Misplaced Pages

User talk:Gatoclass: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:02, 4 December 2011 editArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,227 edits →Apparent explanation of admin's refusal to address misuse of sources: Response to OhioStandard.← Previous edit Revision as of 17:33, 4 December 2011 edit undoNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,158 edits →Apparent explanation of admin's refusal to address misuse of sourcesNext edit →
Line 171: Line 171:


: I won't comment on the specific incident, but it's bad form to make assumptions about WGFinley's motives. Has anybody ''asked'' him what his view is on the issue of source misrepresentation? Whilst I may have overlooked one thread or another, it seems that the only person who has consulted WGFinley is Nableezy—and WGF would be entitled (don't necessarily read: ''correct'') to ignore that exchange, considering the tone of Nableezy's comments. I believe it is more than appropriate to challenge an administrator if his decision was wrong, but I don't like the idea of you or another user chasing up other editors and speculating about his views without directly asking for clarification. That's not genuine scrutiny, but an inquisition. Just my two pence, ]<small> </nowiki>]]</small> 15:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC) : I won't comment on the specific incident, but it's bad form to make assumptions about WGFinley's motives. Has anybody ''asked'' him what his view is on the issue of source misrepresentation? Whilst I may have overlooked one thread or another, it seems that the only person who has consulted WGFinley is Nableezy—and WGF would be entitled (don't necessarily read: ''correct'') to ignore that exchange, considering the tone of Nableezy's comments. I believe it is more than appropriate to challenge an administrator if his decision was wrong, but I don't like the idea of you or another user chasing up other editors and speculating about his views without directly asking for clarification. That's not genuine scrutiny, but an inquisition. Just my two pence, ]<small> </nowiki>]]</small> 15:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
::AGK, all due respect, but my tone only became heated after repeated failures by WGFinley to answer basic questions about continual factually incorrect comments he made. An admin is required to justify their actions, and in this case WGFinley refused to do so. Look at the threads at AE, see where I repeatedly, and politely, raised the fact that he was saying things that were plainly false. He never responded. After being ignored by an admin seeking to either a. sanction me for reverting socks of banned users, and then b. ignoring the repeated lying about sources to push a fringe POV, my tone admittedly grew harsher. That does not, in any way, justify an admin refusing to rectify basic errors that raise serious questions of competency and whether or not he should be involved in administering, or even commenting, the topic area. If I were to say that I do not think WGFinley is competent to be an administrator I would be assuming his good faith, otherwise I have to believe that he understood that a user was lying about sources to push a fringe POV and refused to allow him to be sanctioned because of his sympathy with the user and that POV. If the admin had simply responded and shown that he understood the issue neither assumption would be necessary and my tone would have remained mild. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 17:33, 4 December 2011


Sunday 29 December02:00 UTC
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online

Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Archives

Cold lava

The Signpost: 10 October 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Gatoclass! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Otium

This is my latest article. Feel free to make any improvements. --Doug Coldwell 18:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Expanded article. Any ideas for a DYK hook?--Doug Coldwell 11:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I am going to try to turn this into a Good Article. Any suggestions or ideas?--Doug Coldwell 13:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 
You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wgfinley's talk page.

Roberta Black

Thanks for reviewing my efforts. Not everything I write is correct, and I enjoy the chance to get some well-thought-out feedback. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll over at DYK

Hey there, there is a straw poll going on at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know about whether or not to enact technical changes to DYK tools. Your input would be much appreciated. P.s. I am sending you this message based on your heavy involvement in DYK, rather than at random. I hope this is ok. Panyd 17:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Erratic?

I'm not sure where you are coming from. I don't rush into enforcement decisions, and always evaluate the evidence carefully before taking a decision. I won't speak at greater length or in more specific terms because you reverted your edit, but, with respect, it is wrong to state that an administrator's judgement is erratic without justification. Thank you for your comment, in any case. Regards, AGK 10:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, I figured it would be opening a can of worms, and I can really do without teh dramaz right now - as I'm sure you can! Maybe sometime I can get around to a few specifics, if you really want to hear them. In the meantime, if you do get the job, I look forward to you proving my apprehension completely misplaced ;) Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK behavior

What exactly was the point of this remark that you addressed to User:Plot Spoiler at Template:Did you know nominations/TAT Technologies? I'm asking because I'm genuinely at a loss as to how you thought it was a constructive contribution to the DYK discussion.—Biosketch (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought my point was self-evident: users involved in a contentious topic area are not supposed to approve the articles of their political bedfellows, per rule H2. There has been far too much of that sort of thing occur at DYK in the past, which is why the rule was added. I simply reminded Plot Spoiler (since he appeared not to know or to have forgotten) of the existence of the rule.
However, I'm glad to see you have returned to the discussion. What do you think of the alt hook? I think it's fine, but as the nominator I would like to have your endorsement. Gatoclass (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
But that's not what H2 says. H2 specifically refers to "DYK novices." Seeing as you yourself acknowledged that Plot Spoiler isn't a novice in the DYK arena, I'm still not understanding how you thought your comment was applicable or helpful there.—Biosketch (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the second clause which states: as are editors active in those areas. Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why he ticked the DYK nom in the first place, since another editor already did before him. If your comment was an earnest reminder that he shouldn't be confirming I/P DYKs generally, I can see how that makes sense. But given that his tick was in essence gratuitous, the real substance of his contribution was his comment regarding a modified hook. And it sounded – not just to me, evidently – like your remark was aimed at invalidating his contribution to the discussion. If that wasn't the case, then ok, I suppose it could have been a misunderstanding.—Biosketch (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Otium

See User talk:Panyd#DYK for Otium. Can you take care of this. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell 19:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. I appreciate it!--Doug Coldwell 22:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparent explanation of admin's refusal to address misuse of sources

Hi, Gatoclass. I noticed you took exception previously at AE to admin WGFinley's remarks that included the statement, "We shouldn't be drawn into their content disputes by analyzing sources in taking action." I just noticed a statement on his main user page that may help elucidate his philosophy on that score. He writes there,

"During discussion of a block or a ban, particularly in general sanction areas the call of "didn't you read my edit, how could you not support that!" or something along those lines is heard. I can honestly say "no". Why? I don't analyze content in areas where I'm serving in an admin capacity for one ..."

If he's not reading diffs that are presented as potential misrepresentation of sources, then of course he's not going to be interested in sanctioning anyone on that basis. From these and other remarks he's made, it's my impression that it's all about form and protocol for him, and that he just really doesn't care much at all about the actual content of edits. Perhaps he sees that as a more efficient use of his time here. Anyway, I thought this might be helpful to you in trying to understand his perspective.

I've informed him about this comment, btw, in case he'd like to clarify in any way. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I won't comment on the specific incident, but it's bad form to make assumptions about WGFinley's motives. Has anybody asked him what his view is on the issue of source misrepresentation? Whilst I may have overlooked one thread or another, it seems that the only person who has consulted WGFinley is Nableezy—and WGF would be entitled (don't necessarily read: correct) to ignore that exchange, considering the tone of Nableezy's comments. I believe it is more than appropriate to challenge an administrator if his decision was wrong, but I don't like the idea of you or another user chasing up other editors and speculating about his views without directly asking for clarification. That's not genuine scrutiny, but an inquisition. Just my two pence, AGK 15:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
AGK, all due respect, but my tone only became heated after repeated failures by WGFinley to answer basic questions about continual factually incorrect comments he made. An admin is required to justify their actions, and in this case WGFinley refused to do so. Look at the threads at AE, see where I repeatedly, and politely, raised the fact that he was saying things that were plainly false. He never responded. After being ignored by an admin seeking to either a. sanction me for reverting socks of banned users, and then b. ignoring the repeated lying about sources to push a fringe POV, my tone admittedly grew harsher. That does not, in any way, justify an admin refusing to rectify basic errors that raise serious questions of competency and whether or not he should be involved in administering, or even commenting, the topic area. If I were to say that I do not think WGFinley is competent to be an administrator I would be assuming his good faith, otherwise I have to believe that he understood that a user was lying about sources to push a fringe POV and refused to allow him to be sanctioned because of his sympathy with the user and that POV. If the admin had simply responded and shown that he understood the issue neither assumption would be necessary and my tone would have remained mild. nableezy - 17:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)