Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:00, 20 December 2008

User talk:Aitias/archive 2/tph

Wes gilbert

Thank you for your response. I reviewed the details, and agree with not unblocking him. The sandbox is not a free-for-all, and it is obvious he wasn't trying to improve his editing; he was merely being a vandal. Travis declined his unblock, and I have no intention of myself unblocking him at this time. Thanks for your explanation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Enabling Huggle

Hey, yep I was trying to enable huggle and I was totally confused so thanks a lot! Much appreciated. :) LibLord 15:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Great work today, by the way. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

How are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdg123 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... I'm good. ;) You? —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I just wanted to say thankyou for allowing me to use rollback. It really means alot to me that i can be trusted to use it. Thanks! Kira Chinmoku (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

 Done —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

82.31.95.212

I just told him I'd hold off reverting for 15 minutes, let's see how this plays out. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, generally IPs are allowed to delete warnings at their user talk pages and according to the protection policy deleting warnings is no legitimate reason for protection. However such edits constitute a reason for protection if repeated. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Anonymous-IP_address_warning_deletions. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done () 23:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Message from User:Annilita

I noticed that you deleted the page about the book All-of-a-kind Family. I'm curious as to why? It's a popular children's book, and the first in a series. Was there an issue with the information on the page? I'm planning on rereading the series soon, and would be willing to rewrite a page for the book, but I don't want to bother if it's just going to be deleted.

-Anne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annilita (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Could you please provide a link to the page you are referring to? —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

86.25.50.34

Hey. I noticed you blocked this user for their changing of musical genres without sources. I don't think this is a valid block, considering the genre New Wave is indeed written in capitals (see New Wave music). Is there anything else I'm unaware of? If not, then I think an unblock would probably be appropriate.

I just noticed he is a sock. Nevermind :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle

Thank-you for the advice on my Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Rollback to use Misplaced Pages:Twinkle, It's just the sort of tool I was after. Wikipedian2 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Your input on this request would be greatly appreciated. I commented here. Pedro :  Chat  08:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Pedro. Thanks for the message. I commented on this request here. While I think the user had not enough experience for rollback yesterday, the work he did since then constitutes enough experience for rollback. Therefore I granted the request. Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, good call. All his recent reversions looked spot on, but as you had declined only yesterday I prefered to leave it back to you on this one! Thank you. Pedro :  Chat  14:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge Talk, 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Congratulations! —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Good questions

Those are some pretty revealing questions you asked Undead warrior 3 (talk · contribs). I plan on throwing my hat in the ring early next year, I hope you have some equally-probing questions for me. It would be kind of sad to be approved by "per noms" who did nothing more than read the nom, read the answers to the basic questions, and do a quick-check of my history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

regarding User:Soccersmith3

I've seen and reverted his vandalism (on Nazism), and I noticed your warning about blocking him in case he vandalizes again in his talk page. I'm not sure what I'm expected to do in such a case, so I left this message to you here. I hope its okay. Fdskjs (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You could have reported the user to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism, however, leaving a message here was okay as well. :) I blocked the user indefinitely. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent actions

I noticed your removal of rollback from User:ABF for biting, although I didn't see any engagement with ABF - just a summary removal of rollback. This was seemingly for one revert deemed to be incorrect (although not clearly so according to WP:ROLLBACK, which states clearly unproductive edits as sufficient cause for use of rollback). I thought about it before commenting and at first decided against it, but then a few minutes later I saw your own use of rollback on a user page where the user cleared warnings (and eventual block message). I'm not sure of the difference between the two uses of rollback; the latter could be viewed as being more against policy than the former. I'm not necessarily subscribing to that view, but WP:BLANKING (a shortcut to a specific portion of WP:USER) is pretty clear on the subject of not prohibiting blanking of warnings for both named and anonymous editors. Maybe there were more reverts that caused you to remove rollback, so I understand I might not have the whole picture here. Can you provide a little more depth to this, especially in light of your own similar use of rollback? I don't think it's useful to get into a wikilawyering discussion of whether the edit in question was blatant vandalism; that may not be clearly definable in either case, really. But couldn't you have at least engaged the editor first, rather than immediately removing rollback?  Frank  |  talk  19:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I may strongly recommend having a look at the relevant policy, as my use of rollback there was perfectly within the policy: Removing a block template while blocked is simply not allowed. Additionally, removing a block template while blocked is absolutely not a good faith edit. It's blatantly against policy. Therefore I feel a bit offended by your allegations. Concerning the revocation of rollback: There is broad consent that rollback can be used for blatant vandalism only (cf. Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions, Template:Rfr/granted). In any case it may not be used for good faith edits and to bite newcomers. Additionally rollback may be removed at any time (cf. Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions) if misused — without prior notice (cf. ; “Easy come, easy go”). All in all I think my decision was/is reasonable and completely okay. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw the comparison; as I stated above, I understood there could be disagreement and neither of us (nor the project) is well-served by wiki-lawyering. That was far from my main point, which is this: what's the problem with contacting the user when a questionable revert takes place? We often give vandals four warnings before blocking; don't we owe a long-term contributor with over 17,000 edits at least as much respect?  Frank  |  talk  20:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The revert was not questionable, but simply completely inappropriate. Biting newcomers is unacceptable. Again, I think I explained it quite elaborately above why there was no need to contact the user before removing the tool. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And biting valued vandal-fighters (>17K contributions) does not square very well with WP:AGF.  Frank  |  talk  21:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for becoming uncivil, Frank. By the way, you may be interested in this discussion. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And now it is my turn to feel a bit offended by your allegation of incivility. Regarding that discussion, I wasn't trying (and still am not trying) to get you to reverse anything, but rather to consider another point of view. We all need to balance the risk of driving away newcomers (which you correctly point out) against the risk of driving away long-time contributors (which has been my point), especially with little or no engagement. I see far more egregious stuff go on around here that is tolerated and I just feel we can do better with not-so-much effort. I don't think that's uncivil at all.  Frank  |  talk  21:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC) (I'm watching your page; no need to give me an orange bar.)

Firstly, there was nothing intended to be offending in my comment: Simply, I felt your comment to be a bit impolite. If it was not intended to be impolite, I'm sorry for the allegation. Secondly, I still can't see what I did wrong. Again, the edit was clearly inappropriate and simply justified a revokation of the rollback permission. More important, I have to ask you for elaborating and explaining your allegation of biting valued vandal-fighters. Actually, could you please explain how I was biting User:ABF? I think this claim is absolutely incorrect, unjustified and inappropriate. I removed the rollback permission from User:ABF's account — whilst I explained several times why this was completely in accordance with our rules and justified/reasonable, you never explained why this was not in accordance with our rules. Then I notified User:ABF about the revocation of his rollback right and about the reasons for the revocation. Again, I have to ask, how at all was this biting? After a discussion (linked above) User:ABF noticed that his edit was inappropriate and why his edit was inappropriate. Additionally, he promised to be more careful in the future. After that I re-granted rollback. Once again, could you please explain how your allegation of biting does apply here? Finally, could you please explain what you mean with “not-so-much effort”? Summarising I again feel this allegation of biting to be inappropriate and offending. — Aitias // discussion 23:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "wrong" is not the way to characterize things; I thought it could have been handled differently. You are focused on the idea that User:ABF performed an action that was clearly inappropriate, and that such action - by itself - is sufficient to remove rollback privileges. My issue is this: it is inappropriate for vandals to deface pages, and yet we often give them several warnings. In the case of really "bad" vandalism, we do block immediately. I just don't think this one revert - from a long-standing editor who has reverted literally thousands of vandalism edits - was sufficiently "bad" to remove rollback without engaging the editor first. It was never about "give it back" - it has always been about engaging the editor with a discussion about the edit. Your removal of the rollback privilege may very well have fallen within policy, but there needs to be judgment applied in all cases on this project (including admin action), and I am questioning the judgment behind this one action. If this were a new user who didn't understand rollback, that would be a different story. If it were an established user who had suddenly gone berserk with rollback, that would be a different story. But neither of these is the case. Also, you specifically said that User:ABF was biting a new user. These two things combined are why I used the term "bite" to describe your immediate removal of rollback. My opinion is that it was not necessary to remove rollback in order to achieve the desired effect; you could just as easily have left a note (hence the "not-so-much effort" idea). The difference is that one is collaborative, and the other appears punitive. Now - as to the inappropriate rollback and the new user who may have been driven away by the revert, I have sympathy with this point of view. This is a big, intimidating place, and people may very quickly form negative opinions, and we, the experienced editors, are often the emissaries that new users must gauge the project by. But I ask you: after identifying this inappropriate edit and removing rollback from a long-established editor, did you go to the user who had been "wronged" and offer any olive branch?  Frank  |  talk  00:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Frank, there was nothing punitive in my action. You said it yourself, biting newcomers and thus scaring them away must be averted. It was preventative, not punitive at all. One thing has to be said: Do you really want to claim that it would have been my duty to apologise to that user? It would have been ABF's responsibility to do that, not mine. — Aitias // discussion 01:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)