 00:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Didn't you read what I said about the module? It was better, because the category wasn't appearing. Using rollback implies that you think I'm a vandal, which is clearly not the case. Your edit did need explaining, and if you hadn't realized that by the second time you reverted, you frankly have no business with the rollback tool or the mop. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that you're a vandal just for having been reverted. I think pretty much every editor on Wiktionary is a vandal by that criterium. And I kept reverting because you kept reinserting content that shouldn't be there. Which still confounds me, because I figured after the first time you'd look more closely at what you were doing, instead of pressing on. —CodeCat 00:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
For the third time, the module was broken and the category wasn't showing up! What part of that don't you understand? And what part of, "you shouldn't use rollback unless it's vandalism or other types of bad-faith editing" don't you understand? If you had done what you did on Wikipedia, even if the other person was unambiguously wrong (which I'm not), you'd have lost rollback. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
A broken module does not justify inserting things into pages that don't belong there. What it justifies is fixing the module, which was done. And what part of "you shouldn't use rollback unless it's vandalism or other types of bad-faith editing" am I supposed to understand? I happen to disagree, and in disagreeing I follow established practice, that doesn't mean I don't understand. Wikipedia is completely irrelevant. —CodeCat 00:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
You and you "established practice" are wrong in this case Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
You're free to hold that opinion. But unless you follow established practice, there will be continuous friction between you and other editors, and could result in an eventual block. So I suggest you work with us (Wiktionary editors), rather than expecting all of us to work for you. —CodeCat 00:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
How can I work with you if you treat my good-faith edits like vandalism? This all comes back to you asserting that it's OK to use rollback on good-faith edits. Even if it's technically acceptable (which I believe it isn't), it's highly discourteous and you, a) should admit you were wrong to do it, and b) avoid doing it in the future. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Re: "This all comes back to you asserting that it's OK to use rollback on good-faith edits": Or rather, it comes back to you asserting that it's not. Which makes you a hypocrite, since you used it in the revert-war under discussion. (You're also a hypocrite for participating a revert-war to begin with, given your insistence upon Wikipedian rules. See w:WP:3RR.) —RuakhTALK 04:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Ruakh, it's clear you have no intention of punishing CodeCat. Therefore, you can't punish me either. I have started a pump thread to force use of edit summaries except in cases of vandalism. No one has as of yet said why that is a bad idea. That's probably because it actually is a good idea. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 04:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not "punishing" you, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is not a punishable offense, and even if it were, CodeCat can hardly be accused of hypocrisy for failing to abide by your rules. (And "pump thread"? Seriously? I know you know what site you're on, I'm starting to think you might be trolling us . . .) —RuakhTALK 05:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
If we had half the resources of Wikipedia, we would have time for all the niceties and formalities practiced there- but we don't. If you don't like it, register a complaint to the Wiktionary ArbCom... if you can find one... Chuck Entz (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
We can use edit summaries with the resources we have. Having less members than Wikipedia is not an excuse for not using edit summaries. Besides, all we'd have to do is get Twinkle, and that's not a HARD thing to do. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Unblock[edit]

Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Purplebackpack89 (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

1) One month is far too long an amount of time when my longest previous block is three days.
2)It's not symetrical, as I was blocked, but the editor who edited warred with me was not blocked
3)The blocking editor's comment that I "basically don't do any useful work here and everyone knows it." is inaccurate. I've added over half a dozen definitions in the last 48 hours

Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Even if Equinox's blocking summary was accurate, it's highly inappropriate as worded. He also failed to leave a message here explaining WHY he did what he did. All in all, a bad block that should be overturned, or reduced to a period of 72 hours or less. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 03:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Signature[edit]

Since I get to see your signature increasingly often, I would like to ask you to consider changing the yellow parts of it to some much darker color for better legibility. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC) I'm thinking of completely revamping my signature after that ridiculous thread against me closes. For now, I've swapped out the yellow for orange. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Not much better. Are you using dark background? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
No. I picked gold and orange for the SYMBOLISM, not for visibility. I think a lot of it has to do with the font being not bold and in superscript. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Expect a different font later this week, one that's easier to read (assuming that people see sense and vote down that pedantic month-long block) Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
What about this? Still too gaudy for my taste, but already approching legibility requirements. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Red would suggest a redlink, I fear. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • As a curious bystander interested in usability issues, might I suggest something like Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker), using the gold and the purple together? @Dan Polansky: are these legible for you? Is one better than the other? (Note too that I swapped out obsolete font tags for span tags with style attributes.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the suggestion, Eirikr. However, if I may be perfectly candid, it's not something I'm greatly concerned about. I'm really concerned, that, in spite of your suggestion that I remain allowed to edit, I'm going to lose my rollback and be blocked for a month on reasons that are highly dubious. Could you help me with that now? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    • @Eirikr: These are legible but look awful. Interestingly enough, the overwhelming majority of editors have no problems creating a simple, functional, legible signature, with minor cosmetic tweaks. And then there are some whose signature is, ehm, less than desirable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
      • My signature will change when the stupid block proposal resolves. If it resolves in my favor, I will edit under the new signature later this week. If it resolves in Ungoliant's favor, I will edit under the new signature when the block expires. My new signature will probably be borrowed from one of the signatures in my signature gallery on my Wikipedia user page. It will probably be the bold one with the purple and the pink and the yellow 89. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I really don't think it's important that "(Notes Taken)" and "(Locker)" be all that readable, given that the text is not really meaningful, either. The relationship of the link-text to the link-target is figurative at best. And that's fine. (Now, if the username were illegible, I'd be totally on-board with a request to fix that. But that's not at issue here.) —RuakhTALK 04:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What I think[edit]

O.K., I see that you are having some trouble here. That’s no big deal to me; I’ve had some trouble here myself whiles ago. I’m not sure what your age is (hormones cannot be ignored) or what’s going in your life, but I can offer some advice if, and only if, you are willing to take it into consideration, and my advice is this:

Stop taking Wiktionary seriously.

Now, I know what you might be thinking: ‘But this is a dictionary! We’re so supposed to be super serious and formal and polite and business suits and stuff!’ and while that might be true for something like the Oxford Dictionary, hardly anybody takes Geektionary seriously. There’re few formal rules, people labour when they want, not on any particular schedule, virtually nobody’s heard of us (we are almost always confused with Geekipedia), and as far’s I know, we’re not academically endorsed. It’s relaxed here. Now, does that mean that we can vandalize all we want? Only if we have good edits to balance it out. Sure, if all of my contributions were joke entries or joke edits, I wouldn’t have lasted long, but I also make some acceptable or innocent edits, so people are at least hesitant to block me.

If you feel like somebody’s insulting you, my advice is: laugh. Even if it feels artificial, try to laugh. Letting their remarks get to you ain’t gonna do nothin’ good. If somebody requests you to do something that you are hesitant to do, ask yourself: is it worth fighting? This is just a dictionary. Or a playground. Or both. Any works, really. Some of the practices here may suck, but if the project is (generally) more good than bad to you, you gotta compromise. You can propose why your way is better in the Beer Parlour. If you succeed, great. If you lose, you may learn something, and that may cause you to respect the practice more.

But suppose for a minute that you were permabanned from Geektionary… so what? You can make a private dictionary (the simplest way is using Notepad). Hell, you could even start your own website if you really want. If you decide that lexicography i’n’t for you, attempt to find something that is. Meditate on it. The decision is yours.

Basically, if nobody is going to take the project seriously, why should you? --Æ&Œ (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You're probably right that there's some combination of everybody breaking the rules and no rules. I just seem to get more flak for this existing than everybody else. Purplebackpack89 19:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
It’s a jungle out there, boy, but you gotta make the most of it. --Æ&Œ (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
O.K., supposing for a moment that that's true . . . why do you suppose that it is? —RuakhTALK 06:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Who cares why it is? The point is it shouldn't be. People shouldn't be allowed to get away with low-level personal attacks, then turn around and ask an editor be blocked for disliking said attacks. Even when an editor does something questionable, that's not an excuse for a personal attack, particularly if it's clear said attack would be unproductive. Purplebackpack89 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Re: "Who cares why it is? The point is it shouldn't be": If you want something to change, it usually helps to understand it. You cannot change things by sheer force of will; the solution to a problem is not independent of the problem. —RuakhTALK 19:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
And I thought for a while you actually wanted this project to be taken seriously, did you not, Æ&Œ? Keφr 07:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Keφr, for a while I did, but since I don’t like my mother tongue, I don’t value this project much. Perhaps I should reupdate my userpage. --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to take the project seriously when low-level digs (a form of personal attack), deletion of entries for the slimmest of reasons, and reversion of good-faith edits without any explanation is the norm. But, rather than throw my hands up in disgust and leave, I've decided to stay and try and ameliorate the situation. I've proposed policy changes that I think would solve this "jungle" atmosphere. I've also created new categories, definitions and entries. Purplebackpack89 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Purplebackpack89 I think you don't get enough flak here. You tell people they're not even allowed to have opinions. I think your weakness is total unwillingness to learn. Like the issue of capitalized common nouns. Are you unable to read up on it? I doubt it. Are you unwilling? Clearly. Your solution to every problem you face is ignorance and strength of will. I think you should think about that. Do you think ignorance is the best way forward for this wiki? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant:, I don't recall say that people aren't allowed to have opinions. Nothing close. As for reading up on it, I did read up on it. As for ignorance and force of will, it's generally in response to somebody else being forceful in the form of an unexplained revert or removal. It took asking "why is this a common noun?" about 10 times before I got anything approaching a cogent answer. It should take 1 time. And this is hardly the first time somebody's not given me a clear explanation of why they're reverting me. I get way too much flak, as far as I'm concerned, when I should be getting crystal-clear explanations of why people do stuff. Instead I get reverts (in one case the deletion of an entire definition) without the ghost of an explanation, as if they were vandalism. This is not all my fault, Renard. Ungoliant and other editors bear some blame for the way they interact with me, particularly since Ungoliant has made it clear that one of his missions here is to drive me off the project. Purplebackpack89 22:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

television show[edit]

Pursuant to the RfD discussion, I have restored television show. As you supported this restoration, please improve this entry through the addition of citations supporting the definitions provided and any other materials that would demonstrate its value to the corpus. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

More mainspace, less Beer parlour[edit]

About most dictionaries being staffed by loons[edit]

I have thought long and hard about your comment, and I would like to refer you to my response at baww. Best wishes, Equinox 03:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh, somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed today. --Æ&Œ (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Pilcrow! How about adding some more important omissions to WT:REE, such as "Jewnigger", "Fucksrael", and "Iamanobviousantisemite-ism"? Since there are dozens of active editors working hard on WT:REE, we always appreciate your important additions! Love, Equinox 03:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
How about you stop reverting other people's edits to community noticeboards, stop calling people loons, be sincere and get off my talk page? Purplebackpack89 11:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Come back when you’ve calmed down. --Æ&Œ (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
This comment isn't helpful, Equinox. WT:REE isn't mainspace. People can add things — even offensive, marginal slang — and it doesn't negatively impact the integrity of the wiki. The whole point of WT:REE is to allow people to assess the inclusion-worthiness of words before creating mainspace entries. And do I really need to point out that slang has a place in a dictionary that aims to include "all words in all languages?"
-Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Things I don't get[edit]

  • Why Vahagn Petrosyan hasn't been indeffed for his gross incivility/anti-Semitism to other editors
  • Why CodeCat still has a bot and a mop after lots of controversial actions, and a complete lack of edit summaries
  • Why Kephir still has a mop after it's clear personal animosities affect his administrative actions (most notably his marking of criticisms of him as vandalism)

Purplebackpack89 15:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of antisemitism, the anti-Semitism citation page has five refs which give a meaning unlike the current two senses. Do you mind chiming in with ideas on what to do with them or how to word them? Zigguzoo (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Actually I'm always glad when people disagree with me as it makes me think about what I'm saying. Anyway, I think you've improved a lot since you first started here. Dare I even say you've been listening to what people have been telling you? I don't know if you consider listening to people a sign of weakness, so if I said that I might offend you. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome Purplebackpack89 20:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:clipped form of[edit]

You forgot to create a documentation page. —CodeCat 22:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@CodeCat:: There's one now, but it may not match what the template does after your edit to the template. Purplebackpack89 23:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't match either your version or mine, that I can see. In any case, now that there is a documentation page there is no category at all. Before you created it, at least it was marked as being uncategorised. —CodeCat 23:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Does the category go on the doc or the page? Purplebackpack89 23:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
On the documentation page. There is a comment in the pre-generated documentation page that says something along the lines of "replace this category". —CodeCat 00:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I added the form-of category to the page, bracketed by noincludes. Purplebackpack89 00:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose on Signatures[edit]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Killing an ant with a bazooka gun. For starters, most of the content in this was written years and years ago. Wiktionary is different now than it was then. We don't seem to have the problems now that this policy tries to address; I'm not even sure we really ever had them. Bad signatures occur relatively infrequently, and even when they do, it's not really that disruptive. We try to remedy this "problem" with a policy that is far too restrictive of users. Users should be allowed to link to pages other than user and usertalk, to either just user or just usertalk, or no pages at all. I also believe users should be allowed to use templates in their signatures if the templates are protected. Furthermore, there needs to be a plank in here that refactoring another user's signature is generally inappropriate.

Unblock[edit]

{{unblock|While I thank Liliana for restoring my talk page access, reducing it to 3 days, and noting how abusive it was, I fail to understand why I should be blocked at all. All I did was change my signature and restore my signature after it had been removed. Purplebackpack89 18:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)}}

(edit conflict, I was *just* about to message you!)
I agree on the fact that signatures should link to one's user page. How are you going to contact a user when its signature doesn't link to a user page, especially as the signature isn't necessarily identical to one's Wiktionary user name? As such, I ask you, just to prevent any further drama, to change your signature back to what it was, with a link to your user page. I'd be willing to unblock you if I see proof of it.
Kephir blocking you out of hate is obviously way inappropriate. Is he also trans? It would explain why he acts just like CodeCat does and why the two defend each other. He obviously needs to be demoted as soon as possiblr. His behavior is outright abusive. -- Liliana 18:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I might also point you to w:WP:POINT. It's not Wiktionary policy but arguably is disruptive on any collaborative project. -- Liliana 18:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's my signature restored with links: Purplebackpack89 18:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC) I might also point you to User:Purplebackpack89/Wiktionary:Votes/2014-12/De-sysoping Kephir. I have been collecting diffs of his abuse, and will add this block to the list of abuses. Feel free to add abuses; I will likely start the vote in a week or two. I cannot collaborate with him as he continually deletes anything I say on his talk page on the thinnest of pretexts. Purplebackpack89 18:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC) @Liliana-60:: The issue of what's going on down there is irrelevant to me. What I'm more concerned about is his/her abuse of tools, tendentious editing, and grudge-holding. Purplebackpack89 18:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, good job! I've unblocked you, just don't go back edit warring over signatures again. -- Liliana 19:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
This situation screams for a vote on WP:SIG, BTW. Purplebackpack89 19:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Just... let it be, okay? It won't do you any good. Wiktionary is full of stupid retards. Smart people know to avoid them, because their stubbornness is impossible to overcome. There's a proverb in German about it. -- Liliana 19:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I guess I'll hafta let Kephir refactor other people's signatures whenever he wants. But I do want him to be de-sysopped. How do you provide the link to a single admin action? Purplebackpack89 19:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
There are no diffs for admin actions like with page edits, but I guess you could do something like this. -- Liliana 19:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've got it to work. Any other suggestions for User:Purplebackpack89/Wiktionary:Votes/2014-12/De-sysoping Kephir? Purplebackpack89 19:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Besides fixing the deletion log links, I'd like you to include some of the older incidents. You know, stuff like this. -- Liliana 19:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
@Liliana-60: I've added that one, and will probably add some more if I can find them. This is complicated by the fact that Kephir has deleted months of comments I've made to him; you can see them since you're an admin. Chuck has warned Kephir that continued use of his tools against me will led to Kephir's de-sysopping; perhaps you should as well. Purplebackpack89 00:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Purblebackpack, I came here to check if there was an exchange between you and Atitarev. Thank you very much for illustrating so clearly that blocking actually is seen as a form of dispute resolution on Wiktionary. You have a lot to learn here, it seems. Good luck with the signature, though.
Peter Isotalo 02:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@Peter Isotalo:: I found the sushi edits because I saw Atitarev's protection in the recent edits. As for learning stuff, I doubt I do, and certainly not from you. You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that you're in an edit war. The page was protected because you were edit warring. The possibility of a block is in play because you're edit warring. And you'd better thank your lucky stars that Atitarev is handling this. Some admins would've indeffed you. Purplebackpack89 02:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
"Edit war"... Again, you have a lot to learn. Like why it's a bad idea for any admin to use admin tools in disputes they are personally involved with.
--Peter Isotalo 02:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and by "you" I mean the community here. Low tolerence for disagreement combined with trigger-happy admins who won't hesitate to use admin tools to protect their own edits from interference is a great recipe for conflict escalation. That your view of Atitarev's reactions is one of a lenient admin is worrying.
Peter Isotalo 09:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Compared to, say, Kephir... Purplebackpack89 15:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
You mean compared to open abuse and sheer revenge blocking? :-( I don't envy you. Hope things work out.
Peter Isotalo 15:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to Wikitionary and I just stumbled upon this signature thing and agree that Kephir needs to be de-sysopped as soon as possible. Good luck, wish you all the best. Unicodesnowman (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I don't agree with you on most things, and think your methods are rather frustrating, but I do completely sympathise with you on being the target of so many people's scorn. And I admire you for standing up for what you believe is right, despite the constant abuse, opposition and personal attacks (including from me). That is one thing I think we have in common. I hope this encourages you at least, to not let bullying get to you. Just put it aside and work on Wiktionary, make it better, and to hell with "community". —CodeCat 18:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Purplebackpack89 18:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The above is just cheap. CodeCat did nothing to help you when you were in trouble, AFAIK, unlike other members of the community that CodeCat expressly scorns above (Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/June#Purplebackpack89). Your trouble was caused by CodeCat repeatedly unjustly edit warring with you and by CodeCat's great admirer Kephir (as per the previous link) who open declares his anti-consensus stances. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Kephir vote page[edit]

Please consider adding diff to your Kephir vote page; this is astounding! --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think User:Kephir fully comprehends what he's done in a stroke. I could now create an unsourced neologism, and there'd be nothing that could be done with it. Or I could close every single RfD and RfV as keep, because there's no policy to delete them right now.
I don't think there's much of a consensus for anything from that vote, and, much as I don't like CFI as written, there certainly wasn't consensus to completely throw it out. Had that argument been put to a vote instead of what User:Renard Migrant posited, there would have been at most 9 supports and 7 opposes, which isn't quite enough to do anything. What I interpret the vote as saying is that people are unhappy with CFI as written and they believe things other than CFI should be considered in RfD discussions. The upshot of that isn't obsoleting CFI, it's demoting it to a guideline, something that can be used in an argument but is not a be-all-and-end-all, and can be disregarded in particular instances by community consensus.
Looks like it's time for me to comment at BP or TR or one of those about this. Purplebackpack89 15:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I posted Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2015/February#Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion. I expect an admin to revert his diff soon; if not, then the moon people have taken over the refuge place this time around.
I and multiple other editors recognize the principle of consensus; Kephir does not which disqualifies him from being an admin and from editing WT:CFI either. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Kephir desysopping and preliminary support[edit]

I edited User:Purplebackpack89/Wiktionary:Votes/2015-01/De-sysoping Kephir to add a preliminary support section, to gauge the scope of support that there may be. Please revert if you disagree; it is your page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, although you may have to re-sign it when it happens. It's almost there; not sure if we're counting the CFI diff as the straw that broke the camel's back. Purplebackpack89 16:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I want to have a prelimiary gauge before the actual official vote starts. I have never supported Kephir adminship in the first place, but other potentially supporting editors may need even more evidence of bad behavior than so far presented. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. Not entirely sure how those editors will find it; perhaps a preliminary oppose section as well? I'm pretty sure we have at least one oppose on this in addition to the dude himself. Purplebackpack89 16:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Those monitoring recent changes may notice the page; if they don't, they don't. We don't need an oppose section: there are many opposes available, and that is not in question. What is in question is whether, because of all the abuse and objectionable editing, there are actually some supports. Since I believe many admins don't give a damn. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dan Polansky:: The de-sysop request should now be considered on hold because Kephir has not been a regular contributor for some weeks, but should he resume editing in the controversial manner he did in 2014, the request will be re-activated. Until then, it should remain in userspace, and editors are allowed to add additional diffs. Purplebackpack89 15:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)