User talk:Steve Crossin

Archive Index

[edit] I thought we had an agreement....

See Talk:Prem_Rawat#Recent_edits ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no response from that user, has not self reverted and has not created a proposal page. This is disturbing as he is abdicating on his previous commitment to abide by the agreement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Should I bring this to WP:AE? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Are violations of a suggested agreement in informal mediation a cause for sanctions against a user? That seems a bit severe. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I am sure you would have made the same argument if Momento would have deleted text from the article, added new material, and created new sections without consensus. (sorry for the sarcasm, but could not help it). I will take this to WP:AE, unless Francis agrees to abide by the agreements we have all made in dispute resolution, to which informal mediation belongs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• How about, we go back to the page protection, instead? AE, I'd prefer not be used unless there is no alternative. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 00:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Page protection would be unfair to those that respect the agreement made, as it will be penalizing them for someone else's actions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Alright, give me some time, and I will see what I can do. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 00:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problems. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Posted a thread to ANI Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Steve. Thanks to Solomonian justice Francis and I have both been allowed to remove some "no consensus" material from the Prem Rawat article and things have now calmed down. I think that the next section we should go for is the "ex-premie" criticism paragraph.Momento (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Allowed? I was going to propose re-protecting the article, as the mediation-related discipline seems to have disappeared. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think that removing content, without discussion, is concerning, and the initial reason I had the article protected was because edits were being made without consensus. If such edits became disruptive, then, I'd request that the edits be discussed first, the edits reversed, or the article protected. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 19:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'd say they have become disruptive. Jossi is working on a proposal covering the material deleted by Momento. I think that Momento's deletion should be restored, and the matter discussed as part of the proposal process. On a lesser note, I see that Rumiton is editing another section that is also involved in a proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I see, but myself restoring/reverting the content removal is not an option, I'd be taking sides. I can request page protection if needed, but at this time, I'm not sure if it would be granted. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• I Agree with Will, something seems to need doing. And while I can understand when Jossi gets cranky with me (can't say I've ever noticed his sense of humour...), I find his attitude towards Francis here to be at best bordering on incivility, it also smacks of someone who thinks they own the article. Why doesn't he attack Momento for doing the exact same thing? Oh ya, I forgot, his POV push is in the same direction as Momento's. He is not the judge and jury here, but he sure sounds like he thinks he is. I'm sure he'll be along here any second to voice his view, wait for it... -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• If the mediator requested page protection I can't see why it wouldn't be granted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Calling into question certain behaviors of editors is not incivility. I am not "attacking" anyone, simply asking pointed questions about behaviors that do not help the mediation process, such as editing out of consensus. And I told Momento an other editors not to pay kind with kind and not pursue the same behaviors of editing out of consensus as agreed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For the moment, I will just keep an eye on the discussion and article pages, very, very closely. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• I would oppose page protection, as it penalizes editors that are not bypassing agreed process set forth in this mediation, which has been agreed by all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I see a disagreement here, where one editor has made changes that were questioned by other editors, and reversion was requested, however another editor has made changes, and a few have requested they be undone. Even though protection is objected to, sometimes it may be necessary, and that's what I'm leaning to. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The right thing to do would be to revert to the version before all this brouaha started with Francis unilateral edit which started it in the first place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Please see this and act on it. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) No, calling into question certain actions is not incivility. The way you do it, is. I have no problems with the questions, just the attitude and innuendo. You don't like it when other people do it, what makes you think it's ok when you do it? That's rhetorical, don't bother. Personally, I also don't see any problem with page protection, it stops these silly little arguments that do nothing but delay progress on the proposals because we have to all stop and look somewhere else for a while. I find it odd that you push and push to get proposals done and inserted (granted, usually before they are ready), but using tools that help us do that are suddenly a problem for you. I'm off for the afternoon. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA?

I will offer to nominate you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to be an administrator if you are interested. Before I do that, I have a few questions:

1. Are you interested?
2. Do you use automated tools such as VandalProof or Huggle? How often and in what context? I notice you have more user talk edits than mainspace edits (about 7,000 each), so I assume the large majority of your 18,000 edits are either vandalism reverts or user talk warnings. Are you taking the time you need to ensure that you are not making careless mistakes?
3. On a related note, how did you rack up more than 600 reports to WP:AIV? How did you rack up about 10,000 edits in March alone? (What does Mellie think of your wiki-addiction?) :)
4. You have mediated some conflicts. Does this help or hurt your chances of passing RFA?
5. I noticed you at WP:SSP where I am active. How would you help over there if you had admin tools?

I hope that's not too many questions. If the answer to the first is "no," you may skip the others. If "yes," I think you could be a good admin, but I would need a sense of how you would use admin tools, so that's why I have to ask about you using automated non-admin tools. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please leave a note on my talk page saying you replied here. I don't use my watchlist. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle FTW. Enigma ^message 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hi there, I remember you well. I really do thank you for your offer, and out of respect, I will answer all of your questions.

1. Am I interested? Yes, I definitely am. My RFA is very soon, I've been offered nominations by people I hold in the highest respect. It could really be any day now, this post is evidence that I'm being pressed to go for an RFA :-)
2. I formerly used Huggle, and I used it a lot, yes. I haven't used it in well over a month, I now feel that there are many other Wikipedians who are more than capable in doing this task. Many of my edits are automated, I've also done a lot of editing within the 24 Wikiproject, and it's related articles. A lot of my talk page edits are warnings, however they are somewhat balanced with regular discussion. I also do admit, that when I first did vandalism reversions, my judgment wasn't the best, and I did get quite a few complaints on my talk pages, and I'll be the first one to put up my hand, when someone asks if people have made mistakes when doing RC patrol. Through time, I feel that my judgment has improved quite a lot, and I'm very confident that I can differentiate between what is and what is not vandalism, something I am trying to teach my adoptee, RyRy5, and I also feel I'd have the judgment when, and when not to, issue a vandalism block.
3. Not all my edits to AIV were vandalism reports. Many of them were me examining reports, and commenting on them, giving my 2 cents where it's evident, or possible, that a block is unwarranted. I also helped create {{AIV}}, a template that is used quite a bit on AIV now. That said, quite a lot of my edits to AIV, are also, actual reports. The 10,000 edits, in march, Huggle, mostly Huggle. I realise now that editcountitis is bad, and I've pretty much stopped using Huggle, I feel my wiki time is better used elsewhere, such as mediation. As for Mellie, she likes Wikipedia too, but you will note my editing hasn't been as much recently. :)
4. Indeed, I have mediated a few difficult conflicts, I'm currently mediating the Prem Rawat MedCab case, a lot of discussion is happening in my userspace. I personally think it will help my chances in an RFA (touch wood). I feel that a administrator who is also a mediator, can demonstrate their judgment, and their ability, for how to handle very complex disputes, which is something I think administrators need.
5. Finally, on SSP, I'd be more active there, definitely. As an administrator, I'd be able to do what I do now, compare the suspected sockmaster with the suspected sock puppets, view deleted contributions, and issue blocks when necessary. SSP is an area that is in constant need of attention, and I would try to help ease the backlog there.

I hope that answers all your questions, Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these are all good answers. If you want I can write you a nomination or conomination. If others have already offered to do it, let them. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, I think I will wait until I get the final nudge from my main nom who has offered. Then, hello to the week of hell ;-). I must say I'm grateful for your nomination offer, I've not actually got one on my talk page recently, most were on IRC. My rfa should be soonish though. Thanks again. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You have mail!

Hi Steve,

I've replied,

BG7even 14:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Training Wiki

Hey Steve,

Are you interested in helping me Founder a "Trainig Wiki" for adoptees (and adopters), admin coaching/ers to be able to try out various things (including admin tools) in an enviroment that is based entirely on Wikipedia (with appropriate Attribution).

This wiki will also be used for testing media wiki extentions that could be implemented in all the wikimedia foundation projects, but thats up to thwem we can only provide feedback on the extention page..

You may say "this idea has already been done", well you could not be more from the truthe. Ive seen the most common wiki that attempt's to give users experiance with the tools, but this wiki is noway similar to wikipedia (i mean they're not even running the same version or templates etc to try)

Have a think about it and get back to me   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure to be honest, my wiki time is very stretched thin at the moment, ask around though, there may be others interested. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 05:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explaniation

The page User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal6 is tagged for cleanup. I am attempting to cleanup. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who but its in a cleanup category. If its a protected page, perhaps it should be protected. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you should be doing that, its a hidden category. Perhaps its only for 'involved users'. See - Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting --Samuel Pepys (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting is indeed a hidden category. The Cite.php code triggers it probably upon "cite error", and probably not possible to remove pages from that category without altering the code. Anyhow, the named references would have their counterpart *with content* in the Prem Rawat article (alternatively, in the Divine Light Mission article). I'll try to bring over a few to Steve's mediation pages. I don't know whether, generally, correcting cite.php errors in userspace is such a good idea for semi-bot like applications though. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Good falls under the bold part of WP:BeBold. I could try to bring them over for you as your currently account for over 1% of all bad articles in the category.--Samuel Pepys (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)