Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sgeureka
Edit count for Sgeureka[edit]
User:Sgeureka
run at Mon Dec 8 02:07:37 2008 GMT
Category talk: 1
Category: 20
Help talk: 1
Help: 5
Image: 114
Mainspace 13576
Portal talk: 1
Portal: 7
Talk: 2114
Template talk: 47
Template: 208
User talk: 1004
User: 850
Wikipedia talk: 875
Wikipedia: 2054
avg edits per page 2.11
earliest 16:36, 16 January 2007
number of unique pages 9895
total 20877
2007/1 4
2007/2 114
2007/3 1052
2007/4 795
2007/5 1025
2007/6 821
2007/7 1333
2007/8 640
2007/9 648
2007/10 619
2007/11 814
2007/12 1359
2008/1 1865
2008/2 914
2008/3 1525
2008/4 674
2008/5 550
2008/6 881
2008/7 1061
2008/8 556
2008/9 649
2008/10 1046
2008/11 1617
2008/12 315
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red
denotes edits without an edit summary)
Mainspace
230 [2]Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial)
221 [3]Mythology of Carniv�le
200 [4]Characters of Carniv�le
159 [5]Carniv�le
115 [6]Vala Mal Doran
104 [7]List of Carniv�le episodes
89 [8]List of Stargate Atlantis episodes
85 [9]List of Stargate SG-1 characters
52 [10]List of Stargate SG-1 episodes
50 [11]A Dog's Breakfast
49 [12]Stargate: The Ark of Truth
47 [13]List of recurring Earth characters in Stargate SG-1
45 [14]Stargate Universe
45 [15]Stargate Program
44 [16]Stargate SG-1
Talk:
41 [17]List of Stargate SG-1 episodes
36 [18]Poop
28 [19]List of Scrubs episodes
27 [20]Mythology of Carniv�le
24 [21]List of Stargate Atlantis episodes
19 [22]Earth technology in Stargate
18 [23]Carniv�le
18 [24]List of Charmed episodes
17 [25]List of Gilmore Girls characters
17 [26]Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial)
17 [27]Stargate (device)
16 [28]Ancient technology in Stargate
16 [29]Mythology of Stargate
16 [30]List of Earth characters in Stargate Atlantis
15 [31]Stargate SG-1/Archive 4
Category:
2 [32]Stargate character redirects to lists
2 [33]Ashes to Ashes (TV series) characters
Help:
3 [34]Merging and moving pages
Image:
10 [35]Map USA Carnivale Route.PNG
10 [36]Carnivale Season 1 Cast Promo.jpg
5 [37]Gospel of Matthias Carnivale.jpg
4 [38]Benhawkins.jpg
4 [39]Tomin.jpg
4 [40]BJustin2.jpg
4 [41]Carnivale Tattooed Man Sketch.jpg
4 [42]Ra original humanoid.jpg
4 [43]Carnivale Libby Costume.jpg
3 [44]A Dog's Breakfast DVD cover.jpg
3 [45]Pride-and-Prejudice-TV-miniseries.jpg
3 [46]Stargate SG-1 Season 2.jpg
3 [47]Stargate SG-1 cast minus Jonas Quinn.jpg
3 [48]Doci and Prior.jpg
2 [49]ValaMalDoran.jpg
Portal:
2 [50]Stargate/Things you can do
Template:
37 [51]Stargate
19 [52]Avataric pedigree
17 [53]Stargate DVD Dates/SG1
11 [54]StargateTopics
10 [55]GA number
10 [56]Carniv�le
9 [57]SGGlyph/doc
9 [58]Episode list/Stargate
5 [59]Farscape
4 [60]Stargateproject
4 [61]Surname
4 [62]GilmoreGirls
3 [63]Wikipedia policies and guidelines
3 [64]Disambig editintro
3 [65]The NeverEnding Story
Template talk:
10 [66]Episode list
4 [67]Surname
4 [68]ER to list entry
3 [69]Notability
3 [70]Disambig-cleanup
3 [71]Familytree
3 [72]Fiction notability
2 [73]Citation
2 [74]Stargate
2 [75]Television colour
2 [76]Cite journal
2 [77]Stargate DVD Dates/SG1
User:
238 [78]Sgeureka/Sandbox
168 [79]Sgeureka
94 [80]Sgeureka/Template
86 [81]Sgeureka/Stargate
45 [82]Sgeureka/Dab
23 [83]Sgeureka/monobook.js
22 [84]Sgeureka/Merged
17 [85]Sgeureka/My Shortcuts
13 [86]Sgeureka/Episodes
6 [87]Sgeureka/Karl Marx Monument
5 [88]Sgeureka/monobook.css
5 [89]Masem/wp-fict-proposed
3 [90]Masem/fictspin
3
[91]Tony1/Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes/August 2008
2 [92]WarthenMan/Userboxes/lostpediaproud
User talk:
99 [93]Sgeureka/Archive02
77 [94]Sgeureka/Stargate
51 [95]Sgeureka/Archive03
50 [96]Sgeureka/Archive01
36 [97]AngelGraves13
31 [98]Shoeofdeath
19 [99]Eusebeus
14 [100]Opark 77
14 [101]Yzx
12 [102]Sgeureka
11 [103]Rex Germanus
9 [104]Kusma
9 [105]Bignole
7 [106]Million Moments
6 [107]Alessiobissoli
Wikipedia:
53 [108]WikiProject Stargate
46 [109]Good article nominations
42 [110]Fiction/Noticeboard
40 [111]SU
36 [112]Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop
35 [113]WikiProject Stargate/Articles
28 [114]Featured article candidates/Carniv�le
21 [115]Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
18 [116]Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop
17 [117]Notability (fiction)
16 [118]Articles for deletion/Command Carrier (3rd nomination)
16 [119]Articles for deletion/Derrial Book
15 [120]Requests for page protection
15
[121]Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 List of characters in the Firefly
universe
15 [122]Requested moves
Wikipedia talk:
204 [123]Notability (fiction)
177 [124]WikiProject Stargate
88 [125]Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)
62 [126]WikiProject Television
42 [127]WikiProject Disambiguation
34 [128]Television episodes
32 [129]Disambiguation
25 [130]What Wikipedia is not
23 [131]Non-free content
22
[132]Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decisi
on
16 [133]Articles for deletion
15 [134]Notability
13 [135]Manual of Style (writing about fiction)
10 [136]SU
8 [137]Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2
If there were any problems, please [138]email Interiot or post at
[139]User talk:Interiot.
- The edit count was retrieved from this link at 02:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC).
Detailed oppose by Pixelface[edit]
Sgeureka is an editor on stargate.wikia.com. His userpage at that wiki says "I am here to help expand Stargate SG-1 articles by transwiki'ing material from wikipedia. I can be reached via my wikipedia account, User:Sgeureka." Above, Sgeureka says "I am active in WP:TV, WP:STARGATE, and the resurrection of WP:FICT." He also considers as one of his best contributions "decruftifying WP:STARGATE and getting rid of hundreds of nn SG articles without much fan drama (ongoing process)." I do not think that an editor who has been "getting rid of hundreds of nn SG articles" on Wikipedia, and is a Wikia editor, is fit to be an administrator. I don't doubt that Sgeureka started getting rid of those articles from Wikipedia first, and then became a Wikia editor — but the result is the same as if he came from Wikia to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's information decreases and Wikia's information and revenues increase. I see at least three WikiProject Stargate members have supported Sgeureka becoming an admin. If only 3 people ever read a Stargate SG-1 article on Wikipedia, there would be no problem. Sgeureka has improved Stargate SG-1 articles. But WikiProject Stargate does not own them. That Sgeureka started getting rid of those articles during Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters where he was an involved party is troubling.
Sgeureka added himself to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Participants on February 25, 2007. Sgeureka's first edit to WT:STARGATE was July 28, 2007.
On October 5, 2007, Sgeureka said, at ANI, "WP:NOT#PLOT is an official policy. WP:EPISODE is a derived guideline backed up by consensus. User:TTN enforces both. If he took all episdes that do not assert notability to AfD, fans would scream bloody murder for not following WP:FICT ("Non-notable information should be deleted only when other options have been exhausted"), and those AfDs usually end in no consensus or keep anyway because there are enough fans to outvote the PLOT policy." Perhaps Sgeureka is unfamiliar with the concept of jury nullification. Sgeureka still does not understand that PLOT does not have consensus to be policy. And TTN has never understood that WP:EPISODE has never been a notability guideline, ever. On October 7, 2007, Sgeureka replied to White Cat at ANI and said "It seems you're confusing wiki-notability with real-world notability. Wiki-notability is established by reliable sources." There is no such thing as "wiki-notability." On October 7, Sgeureka replied to DanTD and said "prove it by establishing notability and the case shall rest in your favor." You cannot "prove" notability. You cannot "establish" notability. It's an opinion.
On November 2, 2007, Sgeureka said at ANI "It can also be argued that the article creators waste everyone's time, as they don't realize that (in most cases) they are not improving the project by adding poorly formatted episode articles that violate WP:PLOT, WP:TRIVIA, WP:QUOTE and WP:NOTABILITY without hope for change. My last three months of editing made me realize that you can fully cover your favorite TV show in four kickass articles." Sgeureka also said "Should these articles remain because some people put a lot of work into them, like them and because these articles don't do any harm? In the perfect wiki-world, these articles wouldn't have been created in the first place. The whole procedure about article creation of fictional topics (mainly episode articles) needs to be re-thought and enforced; the rethinking part is already over (but is still subject to discussion)." Sgeureka cited an essay WP:ATA, multiple times. If Sgeureka becomes an admin, I think it's highly likely that he will quote this same essay when closing deletion debates. Sgeureka linked to WP:EPISODE, but that page has had a total of 190 edits. 190 edits. It began as a centralized discussion, but was moved to Wikipedia:Television episodes on April 16, 2007 by Radiant! — the same editor who rewrote WP:N in September 2006.
In the "perfect wiki-world", those articles would have been created, and they were. That's because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. That's because Wikipedia is not paper on meta explicitly says "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." Th's policy that Wikipedia is not paper was noted by the arbitration committee in the final decision of E&C2, where TTN was place under editing restrictions for six months.
On November 15, 2007, Sgeureka said in a statement at RFAR, which became part of E&C1, where Sgeureka was listed as an involved party, "First and foremost, I strongly believe that an article needs to satisfy wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or should at least demonstrate its potential to do so." This takes for granted that those policies and guidelines have the support of the community in the first place. A featured article has to go through a more vigorous review than most policies and guidelines I know of. Sgeureka said "Out of interest, I tested whether TTN asks for too much, with an average episode of Stargate SG-1 (almost none of their articles establish notability at the moment)..." Notability cannot be "established." Sgeureka said "Still, my desired outcome of this case (if it should open) would be to strengthen the awareness and acceptance of WP:FICT/WP:NOTABILITY and WP:EPISODE and the continued review of episode articles." Wikipedia has over 8.4 million registered users. The number of editors who have edited WP:FICT and WP:N and WP:EPISODE (and commented at their talk pages) is outrageously minuscule in comparison. It's even minuscule in comparison to the number of active users — 159,106 registered users have made at least one edit in the past 30 days. Anyone can add anything they want to those pages.
Sgeureka said "I'd consider it a bad precedent for WP:NOT#PLOT and co if the huge number of guideline-ignorant (willingly or unwillingly) fans can annul the enforcement of policies." It is beyond pointless to "enforce" a policy that does not have consensus to be policy in the first place. I would put my trust in individual editors, editing separately, doing things that they think make Wikipedia better, doing the same thing, spread out all over Wikipedia...over a bunch of hobbyhorse rulemakers any day. Sgeureka said "But in the end, fiction is just another wikipedia domain where the same (strict) guidelines and policies apply, and it is high time that these are enforced, starting with the articles that least qualify for passing." No, it is not high time to "enforce" guidelines and policies that are illegitimate. Wikipedia is not Mao. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Policies and guidelines are not a code of law. It is high time to ensure that Wikipedia policies and guidelines actually are legitimate.
On November 16, 2007, Sgeureka argued to merge in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book, an article about a character from Firefly. On November 24, 2007, Hiding closed the AFD as no consensus and then started a merge discussion at Talk:Firefly (TV_series). On December 4, 2007, Hiding closed the discussion as having no consensus to merge. On January 7, 2008, Sgeureka said he was getting ready to merge. On January 9, 2008, Sgeureka requested mediation over Firefly character articles. Sceptre was the mediator. At the time, Sceptre had been an involved party of E&C1 along with Sgeureka. Sceptre was later an involved party of E&C2 when it opened January 19, 2008.
After E&C1 opened on November 22, 2007 (where Sgeureka was listed as an involved party) on November 25, 2007, Sgeureka said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate "all SG episode articles will be up for review some time in the not-so-far future." and "I am an SG-1 fan (not so much SGA) with some spare wiki time at the moment, so I would like to get a headstart before the results of the discussions (usually redirects) are enforced by consensus." (Keep in mind, this was during the E&C1 arbitration case). Sgeureka said "An other or additional option (which I am trying to look into) is transwikiing the full episodes to wikia, which would leave them outside the scope of wikipedia notability guidelines and they can get as detailed in plot as the editor wants. WT:DIGI#Transwiki (the Digimon wikiproject) has already had some experience in this matter that we could draw from. Articles from wikia can also be re-imported into wikipedia very easily if somebody wants to work on an episode article in a more encyclopedic environment." Yes, Ned Scott is a bureaucrat and admin[1][2] at digimon.wikia.com. Sgeureka also said "But before I start with anything, I need to know if there is resistance about these plans from within this project. If it turns out that too many SG-1 editors here want to work from the perspective of fandom instead of a (real-world) encyclopedia, I'll admit that I don't have the stamina to argue the points of WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT and WP:WAF (and some more) to guideline-ignorant editors, and that I'll find other wikipedia articles to work on." But there was resistance:
Ckatz said "Having been involved in the development of the episode review process, I honestly don't think it accurately represents a community-wide perspective, and as such it isn't fair to describe it as a consensus. The review process has never been vetted by the larger community, and it is used primarily as justification for merges that are really soft deletes (since no effort is made to integrate material into the destination articles)." Ckatz also said "Worst of all, there has been little or no attempt to find any sort of middle ground; those who oppose merges are dismissed as "fans", or of being ignorant of Wikipedia's conventions. Editors who oppose "merges" are told - often quite rudely - that their opinions don't matter, or that their work is rubbish, or that they should go to a "fan site" instead. (The "other site" nudge is, I think, quite troubling, as such a move would inevitably lead to articles that incorporate all of the nonsense - speculation, theories, etc. - that we are able to filter out on Wikipedia." Ckatz also said "I just think that we shouldn't be taking the attitude that the process is automatically correct, and that the outcome is inevitable."
Shogun said "As one of those who does not read this portal I came here after finding that the episode articles I often refer to have suddenly vanished. Trim the articles of excessively verbose material if you must but don't delete it all! I doubt I am the first who will come here to find out what happened. Noting my strong objection to this merge/delete/migration."
Sgeureka responded "...In the end, resistance is futile when you don't have guidelines and policies covering your six, but if I/we can "save" the most important information by bringing it in line with guidelines and policies (and/or by simply transwikiing it), we can prevent any nastiness by preventing an externally enforced review process..." What Sgeureka takes for granted, is that the wider community accepts those guidelines and policies in the first place. Nothing could be further from the truth.
On November 30, 2007, Sgeureka said "Instead of keeping the articles on wikipedia despite violating policies and guidelines badly, they should be transwikied." Sgeureka said "I started transwiki'ing popular TV show episode articles two days ago, and the early result (List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, links will be cut later) looks surprisingly practical and useful. I really do think that's the future..." While E&C1 was going on, Sgeureka was redirecting Stargate SG-1 articles.[3]
At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop on December 11, 2007, Sgeureka said "As I've said elsewhere, there are about a dozen dedicated editors upholding fiction policies and guidelines against a number of hundreds and thousands of editors who have never seen a policy or guideline (not to mention their lacking participation in P&G consensus finding), and cutting down the number of dedicated editors by force is not the answer." CBDunkerson replied "Heh. "About a dozen" bravely defending 'consensus' against the "hundreds and thousands" who disagree with them. I couldn't have said it better myself." Sgeureka said "everybody is invited to participate in building policies and guidelines. That includes the "dozen" (just a guess, not important here) and the other hundred/thousand/whatever editors. Yet only about two dozen (again, a guess) of people actually participate(d) in the past few months, of which there are deletionists, mergists, inclusionists, and whatever philosophies wikipedia has to offer." CBDunkerson said "Neither consensus nor the guidelines change when someone edits a page to say something new. The guidelines only change when there is consensus agreement with a particular approach." and "In the past few months some people have been trying to change the guidelines to say that these lists now are not notable. That's fine... as you say, consensus can change. The problem is the assumption that it already has. This proposed change in notability standards has been continuously disputed. It has never been shown to have any sort of consensus. That people haven't edit warred to keep it off the guideline pages doesn't make it 'the new guideline'. It doesn't become any kind of standard until there is general support for it... which there demonstrably isn't."
On December 13, 2007 when an editor proposed at the E&C1 workshop that TTN be placed under editing restrictions for a year, Sgeureka said "If this goes through, I volunteer to revert instead of him in those cases (the majority) where month(s)-long merge/redirect discussions resulted in nothing but WP:ILIKEIT votes without any article improvement."
On December 15, 2007 at Talk:List of Gilmore Girls characters, Sgeureka said "I love the show, have some DVDs of it at home, but I fear none of the Gilmore Girls characters currently establish notability as outlined in WP:FICTION." and "Unless there is any opposition, I'll start the merger soon. I have already merged many minor characters into this list here, which prevents them from being nominated for deletion right-away. I acn also help with a transwiki, if someone wants to keep the information somewhere off-wikipedia." There was opposition. Yet Sgeureka said "Anyway, all character pages violate WP:NOT#PLOT and need to be trimmed massively." and "Although a couple of them have one or two tiny paragraphs for production info, all are completely unsourced and therefore seem to violate WP:NOTABILITY. As a result, they fail WP:FICT." On January 19, 2008, Sgeureka was plugging Wikia again, "I love(d) Gilmore Girls as well, but your focus is not ideal. Wikis are a great software, but wikipedia is an neutral encyclopedia written from a real-world perspective and encourages articles like Boone Carlyle (see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)). Vanity pages and in-depth in-universe material however are welcomed in severals wikias, such as wikia:TV:Gilmore Girls."
Later when the merge was brought up in April 2008, Sgeureka said "WP:NOT#PLOT (policy) is clear. You did not gain consensus for un-redirecting the articles back to their policy violating state." and "Thinking about this a little more, it's clear who is not in line with policy, and who didn't gain consensus for his actions first. I'll therefore revert your edits per WP:BRD (you were bold, not me) and wait for your justification." Phil Sandifer said "The merge never had consensus." Sgeureka said "See Wikipedia:Silence and consensus." and "I'd also like to point to policies and guidelines, which have way more weight than one person in three months opposing a merge." Phil Sandifer said "Silence and consensus is an essay. WP:FICT is a proposed guideline. Neither of those have substantive weight." Sgeureka replied "I didn't mention WP:FICT in this thread a single time; I however repeatedly pointed to WP:NOT#PLOT, a policy. Besides, at the time of the merge proposal, WP:FICT was not proposed. So, since you don't seem to obey WP:BRD, does that mean you prefer to edit-war instead of reporting me to the noticeboard like I proposed? If yes, no problem, I'll do that for you then. See you there unless you self-revert in the next hour or explain how my actions were wrong and how yours aren't."
On April 11, 2008, Sguereka wrote at WP:FICT/N, "More trouble with merged articles: Some of the/my Gilmore Girls character mergers are getting reverted (and reverted), although the proposal discussion lasted over three months (no-one but one person even cared to comment, and this one was a WP:ILIKEIT vote) and the actual merge happened several weeks ago as well (before and after the injunction)." On April 12, 2008, Sgeureka said "I've said it before, I'll say it again: Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus, and one person cannot annul that on a talkpage. Neither can two people. I have edited according to policies and guidelines (even gave the articles the benefit of a doubt for several weeks and months) and can thus claim to have consensus." Some policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus, some do not. Wikipedia has over 300 policies and guidelines, and they can be edited by anyone.
E&C1 closed December 28, 2007, and Wikipedia:Television episodes was referred to. ArbCom said "The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute." Sgeureka's first edit to the WP:STARGATE page was January 2008, after E&C1 closed.
On January 5, 2008, Sgeureka said "the recent trend is to make wikipedia an encyclopedia focused on the real world, and go away from fansite coverage. That also means either cutting down on unwanted stuff (number of articles, images, plot), or expansion (conception, production, recepetion and keeping an image). There has only been limited progress in the latter, so we can only do the former or wait until others do it for us." Tango asked "Unwanted by whom?" and Sgeureka replied "Policies and guidelines. WP:FICT wants as few non-notability-establishing articles as possible, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF want existing articles to have real-world context and sourced analysis..." Pages on Wikipedia don't want anything. Especially when it comes to policies and guidelines that only an extremely small group of editors agree with or have edited.
WP:FICT has been in flux for over a year. WP:WAF was created March 27, 2006 by Amcaja in his userspace. It was moved to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) on May 29, 2006. WAF was marked a guideline after 18 days on June 16, 2006 by Hiding. On June 29, 2006, Hiding proposed PLOT, based on WAF. On November 13, 2008, Hiding said "Please remove WP:PLOT from policy. Find a better way to achieve what you want than WP:PLOT. It doesn't work, it is divisive and Pixelface is right regarding Wikia, it is something that has been bothering me a while now too and I wish I had considered those ramifications back when I proposed it. We shouldn't be directing people to Wikia. Wikia is a competitor for us."
In February 2008, Sgeureka said "What happens if a mediator in an (informal) mediation case practically calls the application of policies and guidelines "misguided" because local consensus has very strong opinions? I am specifically referring to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13 24 character merging of minor characters, which I found yesterday by accident." Sgeureka said "Something has gone terribly wrong in 24 editing circles some time ago, and both parties have taken very strong positions, with local consensus outvoting policies by a significant majority (as happens often in popular culture). I offered my opinion there, but as I am already feeling the first ripples of bad faith, I'll probably stop. I am however worried about a bad precedent. How long is (what I perceive as) wiki-stalling accepted - one month, two months, significantly more - before more stringent actions are allowed? Should any merge proposals go to the next instance (the formal Mediation Committee) if they are not successful in more informal discussions? How does this fare for the old (Dec. 2007) and the updated WP:FICT? (Because of the current arbcom halt-all-activities ruling, and since WP:FICT is still officially disputed, I ask more as a matter to gather opinions instead of pouring gasoline in the fire.)" I think it's highly likely that WP:FICT, as long as it's a notability guideline, will always be disputed.
In the past, Sgeureka has tag-teamed[4][5] with an admin who stated in his RFA (which occurred while the E&C1 case was open} that he believes "that TTN's ultimate goal is correct." TTN is an editor on xiaolinshowdown.wikia.com[6] and gaming.wikia.com[7]
On March 8, 2008, White Cat removed the mention of Wikia from WP:FICT[8], Sgeureka reverted[9], and then it was finally removed on March 8, 2008 by Sceptre[10].
On April 8, 2008, Sgeureka said "Honestly, I don't know what to do about TTN's mergers/redirects. Most are in-line with policy and guidelines, but he was often boldy editing against strong local fan consensus, which I see as the real problem here." So "fans" are the problem here and not the extreme minority of editors and policywonks who write policies and guidelines?
On April 23, 2008, TTN (while under editing restrictions by ArbCom) asked Sgeureka to redirect some articles for him. Sgeureka replied "I'll see how much I can do without a bad conscience or risking accusations that either you or I are violating the arbcom injunction. The Pokemon page won't be a problem because of the WikiProject backing, I guess." TTN is the one who redirected all the Pokemon articles [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 18 is full of objections. On May 9, 2008, Sgeureka asked "For context, when did WP:POKE become inactive?" TTN replied "I think it died a few months ago." Yeah, because TTN killed it. Then on November 29, 2008, Sgeureka had the gall (ignorance?) to say "WP:POKEMON were among the first to realize that franchise popularity never lasts long enough to assure continued article improvement, and that scalability is an issue."
On May 9, 2008, Sgeureka said "TTN can in fact merge all he wants, he just can't merge&redirect." If Sgeureka cannot understand a ruling from the arbitration committee, I don't see how he could possibly be a fit administrator. On May 14, 2008, Sgeureka said "And I tend to only edit abandoned fiction articles where people have lost their fanatic fan attachment." With this sort of bias, I could not trust Sgeureka to close any deletion debates.
In the past, Sgeureka has said his time is limited. On June 10, 2008, Sgeureka said regarding WP:PLOT, "There are no "many others". A vocal minority of half a dozen people don't make a section disputed. If you want to change something, please work out an alternative that may enjoy consensus before demanding change. You can read up on the brainstorming sessions from last month for inspiration. Thank you." I replied and cited scores of people who have disputed PLOT being a policy. Sgeureka replied "I am well aware of the old discussions. And yes, there was disagreement what NOT#PLOT should express and where. But that doesn't mean that people dispute its essense. I read the first five of your links (my time is limited), and four of them expressed that NOT#PLOT may be be better as part of WAF, a MOS or elsewhere, i.e. they agree with its basics." So Sgeureka admitted that people were saying PLOT did not belong in NOT, and yet said "Marking the section as disputed and watching the others work out a solution that fits your views is just the lazy way out (we already have that at FICT). Until then, the previous WP:CONSENSUS stands." On June 12, 2008, Sgeureka also said "my time is limited." Another reason he should not be an admin.
In January 2008, Sgeureka's efforts at WikiProject Stargate were described by Garda40 as "death by a thousand cuts." Sgeureka replied " I prefer a "death by a thousand cuts" to what is currently going on over at WP:EPISODE and the arbcom case, which is pretty much a nuclear explosion (backed up by WP:NOTABILITY, so I rather make sure the necessary changes are applied appropriately to topics I care about before they are enforced by deletion squadrons)." So perhaps it was a pre-emptive strike. In August 2008, Garda40 said "I see the "death of a thousand cuts" is ongoing as I said it would be months ago." Huntster replied "The SG articles were havens of fanboy wankery, and have now been appropriately trimmed to more readily fall in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. As I'm sure has been said many times before, if you want a place to detail every little piece of lore, you can always head over to stargate.wikia.com..."
Garda40 said "As I said months ago to Sgeureka all you get bowing to policies that were changed as time went by was you having to cut more and more so to keep up with policy..." and "stargate.wikia.com or stargate-sg1-solutions.com. Ah , such a good advert for wikepedia .Go somewhere else .But I suppose in two years time I will have to so it's useful if early advice" Sgeureka responded to Garda40, saying "I am sorry that you feel I am destroying the 'pedia slowly. But the idea is to get them all to Good and Featured Article quality some day, not hide behind some A's that they received in first grade when everyone else is preparing for college." Some of us stopped caring about 
stickers in kindergarten. They have kindergarten in Germany right? Not every article on Wikipedia has to be "GA" or "FA" quality. If we deleted articles for not being "GA" or "FA", we'd delete 2,645,107 articles — all but 9,055 articles. And whether those are actually "good" is debatable.
Sgeureka says above "However, since I started working on reviewing various fiction categories for merger and deletion candidates a few months ago, I've had to deal with so many (mostly) noncontroversial db-catempty, prod-nn and TfD, that having admin tools would help me reduce backlogs instead of enlargening them." That says it all really. He said he wants to "reduce backlogs." I could not trust Sgeureka to close any deletion discussion. Sgeureka's edits have not been "noncontroversial." On November 8, 2008, Sgeureka said "There is a huge cleanup attempt going on to merge nonnotable fiction-related articles. When all is said and done (could be a year, could be five, could be never), I doubt that many (any?) fictional foxes/moles/whatever will still have separate articles to categorize." When all is said and done, if Sgeureka has his way, they'll all be on Wikia, making money for Jimbo Wales. On November 27, 2008, Sgeureka said "I have been reviewing TV episode articles for over a year now for potential mergers, and I'd say 90 percent of them are absolute crap that should be AfDed or speedy-redirected..." Sgeureka, you don't own them.
Sgeureka says above "By chance, I came across Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism and Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas about a year ago, and have rarely ever become stressed out again." and "No matter how much care and diplomacy goes into these merge proposals, they can always lead to (erroneous) appearances of passive-agressive mocking or fait accompli, inadvertantly giving rise to power struggles and worsening the situation even more." Hmm, don't-give-a-fuckism and the appearance of "fait accompli", inadvertently giving rise to power struggles and worsening the situation even more. Not exactly the qualities I look for in an administrator.
If an editor can look with a critical eye when merging scores of articles, they should also be able to look with a critical eye at policies and guidelines. But Sgeureka appears to be unable to look at policies or guidelines with that same critical eye, and appears to be blind when people object to the enforcement of policies and guidelines that don't have actual consensus — instead using the terms "fanboy filibustering", "fancruftyness", "fan-driven judgement", "fan drama", "WP:ILIKEIT fan opinion", "local fan consensus", "fan backing", "emotionally invested fan editors", "huge fan outcries", "systematic kneejerk fan reactions", etc. Sgeureka is an admitted fan of Stargate SG-1. So what's with all the fan bashing? Sgeureka himself could be simply dismissed as "policy fan" or "guideline fan." Wikipedia was written by fans. Fans of mathematics, military history, biology, even Stargate SG-1. I could go through every user who has voted in this RFA and tell you what they're a fan of. Fans will work for free. But that's also the business model of Wikia. Fans will work for free. If you want to volunteer to work in Jimbo's "fancruft"mines, by all means, go right ahead. But don't tear down Wikipedia in the process. Especially if all you want to see is a on your computer screen. If someone wants to write about a TV episode on Wikipedia and not Wikia, you have no right to drive them to Wikia. With edits like this, Sgeureka might be better off applying for a job at Wikia. I hear they're hiring.
Sgeureka strikes me as becoming the type of wikilaywer admin who will ignore people arguing to keep an article, and instead say it must be deleted according to Leviticus 19:19. Now Sgeureka is off on vacation to Baden-Württemberg during his spur-of-the-moment-self-nom RFA. --Pixelface (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you made some salient points above, that's fine, but I didn't read much of this near 5,000 word essay. Regarding "driving" editors to Wikia to write fancruft...yeah, that is a good thing. Most television episodes simply cannot assert notability. If they can, and have some decent sources backing them, then by all means include them here, but otherwise they have a welcome home on Wikia. And why is it such a horrid thing to have a real life? Perhaps the timing was unfortunate, but I'm much more comfortable with those that don't spend the majority of their time here. This should be a hobby, not a job (full- or part-time). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Muh, this is more of the same dreary wiki-OCD from Pixel of the variety that we've become all too used to and which regularly leads to his appearance at AN/I. It will get him permanently blocked one of these days. We are too lenient with this style of pointy and disruptive engagement. Eusebeus (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- tl;dr - Sheesh. Hi, Eusebeus. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- The executive summary is that Pixelface believes that Sgeureka has an ulterior motive in favouring a robust WP:N policy: to drive traffic to Wikia for personal gain. Sadly it appears that Pixelface has accidentally forgotten to provide any evidence for this motive. I eagerly await the followup. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Pixel. nb: AC successful motions take a lot of good work and cogent dialogue ;)
- It seems to me that you've lifted your Wikia editor COI theme from me, after a good shake in a Klein bottle. In this lovely post, you link off to a post of mine from the E&C 2 case where I referred to "Jimmy's other pocket" (and I made related posts elsewhere, back in the day).
- The subject of that thread is; (and note that the 'Wikipedia Annex' is a wikia.com subdomain; http://annex.wikia.com/)
- 1) Editors are strongly encouraged to transwiki articles to either the Wikipedia Annex or an appropriate fandom-based Wiki (e.g., Wookiepedia for Star Wars-related articles) prior to conducting a merge that results in a significant amount of article content not being transferred to the merged page, and to include an InterWiki link to the transwikied article in the merged result.
- In response I stated that:
- "This non-profit site can not make a ruling mandating (or "strongly encouraging") support for commercial entities such as Wikia. Major COI, for the tin-god-king" … "The burden of transwiki-ing needs to fall on those editors who wish to preserve whatever content has been found wanting. I will not work to recycle unencyclopaedic content." … "Why should an editor interested in encyclopaedic material bother with unencyclopaedic material in any way other than to seek its removal from this site?"
- That full thread is at; (it's long and there were also several similar proposals made elsewhere on that page)
- In your invagination of my argument, you seem to be arguing that Wikia editors are leaching on this project (which has inclusion standards), and have some sort of conflict of interest. Wiki editors (any wiki), for the most part, are ordinary people; on this wiki, we have WP:AGF to nudge us towards this view (I dunno what they say about this on Wikia; don't really care).
- My argument was about Jimmy's and WMF's COI in actively promoting a requirement to transfer material to Wikia prior to a redirect or merge, including getting it all the way into an actual artice there, and to then promote that commercial site by requiring/encouraging linking to it wo/nofollow;
- "This whole proposal is flawed for another reason: it says to give a link to the merged off-site article, not just to the Wikia Annex; this assumes you've gone over to Wikia and gotten the content further along than the annex and into an article (and the link, which will not have a rel="nofollow" gives a nice PageRank boost to whomever). Transwiki-ing is entirly optional and editors are free to ignore it"
- Executive summary:
- Unencyclopaedic material should be remove by redirection, merges with a heavy cut en route, or deletion; if Wikia editors, or anyone else, really, want to use Wikipedia content in accordance with the relevant licenses, fine, but the onus is on them to perform whatever work that entails; editors of this project really ought to be focused on building an encyclopaedia that doesn't suck. Unencyclopaedic material, in an encyclopaedia, sucks.
- Sgeureka is a good Wikipedia editor who will make good use of better access to the project. There's a pretty strong consensus on that emerging, oh, somewhere nearby…
- Jack Merridew 04:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad Pixelface has cut down the TLDR drivel from above and placed it on the main page. However, the fact that it's not TL any more doesn't stop it from being drivel. I'm more concerned that some good editors, including two ArbCom candidates (thank $DEITY they didn't win) have been taken in by it. For anyone who's still confused, I'll break it down to its basics. Pixelface's view is "I would like to include lots and lots of non-encyclopaedic fanwank in Wikipedia, and nasty Sguereka is following policy and merging or deleting it, boo hoo! He shouldn't be an admin!". 80.225.218.146 (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- The RFA is closed, but I really wonder who in the Support section found it necessary to log out and make such a brave comment, anonymous-IP-with-one-edit-to-their-name. Speaking of "fanwank", I didn't create the articles List of recurring alien characters in Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis (season 1), Stargate Atlantis (season 2), Stargate Atlantis (season 3), Stargate Atlantis (season 4), Stargate Atlantis (season 5), Stargate audiobooks, Stargate SG-1 (season 1), Stargate SG-1 (season 2), Stargate SG-1 (season 3), Stargate SG-1 (season 4), Stargate SG-1 (season 5), Stargate SG-1 (season 6), Stargate SG-1 (season 7), Stargate SG-1 (season 8), Stargate SG-1 (season 9), Stargate SG-1 (season 10), and Starships in Stargate. I'll let you figure out who did. --Pixelface (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)