This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
(Manual archive list) |
Removal of PROD from 2007–08 Cuban National Series
Hello Dusti, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to 2007–08 Cuban National Series has been removed. It was removed by Phil Bridger with the following edit summary '(contest deletion - we have articles for all other seasons (see the template) so it wouldn't make sense just to delete one)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Phil Bridger before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 08:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Closing articles for deletion discussions
Hello Dusti. Please remember when closing articles for deletion discussions that they should be kept open for a full 7 days. I've noticed you closing discussions earlier than this period. Please also remember that non-admins should only be closing unanimous keeps - Here you closed the discussion as no consensus and that should have been left to an admin. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was actually talking with Olaf about the AFD's and we both had made a mistake on miscalculation on the 7 days. He endorsed the No consensus closure with me, and checked the premature closes. If you look, it was at midnight or around, so we thought we were closing the actual 7+ day Afd's. Sorry for the confusion and not clarifying the closures. DustiSPEAK!! 17:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- No worries - thanks for the clarification. You stumbled across my pet hate actually (people closing AfD's early), but hopefully you didn't feel my wrath too much :-). Thanks for your efforts. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, in my defense, the Afd's closed had already settled down or had a pretty obvious outcome :) **hugs** Now, question, I thought for NAC's, it is generally suggested but not a policy for unanimous keeps? I've done some pretty bold closes :) lol. I'm getting a little bolder from when I caused an uproar over a year ago, but still being careful. DustiSPEAK!! 17:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Looking over the guideline at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non administrators closing discussions, it seems that the discussion doesn't have to be a unanimous keep to be closed by a non-admin, but it does suggest that if it's a close call then you leave it to an admin. I personally think the rationale behind that is that if you're a non-admin closing an AfD which is a close call and could go either way then you're more likely to close it as keep because you lack the technical ability to delete the page. I think it's just to keep things fair. My advice would be to simply close discussions if there is consensus to keep (doesn't have to be unanimous), I'd suggest that no consensus closures are a little too close for non-admins to close. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- If I felt that the consensus would be leaning towards delete (even if there wasn't a clear cut consensus) I would't try to close the Afd just to have another close under my belt, I would definatley leave it for a sysop to close. I've made the mistake of closing delete discussions before (I was a newbie). Thanks for keeping an eye on me though, I appreciate it :) I'll be sure to watch what I do a little closer, for sure. DustiSPEAK!! 17:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Looking over the guideline at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non administrators closing discussions, it seems that the discussion doesn't have to be a unanimous keep to be closed by a non-admin, but it does suggest that if it's a close call then you leave it to an admin. I personally think the rationale behind that is that if you're a non-admin closing an AfD which is a close call and could go either way then you're more likely to close it as keep because you lack the technical ability to delete the page. I think it's just to keep things fair. My advice would be to simply close discussions if there is consensus to keep (doesn't have to be unanimous), I'd suggest that no consensus closures are a little too close for non-admins to close. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, in my defense, the Afd's closed had already settled down or had a pretty obvious outcome :) **hugs** Now, question, I thought for NAC's, it is generally suggested but not a policy for unanimous keeps? I've done some pretty bold closes :) lol. I'm getting a little bolder from when I caused an uproar over a year ago, but still being careful. DustiSPEAK!! 17:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- No worries - thanks for the clarification. You stumbled across my pet hate actually (people closing AfD's early), but hopefully you didn't feel my wrath too much :-). Thanks for your efforts. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
RE: Why did you
Regarding your query on my talk page, can you be more specific as to which block you wish to contest? According to the logs, I have blocked nine IPs and one registered account over the past day. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Here are the events in question, as I see them:
- 13:23 IP blanks article
- 13:23 editor A little insignificant issues a {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning
- 13:24 the IP ignores the warning and blanks the article again
Since the anonymous editor ignored the warning and blanked the article again, I blocked the IP to prevent further disruption. However since I felt that a 4im warning was a tad heavy-handed, I only blocked the IP for 12 hours, as opposed to the 24 - 31 hour block that I would normally levy against an IP that had received three to four levels of escalating warnings.
Does this answer your question, or do you still wish to contest the block? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- The questions that come into mind when I see the times are:
- Did the anonymous user get a chance to see the warning (as there are already two edits within that minute... so was the warning possibly issued at 13:23:50, giving only a matter of seconds? My whole major theory here is that the anonmyous user has done this before, multiple times, each without receiving a warning. See what I mean? DustiSPEAK!! 00:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Using Twinkle, my warning was issued in the 10 seconds following my revert of their edit. To blank the article a second time, they must have known it had been restored. So that's why I think in all probability they received the warning. But situations like this are confusing, and doubt is a good thing in all of them. I think Kralizec's 12-hour block was good.
- As for my use of only warnings... I've said it before, and I will say it again. I use 4im in cases where the vandalism is unambiguously intentional, therefore, I tend to use it often. In situations where I can AGF and reasonably speculate it was unintentional vandalism or a test edit, I leave uw-vandalism1 or uw-test1 (respectively). But uw-4im has always worked for me in that it shuts up most vandals quickly, without having to sit and watch them and work my way up the list of warnings. Instead, I make it clear that if they vandalize again, they will be blocked. And most of them stop it. The ones that don't get reported. ALI nom nom 02:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Unilateral closing of ANI discussion
I'm curious as to the authority of a non-admin to close an ANI discussion in the absence of an expressed consensus that it be closed. It strikes me that I would have just as much right to reopen it as you had to close it. I don't see where you have any right to expunge my comments, regardless of your opinion of their propriety. Perhaps you could identify a relevant policy, guideline, precedent or practice.
I'd also note that when I posted my comments, I did not receive the standard conflict notice, which I should havr received if my edit was subsequent to your closing edit (however valid that was). That suggests to that there's some sort of glitch involved, and you ought to respect in good faith my posting.
I'd also point out that my comments go well beyond the scope of the purported RFC/U, which I think has been framed as an attempt to intimidate editors with whom Ash has been in conflict. As someone who's been the target of Ash's innuendo in the recent past, I also think I should be seen as having a right to comment on discussions where Ive been involved by implication. You should restore my comments, and I also believe you should remove your unilateral closure without consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- It was requested that it be closed, "Suggest that either the parties fish or cut bait, or that the thread be closed. We can't do anything with allegations like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC" DustiSPEAK!! 20:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- A "request" isn't consensus, and I don't believe anyone expressed support for the request. You also participated in the discussion, making your unilateral non-admin closure even more in appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, I did not suggest anything other than a block, and stated that I was not entirely clear on the situation. Continuing the discussion is inappropriate as it's not something that can be handled at AN/I, as numerous people have stated. DustiSPEAK!! 20:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any consensus for that conclusion. Why do you think it is appropriate for an involved nonadmin to close a discussion thread and expunge comments from other editors. Please cite policy, guideline, practice, or precedent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am not involved. I cited a suggestion, but did not continue it. I cited policy in the suggestion. What I am saying now is, that you badgering me about this, reversing the closure, and allowing the discussion to continue because you wanted to cite your opinion is inappropriate, as the discussion should no longer continue on AN/I. It's not where the discussion should take place, and that has been stated within the discussion. DustiSPEAK!! 20:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- You participated in the discussion; that makes you involved. You still haven't provided a shred of justification for acting without consensus, or why your opinion as a nonadmin is privileged over mine. Your refusal to cite any relevant WP guidance on this issue is really inappropriate; if you can't find policy etc to back up your action, you just shouldn't take the action. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am not involved. I cited a suggestion, but did not continue it. I cited policy in the suggestion. What I am saying now is, that you badgering me about this, reversing the closure, and allowing the discussion to continue because you wanted to cite your opinion is inappropriate, as the discussion should no longer continue on AN/I. It's not where the discussion should take place, and that has been stated within the discussion. DustiSPEAK!! 20:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any consensus for that conclusion. Why do you think it is appropriate for an involved nonadmin to close a discussion thread and expunge comments from other editors. Please cite policy, guideline, practice, or precedent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, I did not suggest anything other than a block, and stated that I was not entirely clear on the situation. Continuing the discussion is inappropriate as it's not something that can be handled at AN/I, as numerous people have stated. DustiSPEAK!! 20:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- A "request" isn't consensus, and I don't believe anyone expressed support for the request. You also participated in the discussion, making your unilateral non-admin closure even more in appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Dusti, I've reverted your attempted closure of the ANI thread that I started. I'm being accused -- with no evidence provided whatsoever -- of jeopardizing the physical safety of another Wikipedia editor. That is a very serious charge and is clearly a personal attack as outlined in WP:NPA ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence."). I'm sure you meant well, but please do not interfere with the thread again. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- You've been told to take it elsewhere, so do so! AN/I is NOT appropriate, and I would suggest taking it to Arbitration, RFC/U, or somewhere more appropriate. DustiSPEAK!! 21:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- It appears that we disagree. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)