Wikipedia:Administrator review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcuts: WP:ADRV WP:ADREV WP:ADMREV WP:ER/ADMIN

↓

Skip to table of contents

↓

This page in a nutshell: Adminstrator review is an informal voluntary process where admins may invite community input regarding their administrative activities.

Administrator review, like Editor review, is a place where administrators (as well as bureaucrats, oversighters, and checkusers) may submit themselves to an informal review of their administrative and/or editorial conduct so that peers may provide constructive feedback. Administrators looking for a more formal venue, or editors wanting to request a review of an administrator's conduct may wish to file an RFC/U.

Please note that this page is intended to review administrative actions and conduct in general. If there is an unresolved issue you would like to discuss with an administrator, it is best to raise the issue on their talk page.

You can use {{Administrator review}} to advertise this review request on your userpage. This may significantly increase the amount of useful feedback you receive, as ADREV is not very well advertised, but also expect more complaints about your actions from new users.

Instructions

Create a page for your review, either in your userspace, or a subpage of this page, and transclude it at the bottom of page. You may remove your review at any time. Use the following header:

==={{admin|Your username here}}===
(optional statement here) ~~~~

Advice for reviewers

Anyone can comment on an administrative review. Here are a few suggestions on giving useful advice.

Be open, honest, and blunt. Say what you think, but don't be a jerk about it.
Point to and link to items that are of concern. If any admin has acted improperly in your opinion, show the actual diff that bothers you.
This isn't a pat on the back venue, state clearly and maturely how the editor can be a better asset to the community.
Watch the page, and be willing to discuss any and all issues you may have with the admin.

[edit] Open review requests

[edit] Master of Puppets (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights)

All the cool kids are doing it, so I figured I'd jump on the bandwagon. Basically, I've received some flak in the past; mostly in private communiques, mostly centered on my unprofessional demeanor and lack of moral fiber. I exaggerate, but I welcome input. Cheers, and be brutally honest, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

...

I agree with the above concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the concerns that may or may not be above. Is ... a concern, because ellipses are very, very scary. Like that bunny from Monty Python. One minute you have legs, then bam an ellipse goes for your legs and chews them off (in a cute way). Seriously though, no problems here. Nezzadar ☎ 18:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Metallica suck. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I just like your username it strikes fear in the hearts of many vandels and editors alike. Oh and ur a pretty good admin aswell. ZooPro 12:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't like your tie. Other than that, I agree with everyone else -- not just here, but on every talk page, ever. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I've heard you referred to as 'Pastor of Muppets' :) (but I've seen you working and you're awesome ;) ) - Alison ^❤ 03:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Having seen your administrative work up close during the arguments about Militant atheism, I thought I would weigh in here. In my opinion, the two major administrative actions that you took, protecting the page and determining the RfC consensus, were spot-on. During the accompanying discussions at ANI and elsewhere, you got a lot of complaints from editors who, it seems, couldn't take yes for an answer. In the interests of being brutally honest, I have some advice to offer about that. It looked to me like you were trying very hard to maintain the appearance of impartiality until the RfC was closed. In so doing, you may have caused editors who were in agreement with the consensus to worry that you were misreading the consensus. There was an ANI sub-thread where I asked about whether someone had been canvassing or not. You concluded, reasonably, that it wasn't clear that any canvassing was intended, but I think you could well have commented to that editor that they should be more aware of the appearance of what they had done, and that they should keep that in mind in the future. Subsequently, editors complained that another person was owning the page. You were correct to conclude that there was no ownership going on, but the way you initially said it sounded like you thought the editor in question was doing everything right. You could have, instead, concluded more narrowly that there was nothing that rose to the level of requiring you to intervene as an administrator (with a block or similar). I say all of that appreciating the very good work you did, and I hope that you find it helpful.

I always like to thank administrators who participate in AdRev. In that regard, it looks like you are at the top of the class! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Juliancolton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights)

Some folks think my judgment has been a bit off lately—particularly with regard to AfD closures. Thoughts/suggestions welcome. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this only in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex or do you have something else in mind too? Tim Song (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Partially, but a couple comments at the associated DRV indicated that a few other of my closures have been inaccurate. It probably isn't a big deal, but I'd just like a nudge back in the right direction if I am losing my touch. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hum. Going through the last week, I can't find anything problematic (in my opinion, obviously) aside from that one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Radevski (it was open for two weeks, not three, though I don't disagree with the close) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song) (I would add a suggestion for a merge discussion, as WP:NSONGS does say that Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album). Tim Song (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would you close such an AFD? :P --Rs chen 7754 07:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] StephenBuxton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights)

I'm not the most prolific of administrators here (lots of things in real life keep coming up and apparently Wikipedia work isn't an acceptable excuse), but I do try my best in the quick hit stuff. Well, I've got me flak jacket on, and my dermal layer is tough... feel free to let rip! Stephen! ^Coming... 12:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

Having worked with and interacted with this administrator a number of times and I am pleased to say I have found him to be extremely pleasant to work with, good ethics, an outstanding amount of patience (far beyond any i could hope to have). I have seen this administrator/editor deal with one of the most troublesome and un-cooperative editors on wikipedia and yet he somehow has managed to continue to have good faith all throughout (i would have lost the plot had it been me). I take my hat off to StephenBuxton and if he ever wishes to become a crat i would give my full support, as for his actions as an admin i have a few words to sum it up. Fair, Consistant and a bloody good one. Cheers ZooPro 09:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Aw, shucks... Stephen! ^Coming... 10:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that his double-lift sometimes separates, and that his Elmsley count is a little 'talky' -- but his work on the Wiki all looks appropriate to me. Run Amok (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Mark! Although I will add that people only see 3 out of 4 of my edits... ;-) Stephen! ^Coming... 22:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The one interaction that I know of that I've had with this guy shows sloppy admin work. See User_talk:Toddst1#CSD_Tags. Toddst1 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The above comment from Toddst1 should not be taken at face value. Toddst1 has a history of arguing with other admins when his/her point is not accepted. As for the admin under review, I see no problem with his/her admin work. 174.115.0.44 (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(Above discussion on Toddst1's talk page, should anyone wish to review it, is now archived and can be found here).

To IP174.115.0.44 - I appreciate your support, but if you are going to make accusations about another editor, you really should back it up with evidence. Or better still, have a chat with them on their talk page about your concerns. Stephen! ^Coming... 22:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've watched Stephen dealing with a particularly nasty vandal who'd been making seriously libellous attacks against User:GSorby today - IMHO, his actions and conduct were absolutely spot-on. Definitely a competent mop-wielder. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] WereSpielChequers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights)

Hi, I've been an admin for over a year now, and have a tendency to change the area of Wikipedia that I operate in every few months, so for example I've appointed quite a few Autoreviewers. As this was not one of the things discussed in my RFA, I thought it was about time I got some feedback. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I stop by this page from time to time, because I think highly of any administrator who makes use of it, so I figure I ought to put a reply here. I certainly have seen you around, and I've always felt that you are very reasonable. In particular, I remember you as being very helpful at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thanks for posting here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that reminds me there were some interesting ideas in that RFC that would be worth picking up sometime. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. I'm planning to come back to it at some time, taking into account the important lessons that were learned from it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, WereSpielChequers. I'm not sure whether we've interacted or not, but I've definitely seen you around in multiple different areas and I thought I'd say something here. Before I begin, I'd like to start by saying that I'm basing my opinion primarily on my general impression of your involvement with Wikipedia (ie. what I already thought), as well as a very brief review of your contributions, which only validated my initial stance. Now, I'll get to the point — I happen to think you're an excellent administrator. From what I've seen, you seem like a very nice guy, you've got pretty solid judgment, and you make Wikipedia a more friendly and welcoming experience for other people. You set a very positive example for people to follow. Keep up the good work! Master&Expert (Talk) 22:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you're just awesome! Great work on the RFA drought article. -- œ ^™ 09:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been aware that you have changed your areas of operation so often, and I can only judge by those where we have interacted, namely BLP and RfA. In those highly controversial topics you have demonstrated numerous qualities that are rarely (if ever) all found in one admin. My only complaint is that you are not already a 'crat.--Kudpung (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] OlEnglish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights)

Well I suppose I may as well take advantage of this process and get some feedback on what my fans think of me ;) I think I've been kinda slacking lately in some areas.. but.. either way, should be interesting to learn if the community has anything to say about any recent contributions I've made or how I could improve. Thanks, œ ^™ 08:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I just about always think it's commendable to participate in this page, so thank you for asking. I've been seeing you around pretty regularly since your RfA, and I have never seen you do anything to which I would object. You always appear to me to be very sensible and constructive. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Clueful, helpful, etc. I haven't seen any concerns. —fetch ·comms 15:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I've seen a bunch of your edits lately and they all appear to be very productive and well thought out. Keep up the good work! EW_{_i}kist^Talk 20:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
You had the amazingly good judgement to give me rollback, so how can I complain? :P But seriously, you've been doing fine lately. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
OE, Your thoughtful, timely and knowledgeable edits and modifications to my article were greatly very valuable and greatly appreciated.Your encouragement , too, from the very start, made a world (a Wikipedia World) of difference. So, Thank you and keep up the great work! Jonathan Levey (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Your many edits on the help and project pages ( including many little touches that many don't think of or bother with) are always sensible and it is reassuring that, with people like you, they will one day be easily readable and make sense! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 20:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
What can I say? You help people, you take care of several administrator tasks, and you're definitely doing a fine job as an admin. Keep up the good work! The Utahraptor ^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 22:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for helping out on my first article! PS: Have checked that this comment adheres to WP:NPOV & WP:COI :) NetsWiki (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I oppose OlEnglish receiving admin status. While I don't know much about his wider edit history, I do know he acted very recklessly in my case.

User:Aglabal is a vandal who has been trolling and harassing me under various IP addresses for nearly two years. He vandalizing edits to my user page every few weeks or months. You can view the whole history by looking at the IP addresses who have vandalised my page over the years here. [1]

Unfortunately for me, user OlEnglish saw one of Aglabal's actions and made the completely illogical decision that he must be a sock puppet of my account. No evidence whatsoever other than the similarity of our user names (which was itself part of the trolling).

He didn't even do me the courtesy of leaving me a note on my talk page. He just left a template on Aglabal's user page. Ironically, the template he put on Aglabal's page said it was an acknowledgment that I knew about the policy on sock puppets and further abuse would be punished more severely. Keep in mind, I probably never would have even stumbled on the page for month's more unless I noticed my page had been vandalized. This could have gotten me banned if the guy had kept making accounts in names similar to mine and I had already been labeled a sock puppeteer.

Very reckless. Algabal (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

See my reply at my talk page. (btw that action was made before I became an administrator so it really doesn't have any relevance to this Administrator review.) -- œ ^™ 22:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Having looked over some of your admin reviews seem to be calm and level headed. I will say that when I first read your response in this matter that it was before your were and admin. While admin reviews are here to give review of admin work, they are also a chance for growth of the admin. I looked at the review of and comments of the alleged interaction. It seems that you have taken the time to look at the actions, and addressed them. Keep up the good work. Jsgoodrich (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this person having administrator privileges. No further comment. 113.162.171.139 (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside Comment - This is an administrator, and more importantly, a Wikipedia User (emphasis on user) attempting to get feedback on their work for the betterment of themselves which ultimately could lead to an improvement of their work and an improvement of the project. While this is not a poll in any way, shape, or form, just a vote is not a response that can be counted. One should take the time to outline their opinion. Especially in the case of an anonymous IP editor posting oppose generically, then disappearing. In that sense, it almost appears as socking. Just throwing that out there. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Foregoing (since restored) comment indicates that you must be doing something right. RashersTierney (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, you've got my support RashersTierney (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Ged UK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights)

So, it's been nearly 18 months since my RfA, and it's about time I got this set up. So, how am I doing? I know the bulk of my admin work has been at RfPP and CSD, but I keep an eye on AIV as well, though that usually gets cleaned up faster than I can check through details. I try to stay away from drama, though inevitably one gets swept up in it sometimes, in my case usually through fully protecting a page during an edit war. Ged UK 11:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I am always happy to see administrators participate here, so I want to start by saying thank you for doing so. I see you mainly when you protect pages on my watchlist, and there has never been a red flag for me there. As you say, you seem to steer clear of drama, and, from what I can see, your work is consistently helpful and without problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
What on earth is this? [2]. Protected for 6 months due to excessive vandalism. Where is the excessive vandalism? Is that consistently helpful and without problems? Do you have a problem with IP users editing Wikipedia? 82.152.216.15 (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ged - interested to know what the reasoning was behind this semi-protection. There does not seem to be much evidence of excessive vandalism in the page history? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I can help with that one - see User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 7#List of protected TV articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah OK, thanks for clarifying. I see that this question mushroomed into something involving ANI and debates about IP users... just off this page. — Amakuru (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm very grateful for the help you've given me with those TV articles that I'm watching and trying to protect from subtle long-term vandalism and edit-warring - and I do feel guilty for some of the grief it has been causing you occasionally. Also, you are very friendly and understanding towards new editors, even those who criticize you for your actions -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Your recent lock of the page Little Green Footballs has been entirely unhelpful. The person Stickee who has rolled the page way back after the onslaught of the little green sockpuppets has claimed justification from the essay WP:BRD, but this essay states quite clearly, BRD will generally fail if:...The page is protected. After your lock, the sockpuppets have all run away because they successfully got it locked how they wanted it.

The page is NOT locked. You can edit it, you're a confirmed account. Ged UK 17:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

AND he's rolled it back to your version. What exactly is the problem. Semi-protection gives the article stability if it's IP and unregistered accounts that are causing the disruption. Ged UK 17:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was going to leave a note on your talk, but I saw this, so I'll leave it here instead :) Just wanted to say that I saw your work at RfPP for about a week and was impressed, particularly with Australian Football League and the lame edit war that was going on there. I wasn't so much impressed with the full protection (which may or may not have been necessary, I'm not sure), but I was impressed with your continued discussion on both your talk and the article's talk and your willingness for another admin to have a look at the protection, despite the criticism that you were copping. Jenks24 (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
From the perspective of a fairly new member of WP:RCP I can say that I truly appreciate the fact that when you decline a CSD, you always leave a note on the person's talk page who nominated it, telling them why it was declined. It really helps the newbs learn the ropes and you are one of the only admins I know that goes through the trouble of doing that. So thank you! Bped1985 (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! That's kind of you to say. Most of the work is done by a script that puts the message on the talkpage, but I do more often than not explain why I've declined a CSD, particularly A7. Getting the difference between the CSD and general notability requirements is a critical part of doing new-page patrolling. GedUK 07:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  - Concur with Bped1985. Early on in my NPP career, I definitely got a little... overenthusiastic a couple of times, and your explanations (in my case it was A9) helped me a lot. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
My only interaction with you (as far as I can recall), was when you declined blocking a new account that I reported to ANI that was evading a block, because it wasn't clear enough to you. Another admin blocked right away after that. You also failed to notice the ANI notification I left the account and left another one right under it. The whole process made you look somewhat incompetent and I wouldn't trust you to deal with these kind of reports in the future. Anyway, I hardly ever see you at ANI, so I guess you stick to your strengths, which is a good thing. A bit of a pity though, because admins during the day hours of our time zone are hard to come by and it can take a while to get help.--Atlan (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall the situation, tbh, but I'm sorry if I didn't resolve the situation to your satisfaction, but glad that someone else could. Ged UK 22:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Largely on RfPP you've done a good job :). Good for being transparent and doing this. I think it would help if more admins did. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Largely?! Heh, thanks :) Ged UK 22:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to commend GedUK for a kindly and discreet remedy of my inadvertent possible copyright breach in the Lelia Doolan article. So many admins snarl or lecture or threaten loudly -a smaller worthier bunch go around encouraging people and fixing things; the latter help editors stay on and stay active. I am delighted to say GedUK is one of the latter--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 16:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's kind :) Ged UK 22:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You're doing fine. How long are you gonna keep this page running?:P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I was about to close it, but then you added to it, so I'd best leave it for a bit longer! Ged UK 15:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Too many A7 deletions that are outside scrutiny of non-admins. E.g. at [3] NuclearEnergy (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the nature of the software, that's beyond my control. Any deletion I make can be reversed, by me or another admin. If you go back through my talk page archives, plenty of people have asked for a review or clarification, and I always give it. I decline plenty of A7s as well. Not quite sure what your point is, could you clarify? Ged UK 07:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You generally did well in giving me suggestions at my talk page, as well as responding to some of my requests for page protection a long while ago (for the latter, one of the other persons that also does a similar thing is User:Fastily). I noticed within this review, you sometimes forgot to use proper punctuation marks, such as at the time of your response of another person's comment about your unhelpful edit in Little Green Footballs (e.g. a period was used instead of a question mark when asking). Other than that, you are doing well in general. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 17:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Ged UK 21:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We haven't interacted much and only recently (that my ~~old age dementia~~ memory tells me), but I will say that it was a pleasure communicating with you. No drama and real AGF. The way it should be.--Cerejota (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Danny Baker, according to Wikipedia was born on the 22 June 1957 - it would have been highly irregular for some one born on that date to have left school in England before the end of the tern in which they became 15 (i.e. July 1972 in Mr. Baker's case). If he left school just before his fifteenth birthday, mid June let's say , he was truanting unless he had some official sanction - whether that was possible or not I do not know. It would certainly have been unusual for anyone in 1972 to have left school before the age of 15 unless their birthday was betwixt mid July and the end of August - even this group, however, would technically be deemed to have finished their education at the age of 15. Mr Baker seems to be claiming he had only three years of secondary which is almost certainly misleading. It is more likely he had nigh on four as did most people born in 1957.

Ned

[edit] Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights)

I've been admin for about a year and a half now, and an oversighter for the last few months. Haven't gotten yelled at too much yet, but detailed feedback is always helpful so I'm submitting myself for review. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Specifically looking for feedback on these issues:

Blocks, and handling of unblock requests
Page protections
Declined speedy deletions

I know that last one requires some digging, but it is one of the areas where I seem to draw the most criticism. I'm pretty sure that just goes with the territory as an increasing number of NP patrollers are demanding and impatient, but it has been suggested that I'm being to big of a stickler for the letter of the criteria as opposed to the spirit. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I look in on this page frequently, and I always like to say thank you to anyone who makes the effort to participate here, so let me start with that. I see you around frequently, although I haven't been directly involved in the three bullet points above, and for that reason, please accept my apologies for not being able to respond with a lot of specific insights to what you asked for here. But I have an overall impression, and I've just spent some time stalking your user talk to see how you responded to people who came there with issues. Bottom line: I think you are doing excellent work, and I think your work is particularly valuable in that you deal with the difficult cases where disruptive users are likely to complain about you. Looking at things where people have recently complained to you at your talk, I keep finding myself agreeing with you and disagreeing with them. Back a ways, I vividly remember a drama-prone individual calling you out by name during the CDA poll, and I file that under you must be doing something right. In thinking about whether you might have stickler tendencies, it does occur to me that you recently vented at WT:RFA about moral support, which struck me as rather Scrooge-like. Nothing really wrong with your opinion, but some users might, AGF-style, want to tell a candidate that, yes, they did this wrong, but they should learn from it and do better; no need for a flogging on top of that. So, my overall opinion is that you might want to make a habit of asking yourself briefly about AGF and IAR before taking an action, but if your judgment then says to go ahead with the block, protection, or decline, you should feel confident doing so, and not feel shaken by the inevitable complainers (one of which is, arguably, directly below --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)). Thanks again for coming here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Addendum: particularly in light of what comes below, I really wish you hadn't started that hypothetical thread about talk pages at WP:AN. Disengaging is a good idea, but calling it hypothetical does not constitute disengagement. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see now that it was foolishly optimistic of me to expect that everyone would abide by the request to discuss the situation abstractly. I was honestly only looking for guidance on how to handle such a situation in the future should it happen again, I did not and do not have any ntention of ever posting or even looking at the page in question in the future for the reasons stated below. There were a few users who did provide good, purely hypothetical feedback, but I suppose I should have let some time pass and let the issue cool down before posting about it, it was too easy to see what I was really talking about. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The adjectives used by you—poisonous, nasty, condescending—to describe the attitude of William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) here constituted a personal attack. This is not how you usually write, so I assume that, in some way that needn't be specified, your account was compromised. Please be more careful in future. Mathsci (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, my account was not compromised and I was in full control of my faculties when I wrote that. It is a description of his actions here on Wikipedia. His talk page has become a snake pit, sort of a grim spectator sport of the very worst qualities of Wikipedia, and I am frankly embarrassed that the situation has been allowed to go on for so long. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume you have not followed this drama sufficiently to form an informed opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that directed at me or at Mathsci? I have followed WMCs talk page on and off ever since blocking him as part of an arbitration enforcement action.(a block which was challenged by various parties but ultimately upheld as valid) I would really rather that this discussion not be focused on my limited interactions with WMC. I have taken exactly one administrative action related to him, (I guess two if you count blocking his alt account at the same time). In my year and a half as an admin I have made over 1,400 other blocks, deleted over 4,000 items from Wikipedia, declined several hundred speedy deletion noms, handled hundreds of unblock requests, and protected over 400 pages. This issue is heating back up only because WMC is blocked once again. After my most recent unpleasant encounter where an attempt to reduce potential drama was met with still more condescending insults I can assure I have no desire to re-enter the circus on his talk page and have washed my hands of the matter. I don't really like repeatedly be involved with the same problems if I can avoid it anyway, so it was high time to leave this by the wayside. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for further background for those who don't know: when ArbCom finally posted their decision in the climate change case, a call went out for more admins to monitor and respond to AE requests. I decided I would try to help out. The first request to come along after I made that decision happened to be one involving WMC. I acted according to what I believe was dictated by policy and the ArbCom decision. Others didn't see it that way, but in the end the block was upheld. I tried to talk to him during the block to make it clear that it was not personal and that if we were to sit down and discuss CC issues we would probably have much in common as far as our actual viewpoint. What I got for my trouble was a series of insults and refactoring of my remarks, labeling them as twattery. If that isn't nasty and condescending then I guess I don't know what those words mean. Now can we move on to the other several thousand admin actions I have made please? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, you have not followed this drama sufficiently to form an informed opinion. This has been going on a lot longer than the ArbCom case (and ArbCom has not had its best day, either). Now, upholding ArbCom decisions, even fishy ones, is not a problem. But voicing strong opinions on other editors without adequate research is a sign of hasty carelessness, something I do not appreciate in an admin (or any editor). On un unrelated note, your block was upheld on the no consensus to overturn principle, not on consensus that this was a good block. Again, not really a problem - we all have good and bad days. But we should try to learn from out bad days. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My opinion of his attitude is based on how he has acted towards me, That is my final statement on thais matter, ever. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As a New Page Patroller, I've only come across you a few times in the field to date, and I only had one tag get shot down by you. It seemed like nothing more than a reasonable difference in interpretation of G11, and I think the initial author did a bit of work on it after I tagged it (the article in question, although I can't remember the title now, ended up being redirected because it duplicated something else; another user happened to notice). The others were G3 deletions, if I remember correctly, and they got deleted rather quickly. Although I've grown to learn that patience is a virtue (and also quite elusive, in my case), G3, G10, and G12 tags should be dealt with quickly, and I think you've done a good job. Speaking only for myself, I can definitely get a little overeager, and I can think of a few occasions when letting something sit has given me a chance to go back to an article and reassess it. We've had our recent disagreements at WT:CSD (the recent discussion about G1 and such), but I again think that's mostly a reasonable difference in views. I thought you were a little hard on Timneu22 in one of those conversations (not going into specifics, that's a different conversation), but your overarching point about being sure you were operating within consensus was valid. Tl;dr version; we have slightly different views on a few things in CSD, but I think you approach it the right way and do a good job in CSD work.

In addition, although it's not on the list at the top, I want to say that you've been a much-needed steadying hand at UAA, which I frequent due to my NPP work. You relentlessly nail spammers and role accounts, but you ensure that offensive usernames actually are offensive (we had a hilarious one pop up a few days ago; User:Brian is a naked mole rat got reported as offensive by someone who didn't know what a naked mole rat was). It's good to have someone who's thick-skinned working there, because it seems a lot of the reports are from people who appear to be actively trying to be offended. I know that's not on the list, but I still thought I should mention it because your work there has been very helpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Small addendum; I had tagged Kelinik as a test page because it was the user's first edit, it obviously failed WP:NOTDICT among many other issues, and is useless as a redirect. I see where you're coming from in PRODding it, and that G2 is written with something slightly different in mind; however, I thought that it was so obviously non-encyclopedic that it was just a new user trying to see if he could actually create a page. I can think of a few admins who would have deleted it under that criteria, and a few who wouldn't have; I'm not saying you're right or wrong here (as I said above, reasonable people can have different opinions), just to at least consider it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not and do not see how it could be considered a test page. What was being tested? Many users seem to think that is a catch-all criterion for articles that don't fit any of the others. It is not. WP:CSD#Non-criteria specifically states that nominations based on WP:NOT are not valid. It's the very first non-criterion mentioned as a matter of fact. And your comments here show that that was your actual, underlying reason when your stated reason was that it was a test page. I'm not a mind reader but even if I was it would have been out of proper deletion process to speedy delete it for this reason. When at RFA I was grilled again and again on this topic because of fears that I would do exactly what you would have had me do, speedy delete things that are specifically exempted from the criteria. You have explained why you don't like PROD, but the broader community does not agree with you. Admins are expected to follow policy and consensus whether they agree with them or not, and right now both of those say that NOT is not a valid CSD. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; noted for the future. I have started PRODding more things anyways, for the record; not that that's particularly germane here, as my (mis)reading of test page is what got me, but I pay attention and try to go accordingly. My larger comments above still stand; as far as I'm concerned, you've been doing a great job. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Beeblebrox should change his behavior toward problem