Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ned Scott (talk | contribs) at 18:29, 26 July 2007 (→You did the right thing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk to me...
Recent archive Add comment	My view of this talk page I will usually reply here, not on your talk page Comments will not be edited except to reformat them to a nice thread format if it looks untidy Obvious spam will be deleted

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)

Apparently this is an "appalling" thing to say. Well I'm sorry but if an article is deleted without any decent reason and after discussions state that it should be kept and is acceptable within policy (as interpreted by several admins) I can't really see that undeleting it is wrong. violet/riga (t) 23:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever seen another admin put their judgment of what is right or wrong so high. You insist that other abide by consensus but seem to show no respect for the overwhelming consensus WP:WHEEL has as a policy page or the damage done to this project whenever admins simply overturn each other without regard for outside input. Frankly, if you can't see why wheel warring is unjustifiable I don't think you should continue to be an administrator here. If you can't bring yourself to not overturn other admins just because you believe you're in the right, I think you should seriously consider stepping down. WjBscribe 23:30, 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)

I was going to DRV it V. We both know that you are right, but the wheel warring doesn't help anyone. You are going to take a good admin down with a bad if you keep going like this. Viridae 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

But it shouldn't have to go through DRV. The name is still included in the article! How can it be right to delete a redirect while leaving the name within the article? The common misspelling of "Abhilash Jeyarajah" also remained, so this is clearly a case of a deletion without any clear rationale by the admin. violet/riga (t) 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I know it shouldn't have to, but as long as you keep going in this vein, the wheel warring charge is going to be used to keep it deleted (or not as the case may be at the moment). Viridae 23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but it's a sad day when people like Guy can be allowed to bypass a consensual interpretation of policy. violet/riga (t) 23:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

WP:BLP states: In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

This had taken place and the consensus was to include the name. Guy deleted that name as a redirect while letting the name remain within the article and he did not delete the common misspelling redirect Abhilash Jeyarajah. Citing BLP and pointing to the ArbCom case (which did not make any sort of decision on such things) is inappropriate and goes against the consensual interpretation of the policy as evidenced on the talk page of the article. violet/riga (t) 23:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your points are entirely valid, and I applaud you for attempting to hold up community consensus, but please wheel warring is not the way to go about it. Viridae 23:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wheel-warring is bad and is a last resort. It's bad that I had to undelete the redirect, but since the people in opposition seem to be able to cite IAR and get away with biased deletions I don't feel it is right that the opposite can't be true. violet/riga (t) 23:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately and completely unfairly that is not how it works. If only you had backed down and tried to discuss it you wouldn't be blocked. If you really want to make something like this right, the way to do so would be through the legitimate channels. Viridae 23:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that going through due process is generally correct, the fact remains that the matter had been discussed and the decision made. It is not acceptable for one person to then come along and ignore all that, make a botched deletion and then we all have to go through DRV to get it resolved. I was/am more than willing to discuss the matter further on the appropriate talk page, and clearly stated that. This deletion appears more as a POINT not a BLP, especially given the Meissmer AfD by the same user. violet/riga (t) 23:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I realise all that, but wheel warring does not help your position in the slightest. Undoing the deletion once, may have been within your bounds, and at a stretch, acceptable. Undoing it multiple times just throws you in a bad light. Viridae 23:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wheel warring is no last resort...it's no resort at all. That's like saying "If I feel that I'm really really right in doing so, I can rape this person, despite the overwhelming meta-consensus that Rape is bad". ⇒ SWATJester 06:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That's actually quite offensive as an analogy and I'd thank you to avoid such things. As soon as such an act can be undone with no ill affect, as with the restoration of a little redirect, the world would be a better place. violet/riga (t) 07:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

You have been unblocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Blnguyen - I think it's right to unblock us both as long as we avoid each other for the time being. violet/riga (t) 07:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Morning response

Now that I'm sober again (not an excuse, just an explanation of why my words might not have fully reflected my position) I'd like to further comment. Wheel-warring significant content is clearly a bad thing. The deletion of a redirect when (incorrect) variations of said name are left and when the name itself exists within the destination article (and does so by consensus of people fully aware of BLP) is inappropriate. BLP, it has been decided, does not apply here as has been discussed. Note that this is a significant reason behind my actions - it was already discussed. Perhaps Guy didn't check through the talk page properly and his first deletion would be understandable, but a second was certainly not warranted when he had sufficient time to comment on the relevant talk page. When citing BLP in a deletion (especially a clearly contentious one like this) Guy should do more than refer to the BDJ case (first deletion) or be rude (second). Guy appears to have gone through the articles in the BDJ case and restarted the crusade to remove them (the other remaining one he tried to AfD). violet/riga (t) 07:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well as a teetotaller in a family of non-drinkers this type of editing lifestyle seems to me a bit hard to grasp. But I see that other users also drink and edit so it seems. Is it a common type of thing? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it must be. I'd like to believe that anything that I say and do when under the influence is still coming from sensible thinking, and my comment above is merely intended to show that I might not have worded things as plainly as I might otherwise. I don't usually return from an evening out and come on here, but given the inevitable fallout from the restorations I wanted to come and see what the latest was. violet/riga (t) 08:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You did the right thing

Thank you, for correcting something that was wrong. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. violet/riga (t) 07:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. You did the right thing. It's a shame what's happening now. Best wishes, J Readings 07:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, wheel warring is the right thing. Kudos all around! MessedRocker (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wheel warring is never good, but neither is letting something wrong go uncorrected. -- Ned Scott 18:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your name

Hey, does it have anything to do with Riga? I was wondering because I live there. Reinis 08:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I was very young when I started using "Riga" and wasn't consciously aware of any other use, let alone a capital city. It is actually a misspelling of the Latin "rigor". I intend to visit at some point as I hear very positive things about Riga and Latvia, but I don't have any link to the city or the country. Regards, violet/riga (t) 08:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeat after me...

Please. "It's important that an administrative action not only be correct, but that it appear correct. I am sorry that my action gave the appearance of impropriety. I will try not to repeat it."

You have to figure out what your goal here is, why you are here. Are you primarily here to help the encyclopedia, or are you primarily here to fight for the cause of righteousness? Because, see, this isn't a place to fight. Even to fight "the good fight". This is an encyclopedia. If you keep saying "I was right, darn it all, and I'd do it again" ... I estimate a 60% chance you'll be desysopped. :-(. Right or not. :-(. --AnonEMouse 16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I do understand that, and I know that I could easily have said different things (or nothing) and been in a better position. I stand by my principles though, and while it might not be acceptable to wheel war I just can't see how it can be acceptable to ignore consensus and simply do your own thing. That's abuse of admin rights and such users should be clearly informed and cautioned about it. Had there not been any consensus to include the name, or had Guy deleted the name from the article and recommenced discussion I would not have undone his actions. As it was he was in violation of deletion policy and was clearly making a POINT. violet/riga (t) 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well... I'm not going to go after him and say "he should be desysopped too" :-(. I'm just hoping you aren't. Over a little redirect, this is so not worth it. Good luck. --AnonEMouse 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call for a desysopping - I just wish that this was properly resolved when ArbCom had the chance. Instead they just skimmed a little bit of the issue and dealt out a few punishments on only one side of the issue. Thanks for your comments. violet/riga (t) 17:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

By saying this, you aren't admitting your action was wrong per se, you're merely admitting that it looked bad... and more important, that you won't do it again. We don't do punishments around here, we do prevention. Any argument to have you desysopped will have to be based on the principle that if you keep the shiny buttons, you'll be wheel warring. I strongly recommend you de-fang that. --AnonEMouse 16:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It certainly looks bad to those that jump in and don't look at the background to the situation. If it was something validly deleted I certainly wouldn't have restored it. violet/riga (t) 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)