| Revision as of 13:42, 30 August 2024 editBlack Kite (talk | contribs)Administrators85,256 edits ER, noTag: Manual revert← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:26, 10 September 2024 edit undo89.242.10.117 (talk) →AN3 decisionTag: RevertedNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| :: No problem! I think it's just common sense more than anything else - you've got a drive-by editor inserting unsourced OR into an FA, and someone trying to keep it out. I can't ever see a situation in which they should be sanctioned for that. ] 20:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC) | :: No problem! I think it's just common sense more than anything else - you've got a drive-by editor inserting unsourced OR into an FA, and someone trying to keep it out. I can't ever see a situation in which they should be sanctioned for that. ] 20:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::Thank you again for taking the time to look. A couple of things we might want to take forward to any AN discussion; is a "drive-by" editor an official thing here, and if so, what is the opposite of a drive-by editor? I've probably been one for the majority of my 200,000 edits. I had no idea it gave you fewer rights to expect others to treat you fairly and abide by policy. ] is a very dangerous rationale to use for administrative decisions in my opinion. It was common sense among white people for a very long time that black people could be bought and sold as slaves, for example. I definitely prefer a rationale based on policy and community consensus. I don't think that an FA should be exempt from normal editing practices, in the absence of a community consensus to that effect. <small>(I know there's a procedure for leniency for TFA, but this is not relevant here.)</small> The FAC process isn't perfect and we do get some clunkers promoted sometimes. The principle that (generally speaking) "anyone can edit" and the prohibition on edit-warring are the most important things in a wiki. The behaviour of edit-warring, being an admin, and issuing a templated warning, is in my opinion a highly worrying intersection behaviorally, and I was surprised you didn't pick up on that. I don't therefore think that you made the right decision there, but so it goes. See you at AN, maybe. ] (]) 12:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | :::Thank you again for taking the time to look. A couple of things we might want to take forward to any AN discussion; is a "drive-by" editor an official thing here, and if so, what is the opposite of a drive-by editor? I've probably been one for the majority of my 200,000 edits. I had no idea it gave you fewer rights to expect others to treat you fairly and abide by policy. ] is a very dangerous rationale to use for administrative decisions in my opinion. It was common sense among white people for a very long time that black people could be bought and sold as slaves, for example. I definitely prefer a rationale based on policy and community consensus. I don't think that an FA should be exempt from normal editing practices, in the absence of a community consensus to that effect. <small>(I know there's a procedure for leniency for TFA, but this is not relevant here.)</small> The FAC process isn't perfect and we do get some clunkers promoted sometimes. The principle that (generally speaking) "anyone can edit" and the prohibition on edit-warring are the most important things in a wiki. The behaviour of edit-warring, being an admin, and issuing a templated warning, is in my opinion a highly worrying intersection behaviorally, and I was surprised you didn't pick up on that. I don't therefore think that you made the right decision there, but so it goes. See you at AN, maybe. ] (]) 12:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | ||
| Where is the evidence that Warnborough College closed down? Where is the evidence that Warnborough said it was part of Oxford University? All fake information. It has been providing quality education since 1973. | |||
| ==Notice of noticeboard discussion== | ==Notice of noticeboard discussion== | ||
Revision as of 17:26, 10 September 2024
 | "And while I'm alive, I'll make tiny changes to earth." Frightened Rabbit |
| Black Kite Hi, I'm an administrator here, and have been since 2007. I'll try to answer any questions here as soon as I can, though I do have periods where I'm not available. For admins: if you think I've done something really f***ing stupid and I don't respond to a question about it, please feel free to reverse it ... we can work it out later on. |
| For Talk Page Archives, click here. |
| If you email me via Misplaced Pages, please leave me a note here (unless there's a good reason you do not want that fact to be public). I do check my Misplaced Pages email fairly regularly, but not that regularly. |
AN3 decision
I've had a handful of thanks since posting this. I'm thinking of asking at AN if what you said has consensus support amongst admins. Not to seek any sort of sanction against you or DrKay (I've never had any reason to think you're not a good/effective admin) but just to clarify if what you said is indeed an unwritten rule applied by the admin corps - if it is I'm surprised but I'd like to know. So before I do that I just want to check if you're absolutely sure of your position on that. DeCausa (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Btw, what I said at AN3 was more combative than i should have been. Sorry about that. I was just a little shocked at the time to be honest. DeCausa (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- No problem! I think it's just common sense more than anything else - you've got a drive-by editor inserting unsourced OR into an FA, and someone trying to keep it out. I can't ever see a situation in which they should be sanctioned for that. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you again for taking the time to look. A couple of things we might want to take forward to any AN discussion; is a "drive-by" editor an official thing here, and if so, what is the opposite of a drive-by editor? I've probably been one for the majority of my 200,000 edits. I had no idea it gave you fewer rights to expect others to treat you fairly and abide by policy. Common sense is a very dangerous rationale to use for administrative decisions in my opinion. It was common sense among white people for a very long time that black people could be bought and sold as slaves, for example. I definitely prefer a rationale based on policy and community consensus. I don't think that an FA should be exempt from normal editing practices, in the absence of a community consensus to that effect. (I know there's a procedure for leniency for TFA, but this is not relevant here.) The FAC process isn't perfect and we do get some clunkers promoted sometimes. The principle that (generally speaking) "anyone can edit" and the prohibition on edit-warring are the most important things in a wiki. The behaviour of edit-warring, being an admin, and issuing a templated warning, is in my opinion a highly worrying intersection behaviorally, and I was surprised you didn't pick up on that. I don't therefore think that you made the right decision there, but so it goes. See you at AN, maybe. John (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- No problem! I think it's just common sense more than anything else - you've got a drive-by editor inserting unsourced OR into an FA, and someone trying to keep it out. I can't ever see a situation in which they should be sanctioned for that. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that Warnborough College closed down? Where is the evidence that Warnborough said it was part of Oxford University? All fake information. It has been providing quality education since 1973.
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is WP:AN#Is reverting alleged OR from an FA exempt from the 3RR brightline? DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)