| Revision as of 06:06, 10 February 2009 editAlex Bakharev (talk | contribs)49,616 edits →Ncmvocalist: no need to have a personal attack in the resolve message EC← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:07, 10 February 2009 edit undoNcmvocalist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,127 edits →Ncmvocalist: repliesNext edit → | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
| :::::Oh pft! Let's put that to a vote then shall we? I'll contact each admin that responded in the thread and ask them the simple question: was Deacon's action preventative? From that consensus, it'll be clear who's trying to POV-push to avoid responsibility, and who's trying to aid them in doing so. ] (]) 06:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | :::::Oh pft! Let's put that to a vote then shall we? I'll contact each admin that responded in the thread and ask them the simple question: was Deacon's action preventative? From that consensus, it'll be clear who's trying to POV-push to avoid responsibility, and who's trying to aid them in doing so. ] (]) 06:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| (OD)There's absolutely no need to canvass here, because there's no need to include your (or anyone else's) POV in a simple resolved tag. I'll assume that since you have no comebacks, my interpretation of the events are correct. ] (]) 06:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | (OD)There's absolutely no need to canvass here, because there's no need to include your (or anyone else's) POV in a simple resolved tag. I'll assume that since you have no comebacks, my interpretation of the events are correct. ] (]) 06:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm not here to play games and have comebacks with you, even if that's why you're here. In any case, I suggest you read up on canvassing seeing you clearly have no idea what it involves. Lesson #1: Contacting each admin that responded to the thread, regardless of their opinion, is not canvassing - it's simply a friendly notification. If the consensus reflects that Deacon's action was in fact preventative, then yes, I will remove the part about punitive from the tag. ] (]) 06:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| '''Update:''' And now another editor has reverted you to a neutral, simple explanation for the closing of the thread. Please do not revert again. ] (]) 06:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | '''Update:''' And now another editor has reverted you to a neutral, simple explanation for the closing of the thread. Please do not revert again. ] (]) 06:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :EC I think there is no need to have a personal attack in the resolve message. I have shorten it. If you think a need to discuss the matter further please open an RfC on Deacon or use other methods of ] ] (]) 06:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | :EC I think there is no need to have a personal attack in the resolve message. I have shorten it. If you think a need to discuss the matter further please open an RfC on Deacon or use other methods of ] ] (]) 06:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thank you Alex; finally I can stop talking to an editor who is an example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. ] (]) 06:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:07, 10 February 2009
Shortcuts
 | This is not the page to report problems to administrators, or discuss administrative issues.
This page is for discussion of the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard page itself.
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
POV Acupuncturist
User:Mccready - endless, disruptive, repetitive edit warring
Missed the close of Connolley/Giano flap, due to edit conflict.
Archiving
User:MiszaBot II seems to have stopped archiving the noticeboard and I can't work out why. It seems to be still archiving other pages, but this one hasn't been done since 8th December. Martin 14:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I noted the same thing. It's started again though. Apparently some spam links were blocking it from editing the page.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Following a similar stoppage in the past week, User:Canis Lupus changed the archive bot from MiszaBot II to ClueBot III. A side-effect of this change was the insertion of a space between "Archive" and its number:
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive180 (MiszaBot II)
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 180 (ClueBot III)
Fixing it may be as simple as removing the space in format= %%i, but I think that named template parameters already strip whitespace padding. Any mismatched archives must be moved to their proper names. Archiving seems to be working fine otherwise, so fixing this is not terribly urgent. Flatscan (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Every bot that ran off toolserver was down at the end of December as the servers were being relocated; this was announced beforehand on Meta. They should all be up and running now. – iridescent 15:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. Does that mean that reverting to MiszaBot II should work properly? The naming mismatch still exists – should I try Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard or Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical) for more input? Flatscan (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Reverted back to MiszaBot and archiving resumed, per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive182#Bots and Archives. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
copyright
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. Only public domain resources can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.80.236 (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Context please? —kurykh 20:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Anon probs
Please help me with and , they are the same person who is disruptive, I found with 2 anon IP's (they admitted on my talk page) is all over user talk pages giving their personal "knowledge" of drug effects and "highs", and please read the bizarre exchange at the bottom of my talk page. I don't usually get involved in these things but there is a problem here. Thanks. Mjpresson (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Esp: "What else can I do to remove drug-forum-like information from the article and discourage this kind of drug-abuse?". Mjpresson (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Automatic archiving at ANI
Seems like MiszaBot is a little overeager to place 'inactive' WP:ANI threads in archives. Surely there's a way to avoid that problem (as seen here and here for a discussion prematurely archived twice.) Shouldn't threads that aren't marked as resolved stay on the board until they have been? ~Eliz81 03:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Threads on ANI are archived after 24 hours of inactivity. If something needs more consideration, it 1) can be brought back from the archives, and 2) doesn't really belong on ANI anyway, as ANI should be a place for more urgent requests. —kurykh 04:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist
Ncmvocalist, peeved at something or other in the AN/I thread, insists on extending this matter by edit-warring to enforce a {{resolved}} tag with a negative and misleading summary. It was removed by me and User:Dayewalker.. I don't wanna be involved in such pettiness, so can someone else please deal with this. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- An involved administrator has no more standing than an uninvolved experienced editor, and I approached Dayewalker on user talk page. The only thing I'm peeved about is Deacon being given a license to refactor another person's comments in a thread where his actions were reversed for not being preventative. I warned Deacon here, then he removed the warning and opened this ridiculous thread. I request that he blocked to prevent disruptive edit-warring (without engaging in any discussion whatsoever). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I just left a comment on my page in answer . I reverted Ncm because it seems that Ncm is once again overstepping his authority and acting as an admin by closing a thread with a slght against an editor who he's having an argument with. I changed it to what I felt was a more accurate depiction of why the thread was resolved.
- As for edit warring, Ncm, you've now made that same change four times in 24 hours. I didn't make another change because this really isn't worth fighting over to me, but it seems that you're the one edit warring to keep your interpretation of the discussion on the page. Dayewalker (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Update: While I was posting this, Ncm has now reverted to his version a fifth time. Looking back, Ncm was both the editor who placed the tag and who tweaked it to add the disputed "punitive" tag, which he's placed five times now. Dayewalker (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dayewalker, it's futile to argue this point given that it had come to the point last year where I've been waiting for an excuse to leave this project. You have no excuse whatsoever in this case to remove my comments and replace them with your own or another person's. None. Additionally, given that you both reverted my comments without making any attempt to discuss it, I consider that utterly unhelpful - I extended an extra branch of good faith to you, clearly I didn't need to. You both could've discussed it, but chose to revert as a tag team. I have nothing further to add. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Don't use "waiting for an excuse" to continue the same behavior. You originally closed this thread with a simple NPOV explanation, then after you and Deacon tied up on the talk page, you changed your "resolved" tag to reflect a POV on the matter. You are clearly edit warring, acting in "good faith" would involve admitting that and reverting your own insertion of opinion. Dayewalker (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh pft! Let's put that to a vote then shall we? I'll contact each admin that responded in the thread and ask them the simple question: was Deacon's action preventative? From that consensus, it'll be clear who's trying to POV-push to avoid responsibility, and who's trying to aid them in doing so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Don't use "waiting for an excuse" to continue the same behavior. You originally closed this thread with a simple NPOV explanation, then after you and Deacon tied up on the talk page, you changed your "resolved" tag to reflect a POV on the matter. You are clearly edit warring, acting in "good faith" would involve admitting that and reverting your own insertion of opinion. Dayewalker (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dayewalker, it's futile to argue this point given that it had come to the point last year where I've been waiting for an excuse to leave this project. You have no excuse whatsoever in this case to remove my comments and replace them with your own or another person's. None. Additionally, given that you both reverted my comments without making any attempt to discuss it, I consider that utterly unhelpful - I extended an extra branch of good faith to you, clearly I didn't need to. You both could've discussed it, but chose to revert as a tag team. I have nothing further to add. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Update: While I was posting this, Ncm has now reverted to his version a fifth time. Looking back, Ncm was both the editor who placed the tag and who tweaked it to add the disputed "punitive" tag, which he's placed five times now. Dayewalker (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
(OD)There's absolutely no need to canvass here, because there's no need to include your (or anyone else's) POV in a simple resolved tag. I'll assume that since you have no comebacks, my interpretation of the events are correct. Dayewalker (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not here to play games and have comebacks with you, even if that's why you're here. In any case, I suggest you read up on canvassing seeing you clearly have no idea what it involves. Lesson #1: Contacting each admin that responded to the thread, regardless of their opinion, is not canvassing - it's simply a friendly notification. If the consensus reflects that Deacon's action was in fact preventative, then yes, I will remove the part about punitive from the tag. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Update: And now another editor has reverted you to a neutral, simple explanation for the closing of the thread. Please do not revert again. Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- EC I think there is no need to have a personal attack in the resolve message. I have shorten it. If you think a need to discuss the matter further please open an RfC on Deacon or use other methods of WP:DR Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Alex; finally I can stop talking to an editor who is an example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)