| Revision as of 07:44, 1 February 2006 editAlkivar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,533 edits rv, this has actual diffs ... this does not count as endorsement of this view← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:55, 1 February 2006 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 editsm →ResponseNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| ==Response== | ==Response== | ||
| '''Cutting the gordian knot''' | |||
| ''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' | |||
| I think the problem here is not so much lack of communication--I seem to do about 25 to 30 user talk page edits per day--as a prolonged period of pushing the envelope with administrator actions. Whilst my actions frequently get results (] 12k, 2d, ] 15k, 4d), they often do so in a way that some people find alarming, even distressing. And even if I ignored that effect, others would not. While the arbitration committee may seem to be happy with what I do, they wouldn't remain happy for long if in trying to do the right thing, I alienated other editors, which is definitely not the right thing. | |||
| '' | |||
| So here's what I'll do: | |||
| * Lay off DRV for a bit. I'm satisfied that there's site-wide consensus for edtiors being able to see and edit stuff that's under review, but that will come further down the road. The prospect of people actually editing articles being discussed, while commonplace for AfD, is very alarming for DRV regulars and they need time to get used to it. | |||
| * Stop deleting templates | |||
| * Stop undeleting deleted articles. | |||
| Then we'll review that in a month's time to see how everybody feels. --] 07:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.} | |||
| Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>): | Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>): | ||
Revision as of 07:55, 1 February 2006
- Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs)
Statement of the dispute
Wheel warring.
Description
Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) has a history of engaging in wheel wars (a wheel war is an administator's repeated reversal of other administrators' actions). I believe wheel wars are unproductive, and an improper use of administrator privileges. It is requested that Tony Sidaway use the talk pages to resolve any disagreements with other administators. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Evidence of disputed behavior
Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
(sign with ~~~~)
- Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~~~~)
Response
Cutting the gordian knot I think the problem here is not so much lack of communication--I seem to do about 25 to 30 user talk page edits per day--as a prolonged period of pushing the envelope with administrator actions. Whilst my actions frequently get results (Tally Solutions Ltd 12k, 2d, SuperOffice 15k, 4d), they often do so in a way that some people find alarming, even distressing. And even if I ignored that effect, others would not. While the arbitration committee may seem to be happy with what I do, they wouldn't remain happy for long if in trying to do the right thing, I alienated other editors, which is definitely not the right thing.
So here's what I'll do:
- Lay off DRV for a bit. I'm satisfied that there's site-wide consensus for edtiors being able to see and edit stuff that's under review, but that will come further down the road. The prospect of people actually editing articles being discussed, while commonplace for AfD, is very alarming for DRV regulars and they need time to get used to it.
- Stop deleting templates
- Stop undeleting deleted articles.
Then we'll review that in a month's time to see how everybody feels. --Tony Sidaway 07:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.