User talk:Coldmachine/RfA Expectations
user talk:Coldmachine/RfA Expectations
Click here to leave me a new message, or use the various edit tabs on the page. Don't forget to sign your message by including four tildes (~~~~) at the end. I will remove comments which I consider to be impolite or which constitute a personal attack.
- Please keep all discussion relating to my expectations for RfA candidates here.
- For general non-RfA discussion please leave me a message on my main talk page.
WP:AMDB Query
[edit]CM,
Just to continue the debate on a different page, why would you oppose someone willing to make difficult blocks? The page suggests to me it's for admins who don't mind getting real life threats, not admins who would act without consultation or in controversial situations, doesn't it? What have I missed? Bigger digger (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was going to post the exact same thing here. The difficult blocks page is pretty important actually. If a user clearly violates Wikipedia rules and has to be blocked, and that user is giving out death threats (and has the potential to follow through with them), then it's probably best to leave the block to an admin who hasn't revealed any personal information on Wikipedia, or is willing to deal with the consequences. That's what the page exists for. Aditya α ß 08:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, maybe I misunderstood it then. I did appreciate that it was a page listing admins who aren't afraid of the possible repercussions for blocks against particularly nasty users, but I guess the name of the page made me think it was also partly a gung-ho thing and covered controversial blocking decisions too. I'll amend that bullet to what I really mean to say. ColdmachineTalk 08:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- That makes more sense to me. I'd also point you to WP:NOTENOUGH but I think that's your interpretation. Look forward to
arguingdebating with you in future! ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- That makes more sense to me. I'd also point you to WP:NOTENOUGH but I think that's your interpretation. Look forward to
Another query
[edit]Hi there Coldmachine. I saw one part of this page that somewhat confused me, and so I wished to ask for a clarification. You say here that "Any blocks should have been sat out". I was wondering if that was really a fair criteria for judging someone's sutability for adminship. If the blocking administrator did give a bad block, and consensus was to overturn that block on ANI, then should that person be judged negatively for it? Or did I misunderstand the criteria, and you just want the user to follow the sockpuppetry policy. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just the sockpuppetry policy! In other words: if someone warranted a block then they ought to sit it out with dignity (i.e. this covers all minor blocks like 24-1 week blocks for edit warring, 3RR and whatnot). ColdmachineTalk 22:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)