Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrator review/Fritzpoll

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I conclude that there is little in the way of problematic administrative behaviour. The two substantial negative comments here relate to a) a "too many chances" approach to some disruptive users, which on reflection I agreed with - often it works to help users see their mistakes, but in the case of one user I probably took the discussion past a point of usefulness. b) An editorial approach to a particular AfD, Children of Michael Jackson. I maintain that my stance to that article, based on BLP, recentism and notability was correct, but I do acknowledge that I have many, many comments to that AfD. That said, the user pointing this out in this discussion has the same. The lesson for me is that AfD is a divisive place, and lead to me helping to establish Wikipedia:Article Incubator as an intermediate step so that neither side of a debate necessarily has to get into a wild panic about an article. Although this comment was about editorial, not admin behaviour, I still acknowledge the feedback and will endeavour to remember it in future encounters. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fritzpoll (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

[edit]

Glad to see a process like this exists. Some feedback on my admin actions would be good so that I can try to improve - if possible, comments on my attitude to other editors in my admin capacity as well as the actions themselves would be welcome: I view both as equally important. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your intervention in a dispute I had in Feb 2009. Your consistently mild comments helped substantially to cool it (and me personally) down. I appreciated your attempted mediation at WT:Article Rescue Squadron in May 2009, but my opinion may be colored by my agreement with your comments. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly complain about this user. He (using the vernacular henceforth) blocked me for 24 hours when I tried to restore content I added to a talk page. He made no attempts to migitate the circumstances by which users were outright deleting my content from the talk page. When I tried to discuss said deletion on the talk page, he blocked me for 3RR "in spirit," and I felt helpless and powerless, when I was trying to determine what I'm allowed to add to the talk page. I still don't know; he never made any attempt to tell me why I wasn't allowed to add content to the talk page; when I requested the block be reviewed, it was just ignored. Maybe he has successfully mediated other issues, but this issue, which user Iridescent exascerbated with her inflammatory comments and actions, made me feel like the victim of admin abuse, when I was only trying to add relevant content to an article talk page. Shiggity (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically, I said "spirit and letter broken" - you made several reverts, in excess of the three strictly allowed, and then violated the spirit by trying to reframe the same additions. The relevant rules are documented at WP:3RR and there is no leeway for "being right" in continually restoring content - the best solution is continued discussion and working within the consensus established by other editors. As to reviewing the block, I leave it to other administrators to review my blocks on the basis that, in blocking, I have already made a determination that any other admin may undo if deemed necessary. This may or may not be correct, and I am happy to receive further commentary on this issue. "Admin abuse" would suggest that I was in a conflict with you prior to the block and thus used my tools to further my own position - I'm sure that this is not what you intended. I am, however, happy to discuss this block further with you on my talkpage with a view to annotating your block log - that is logging a message as to its incorrectness - if my action was erroneous. Please do feel free to pop by if my explanation here is wrong or insufficient, as I would welcome the opportunity to correct any error. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit warring and 3RR are about edits to article pages -- consensus does not decide what gets posted to talk pages, so it's a very strange suggestion to imply someone broke a bright-line edit warring rule with respect to their own comment.. Removing or changing someone else's comment on a Talk page is vandalism. There are about two limited circumstances in which it is allowed to touch someone else's comment on a talk page (WP:NPA policy violations), blocks should cite the relevant policy. And not create confusion by citing rules such as 3RR which pertain to articles only and do not have bearing on Talk pages, where those very consensuses are built... If you disagree with a comment on a talk page, you reply to it, you don't try to delete it. --Mysidia (talk)
  • Deleted a page in the middle of a discussion which had not come to any consensus of ANY sort (3 keep, 3 delete), without ANY justification or ANY explanation. Not impressed! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Did not warn the interested parties. Did not give any indication that he was about to perform the action. Performed the action, then immediately disappeared off-line. Heaven knows when he will be available to explain himself. I continue to be unimpressed. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This user appears to be distressed by a deletion I made. I performed several more actions, and then wandered back to my RL work. As soon as I returned, I responded to his queries. As for the timing of the deletion, I closed a discussion after 7 days had elapsed per policy - I am happy for anyone to review this. I must say, however, that giving me 20 minutes to respond to something is somewhat unfriendly in what is a volunteer environment. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for reference, the deletion being discussed here occurred around 20-25 minutes before the first comment by pdfpdf here. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I have further informaion, I can say that it would seem that "Fritzpoll" was simply implementing WP policy. The fact that I think it is a bad policy, and will try to change it, is NO reflection on "Fritzpoll" - It would seem that by criticising "Fritzpoll"'s actions, I am "shooting the messenger". This, of course, is unreasonable. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fritzpoll, I posted on your talk page thanking you for an accurate and objective review of the article somehow 'questioned' by Pdfpdf. I think you did an excellent job, considering the person who has complained about your actions had no determination to view the article objectively. Kudos to you for a solid decision. Taymaishu (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Taymaishu. What a load of sycophantic rubbish! How about sticking to the facts, and attempting to be objective? "an accurate and objective review" - There wasn't ANY review, objective or otherwise - just a statement of his decision. "somehow 'questioned' by Pdfpdf" - What's the point and intent of that statement? I am well within my rights to ask questions. "considering the person who has complained about your actions had no determination to view the article objectively" - That is just a completely false statement - It is simply your opinion, and you have NO supporting evidence. Any credability you may have had is completely demolished by your ill-conceived, ill-stated and unsupported opinions. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's your opinion. Taymaishu (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted page Maybe Tomorrow (band) while it was in discussion with an equal number of votes for deletion and an equal number of votes for keeping it. Ashfromthepast (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • sigh* Deletion discussions last seven days, the deletion arguments were better, and there is some suspicion about a series of IP keeps that all format their sentences in the same way. Wasn't brought up on my talkpage, so no intention to review at this time.
    • Probably because they saw the way people above them did it. So it only makes sense. Doesn't different IP means different computers, which means, different people. Did you even check the article yourself before you deleted it. That was irresponsible as an administrator. Ashfromthepast (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I reviewed the article myself, I'd have taken a position in the debate, and then wouldn't be sufficiently neutral to close the debate. As such, only reviewing the discussion is common practice, except under certain circumstances. But in all seriousness, this is not the place to raise these issues - an admin review is a review of the sum of my actions, not a place to air current, unresolved grievances - take this to my talkpage and I'll happily discuss it further. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry Ashfromthepast - "different IP" does NOT necessarily "mean different computers". There are a number of factors involved, and depending on them, the same computer might have a different IP each time it is turned on. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Three IPs claiming the article should be kept because it is "important" without providing reliable sources for it is not satisfactory. Also, the debate is not a vote. As people have already stated, giving reason is the most important aspect of AFDs. I've read the AFD discussion, and the result was justified. ♥ichi 18:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must admit that, with one exception, I am quite impressed by "Fritzpoll"'s behaviour as an Admin. He seems to have almost endless patience, is extremely polite, and keeps a calm head "whilst all around him" are not. The one exception is that, in contrast to his professed "normal" behaviour, he forgot to do something. The only reason I mention it is that, unfortunately, it happened on our first interaction. In general, I would prefer that he exercised his own ethics and standards rather than adhere to what I think are dubious WP guidelines, but sadly, that is not completely relevant to an admin review! As I said, I am quite impressed. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was shocked on 09July09 when Fritzpoll AfD-nominated the now-defunct "Children of Michael Jackson" and rather than let the debate calmly unfold, he kept hammering to kill, kill, kill that article. However, he wasn't the only one: several editors began scare-mongering, in a "rabid" frenzy, and the result was a hysterical delete before those 3 kids were ruined by Wikipedia, in ways that all their surrounding millionaire relatives (Janet Jackson -hello?) couldn't protect them (hidden in the Encino compound). In all fairness, many editors violated very-well-written, long-term Wikipedia guidelines and forced an "illegal" delete of that article (per WP:BLP), so I wouldn't instantly blame wiki-policies. The problem was a frantic, vicious mob shouting with an OMG-delete-before-kids-are-ruined narrow mindset. Bottom line: Clear & fair WP policies are unable to stop the angry mobs torching this Frankenwiki. The AfD process is a run-away train. So, here in the real world, the article was instantly deleted: and of course, with no Wikipedia live version, the article went viral, as Google Search kept the old cached copy active to match searches for weeks, and Bing.com (was MSN Live Search) created Bing-subpages from parts of the now-deleted article. The AfD process should have concluded to "censor" whatever dangerous article contents, wait for Google to re-index (after 1 day?), then delete. However, fixing an article and waiting to delete would be "too much like right" - like what WP policy really states: DO NOT DELETE FOR WP:BLP - instead fix any negative text about people, before even considering a deletion. I can't blame Fritzpoll for joining the gang to insta-delete articles; most people don't know deleted articles go viral (in Google Search) or how Bing.com creates subpages from those "==This is a Bing subpage==" cleverly-subpagable article headers. In desperation, I wrote an essay WP:BLPMEND to explain our current AfD policies. The most likely good fix to AfD deletion would be: stop insta-delete & and change articles before removal. That means "notify author of pending delete" (OMG wouldn't that be confused with politeness or human decency?? ). The current wack-an-article insta-delete strikes me (IMHO) as barbaric, animalistic and vicious rudeness (did I just say all that out loud? ). So, what people are seeing as shocking, in Fritzpoll's behavior, are issues of common decency that are "Gone With The Wikipedia". What happened to that article?... "The AfD Yankees done took it all, Miss Scarlet". Try to change WP procedures to restore more politeness (if not Southern charm), and many of the ruthless problems will disappear. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My active participation at the debate was to counter your "hammering" to keep, keep, keep with reasons found to be invalid at the AfD and the subsequent DRV. The author (i.e. you) was notifed, with a courteous and not entirely templated message. Thus far, you are the only one here who appears to find my behaviour shocking, and then not in an area related to my admin tools (the reason for an admin review). I make no apologies for my stance towards that article. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are currently in a discussion with User small victory. If this is the place where we make comments, with regard to arguing and as pointed out trolls and/or disruptive editors, I would point out that arguing either makes no sense. That Small Victory was going to be blocked was inevitable, and given its inevitability there is no reason to argue with him about it. It is he that needs to come to realize that WP is a place of consensus building, he has been told this many time and the 'I didn't hear that' has been repeatedly used. I warned WP admins during the call for administrative action that his blocking would be obvious and as part of what happened afterward he would try to snarl up WP administrators in whatever way they would let him. This is a point of advise, trolls, IMHO, are best ignored.PB666 yap 20:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ceased interaction with him some time ago (in my defintion of time, naturally! :) ) but I do take the point - my discussion with him was for me to try to work out to what extent he understood why he had been blocked, which would have facilitated further unblock requests. It is unfortunate that he doesn't understand that one person can't decide whether an article stays or goes, and I hope he will come to realise this in due course. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_review/Fritzpoll&oldid=321556667"