| Revision as of 23:39, 9 August 2013 editPeteforsyth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators35,167 edits →Your admin action: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:37, 11 August 2013 edit undoCla68 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers48,127 edits →Your admin action: moreNext edit → | ||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Hi Spartaz, I saw that you . You cited a principle that I haven't seen spelled out so starkly before; while there are certainly cases where commenting on Misplaced Pages content would fan the flames of a conflict, I don't think that's the case here. The things Russavia pointed out were legitimate concerns, and other users have since taken related actions. While it's true that his delivery was a little snarky, I can't see how that's an actionable problem. Could you explain, or (I think better), reverse this action? -] (]) 23:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | Hi Spartaz, I saw that you . You cited a principle that I haven't seen spelled out so starkly before; while there are certainly cases where commenting on Misplaced Pages content would fan the flames of a conflict, I don't think that's the case here. The things Russavia pointed out were legitimate concerns, and other users have since taken related actions. While it's true that his delivery was a little snarky, I can't see how that's an actionable problem. Could you explain, or (I think better), reverse this action? -] (]) 23:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *What possible need does Russavia have for using his talkpage to comment on content except either to solicit edits or make some convoluted point about his block. Neither action is helpful. | |||
| * | |||
| *, | |||
| * | |||
| *Well, the clear consensus from my block review is that Russavia had reached the point that his continued participation in this project is no longer welcome and the use of talk pages to solicit edits was recently discussed at AN and the consensus was that this was not acceptable use of a talk page. Further AGK locked Russavia's page recently for misuse so its hardly a massive stretch to lock him out for his most recent edits that were clearly designed to solicit edits. I'm comfortable with this action but do feel free to raise this at a drama board if you wish. Since I'm currently on holiday and have sporadic access to the internet perhaps you can cite my explanation if you do decide to go for an extra dose of dramah. Thanks. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 01:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I saw the other case of user talk access you are talking about a while back and the circumstances were markedly different. The editor in question was asking people to paste his comments into ongoing discussions that were not related to his block and to get involved in the same contentious situations that lead to his block, with plenty of dramatastic bemoaning of his lot in life in between. My impression was not that it was a general rejection of using one's talk page to point out legitimate issues with content and more a rejection of a specific editor using his talk page as a war room from which he could continue his various campaigns unabated. Someone saying, "this is a copyright issue" or "this is vandalism" is most definitely not the same thing.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 07:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Spartaz, thanks for explaining your thinking. I agree with TDA, though -- the points Russavia made on his talk page were clearly productive. Whatever is going on between him and Jimmy, I am pretty confident it will eventually blow over, both are deeply dedicated to Wikimedia's values. For now, I'm going to restore Russavia's user talk page access. I don't think there will be any trouble. -] (]) 21:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Spartaz, in response to your message on my talk page -- if you feel strongly about this, do what you think is best. I saw something that looked to me like a pretty simple and understandable mistake on your part, and did what I thought was in the best interest of the project. I don't see what damage is likely to come from my actions, and I think it's a benefit to Misplaced Pages to have alerts of copyvios etc. from experienced users. -] (]) 17:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : One other thing worth mentioning -- ], not punitive. I'm not sure if your intent here is punitive or not, but I do have difficulty seeing how strengthening the block in this way would provide protection to the project or its community. -] (]) 17:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Spartaz and Pete, now that this episode appears to be over, one or the both of you is going to record a lessons learned about it on the applicable WP administration Best Practices page, aren't you? That way, other admins can read and internalize what took place here with the goal of making future admin actions on similar issues more consistent and reliable. Also, please review the checklist that you follow when acting on situations like this and make sure that this type of contingency is included in the steps listed. Thank you. ] (]) 23:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, Pete, is it true that you collaborate with Russavia on Commons? Might need to note something about that in the best practices paragraph you draft also. ] (]) 23:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Archive17 link points to Archive16 page == | |||
| FYI: Your Archive17 link (above) actually points to the page for Archive16. Enjoy your break! ] (]) 02:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:37, 11 August 2013
 Archives |
|
Archive 1 * Archive 2 * Archive 3 * Archive 4 * Archive 5 * Archive 6 * Archive 7 * Archive 8 * Archive 9 * Archive 10 * Archive 11 * Archive 12 * Archive 13 * Archive 14 * Archive 15 * Archive 16 * Archive 17 * Archive 18 * Archive 19 * Archive 20 * Archive 21 * Archive 22 * Archive 23 * Archive 24 * Archive 25 * Archive 26 * Archive 27 |
Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
I'm a long term user (first edit 2006) and have been an admin on or off since 2007. When we first started there was so much idealism and we really had no strong policies about inclusion except a desire to have some level of sourcing. As time moved on we became more structured and around the time I became an admin in 2007 we were grappling with the concept of collapsing non notable articles into lists which I was at the forefront of as a regular afd closer and constant presence at DRV. I had a lot of patience once and for that reason was regular DRV closer for a long time after GR Berry left the project. Sadly, my patience was degraded over time and getting involved in the PORNBIO wars pretty much washed out a lot of the good faith that policy and courtesy quite rightly requires us to show. This was again a major change in our approach to content and one of the first SNGs that was deprecated in favour of a more rigid approach to proper sourcing. Since then our content in this area has become much better and we are seeing similar struggles now in the sports arena where SNGs are slowly giving way to GNG level standards.
I have always taken a very legalistic approach to closing discussions that I recognise does not fit well to the current community standard, where low participation level allowing more brigading of votes or allowing more non-policy based arguments. For this reason I'm not really closing discussions but will still happily review old closes. Otherwise I mostly review and nominate unsuitable content as a BLP is a serious matter and needs to be properly sourced.
i am willing to userfy deleted articles for improvement as long as there is a reasonable likelihood that they can be saved. If you are challenging a deletion, do you have three good sources?
Useful Links:
- Please don't leave talkback templates as I always watchlist pages when I edit and I'm perfectly capable of looking for a reply myself.
 | Spartaz is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon. |
Your admin action
Hi Spartaz, I saw that you revoked Russavia's talk page access. You cited a principle that I haven't seen spelled out so starkly before; while there are certainly cases where commenting on Misplaced Pages content would fan the flames of a conflict, I don't think that's the case here. The things Russavia pointed out were legitimate concerns, and other users have since taken related actions. While it's true that his delivery was a little snarky, I can't see how that's an actionable problem. Could you explain, or (I think better), reverse this action? -Pete (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- What possible need does Russavia have for using his talkpage to comment on content except either to solicit edits or make some convoluted point about his block. Neither action is helpful.
- Relevant link
- second relevant link,
- third relevant link
- Well, the clear consensus from my block review is that Russavia had reached the point that his continued participation in this project is no longer welcome and the use of talk pages to solicit edits was recently discussed at AN and the consensus was that this was not acceptable use of a talk page. Further AGK locked Russavia's page recently for misuse so its hardly a massive stretch to lock him out for his most recent edits that were clearly designed to solicit edits. I'm comfortable with this action but do feel free to raise this at a drama board if you wish. Since I'm currently on holiday and have sporadic access to the internet perhaps you can cite my explanation if you do decide to go for an extra dose of dramah. Thanks. Spartaz 01:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I saw the other case of user talk access you are talking about a while back and the circumstances were markedly different. The editor in question was asking people to paste his comments into ongoing discussions that were not related to his block and to get involved in the same contentious situations that lead to his block, with plenty of dramatastic bemoaning of his lot in life in between. My impression was not that it was a general rejection of using one's talk page to point out legitimate issues with content and more a rejection of a specific editor using his talk page as a war room from which he could continue his various campaigns unabated. Someone saying, "this is a copyright issue" or "this is vandalism" is most definitely not the same thing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Spartaz, thanks for explaining your thinking. I agree with TDA, though -- the points Russavia made on his talk page were clearly productive. Whatever is going on between him and Jimmy, I am pretty confident it will eventually blow over, both are deeply dedicated to Wikimedia's values. For now, I'm going to restore Russavia's user talk page access. I don't think there will be any trouble. -Pete (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I saw the other case of user talk access you are talking about a while back and the circumstances were markedly different. The editor in question was asking people to paste his comments into ongoing discussions that were not related to his block and to get involved in the same contentious situations that lead to his block, with plenty of dramatastic bemoaning of his lot in life in between. My impression was not that it was a general rejection of using one's talk page to point out legitimate issues with content and more a rejection of a specific editor using his talk page as a war room from which he could continue his various campaigns unabated. Someone saying, "this is a copyright issue" or "this is vandalism" is most definitely not the same thing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Spartaz, in response to your message on my talk page -- if you feel strongly about this, do what you think is best. I saw something that looked to me like a pretty simple and understandable mistake on your part, and did what I thought was in the best interest of the project. I don't see what damage is likely to come from my actions, and I think it's a benefit to Misplaced Pages to have alerts of copyvios etc. from experienced users. -Pete (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- One other thing worth mentioning -- the purpose of a block is to protect the project and other users, not punitive. I'm not sure if your intent here is punitive or not, but I do have difficulty seeing how strengthening the block in this way would provide protection to the project or its community. -Pete (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Spartaz and Pete, now that this episode appears to be over, one or the both of you is going to record a lessons learned about it on the applicable WP administration Best Practices page, aren't you? That way, other admins can read and internalize what took place here with the goal of making future admin actions on similar issues more consistent and reliable. Also, please review the checklist that you follow when acting on situations like this and make sure that this type of contingency is included in the steps listed. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Also, Pete, is it true that you collaborate with Russavia on Commons? Might need to note something about that in the best practices paragraph you draft also. Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Spartaz and Pete, now that this episode appears to be over, one or the both of you is going to record a lessons learned about it on the applicable WP administration Best Practices page, aren't you? That way, other admins can read and internalize what took place here with the goal of making future admin actions on similar issues more consistent and reliable. Also, please review the checklist that you follow when acting on situations like this and make sure that this type of contingency is included in the steps listed. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Archive17 link points to Archive16 page
FYI: Your Archive17 link (above) actually points to the page for Archive16. Enjoy your break! RCraig09 (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)