Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:24, 25 July 2008

User:Cailil/Status

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 13:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And whatever you do, don't delete the Main Page, or add hoaxes to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. Jehochman 13:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the messages WJBscribe & Jehochman. And I'll try to remember not to indef block Jimbo either ;)--Cailil 13:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Conga rats! Now you can do endless, wearying, thankless housework like the rest of us guys! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC) with his orange mop and bucket

Conga rats? Why do I get this image of latino rats dressed in sombreros dancing to a samba rythm??? Urghhh! Cliché city!!! ;)--Ramdrake (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Orangemike - I'm looking forward to it ... kinda :)--Cailil 14:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations :)--Ramdrake (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!! America69 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

← Congratulations. I think you'll do a great job. Just remember that the learning curve is steep and unforgiving, especially these days, so always err on the side of asking for help or a sanity check and you'll be fine. MastCell  16:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. This is long overdue. :) Durova 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Glad you finally ran for it :) SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeahh! My main bit of advice - if you do not mind my giving it - is, do not let this change the way you act. You were a great editor before, just keep doing what you have always done. Oh, that and be on the lookout for vandals now that you can stop them in their tracks. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks again to everyone. I wont let this go to my head, but if it does slap me with a trout or two :)--Cailil 21:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late congrats, I am usually a lot quicker to pimp out my {{admin dashboard}}. Anyhow - congrats, and take a look it may prove useful in finding uses for your new buttons. –xeno (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hand me down

Don't worry, I washed it first. Jehochman 18:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm wearing it with pride ;)--Cailil 21:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD

You mentioned that you are not afraid to AFD articles. Does this qualify? Romanesti (winery)

Chergles (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Chergles if this is your first deletion query I'd recommend you read the deletion policy just to familiarize yourself with it. What I see wrong withthe article is that there is "no assertion of notability" and no sources given in it. However, before you or anyone else tags it for AfD or speedy deletion you should do some research to see if you can find if the subject is in fact notable. A lightning google search I did while writing this reply shows me that Romanesti seems to be one of Moldova's largest wineries.

My feeling is that it should be merged and redirected to Moldovan_wine_producers (or Moldovan_wine). See WP:MERGE & WP:REDIRECT for details of these procedures and guides for them. It's best to build consensus for merges before doing them BTW, so you'd need to start a discussion on both Talk:Romanesti (winery) and Talk:Moldovan_wine_producers (or Talk:Moldovan_wine). But as it stands the content at Romanesti (winery) is not up standard and would fail the notability guideline for companies--Cailil 23:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

work needed

Congratulations on your RFA. Visit WP:AIV occasionally and use your sysop powers in this needed area. Chergles (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you start with CAT:CSD. Be sure to read the criteria carefully. You have four options: 1/ delete the item, 2/ remove CSD and replace with PROD, 3/ nominate for AfD, or 4/ remove the CSD tag. You need to think about which response is most appropriate in each situation. If somebody complains about a deletion, you should restore the article and send it to AfD. I recommend using plain English explanations when deleting. "Article apparently fails to assert notability" is crystal clear, and the word "apparently" leaves the door open to discussion. Keep in mind that an assertion of notability can be poorly formed and even bogus, but if it is there, the article is probably not a candidate for speedy. Those are good situations for PROD. If notability is questionable, AfD may be the best choice. Deleting is a good place to start. If you mess up, no humans are injured, unlike blocking. Once you can process a bunch of CSD cases without getting any complaints, ask me for the next training exercise. :-) Jehochman 17:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jehochman - will do. I'm not going to rush into anything. I'll start a CSD patrol tomorrow and if I've any questions I'll drop you or MastCell or Fozzie a line. Thanks again--Cailil 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm neglecting this Jehochman and I apologize for that - I have some time-consuming obligations in RL at the moment and will get to CAT:CSD on Friday--Cailil 20:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on your successful RFA. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User page

I'm taking out a comment since you already read it and it might be interpreted the wrong way by others. Usually, housekeeping is done by the user, not the person writing it, but why not an exception here. Good luck on being an admin! Chergles (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

CombiMatrix?

I saw this http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=6377.php and thought whether or not the company is Misplaced Pages material. The article is here CombiMatrix.

Is this article worth keeping or deleting, in your opinion? Obscure company, not much written about it, but in the huge world of the internet, there are some stories about it in investment websites. Not really sure if it's worth the effort to improve this sort of article. Chergles (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles need multiple third party reliable sources to prove their notability. That said this article asserts notability so it is not a speedy delete candidate. You can put it up for AfD if you consider it not to meet wikiepdia's criteria. See WP:DELETE--Cailil 20:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Domestic violence

Got rid of a really nasty edit summary by a serial vandal. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Category sort

I have made a small change on your userpage ,so that the category is sorted properly instead of "U" for "User:" . Hope you wont mind. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Grand, thanks for doing that--Cailil 14:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Rules?

What's your opinion on Misplaced Pages rules? Are they optional? Or do you follow them? I don't know the answer. If I did, I'd do something, not just ask you.

One rule (official WP policy, not a guideline) is http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:UN#Sharing_accounts

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:UN#Company.2Fgroup_names states: Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted; see Sharing accounts below.

Shouldn't you issue a warning and then make your first block? From what I read, you should not prevent account creation so the individual user can comply with policy and start his own account. By doing this, you would be doing your first block. Enough people have spent enough time in your RFA, don't waste our time and effort by failing to use the tools.

The offending user is: User:Ca204valry. Proof of policy violation: See user talk page: We are the IT Team at SIBM. We maintain sibm.edu and the SIBM section on wikipedia.

They also are treading on thin ice by editing their own article. Chergles (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the visibility of this apparent problem. First off, to be clear, administrators are not obligated to make blocks when they see wrongdoing. Cailil was just promoted, and he might not want to block anybody too soon. I would be happy to look at this situation for you. Jehochman 00:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

help needed

I have carefully reviewed the matter and am putting warnings.

Please block this 3RR violator for the shortest possible time period (recommend 8 hours). This user was properly warned about 3RR and reported to the 3RR board. Nobody did anything. I am not involved in the article in question nor is the reporter of the violation (for the most part).

The user who has violated policy and needs blocking is User:Wikisurfer61 http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wikisurfer61 . I, personally, don't like blocking but it must to done fairly and not selectively. Selective blocking is really persecution and unfairness. So if someone has violated policy, they must be treated like everyone else.

You have the tools. Please use them. Chergles (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Chergles it would best to go through WP:AN3 for this sort of thing. First becuase I wont be blocking anyone until I have done some new admin school work and since I haven't done any (due to real life obligations) I can't help here now. And second becuase by using the noticeboard sysops who are online at the time will be able to deal with 3RRs as they happen.
Having looked over this a bit I have to say that a block in this case now would be punitive and that's not what blocking is for - we don't block as punishment for infractions of the rules, we block to prevent further disruption. If Wikisurfer61 edit wars again report them to WP:AN3 and note the warning you gave them in this instance, but I think it best to AGF that this user has got the message - unless they do it again--Cailil 13:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

help needed

Please help. You didn't want to block someone so here's the reverse. I have looked at this person. They seem reasonable. They were blocked for 3RR but they are sorry and also claim a long record of good edits. Please unblock and reduce the punishment to time already served.

If you don't want to block, then please fulfil this UNblock request. The user is User:Wolfkeeper You have the tools, please use them. Chergles (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Chergles it is unnecessary for you, or anyone else, to advocate unblocking a user where an unblock request has been filed. Everyone can see all the users requesting unblock at Category:Requests for unblock. As regards Wolfkeeper's block I agree with Chillum's review and would consider an unblock in this situation "out of process".
Just FYI, there is no need to propose blocks or unblocks on sysops' pages. We already have categories listing these administrative tasks (ie Category:Requests for unblock, CAT:CSD, etc) and boards for reporting live problems (ie WP:ANI, WP:RFCU, WP:AFD, WP:RPP, WP:AVI and WP:AN3).
Don't take offense Chergles but please don't demand that I 'use the tools' as you have done twice this week. It is my responsibility to use my administrative privileges in accordance with site policy, community consensus and my best judgment - not "on-demand". I will review or investigate situations that anyone brings to my attention but I will not protect, delete, block, unblock, etc, on-request or on-demand. I will only use these privileges where I deem in accordance with site policy and standards; this is the way all sysops operate becuase our decisions are our responsibility.
I'm guessing that you are unfamiliar with the proper channels, forums and established site processes for this sort of request. You should consider reading and using WP:ANI, WP:RFCU, WP:AFD, WP:RPP, WP:AVI and WP:AN3 to get a feel for how the community handles 'situations'; how we go about protecting or deleting pages; and what rigours are involved in blocking and unblocking users. These forums are open to all users and as such have the benefit of transparency and community oversight--Cailil 23:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for administrator attention gives a long list of all of the channels to request sysop action openly and in process--Cailil 23:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I want you to use the tools, that's why I asked. I want you to find a good reason to block or unblock a user, partly for experience and partly to put that RFA to good use. What I am perplexed is why you won't use your tools "on request". Other admins do this thousands of times a day. Regular editors complain (hopefully with valid complaints) and the admin either does something or concludes that nothing should be done. Are you saying that you refuse to take requests and only use the tools when you see a case that needs it? If that is the case, we need many more admins because each would just use the tools for the small part of WP that they inhabit and would not accept any requests from others.

What if other admin did the same thing as you (not take requests) in the Anacapa matter? If so, Anacapa would remain as 99% or more of admins do not edit the same articles as Anacapa. Chergles (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Chergles sysops use their tools after investigation and using their judgment - not the judgment of any one else. Telling me to unblock someone is what I mean by "acting on-demand" - the fact that we already have a process for unblocking makes that a problem. The reason we have noticeboards for admin requests is so that community oversight exists where there are errors of judgment by sysops. Again if you want to request my attention or have a question about policy/protocol etc feel free to post here. I may decide to take action in these situations if they warrant it. However, where, when and what tools I use is at my discretion. If you are in a dispute yourself you can ask me to review the situation. If you find a complex problem that my skill set is pertinent to post it here. If you want advice feel free to ask but again I will decide if sysop actions are required and if I am going to perform them. If you want a page protected you should use WP:RPP, if you want a page deleted use WP:AFD or WP:CSD. If you see a 3RR report it to WP:AN3 - all admins including myself are patrolling these pages and this is how everyone else operates. These are the protocols we all follow Chergles. I realize you are trying to be helpful but you need to follow site processes so that you can learn about them--Cailil 21:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Alleged topic ban

When you get confirmation from someone you can believe that I have never been topic banned, don't apologize. The history of this article indicates that whenever a false accusation is proven false, no apology is ever given. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)