| Revision as of 13:03, 16 May 2018 view sourceAmakuru (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators111,187 edits →User:Netoholic: re← Previous edit |
Revision as of 13:04, 16 May 2018 view source Amakuru (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators111,187 editsm formattingNext edit → |
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
|
:I'm active in ] and a ] in the ] wikiproject. In both cases, resolving them sometimes involves moving a draft/article in place of an existing redirect, and with PM permission, I could assist in a greater capacity closing requests or helping do related post-close cleanup. -- ] ] 03:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
:I'm active in ] and a ] in the ] wikiproject. In both cases, resolving them sometimes involves moving a draft/article in place of an existing redirect, and with PM permission, I could assist in a greater capacity closing requests or helping do related post-close cleanup. -- ] ] 03:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
::*I was about to assign, but I saw a few edit warring warnings around naming conventions and redirect targets, one issued recently by {{u|Amakuru}}. Amakuru, I'll defer to you here. ] (]) 11:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
::*I was about to assign, but I saw a few edit warring warnings around naming conventions and redirect targets, one issued recently by {{u|Amakuru}}. Amakuru, I'll defer to you here. ] (]) 11:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
::*:{{ping|TonyBallioni}} yes, {{u|Netoholic}} yesterday did raise a few question marks in my head about their willingness to accept community consensus and engage collaboratively. They changed the target of a long-standing redirect, which is fine as a bold change, but then reinstated the change after I have reverted it. When challenged on the issue, they refused to undo their change and also refused to acknowledge the community consensus on that issue as laid out in ], which would raise worries about PM criterion #3, concerning moving in accordance with guidelines. I also noted on the page of a relatively new user. The underlying point was correct, that the user had somewhat misrepresented the situation for the ], but I don't think that was done in bad faith, and the tone used was not fitting for an experienced user talking to a newbie. And Netoholic reverted several other moves by the same user, which were fully in accordance with ] and ], so did not need reverting. I would therefore personally not grant the right at this time, but would invite Netoholic to apply again in a few months and demonstrate a willingness in that time to engage with community consensus and not use the move function to pursue their own agenda. — ] (]) 13:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
::*:{{ping|TonyBallioni}} yes, {{u|Netoholic}} yesterday did raise a few question marks in my head about their willingness to accept community consensus and engage collaboratively. They changed the target of a long-standing redirect, which is fine as a bold change, but then reinstated the change after I have reverted it. When challenged on the issue, they refused to undo their change and also refused to acknowledge the community consensus on that issue as laid out in ], which would raise worries about PM criterion #3, concerning moving in accordance with guidelines. I also noted on the page of a relatively new user. The underlying point was correct, that the user had somewhat misrepresented the situation for the ], but I don't think that was done in bad faith, and the tone used was not fitting for an experienced user talking to a newbie. And Netoholic reverted several other moves by the same user, which were fully in accordance with ] and ], so did not need reverting. I would therefore personally not grant the right at this time, but would invite Netoholic to apply again in a few months and demonstrate a willingness in that time to engage with community consensus and not use the move function to pursue their own agenda. — ] (]) 13:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
====]==== |