→Your RFA: cmt |
m →User:Sarah777: ce |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
*I will reply further in the morning, but would consider it the utmost discourtesy if anybody unblocks such a disruptive editor before I have chance to comment furher (and that's from someone who is usually quite happy for his actions to be reversed). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=428341047 This comment] is a well-put explanation of the reasons for the block in the meantime. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 01:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC) |
*I will reply further in the morning, but would consider it the utmost discourtesy if anybody unblocks such a disruptive editor before I have chance to comment furher (and that's from someone who is usually quite happy for his actions to be reversed). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=428341047 This comment] is a well-put explanation of the reasons for the block in the meantime. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 01:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:A note to both HJM and Courcelles on this. <br>Courcelles, I have been administering and patrolling the [[WP:GS/BI|British Isles naming dispute]] for about a year now. Sarah was quiet for the last 12-15 months but she has been a long term problematic user (in terms of civility and WP:BATTLE violations) and figures prominently in the related ArbCom cases. She has had years to reform and frankly she knows the rules here and knows what she's doing. I was at the point of indefing Sarah myself if she had made another inappropriate edit. She has indeed reached the threshold of a normal indef. Hate speech, partisan editing and general pointy and disruptive edits at the level Sarah777 reached are utterly incompatible with wikipedia's core principles. Her attitude and conduct must change. In such a situation a block of definite duration is not going to work (and as normal that would have to reviewed on request or after a year). When she expresses a wish to conform to site standards (whenever that is) she will be unblocked, per WP:BLOCK. <br>But HJM you don't have the power to permanently block. I would urge you to simply reblock with a normal indef clarifying that it is subject to the normal indef processes. Under ''normal'' indef conditions it would be inappropriate for anyone to unblock without consensus on ANI at this point. <br>Let me clarify further I support an indef block of Sarah777 (and would have done it myself) but HJM you do not have the power to impose permanent blocks. Simple as--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 01:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:11, 10 May 2011
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
One venue is sufficient, thanks. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I have approval for the task as I was used. Check Wikipedia:BOTREQ#Category:Infobox_person_using_deprecated_parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
|
A pie for you
Armbrust Talk to me 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 Hmm? 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)
- Thanks guys. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I thought as much. I think I saw it in another RfA somewhere. But thanks for closing the RfA, it's good to be back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Congrats! :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Sarek, and good luck in your own. You've got an hour left, which is just as well because it will take the 'crat that long to decide how to close it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 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)
- Thanks. It's been an interesting week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Took a little bit of fixing to get this right though! ;) The Helpful One 20:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Right" is the right word! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Took a little bit of fixing to get this right though! ;) The Helpful One 20:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Congratulations on your re-adminship! I'm glad you're an admin again. (By the way, I've emailed you on another matter.) Best. Acalamari 20:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Good. No hard feelings I hope. Please don't piss us all around with another one, however. And just wait for the chorus of moans that Andre closed it when he supported it (despite the blatant consensus). Pedro : Chat 21:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Pedro. No, no hard feelings. We disagree on the usefulness of the exercise, but there won't be another one unless I feel the community's trust in me has eroded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- It hadn't really eroded in the first place, which I guess was my point. Nevertheless, that's me being all curmudgeony (is that a word?!). Congrats again. Pedro : Chat 21:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- No it isn't, but "curmudgeonly" is. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ths is clearly neither the time nor the place to say that my trust in administrators was never very great anyway, so I won't. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- It hadn't really eroded in the first place, which I guess was my point. Nevertheless, that's me being all curmudgeony (is that a word?!). Congrats again. Pedro : Chat 21:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Pedro. No, no hard feelings. We disagree on the usefulness of the exercise, but there won't be another one unless I feel the community's trust in me has eroded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Congratulations on your successful RfA, HJ Mitchell! Here's the standard clothing for your new/old role, hope it fits. :) Best. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Congrats, HJM. Keep up the good work. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 22:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Congrats on your strong showing. Like I said somewhere else, I do approve of the result despite my criticism (which I hope you have taken as constructive criticism; you brought it on yourself mate, can't get mad :)).
Not sure what to make of the whole concept of a reconfirmation RfA. I didn't share the view of Pedro and several others that you intended this to boost your own morale, possibly because I wasn't so sure of the outcome. Reconfirmation here turned out to be a good nucleus to invite community criticism, but requiring them for all is certainly too much of a distraction. A middle ground might be a mandatory admin review: nothing really on the line so nobody will feel the need to comment to try and tip the scales, but with enough participation and interest a loss of community trust should become quite obvious there. Or, much more likely, it would be a time hog and a a drama fest.
Anyway, happy editing, and kudos for doing that. Amalthea 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)- Thanks. Of course I considered it constructive criticism and RfA has a way of forcing you to learn from your mistakes by ariing them very publicly, which is something I think it has over admin review. It would be nice if we could come up with a way of doing something like this for all admins, but with 1700-odd admins, the logisitics wouldn't be easy.
It's funny you should mention uncertainty over the result. Although it's nice to pass with 90% support, I had visions of it ending somehwere around where Sarek's has. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Of course I considered it constructive criticism and RfA has a way of forcing you to learn from your mistakes by ariing them very publicly, which is something I think it has over admin review. It would be nice if we could come up with a way of doing something like this for all admins, but with 1700-odd admins, the logisitics wouldn't be easy.
- Contratulations HJ :) Go clear more backlogs... NAO! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:43am • 23:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Welcome back to the party! Going along with Ancient Apparition, there are backlogs calling you...and me too. Last time I checked WP:AFC had 120...120????!!!?!?!...pending submissions, and WP:NPP has pages in it from April 14...I'm gonna be busy tonight! N419BH 01:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
How are you able to impose an irrevocable block on a user? Indefinite I could understand (though you might wish to substantiate your claims of "racism") but permanent? I do not think you can do this. Some are suggesting that your actions in this are biased. Lovetinkle (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I do not have a way of physically preventing another admin from unblocking Sarah777. However, it is commonly said that an indefinite block is not intended to be infinite. In this case, unless Sarah777 seriously changes the way she approaches editing Wikipedia, I intend this to be the latter, which I hope any administrator will take into account when considering unblocking her. Not, I might add, because I have something against Sarah777 personally oir because I am biased (I'm not), but because her conduct has failed to adhere to the most absic principles of collaborative editing and has done for years. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- The easiest way is to make a convincing case that the user you want to be blocked is me. Logic has little to do with it, you'll get lots of support. Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- The blocking of this editor by this Admin is clearly inappropriate.[citation needed] There seems to be a conflict of interest.[citation needed] He seems to be grinding some sort of English nationalist axe[citation needed] which has no place in Wikipedia. Silent Billy (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Congratulations on your resysop, HJM. I have some problems with your indefinite block of Sarah777; one of them is that as an Irish Nationalist editor (not in itself a crime) it will look like you have a potential COI problem as an English admin in making this block. If an indefinite block is to be placed on this user, it would be better if it came from someone who does not display the St George's flag on their user page. That's before we even get into the antecedents of the behavior for which she was blocked. I would not dream of unilaterally undoing your block, but I hope consensus can be reached at AN/I or elsewhere for that action, as I still believe she has potential as an editor if she can match her passion with the skills of working as a team that are so vital here. In the first instance, it would help me if you could outline for me with diffs, exactly why this block has to be extended from the one-week block placed by the first blocking admin. Whenever you get a chance I'd be grateful if you could put this together, either here or at my talk page. Thanks, --John (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- HJ, yes, Sarah's behaviour recently has been abhorrent. Likening the Union Jack to the symbols of national socialism is unacceptable, and Sarah777 was fully deserving of sanctions. Sanctions she had already received, from Georgewilliamherbert and Future Perfect at Sunrise. Instead of a week away, and a ban from a few topics that have given her trouble, you have sent off a long-term contributor in an action that is truly ultra vires. No single admin, ever, has the power to infinitely block another user. Ever. Even under the favoured treatment of Discretionary Sanctions, the maximum sanction is one year. You didn't even give the two other admin's decisions a chance to work. If her conduct on her talk page was unacceptable, the correct option would have been to lock her talk page for the week she was blocked, not to impose this draconian sanction. I'm giving you a chance to convince me here, or ANI, that this was the right decision, or I intend to reset Sarah777's block to the one week Future Perfect imposed. Courcelles 01:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will reply further in the morning, but would consider it the utmost discourtesy if anybody unblocks such a disruptive editor before I have chance to comment furher (and that's from someone who is usually quite happy for his actions to be reversed). This comment is a well-put explanation of the reasons for the block in the meantime. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- A note to both HJM and Courcelles on this.
Courcelles, I have been administering and patrolling the British Isles naming dispute for about a year now. Sarah was quiet for the last 12-15 months but she has been a long term problematic user (in terms of civility and WP:BATTLE violations) and figures prominently in the related ArbCom cases. She has had years to reform and frankly she knows the rules here and knows what she's doing. I was at the point of indefing Sarah myself if she had made another inappropriate edit. She has indeed reached the threshold of a normal indef. Hate speech, partisan editing and general pointy and disruptive edits at the level Sarah777 reached are utterly incompatible with wikipedia's core principles. Her attitude and conduct must change. In such a situation a block of definite duration is not going to work (and as normal that would have to reviewed on request or after a year). When she expresses a wish to conform to site standards (whenever that is) she will be unblocked, per WP:BLOCK.
But HJM you don't have the power to permanently block. I would urge you to simply reblock with a normal indef clarifying that it is subject to the normal indef processes. Under normal indef conditions it would be inappropriate for anyone to unblock without consensus on ANI at this point.
Let me clarify further I support an indef block of Sarah777 (and would have done it myself) but HJM you do not have the power to impose permanent blocks. Simple as--Cailil talk 01:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)