So how long do we have to wait until this is dealt with? Difbobatl ( talk) 23:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Shereth You mention that there are other, less onerous, methods to get the change we were requesting. What are those methods? Those of us who were trying to keep the template up-to-date felt like we had no other way to get around this editor than reporting him/her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not exactly sure where my comment should go as I do not endorse this RfC/U. So, I guess I'll put them here.
Redrose64 is one of six administrators that have protected this template. @
SatyrTN,
Malinaccier,
Tedder,
Salvio giuliano, and
Deryck Chan have all also protected this template and all of those protections have been for similar reasons and all for longer than a week (once two weeks, twice indef, and once a month). This indicates to me that any other reasonable administrator would have done the same, and
WP:INVOLVED does not apply here. All four of Redrose64's protections of that template have been for one week (doesn't seem outrageous at all to me), the first three protections where at the autoconfirmed level and only this most recent one is at the
Template editor level (as I believe all of them should have been). I don't think this administrator has abused their powers in this case whatsoever and I think that this RfC/U is nothing more than a mob reaction to an action by an administrator that they did not agree with. Short of obvious malicious content added to a page, there is nothing on Wikipedia that can't wait a week and see what happens, after all, we're
WP:NOTNEWS and our pages don't need to be up to the minute updated... I suppose I could rant on about this for a bit, because it annoys me, but y'all get the point by now. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
21:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely, categorically disagree with this. Wikipedia is not for weekly editing. There is no reason this template needs to be less up-to-date than the articles it is connected to - that just leads to confusion. Autoconfirmed protection was fine. Difbobatl ( talk) 21:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Have added this to the main page of the RfC/U as I now understand better how it is suppose to work.. Hindsight is 20/20 they say... — {{U| Technical 13}} ( e • t • c) 21:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I move to close this RfC since the issues have been resolved. Tinmanic ( talk) 18:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Seconded. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 19:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
So how long do we have to wait until this is dealt with? Difbobatl ( talk) 23:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Shereth You mention that there are other, less onerous, methods to get the change we were requesting. What are those methods? Those of us who were trying to keep the template up-to-date felt like we had no other way to get around this editor than reporting him/her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not exactly sure where my comment should go as I do not endorse this RfC/U. So, I guess I'll put them here.
Redrose64 is one of six administrators that have protected this template. @
SatyrTN,
Malinaccier,
Tedder,
Salvio giuliano, and
Deryck Chan have all also protected this template and all of those protections have been for similar reasons and all for longer than a week (once two weeks, twice indef, and once a month). This indicates to me that any other reasonable administrator would have done the same, and
WP:INVOLVED does not apply here. All four of Redrose64's protections of that template have been for one week (doesn't seem outrageous at all to me), the first three protections where at the autoconfirmed level and only this most recent one is at the
Template editor level (as I believe all of them should have been). I don't think this administrator has abused their powers in this case whatsoever and I think that this RfC/U is nothing more than a mob reaction to an action by an administrator that they did not agree with. Short of obvious malicious content added to a page, there is nothing on Wikipedia that can't wait a week and see what happens, after all, we're
WP:NOTNEWS and our pages don't need to be up to the minute updated... I suppose I could rant on about this for a bit, because it annoys me, but y'all get the point by now. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
21:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely, categorically disagree with this. Wikipedia is not for weekly editing. There is no reason this template needs to be less up-to-date than the articles it is connected to - that just leads to confusion. Autoconfirmed protection was fine. Difbobatl ( talk) 21:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Have added this to the main page of the RfC/U as I now understand better how it is suppose to work.. Hindsight is 20/20 they say... — {{U| Technical 13}} ( e • t • c) 21:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I move to close this RfC since the issues have been resolved. Tinmanic ( talk) 18:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Seconded. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 19:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)