Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sarah (talk | contribs) at 02:38, 13 December 2008 (→Mainframe: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Werdnabot

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #46

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

"Roleplaying"

As I expressed at user talk:Moondyne I found the discussion at Misplaced Pages:AN#User:_Moondyne_and_User:_Sarah mysterious. I've interacted with "Topology expert" for a number of months. I followed the link from your allegation of "role-playing" and I couldn't understand what you meant by that. Can you explain? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I can't, sorry, for reasons I think would be quite obvious to anyone who looked through his non-article edits. Sarah 22:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've seen a number of his talk page edits over a number of months, and none of those make it "quite obvious" why you can't explain your statement that he's "role-playing". Michael Hardy (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Because I think it would violate policy and he has already accused me of "outing" him so perhaps you could ask him? If you can't read things like his contributions to the Wikiquette page where he sounds like a kid in a school ground choosing which side to take and work out what's going on here then that's your problem and I'm just not prepared to spell it out for you for the simple reasons of policy and basic common sense. "Obviously a competent professional in his field" my arse. I'm not really interested in continuing this discussion with you and I'm going offline now so won't be responding further. Thanks, Sarah 01:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he's a hothead and sometimes seems childish, but your comment that I am unable to understand his contributions a "Wikiquette page" seems to presuppose that I'm aware of such contributions. I have looked at his edit history somewhat, but guessing just which of his writings you have in mind is more than I should need to do, when all you've said is "non-article edits". Michael Hardy (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm not just talking about the WQ edits, I'm talking about his non-article edits in general and the WQ edits are just one example. I reviewed a very large number of his non-article edits was left with certain beliefs regarding this editor. His school yard behaviour on WQ is just one example. Sarah 01:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I just noticed that you unblocked him without bothering to discuss it on AN or with the blocking admin. That's extraordinarily poor judgment, Michael. I think there's been sufficient ArbCom cases about admins doing just that sort of thing that have resulted in desysopps that this sort of wildly maverick behaviour had been drummed out of admins. I'm really quite shocked that you would storm in and, by your own admission, not understand the block or the discussion and overturn it anyway without bothering to discuss it with the blocking administrator. I really think you need to read up on the blocking policy which quite clearly says: "In general, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." Sarah 01:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Those who blocked him" (you do realise, only one person blocked him, right? There was not group decision to block and I didn't even know he had been blocked until I logged on this morning) "disrespectful to me" (you weren't involved so I can't possibly understand how you were disrespected but for arguments sake, IF it WAS disrespectful to you then you had no business whatsoever overturning the block! Hello? You don't realise that it should be left to a neutral admin who doesn't feel disrespected???) I'm seriously worried about you and your behaviour in this case. Sarah 01:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Adminitis

Sarah, I see that you have about 750 content edits over the last year, the vast majority of which are merely reverts of vandalism. I recommend you try to remember what's important here: content, not politics. That's my concern with your activity. Now, would you be willing to share with me why you are concerned about my activities? Jehochman 14:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Look Jonathon, I have spent most of the last year trying to extricate myself from the project. I have gone for days, weeks, without editing at all, only to return when people (like you, for example) have contacted me here, via email, gtalk or WMA asking me to look into something. You know nothing about work that I continue to do for this project that is not visible on site and I don't see why I need to explain or justify myself to you. I feel more than entitled to express my opinion where and how I wish and I don't really see why I need to answer to you or why you think it appropriate to investigate a long standing admin who has not put themselves forward for an election or any other elevated access levels. It amuses me that you're drama mongering over my edit distribution when you yourself have contacted me privately asking me to specifically participate in "politics" (yet never ask me to look at an article matter)! Your campaigning against Elonka, the Slrubenstein RFC, the Pcarbonn AN ban discussion etc etc. (Please note that like Durova I keep complete records of gtalk transcripts and emails) If you don't like me involved in politics and would rather I focus on articles then don't contact me and ask me to participate in political matters! Otherwise you're looking pretty hypocritical. I have done a lot of work on this project over a long period of time and if I happen to see something on one of the noticeboards that interests me or I have something to say then I will continue to do so without regard for your approval. I am not running for arbcom or any other position or trying to gain access to some powerful tools so I feel that my edit distribution and how I spend my time when I do decide to log onto Misplaced Pages really has nothing to do with you. And I would ask you to please keep your drama mongering off my talk page; it doesn't interest me one iota and won't influence what I do or do not do at all. I have asked you before to leave me alone. I accept you contacting me for content matters and admin matters requiring we interact but I am not interested in your drama mongering so kindly refrain from trying to stir me up and suck me into your latest drama. If you have a problem with my editing then I would ask you to file an RfC rather than come here because I'm really not interested in your views of me or your advice or "recommendations" and I think I've made that more than clear in the past.

Why am I concerned about your activities? Because you have requested the community assign you to the Arbitration Committee and I don't trust you at all; more than that, I mistrust you. You having access to the ArbCom mailing list and its archives, the ArbCom wiki, checkuser, oversight and so forth is simply unacceptable in my opinion. I am grateful that overall the community appears to agree that you are not an acceptable candidate because were you to be elected to the committee I would seriously be considering whether I could continue to support this project (and I don't say that lightly - there is literally no other candidate this year that I feel that strongly about). Let me be really clear here: I do not trust you at all. I do not trust you with the additional tools. I especially do not trust you with the privileged information that passes through the committee. I do not trust you with the political influence that goes hand-in-hand with the committee. It's as simple as that. For as long as I see you trying to stir up drama, meddling, using back channels to try to influence people and desperately trying to blow with the breeze of popular opinion I will not trust you with any elevated access. Sarah 01:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• For my 2 cents Jehochman I have also voted in opposition to you (as have 104 others to date) and I think Sarah has given you a most comprehensive answer here. I'm sorry but it appears particularly underhanded for you to come here with your question above as a direct correlation of her vote at the arbcom elections and it smacks of a vindictive pursuit! Sarah is extra-ordinarily well regarded and trusted at the project; she has an extra-ordinary positive history; she is entitled to vote in whatever way she likes; and she is not accountable to anyone for the amount of edits she has made or is making. Indeed if she had only made one useful edit; one useful admin action; or made only one !vote; her continuation at this project coupled with her well-thought out honesty (even if against the desires of administrators she has nominated) is a very worthwhile addition. To my mind there are many many users at this project that want her to continue as a part of it and I would ask that you do her the courtesy of leaving her alone as she has requested of you now many times.--VS 02:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The original post in this thread was the final straw in convincing me this sort of attitude is not what we need on ArbCom. There's a definite condescension there that reminded me rather too much of some of the self-aggrandising comments I'd seen on IRC a couple of months ago, and does seem ironic considering how many dramas the original poster has either initiated or become the centre of. As someone aware of Sarah's significant offline activities in furtherance of the project, I pretty much second everything VS just said. Orderinchaos 05:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. It's the highhanded attitudes displayed by people like my critic that make me want to give up on the project but it's people like you guys that always keep me coming back.

What my critic failed to observe is that I haven't made many edits this year in general. If you look at my last 2000 edits, it goes all the way back to May. And frankly, the project is lucky to have got 750 mostly "merely reverts of vandalism" out of me this year given I have spent most of the year on a succession of wikibreaks. I am quite certain that Andrew Laming would say that my mostly "merely reverts of vandalism" this year were gratefully received and if that were the only article I edited this year then I think my edits have been worthwhile. Surely if a user makes only one useful edit to an article and they aren't otherwise disruptive or destructive it is worth having them around? No wonder so many people leave the project feeling unappreciated and disillusioned with attitudes like Hochman's on display. Sarah 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Proportional mainspace edits: Sarah—35.79%; Jehochman—18.45%. Hesperian 03:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL That's funny. Thanks for that Hesperian. Sarah 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you aren't allergic...

Viriditas (talk) has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy Message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you Viri. Muchly appreciated. (And no, not allergic :)) Sarah 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Again :)

If you have a couple extra minutes, would you mind protecting List of television stations in North America by media market‎ yet again? It seems that Theaveng is back to reverting to the Nielsen version and has been reverted a couple times today (once by me, once by another admin). I do appericate your help. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 11, 2008 @ 20:59

Done, but if he's the only person edit warring over it it might be better to start using blocks rather than protection. Cheers, Sarah 21:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think so....but I wasn't sure how to go about that. Should I take that part to AIV? Thanks again...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 11, 2008 @ 21:09

Nah, no need to worry about reporting it. I'm quite happy to block him if necessary. I had a look at his talk page history and it looks like he has had plenty of warnings about edit warring over the article but I gave him one final "stop or be blocked" warning and if he continues I will just start blocking him. I'll unprotect the article and wait and see what happens. Sarah 21:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, that works for me. If he does it again, I will let you know (to keep you in the loop). Thanks for your help, I appericate it. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 11, 2008 @ 21:36

No worries, I will try to keep watching the situation there but if he does revert it again and I don't notice, just give me a ping and I'll block him straight away. Thank you for keeping an eye on that page yourself and for your work there. :) Cheers, Sarah 21:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Mainframe

Hello, Sarah. Glad to meet you. My username is Crazyharp81602 and I need your help to undelete an article Mainframe (C.O.P.S. I made that's been deleted for no reason other than it's not linked to some reliable resources. It has been link to reliable resources, but according to them, it wasn't. It's not fair that the article is the only article of mine that has been deleted while all the rest of the articles about C.O.P.S. (TV series) haven't been touched. And they appeared to have been not linked to some reliable sources just like the article and they have to single the Mainframe page out! Frustrating. As a matter of fact the only reliable sources I can think of is showing off links to YouTube C.O.P.S. videos and this page from COPS HQ website. Sorry I didn't bother to put the COPS HQ link to the article. If I would've put the link there, I would've been able to keep the article. Could you do me a favor and salvage the article so I can make it more reliable and put the link in the article please? Thanks.--Crazyharp81602 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)Hi Crazyharp81602. Sorry but I can't undelete that article as it has been deleted via an AFD discussion. If you think the AFD was closed incorrectly or that there is new information or new reliable sources that were not available during the period of the AFD then you will have to take it through deletion review. I have, however, emailed you a copy of the text so you can work on the article if you want to, but please be aware that simply reposting it without a DRV will result in the article being speedy deleted as a repost of an AFD deleted article. Sorry I can't be of more help, Sarah 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC) PS When you give someone a link please be sure you give them the correct one as that link to the article was incorrect. Thanks - Sarah 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Sarah! I appreciate it.--Crazyharp81602 (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted, you need to follow the deletion policy and resolve this at DRV, you can't just repost a page which has been deleted via a deletion discussion even if you think you're right. So I've deleted the reposted article per the speedy deletion criteria G4 - an article that "is substantially identical to" an article deleted via AFD. If you want the article recreated, please discuss your rationale with the closing administrator and then nominate it for deletion review. Thanks, Sarah 02:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)