Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Archtransit (talk | contribs) at 15:57, 15 January 2008 (→chain of events: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• I will respond to messages here.
• If you have a grievance with me, please remain civil and be kind, and I will respond in kind.
• Please post new messages at the bottom.
• Thank you!

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Deletion of your talk page

Sorry, but deleting a user talk page isn't housekeeping. I must object and strongly urge you to restore it. Snowolf 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of admins do it, I don't have a problem with it. Best, Keilana 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive 36

How is it a valid archive? It did not come from the main talk page, and it is gibberish. It makes no sense. So what are your grounds for keeping it? MrKIA11 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that, what was it then? That strikes me as a bit odd. Best, Keilana 22:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. That's why I nominated it. It should definitely be deleted. Will you, since your an admin, or should I put the template back? MrKIA11 (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll delete it momentarily. Thanks for notifying me. Best, Keilana 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Note about second proposal related to restrictions of Gp75motorsports and Blow of Light

As someone who gave your input into my initial proposal, would I be able to respectfully request your input into a secondary proposal which addresses issues related to the restrictions placed on Blow of Light specifically? Your input into gathering consensus at this discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hew Scott

You are probably right to recommend this formally for deletion - but only formally. It is pretty scanty right now and I hope to add ot it in future. His extensive work is a fairly fundamental tool for historians and genealogists - try Googling him or his work - so, yep, he matches the notability criterion. Thanks for the prompt to more work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony164 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I did pick up some stuff on Google, hence the AFD. Just poke me if you need anything, administrative or otherwise. Best of luck you you! Keilana 23:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

...for your support in my recently closed Request for Adminship. I am more than a bit stunned by the outcome, which appears to have finished at 146 supports, no opposes, and one abstention. I am particularly grateful to Keilana and Kingboyk for their recent encouragement, and most specifically to Pastordavid, for having seen fit to nominate me. I also want to make it very clear to everyone that I have no intentions of changing my name again, so the servers should be safe for a while.

In the event you ever believe that I would ever able to assist in the future, I would be honored if you were to contact me regarding the matter. I can't guarantee results, unfortunately, but I will do what I can. Thank you again.

By the way, I know the image isn't necessarily appropriate, but I am rather fond of it, and it at least reflects the degree of honor I feel at the result. And it's hard to go wrong with a Picture of the Year candidate.

Now, off to a few last tasks before starting work in earnest on the various templates I promised I'd work on.

John Carter (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RE

What, Ive been warned and I stopped. I havent done anything In the past...5 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Laser (talk • contribs) 00:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

chain of events

Congratulations on your successful reconfirmation RFA!

I see that you are a RFCU clerk. Let me tell you about a series of events that cascaded into a bad situation. The particular names are not important. In fact, listing the names just adds to hard feelings.

Admin 1 has a dispute with a POV pusher and has blocked him for a month. The POV pusher asked others to edit WP. This is considered canvassing. However, the language that he used was open ended enough that, on the surface, it is legitimate. Should we block someone for saying something like "go to WP and see if you can improve articles, if so do it."?

When some people came to WP to express their opinion about the block, Admin 1 thought they were socks. One of the editors is an established editor that works on featured article candidates but edited using another username citing need to prevent attacks on the other articles.

The RFCU came up that the 3 users were not related.

One user pointed out that the RFCU request was deficient. It was a category F, yet no proof of block was provided (see the chart near the top of the RFCU page and the requirements). That user also mentioned that the 3 users that the RFCU listed had no common articles that they edited (they all edited different articles). That user also mentioned that all of them have stopped editing after the block (so there is no block evasion as category F requires). As the RFCU clerk, you didn't catch these difficiencies. Since this discussion is for learning, maybe you can learn from it (that it was part of a series of events that turned out badly for WP).

The RFCU results showed that the 3 users were not related but the checkuser mentioned the name of a 4th username, that of the established FA editor. That FA editor has said he/she will no longer edit in WP. This is harmful to WP. If we learn anything, it should be not to do something that has the result of chasing away good WP editors. Everything else is secondary.

I came in when I saw that Admin 1 made a 1 minute block just to create a negative record on the FA editor. This is in clear violation of WP policy. I placed a 12 hour block on Admin 1 in order to protect WP from ongoing mis-steps and possible further WP policy violations. By doing so, I did not violate WP policy. However, in retrospect, I shouldn't have done this because it doesn't follow the customs that should be observed when blocking. One of the several unwritten rules that were broken is that blocking of an admin should be carefully considered, more so than an non-admin editor.

Where do you fit in? Try to carefully do RFCU clerking duties. Whether or not this would have stopped this cascade of events is speculation. However, following WP policy and instructions carefully seems to be a good rule of thumb.

Who has gotten hurt? Many people. Is WP better now? No, except if we consider the situation and improve it. Archtransit (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)