Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:31, 9 May 2011

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

Just a ping..

Hey HJ, I've tried to go further as a result of your reply. Thanks for the appreciation, I hope my explanation goes into some detail where I'm coming from here. SirFozzie (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a gander in a minute. My appreciation was sincere, even if it was followed by a "but" (although I'm frustrated, I'm not just ranting). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of pure curiosity, if you were an arb, what would you try to do about the rule that you call 'daft'? (I don't like using another user's name repeatedly for that purpose) And how would you specifically reduce the reliance on DS? Like, in your words, how would you move DS from being "substitute" to "supplement"? You have what seems like a stackload of cases you can refer to; how would you handle one or two of them differently (if at all) and based on the evidence presented at the time, would issuing additional sanctions have reduced the reliance on DS? Sorry, when I start getting curious, the questions keep coming (which is apparently annoying to some people)! Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I share Ncmvocalist's curiosity. If HJM can think of any cases where the arbs should have done more, and left fewer decisions to AE, which ones are they? EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise, I'm always happy to discuss things, especially when I've been rather vocal in opposing the current system. I'm not sure I'd ever want to be an arb, because I'm busy enough as it is and already have a talk apge that has to be archived more often than AN. However, if I were, or I had some influence on the current Committee's decision-making, abolishing that rule as it stands would be one of the first things I'd seek to do. That's not to say I'd allow admins to give AE blocks the same treatment as any other block, but I'll get to that in a minute. I think principles like BRD are at the heart of a collaborative, volunteer project like this, which is why I don't think it's right that we assume admin A's judgement is impeccable and admin B's is faulty until proven otherwise.

So, how to make AE blocks stick? My suggestion would be to mandate that admin A provide a detailed rationale, citing diffs and arbitration remedies where applicable, for his action (ArbCom seem to have considered mandating this, but left it as more of a suggestion). Then, instead of a complete prohibition on overturning the block, other uninvolved editors and admins should comment on the blocked editor's talk page and if a certain number of admins (perhaps three, if there's no opposition) agree that the block is unjust, unnecessary, ultra vires or better replaced with some other form of sanction, then the block can be reversed. The idea of forcing admin A to provide a detailed rationale and admins B, C and D to wait before they act is that hopefully neither the block nor the unblock is done without due consideration. We hope that all admin actions are carefully considered and alterntives explored, but we all make mistakes and we all sometimes have varying opinions.

As for discretionary sanctions, I would like to see ArbCom make more of an effort to identify those who are causing the trouble and then determine if the project, the topic-area or a narrower area like a specific article, would be better off without the presence of those individuals. Obviously, in an area like, say, ARBPIA (just an example), the problems are much bigger than just a few editors and that's one of the areas where discretionary sanctions are useful and, indeed, necessary to maintain some sense of decorum in that topic area. Banning editors directly instead of applying discretionary sanctions which eventually mean admins are forced to do it might not make arbs popular and it might mean they have to work harder to resolve cases, but they weren't elected to be popular. Similarly, they could also utilise more 'practical' sanctions, like 1RRs (or 0RRs), requiring editors to discuss their reverts, interaction bans and other restrictions. More than that, ArbCom should try to get the parties to the dispute to talk to each other and seriusly attmept to resolve thier differences. That, to me, is what dipsute resolution is about, but it's fair to say that many arbitration cases have already passed that stage. Apologies for such a long post. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA nomination

Hi - I decided to withdraw because I felt the objections raised were ones I wasn't in a position to counter, and I didn't have good answers to the additional questions. To be honest, I hadn't considered adminship until my nominator approached me asking if I would like to be and I didn't fully understand how tough the process would be. I may reconsider and reapply at some later stage, but until then I'm quite happy chugging along with my wikification edits. Thanks for taking the time to leave a message. Katharineamy (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I think it shows strength of character to withdraw it when you realise you're not prepared rather than than trying to blag it. The most important thing is that you enjoy what you do, so carry on doing what you enjoy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:BOTREQ#Category:Infobox_person_using_deprecated_parameters

A pie for you

Armbrust Contribs has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating! Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cool. Pie! Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Howdy

It's been awhile eh? Think I've been in retirement for several months now and Unfortunately this is not the end of it. However, while I was checking up on things I found that My old friend is still adding the same rant on the talk page and possibly the article, and did so even after the last revert. Would you mind keeping an eye on it? I hope all is well and am glad to see you've become such a great Admin :). Regards, --SKATER 15:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you on here, mate! It certainly has been a while. Sorry to hear it's only short-lived, but I hope you'll come back to your former levels of activity at some point. Anyway, I reverted your friend again and when I get my bit back, which hopefully should be later this evening or early tomorrow, I'll think about a block or a semi for the talk page if (or rather when) he returns. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your RFA

I'm happy to inform you that, due to your successful request for adminship, you have now been promoted to an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or stop by the administrators' noticeboard. Congrats! Andrevan@ 20:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Impeccable timing, I just found a vandal in need of a block. Thank you very much for the closure. I don;t have any questions at the minute, but then I have been doing this for a year. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me be one of many to say 1000 congratulations on your successful RFA - or is that a reRFA. I hope that number of supports shows how many editors there are that appreciate all that you do. On another note my apologies for the kerfuffle about the admin userbox on your userpage. I am glad that it can be restored - with distinction and honours I might add. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Congrats from me too, not least for the respect that you have shown for the wishes of the community! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I know you probably don't have any questions, that's the boilerplate congratulations note I give to all "new" admins. Andrevan@ 20:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair play to you HJ for putting your money where so many put their mouths. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)