| Revision as of 22:59, 24 July 2007 editAnonEMouse (talk | contribs)13,200 edits →Wheel warring: It's not fair but you have been admonished← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:02, 24 July 2007 edit undoVioletriga (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users37,361 edits →Wheel warringNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| :::You do realise "but I was right" doesn't justify wheel warring, right? Imagine if every admin on this site decided to run around overturning each other every time they disagreed - it'd be chaos. JzG is blocked as well. Admins don't wheel war. Full stop. Personally I think you were particularly in the wrong given you were overterning a deletion on BLP grounds. But that issue aside, there cannot be any justification for wheel warring. That you don't see that concerns me incredibly. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 22:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | :::You do realise "but I was right" doesn't justify wheel warring, right? Imagine if every admin on this site decided to run around overturning each other every time they disagreed - it'd be chaos. JzG is blocked as well. Admins don't wheel war. Full stop. Personally I think you were particularly in the wrong given you were overterning a deletion on BLP grounds. But that issue aside, there cannot be any justification for wheel warring. That you don't see that concerns me incredibly. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 22:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::OK, so you are saying that it's isn't allowed to undo improper and unjustified deletions? Sorry but that ain't right. The "deletion on BLP grounds" was actually just a case of Guy trying to have his own way and, as stated, either he knew about the consensus against him (thus making him incorrect in his actions) or he didn't investigate it properly (also making him wrong in his actions). Wheel-warring is bad, yes, but sometimes you have to do it when an admin is simply wrong and refuses to go along with what has been decided. He can cite BLP all he wants but it has been interpreted by numerous other users that it does not apply. So are you saying that people can just delete things on a whim? ] ] 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Tell another admin, there are 1200 of us after all. Tell ]. Tell me. It's not fair, but you have been admonished and warned that you could lose your mop over something very much like this. Don't let that happen. Let someone else whom Guy can't tar with the sticky brush of the arbcom do it. It will take a little longer, but ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | :::: Tell another admin, there are 1200 of us after all. Tell ]. Tell me. It's not fair, but you have been admonished and warned that you could lose your mop over something very much like this. Don't let that happen. Let someone else whom Guy can't tar with the sticky brush of the arbcom do it. It will take a little longer, but ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I don't like the idea of running to another admin. The project is not harmed by what I have done and Guy has clearly gone against consensus. I understand that AN/I could be an avenue to wander down, but that shouldn't be necessary when the matter has already been discussed - admins can't come along and choose to ignore that. ] ] 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:02, 24 July 2007
| Talk to me... | |
 |
My view of this talk page
I will usually reply here, not on your talk page |
Paternal Bond
AfD nomination of Paternal bond
Paternal bond, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Paternal bond satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paternal bond and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Paternal bond during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Solitaire Meissmer disappearance
Solitaire Meissmer disappearance, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Solitaire Meissmer disappearance satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Solitaire Meissmer disappearance and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Solitaire Meissmer disappearance during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman
... has closed with a resounding Keep. In case you were curious. The article needs work to expand it; if you want to do that work, you are welcome, if not, I'll do it, but only in a few days, though, as I have to expand James W. Walter first (which is apparently otherwise going to be a perennial AfD target).
When that's done, we can take a look at the other of that ill-fated list of half-a-dozen articles from the AfD, one at a time, and see which are worthy. Misplaced Pages:There is no deadline.
Anyway... Priekā! I hope that's correct. --AnonEMouse 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - I hadn't noticed that it was being AfD'd. Glad to see it was kept to further vindicate my actions. violet/riga (t) 22:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
St. Francis Xavier's College (Liverpool)
Greetings,
A week or two ago, admin User:Guy assumed bad faith on my part and blocked me from editing the above article over some contentious content that I included in it, which one user thought violated WP:BLP. There were a couple of reverts on both sides, hardly edit-warring, yet rather than discuss or mediate the matter properly, or attempt to reach a compromise in editing, Guy protected the article from me without question. However rather than complain or go to the lengths of presenting something to WP:RfAr, I accepted this with little fuss.
However a couple of days ago, I left Guy a message on his Talk page requesting I now be unblocked from this article as I consider the matter now resolved, and as I am a member of Wikiproject Education, I would like to continue editing the article by adding an infobox, in the first instance at least, obviously avoiding the contentious content that was removed. However he simply removed the request from his talk page. I am not a vandal by any stretch of the imagination, and I do consider not being able to edit an article for this length of time as highly disproportionate, considering the full Misplaced Pages bans that persistent disruptive vandals initially get are shorter that this in most cases!
Sorry to land all this at your doorstep, however as it conerns another sysop I thought I'd give you the full story. Can you please allow me to edit this article again? It would be greatly appreciated. Liverpool Scouse 21:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Wheel warring
It appears as though you're wheel warring over a certain redirect. Please stop. MessedRocker (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- And seeing as you've done as much warring as JzG, it's only fair that you're blocked as well. As I told JzG, I highly suggest mediation so that this issue can be solved without continued wheel warring. MessedRocker (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly endorse this block. JzG may have deleted this article one more time than you restored it but we don't do this by counting number of actions in a wheel war. Given that you were criticised by ArbCom for your previous failure to respect BLP deletions and in light of the principle of "do no harm" ArbCom espoused in that case, you were clearly wrong to restore a page deleted citing BLP instead of seeking deletion review. WjBscribe 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh nuts. Violet, for the love of everything that is small and furry, please don't wheel war over this issue. Yes, I know you've had provocation. Don't give in to it. It's a trap. You absolutely will lose your adminship, and that won't help anyone. There is a way here, the Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman way; find evidence, argue, and convince people in the proper forum. It is slower, but in the end, it sometimes works. Not always, but enough. Just reverting seems like it will work faster, but it only works for a few hours or days, then in the end you lose your mop, or even your editor privileges outright, and whether or not the article is kept is still decided the slow and painful way, just without you. And all the other articles you could have helped, go on, without you. Please, if I've earned any points in your regard by that Charlotte article work, believe me. --AnonEMouse 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
As I've stated already, this matter was already discussed and a consensus reached. Guy either knowingly deleted against consensus or without investigating the matter enough - neither is acceptable. violet/riga (t) 22:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- How does that justify you wheel warring with him? WjBscribe 22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Because he was going against consensus! It was discussed and agreed that the name should be included. The article was not changed and an internal engine search would still come up with Baby 81 as the first result. How can the redirect be deleted without the name being removed from the article? That's ludicrous. There was no justification for the deletion of a redirect. violet/riga (t) 22:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- You do realise "but I was right" doesn't justify wheel warring, right? Imagine if every admin on this site decided to run around overturning each other every time they disagreed - it'd be chaos. JzG is blocked as well. Admins don't wheel war. Full stop. Personally I think you were particularly in the wrong given you were overterning a deletion on BLP grounds. But that issue aside, there cannot be any justification for wheel warring. That you don't see that concerns me incredibly. WjBscribe 22:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, so you are saying that it's isn't allowed to undo improper and unjustified deletions? Sorry but that ain't right. The "deletion on BLP grounds" was actually just a case of Guy trying to have his own way and, as stated, either he knew about the consensus against him (thus making him incorrect in his actions) or he didn't investigate it properly (also making him wrong in his actions). Wheel-warring is bad, yes, but sometimes you have to do it when an admin is simply wrong and refuses to go along with what has been decided. He can cite BLP all he wants but it has been interpreted by numerous other users that it does not apply. So are you saying that people can just delete things on a whim? violet/riga (t) 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Tell another admin, there are 1200 of us after all. Tell WP:AN/I. Tell me. It's not fair, but you have been admonished and warned that you could lose your mop over something very much like this. Don't let that happen. Let someone else whom Guy can't tar with the sticky brush of the arbcom do it. It will take a little longer, but there is no deadline. --AnonEMouse 22:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't like the idea of running to another admin. The project is not harmed by what I have done and Guy has clearly gone against consensus. I understand that AN/I could be an avenue to wander down, but that shouldn't be necessary when the matter has already been discussed - admins can't come along and choose to ignore that. violet/riga (t) 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Tell another admin, there are 1200 of us after all. Tell WP:AN/I. Tell me. It's not fair, but you have been admonished and warned that you could lose your mop over something very much like this. Don't let that happen. Let someone else whom Guy can't tar with the sticky brush of the arbcom do it. It will take a little longer, but there is no deadline. --AnonEMouse 22:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)