Jump to content

User talk:H/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Hoponpop69 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Can you please watch that unblock - s/he just removed a featured article from WP:FA. Sandy (Talk) 01:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin unblocked the user, I have just helped clear the autoblock. I have left the user a warning, and will be watching closely. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sandy (Talk) 01:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have been an honest mistake. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:71.210.62.238

[edit]

Thanks for the comment. Mathmo Talk 02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I looked at another page I'd edited and it would seem this IP address is from Kreepy krawly? Maybe logged out so s/he wouldn't leave any details of that? Though has also posted similar on another page while signed in. Oh well, I suppose I might need to properly report this? Hmmm... or maybe some type of warning posted to Kreepy krawly's talk page. I'll think about this a little first. Mathmo Talk 02:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kreepy krawly is carrying on, after some degree of consideration I've decided to list this user on Requests for Comments. Go here[3] for more info, though I've only just start to list details. But I thought it would be considerate of me to give you early warning. Mathmo Talk 06:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've you could please sign here [4] that you contacted the person on their talk page that would be greatly appreciated, thank you. Mathmo Talk 06:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really involved, I don't know Kreepy krawly, and have no reason to think it is the same person as the IP I gave a standard warning too. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 07:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1987

[edit]

This is what came up when I clicked it: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/1987_%28What_the_Fuck_Is_Going_On%3F%29

Which led me too believe it did not belong.Hoponpop69 02:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Doob10163

[edit]

I have replied to your message on my Talk page. --Slowking Man 13:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RefBot review

[edit]

Your comments on User talk:RefBot are not relevant to the block. Block was created for different false reasons, under different Bot policy. Current policy does not forbid "Bot" in a name, nor does removal of a block require the bot or username be used. Review the existing block. (SEWilco 16:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

From the current username policy: Names that imply bot accounts, potentially but not necessarily including "Bot", "Robot", "Script", "Initialize", "Automated", "Daemon", etc. are not allowed. A bot policy from January is not relevent as the user signed up in December. I don't need to address the original reason for the block if a reason to keep the block is valid.
This user is not an approved bot, and has Bot in the name. Not allowed. I don't know about the reasons for the original block, but they are not relevant to my decision. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You gave a different comment in User talk:RefBot and I respond to that comment there. In your Bot-name reason you omitted "unless the name is intended as a designated bot. Names that imply bot accounts may be blocked, and the user may be requested to contact an administrator to confirm that the account is indeed a bot account." The bot is intended as a designated bot, but I will not request permission for the bot until the name is available because no permission is needed until it is possible for it to run. The name has been blocked for false reasons and that block needs review, not reinvention. (SEWilco 17:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Well, now that you have told me this is a bot you intend to create, I will remove my unblock review. To avoid this type of confusion in the future you may wish to claim your bot with the {{bot|SEWilco}} tag. This lets other people know your intent. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will, now that I know {{bot}} exists. And once the new protection on User talk:RefBot is removed. Someone has rules hidden away someplace. (SEWilco 17:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The page was protected against new and anon users only, though the template placed there says it is fully protected, not sure what Yamla's intentions were, semi or full. I will ask. Which rule are you looking for, maybe I can point it out for you. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The editor did not specify a reason, and the {{unblockabuse}} message mentions a "two" limitation which is not mentioned in {{unblock}}. But the actual block reason has not been reviewed anyway, so although unblock exists twice there actually have been zero reviews. I wouldn't have needed the second unblock if there had been a review of the actual block. (SEWilco 18:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
It is not a block reason review, it is a block review. If you really think this needs the attention of more admins write a polite and neutral request for attention at WP:AN/I. Explain yourself in a polite and concise manner, and you should get an impartial response. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems rather limited. {{unblock}} should be documented further, to clarify that the meaning of "review" is just "Is there a block? Yes/No." (SEWilco 20:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
No, it is reviewing if the block should be undone. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yet nobody has reviewed the current block, only a previous one. (SEWilco 00:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
As I said before, if you really think this needs the attention of more admins write a polite and neutral request for attention at WP:AN/I. Explain yourself in a polite and concise manner, and you should get an impartial response. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of List of people who became famous through being terminally ill

[edit]

Hi. I'm somewhat troubled by your decision to delete this article, on a couple of grounds. First, there was still an discussion going on, which I feel should have been allowed to run its course. Second, the reason you cite for deletion is that the article is "indiscriminate" but it's pretty clear that most of the editors who cited this as a reason for deletion either don't actually understand this particular clause of WP:NOT or are misapplying it in this case. I would like to ask that you reinstate the article and the AfD to allow further discussion; if the consensus at the end of that discussion is deletion then I won't object, but at present that's not where we're at. SP-KP 22:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. I judged the consensus as a delete. WP:NOT does list certain things that are clearly indiscriminate, but it is not a complete list. We user debate and consensus to determine in those cases. The only conversations that were not one sided have ended days ago. I am going to leave it.
You are welcome to submit it to WP:DRV if you think this is out of process. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I come back to you on a few things here, please:

  • I would be interested in understanding why you felt the consensus was to delete
  • Could you point me at somewhere within Wikipedia policy / guidance which states that the list of items at WP:NOT does not constitute the complete list of categories of indiscriminate article? I've looked for it several times before, and not found it.
  • What length of time do you feel is appropriate to allow editors to respond to questions seeking clarification on their views?

SP-KP 11:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The reason I felt the consensus was to delete is that most people wanted it deleted, and people who wanted it kept were employing arguments like This article is similar to ones allowed and do not take into account the argument that this is better served as a category.
From WP:NOT
While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply...
This means that while the items on the list are indiscriminate, that consensus is to determine what other classes of entries qualify as indiscriminate. Thus the AfD, a mechanism to find consensus when policy is not clear cut.
As I said before Articles are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. So, that would be the length of time I feel is appropriate to allow editors to respond to questions.
Once again I welcome you to submit this to WP:DRV. I think I closed it well. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for those replies. I won't be submitting this to DRV, as I do not believe the problem is process related - I agree with you that you have followed process here. The issues here, I feel, are your understanding of Wikipedia policy & process and the judgment you made as a result of that (and possibly the degree of care taken in making that judgment, although I can't be certain about this last point). If you feel that you would like more detail regarding these criticisms, in order to learn and improve, I'd be happy to discuss further. I'll let the deletion of this particular article drop though, as I think that reinstating the content is better done through the establishment of a consensus between interested parties on how it can be reinstated in a deletion-proof way, away from the post-AfD processes. All the best. SP-KP 18:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I even made a section for it below. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive criticism

[edit]

I always like constructive criticism, go for it! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I won't do this all in one go though, as I need to go get some food! My first piece of feedback is that I think you misinterpret what WP:NOT is saying, and as a result have been swayed into making a decision which appears correct but under a different interpretation is less clear-cut. We both agree that the eight community-agreed indisciminate categories of articles should be deleted. If you like, these are the eight "obvious" unencyclopaedic categories, and as you say they can't cover everything that will ever get deleted as unencyclopaedic. It is quite possible (personally I think it is quite likely) that there are further categories of article (although they would likely be more narrowly defined) that we will discover as the encyclopaedia matures further. AfD is probably a good place to detect these extra categories if we do that carefully ... i.e. people will express reasons why other article categories ahould be regarded as unencyclopaedic, others will give reasons why they shouldn't be, and community consenus will hopefully (eventually) establish itself as patterns emerge over time in deletion discussions. All good, constructive, collaborative stuff. What's happened here is very different. Lots of editors have just "voted" to deem this an unencyclopaedic article, either without a reason, or by citing the indisciminate info clause as a reason, but in error. As an admin in the AfD process, it's very tempting to defer to the majority view, but that's not what I feel you should be doing, or what community consensus says if I understand it correctly. In cases like these, my recommendation would be that you almost need to completely filter out the "me too" contributions and look at what is happening in the meat of the discussion. It may well be that in this case, the end result would still have been consensus to delete, but the discussion hadn't reached that point. More later. SP-KP 18:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree about the lack of reasoning on the part of those claiming it was indiscriminate, many of the delete opinions gave clear reasoning such as Serpent's Choice, Warrens, and Colin. I also think the casting your opinion by saying you agree with another person's reasoning is valid contribution lending weight to that argument.

The main problem here is that determining if something is indiscriminate is an arbitrary process. Of course the value of the arguments needs to be taken into account, which is how I found consensus to delete. A few of the delete's lack foundation, but so to some of the few keeps.

I don't mean to linger on this one AfD, I know you are simply using it as an example case for a more general discussion. Judging consensus is tricky, especially when WP:NOT is involved. All through WP:NOT it points out the arbitrary nature of the rules and says that consensus must be relied on. One cannot provide evidence to show if something is indiscriminate or not, so such debates are essentially opinion based.

A good question is, is this the type of article you would expect in an encyclopedia? The consensus seems to be no in this case. Were the situation different I would certainly act accordingly. I hope this has addressed your concerns, or perhaps I just sidestepped them? Let me know, thanks for the input. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Mikey95

[edit]

I'll trust your judgement, on that one. :) Thanks. Luna Santin 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to start a new account but...

[edit]

I am autoblocked. Can't you enable it for a like a day and then since I have an account I understand that IP blocks won't matter? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.84.48 (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You need to make the unblock request on the userpage that is blocked. You cannot be blocked if you are asking here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to you at

[edit]

... User_talk:Heligoland#Discussion_Closed. – SAJordan talkcontribs 23:14, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:H/Archive_20&oldid=131720602"