Open main menu

Discussion closed before I could replyEdit

Hi, I was going to reply to your comment but it got closed before I got a chance to reply. I just wanted to say that I promise not to make any further NACs for at least a little while. I am curious about whether or not non-admins can tag users as banned when they have been banned by the community (which I have done many times before with no one saying anything), but until I get clarification, I'll hold off on doing that, too. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rockstone: That tagging is best done by the closer of the ban-discussion and if they choose not to do so, it would be better to ask them the reason rather than tag the page yourself (I don't recall the exact location and details at the moment but there was even a recent discussion about deprecating the ban template altogether). More broadly: many of the editorial, and especially admin, actions on wikipedia rely on judgment and if experienced users are telling you to step-back from adminy-areas, it is usually not helpful to make "there is no rule saying I can't" arguments. Abecedare (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. As far as deprecating that template, you may have been referring to the blocked user tag, which was deprecated per this discussion. I'm just really surprised because I have been editing userpages to correct mistakes about whether or not they were banned, etc, for a long time and this is the first time anyone has ever complained. In fact, I updated most of the users in the banned user categories with links to their ban discussions months ago (I haven't gotten to all of them yet), and everyone seemed fine with it. I suppose that there is a major difference between updating a banned user's page to link to the discussion and marking a user who hasn't been marked as community banned as community banned. I would really like to continue being able to add links to community ban discussions following the ban policy, but I'll definitely wait before making any more changes to userpages. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you are right about the discussion I was thinking of.
To be clear though: in this instance the fundamental problem was (1) NAC closing a discussion that was better handled by an admin, and (2) closing the discussion after participating in it! The userpage tagging is a side-issue but given the questions about your judgment I'd strongly advice you not to resume those (non-urgent and often unnecessary) actions for, say, at least another 6 months. Abecedare (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
There was also this and this, both of which were related to the "badge of shame" of such tagging.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I personally disagree with the deletion of LOBU, but that's in the past. Perhaps there should be an RFC once and for all about whether or not we even want to mark users as being banned anymore. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The policies page regarding non-admin involved closures is really vague. I wanted to change it to clarify that non-admins cannot close ban discussions, but that was also reverted by Bbb23... it seemed to me at least that they were on a rampage for whatever reason (I'm sure they weren't, but that's how it was perceived). At any rate, I guess the category will stay at "G" (I was going through the whole banned user category alphabetically) for quite a while longer  . Thanks for your help. All the best, -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Just so you know, I have decided to follow your suggestion and avoid making any edits to administrative policy, tagging banned users, links to discussions of banned users, or performing non-administrator closing, for a period of six months. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Rockstone35: I'm glad. Hopefully the hiatus from the area of dispute will make your editing in the short-term more pleasurable and at its end allow you to see the issues with fresh eyes. Abecedare (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I hope so too.   I have never been blocked on Wikipedia in the 12 years I've been here, and the last thing I want is to get blocked now. All the best! -- Rockstonetalk to me! 19:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Conversational and self-deprecating was what I was going for. I'm bewildered that it's being taken as arrogant; but RFA is so weird, if you disagree with someone when they call you arrogant, it's badgering the opposes. I guess if nothing else, it wasn't as obviously non-arrogant as I intended, so that's on me. I can see one or two things I could have definitely worded better. But anyway, I wanted to thank you for confirming that I'm not 100% off base. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I shared your bewilderment at for example, "grumpier than I used to be", being cited by about six opposers as arrogant or a self-indictment, and therefore thought I'd make a note about this relatively minor point. Glad at least one person is reading so far in. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
This very locus was something, I was thinking 'bout too! Cultural difference, it seems .... ~ Winged BladesGodric 14:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Modi (name) pageEdit

Hello, I am a frequent user of Wikipedia, but not someone who is registered on the site. I wanted to contact someone because I have noticed what I consider to be a problem with the Modi(name) page. It seems to have been edited to include some opinion of a political nature which seems inappropriate for Wikipedia, specifically dealing (as I am sure you might imagine) with the current Prime Minister of India. Not wanting to take the step of editing to delete what i think inappropriate, I instead took the step of initiating a "Miscellany for Deletion" request before realizing that I could not explain my request for not being a registered user. My intention is simply to have the material on the page reviewed so that any material not appropriate for Wikipedia can be removed, and then the page might be surveilled for what I am sure will be repeats, given the current happenings on the subcontinent, of such inappropriate additions. I wonder if you might attend to this little problem, or if you might find a Wikipedia administrator who can. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.86.146 (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@68.112.86.146: Thanks for bringing attention to the problem. It was recent vandalism by another unregistered user who was inappropriately using wikipedia to vent. I have reverted the edit and will keep an eye on the page for any immediate reinsertion of such material. I encourage you to get an account and help us further write and maintain wikipedia content (of course you can continue to contribute even without registering); either way, we can always use more conscientious users like you! Abecedare (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, certainly, and thanks for that. I would not be surprised if you have to repeat your reversion process on this page at some point in the coming months... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.86.146 (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!Edit

  The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
Thanks for responding to the request on User_talk:Ivanvector, I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts   duttaditya18 (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Duttaditya18:Thanks. This literally made me laugh. Btw, fyi. Abecedare (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Abecedare: Haha! It is heartwarming to meet people who are willing to help. Truly brightened up my mood! duttaditya18 (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Abecedare".