| Revision as of 21:46, 6 November 2023 editSmartse (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators49,652 editsNo edit summaryTag: Reverted← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:14, 7 November 2023 edit undoSmartse (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators49,652 edits Restored revision 1165951056 by Smartse (talk): RvTags: Twinkle Replaced Undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{noindex}} |
|
Leyo used administrative tools in an area that they had little experience and stated they would not contribute. |
|
|
|
*https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0154d786485bb3660a |
|
|
|
|
|
**{{linksummary|mtcremovals.com}} |
|
In they stated that they were mainly requesting the bit to examine deleted edits and would '''''not''''' be blocking users apart from obvious vandalism. |
|
|
|
*https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01fa8175c93e4d68ad |
|
In 13 years as an admin, Leyo has made only and the vast majority of these blocks were straightforward vandalism blocks made between May and August 2023. Only 9 of 187 were for edit warring. The block of KoA was therefore an exceptionally unusual action fot them. at the AAR that {{tq|Unfortunately, it seems that my memory was affected by standard admin responses to slow edit-wars in other WMF projects}} demonstrating that they lack understanding of en.wiki norms. is typically sparse (< 100 edits a month) punctuated by occasional periods of thousands of edits per month. This isn’t necessarily a problem, but this case demonstrates the problem with an admin getting the bit for one thing and then 13 years later, deciding to start using the tools in a way that was never anticipated, in a project that they are relatively unfamiliar with. |
|
|
|
**{{linksummary|theenterpriseworld.com}} |
|
|
|
|
|
*https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01a175126014b00fe9 |
|
Leyo claims to coincidentally encounter KoA |
|
|
|
**] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
*https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~010951ca0bb9fb75de |
|
There’s obviously no way of knowing for sure one way or the other, but I find it hard to believe that the most recent encounters between Leyo and KoA are entirely coincidental. After many editors had questioned how they noticed the edits at Dominion, Leyo {{tq|Every now and then, I follow the RecentChanges, where I noticed that there is an ongoing dispute}}. At the PAN AFD, that the article had been on their watchlist since 2015, but they had never contributed to it or the talk page, even in June 2023, a month in which they made almost 2000 edits. In 300 edits between August and October, they happened to interact with KoA twice by coincidence. |
|
|
|
**] |
|
|
|
|
Leyo continued to cast aspersions during this case |
|
|
|
|
|
I was amazed by the final comment in about pinging editors: {{tq|For users who don't have anything to hide that could be brought up in the evidence, there is none in my view}}. The inference is that the only reason that KoA could have concerns about other editors being notified is because he has something to hide. |
|
|
|
|
|
Leyo still does not see the problem with bringing up previous edits at AFD. |
|
|
|
|
|
AFDs occur in isolation from the article – regardless of the sources or content present in the article, the only thing that matters is whether !voters can produce sources to support their claim of notability. Leyo considers it relevant to note whether a !voter has removed content from the article. I questioned this , e.g. did at the 2nd AE and discussed here but still they the problem. As with my first point, this indicates that Leyo is not sufficiently familiar with the norms of AFD and yet they have the technical ability to close them. |
|