Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Plastikspork
Editing stats for Plastikspork as of 16:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC):
General user info
Username: Plastikspork
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Aug 12, 2007 19:53:20
Unique articles edited: 4,248
Average edits per page: 3.95
Total edits (including deleted): 16,786
Deleted edits: 245
Live edits: 16,541
Namespace totals
Article 12619 76.29%
Talk 446 2.70%
User 1056 6.38%
User talk 1571 9.50%
Wikipedia 491 2.97%
Wikipedia talk 56 0.34%
File 19 0.11%
Template 251 1.52%
Template talk 22 0.13%
Help 1 0.01%
Help talk 8 0.05%
Portal 1 0.01%
Graph
Month counts
2007/08 4
2007/09 0
2007/10 0
2007/11 0
2007/12 0
2008/01 0
2008/02 0
2008/03 0
2008/04 0
2008/05 0
2008/06 0
2008/07 0
2008/08 0
2008/09 1
2008/10 80
2008/11 553
2008/12 1864
2009/01 3433
2009/02 3142
2009/03 2135
2009/04 2514
2009/05 1967
2009/06 848
Logs
Pages moved: 87
Files uploaded: 4
Top edited articles
Article
* 352 - Rock_of_Love_Bus_with_Bret_Michaels
* 319 - The_Biggest_Loser:_Couples_2
* 193 - I_Love_Money_(season_2)
* 179 - Daisy_of_Love
* 156 - Real_Chance_of_Love_(season_1)
* 153 - The_Biggest_Loser:_Families
* 152 - Tool_Academy_(season_1)
* 141 - Rock_of_Love:_Charm_School
* 137 - A_Double_Shot_at_Love
* 131 - For_the_Love_of_Ray_J
Talk
* 47 - The_Biggest_Loser:_Couples_2
* 18 - Survivor:_Tocantins
* 13 - A_Double_Shot_at_Love
* 13 - I_Love_Money_(season_2)
* 13 - Rock_of_Love:_Charm_School
* 11 - I_Love_Money_(season_1)
* 11 - Sydney_Selwyn
* 10 - America's_Next_Top_Model
* 10 - Real_Chance_of_Love_(season_1)
* 9 - Jay_Leno
User
* 639 - Plastikspork/monobook.js/script.js
* 55 - Plastikspork/monobook.js
* 45 - Plastikspork/AutoEd/core.js
* 34 - Plastikspork
* 25 - Plastikspork/AutoEd
* 24 - Plastikspork/tools.js
* 24 - Plastikspork/reftools.js
* 24 - Plastikspork/AutoEd/unicodify.js
* 20 - Plastikspork/sandbox
* 17 - Plastikspork/AutoEd/userbox
User talk
* 182 - Plastikspork
* 27 - Drilnoth
* 17 - Plastikspork/Archive_1
* 13 - Lilcoolman1635
* 11 - Lightmouse
* 8 - Juliancolton
* 8 - 71.64.21.41
* 8 - Buffyfan882
* 8 - Mansourramis
* 7 - Rlogan2
Wikipedia
* 54 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
* 47 - Requests_for_page_protection
* 11 - Requested_moves
* 10 - Articles_for_deletion/Eric_de_Sturler
* 8 - Lists_of_common_misspellings/I
* 8 - Articles_for_deletion/Hunter_Campbell
* 7 - Articles_for_deletion/Francis_Lucille
* 7 - Lists_of_common_misspellings/P
* 6 - Typo_Team/Members
* 6 - AutoEd/Userbox
Wikipedia talk
* 36 - AutoEd
* 6 - Lists_of_common_misspellings
* 4 - Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)
* 3 - Searching
* 2 - Deceased_Wikipedians/Proposal_to_establish_practic...
* 2 - Typo_Team/Members
* 2 - WikiProject_Poker
* 1 - Naming_conventions_(television)
File
* 8 - Toolacademy_cast.jpg
* 2 - Money_opt1.jpg
* 1 - Aerial_view.jpg
* 1 - Aerial_Stillman_Photo.jpg
* 1 - Hooking_Up_with_Tila_Tequila_-_book_cover.jpg
* 1 - Prinz_Valdemar_Arial.jpg
* 1 - A_Double_Shot_at_Love_with_the_ikki_twins.jpg
* 1 - AggieRing.jpg
* 1 - From_gstogents.jpg
* 1 - Flat_Belly_Diet_-_book_cover.jpg
Template
* 46 - Color_strip
* 31 - Celebreality
* 18 - Search_link
* 17 - Color_strip/doc
* 12 - America's_Next_Top_Model
* 10 - Survivor
* 10 - Charm_School
* 8 - I_Love_Money
* 8 - Rock_of_Love
* 7 - The_Biggest_Loser
Template talk
* 9 - The_Surreal_Life
* 6 - Search_link
* 3 - Celebreality
* 1 - Garry_Marshall
* 1 - Marriage
* 1 - Celebreality_Series
* 1 - Garry_Marshall_Films
Help
* 1 - Editing_shortcuts
Help talk
* 8 - Template
Portal
* 1 - Society/Featured_picture
Mifter's oppose (discussion moved from WP:RFA)[edit]
- Oppose These two diffs are the two worst mistakes in my opinion, in the first he went from a level 1 warning to a level 4 warning with 2 days separation, which in many cases would render the warning stale, and in the second he went from a level 2 warning to a level 4 warning with 5 days in between (Which in many cases for a dynamic IP can be enough time for an IP to be switched to a new user which would render any previous warning stale and irrelevant for the new user) which really makes me think that this user as an admin could sometimes "Jump the gun" and issue blocks when they weren't necessary the best option or the most appropriate course of action. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't do much in the way of vandalism fighting because I just don't want to get involved in the areas where people get angry at you, but based on my rather limited knowledge of the warning system I'd say that in your first example it is a valid level 4 warning. First, it was only one day of separation, but more importantly the edit that the anon made was pretty dang nasty. The first one was pretty bad also, but not quite as much, and IMO users who say things like that can be warned once or twice. If they don't change after that, they probably won't ever. As I said, I don't get involved in those areas so I could be completely incorrect as to how the warning system works; if so, my apologies. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- In some ways I agree with you, but in many cases it doesn't hurt to give them the benefit of the doubt because vandals can't really do any permanant damage because in many cases they are reverted in a matter of seconds and two or so more reverts won't hurt and unless their is an urgent violation of WP:BLP where a block might be necessary to protect the WMF from legal action or the protect the reputation of a prominent person, also regardless of the outcome of this RfA, I would advise you to brush up on our vandalism policies because blocking someone is no light matter and as you will learn if you RfA succeeds, its often better to go light on a block/not block at all then to make a block that you are not sure of ;). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, if your going to help "generally help fight vandalism." as your answer to Q1 said, then I really think you should re-read our anti-vandalism policies and you should decide if your going to help out often as you said in Q1 with anti-vandal work or if your going to avoid anti-vandalism work as you said in your response because you can't do both ;) Best, Mifter (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)- Mifter, not to but in, but you appear to be responding to the comments made in response to your oppose, which was made by Drilnoth, who is the one not familiar with vandalism policy, and who is not the RFA candidate. Thus, you may want to strike out those misguided comments. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I do plan to continue to help fight vandalism, but it appears I need to be careful to make sure I am not escalating warnings to quickly. I absolutely see blocking as an extreme measure. Thank you for your feedback. Plastikspork (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Mifter, there's a limit to WP:AGF. You don't give people the benefit of doubt with edits like this. Aditya α ß 16:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, please, if you consider that to be horribly unnacceptable vandalism I'll have to ask you to grow a pair. That's nowhere near bad enough to breach AGF and assume he'll never by any means make helpful contributions to the wiki.--Koji† 16:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- So, just to straighten this out, that edit is not horribly unacceptable vandalism? Oh man.
You're messed up.Aditya α ß 16:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)- [1] You tell me.--Koji† 17:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Incorrect reasoning. You're saying we should go easy on clear vandalism, because there's always worse. That's wrong. Aditya α ß 17:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I never said that. My point, is that we shouldn't go hard on anyone. Kevin KBG, the user from the diff I posted, got all the correct warning levels in an acceptable time span, except 4. Calling fat people fat is no reason to overstep a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. If people like Kevin can be given a chance, everyone should.--Koji† 17:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Incorrect reasoning. You're saying we should go easy on clear vandalism, because there's always worse. That's wrong. Aditya α ß 17:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- [1] You tell me.--Koji† 17:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- So, just to straighten this out, that edit is not horribly unacceptable vandalism? Oh man.
- Oh, please, if you consider that to be horribly unnacceptable vandalism I'll have to ask you to grow a pair. That's nowhere near bad enough to breach AGF and assume he'll never by any means make helpful contributions to the wiki.--Koji† 16:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Mifter, there's a limit to WP:AGF. You don't give people the benefit of doubt with edits like this. Aditya α ß 16:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- In some ways I agree with you, but in many cases it doesn't hurt to give them the benefit of the doubt because vandals can't really do any permanant damage because in many cases they are reverted in a matter of seconds and two or so more reverts won't hurt and unless their is an urgent violation of WP:BLP where a block might be necessary to protect the WMF from legal action or the protect the reputation of a prominent person, also regardless of the outcome of this RfA, I would advise you to brush up on our vandalism policies because blocking someone is no light matter and as you will learn if you RfA succeeds, its often better to go light on a block/not block at all then to make a block that you are not sure of ;). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't do much in the way of vandalism fighting because I just don't want to get involved in the areas where people get angry at you, but based on my rather limited knowledge of the warning system I'd say that in your first example it is a valid level 4 warning. First, it was only one day of separation, but more importantly the edit that the anon made was pretty dang nasty. The first one was pretty bad also, but not quite as much, and IMO users who say things like that can be warned once or twice. If they don't change after that, they probably won't ever. As I said, I don't get involved in those areas so I could be completely incorrect as to how the warning system works; if so, my apologies. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
For particularly nasty edits, I think jumping straight to level 4 is entirely appropriate. Replace one article with some kind of racial invective; I'll give you level 4. No question. If someone wants to contribute, then they should know immediately that jokes and insults in the article-space don't fly, and they should understand that quickly. If they have to be told more than once that the encyclopedia does not refer to anyone as "fat fucks", then they're not ready.
That said, level 1 could also be appropriate for that edit. Some of us are more lenient, some are tougher. That's ok. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- {{uw-vand4im}} and the other 4im level warnings exist because under our current policy sometimes it is right to go straight to that level of warning. If you don't think that 4im warnings are ever appropriate then I suggest you try and change the policy, not oppose those who are following current policy. ϢereSpielChequers 15:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not opposing because of the use of those levels, I'm opposing because of the circumstances they were used under. Very different meanings between the two; you're suggesting that I don't agree with policy, when in reality I do and I simply feel that policy, in these cases, was not correctly followed.--Koji† 16:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Koji, thanks for the explanation. the particular example that I concentrated on was Mifter's second one where the candidate "went from a level 2 warning to a level 4 warning with 5 days in between (Which in many cases for a dynamic IP can be enough time for an IP to be switched to a new user which would render any previous warning stale and irrelevant for the new user)". My view of that one is that as the IP vandalised the same article five days apart it was a reasonable assumption that the same individual was at that IP. This got the level 2 and five days later one of the edits included a change to the same sentence. I also think that unpleasant comments about living people should be taken more seriously than most other vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 16:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's not as if we block IPs for very long, anyway. The most I ever give an IP address is the 31 hour block, so the comment above about the "fat fucks" edit not be enough to "breach AGF and assume he'll never by any means make helpful contributions to the wiki," is totally off-base. Nobody's saying anything about "never", and furthermore, vandalism blocks do not involve any suspension of AGF. When I block someone, I'm still assuming good faith. It just turns out that sometimes, good faith is not relevant. If someone replaces the article on Black people with a racial pejorative, I don't care whether that's done in misguided good faith. It still has to stop, and a instant level-4 warning is perfectly appropriate. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Koji, thanks for the explanation. the particular example that I concentrated on was Mifter's second one where the candidate "went from a level 2 warning to a level 4 warning with 5 days in between (Which in many cases for a dynamic IP can be enough time for an IP to be switched to a new user which would render any previous warning stale and irrelevant for the new user)". My view of that one is that as the IP vandalised the same article five days apart it was a reasonable assumption that the same individual was at that IP. This got the level 2 and five days later one of the edits included a change to the same sentence. I also think that unpleasant comments about living people should be taken more seriously than most other vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 16:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not opposing because of the use of those levels, I'm opposing because of the circumstances they were used under. Very different meanings between the two; you're suggesting that I don't agree with policy, when in reality I do and I simply feel that policy, in these cases, was not correctly followed.--Koji† 16:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)