Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:RHaworth/Editnotice

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  keep. WP:SNOW, WP:IAR. No point dragging this out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  05:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

User talk:RHaworth/Editnotice

 * – (View MfD)

This polemic rant is incompatible with the conduct expected of administrators, particularly "I reserve the right to ignore any message....." which is just against policy. I'm sure we all get annoyed at newbies making the same mistakes again and again, but we certainly shouldn't ram it down their throats when they try to send messages in good faith. I'm sending this to MfD per precedent set at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice, which seemed to be a good forum to discuss these things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comments elsewhere on the matter. If RHaworth wants to keep a rolling log of his own vindictiveness in his userspace where nobody else sees it that's one thing, but a talk page edit-notice openly boasting that he refuses to communicate with anyone he considers beneath him is an attitude incompatible with Wikipedia let alone with Wikipedia adminship, and certainly has no place on the talkpage of an administrator. &#8209; Iridescent 14:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Question did anyone ask to modify/remove this, or did we go straight here?  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * we came straight here; it's part of an on-going campaign, I believe. ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically straight here on the specific issue of the editnotice, but as RHaworth is steadfastly refusing to reply to anyone raising concerns other than claiming "I am away from home at the moment without my usual display facilities" and then carrying on exactly as before, I'm not sure what point going through the motions would be; it's not as if he can claim he's unaware there are concerns that he's possibly abusing his admin status. &#8209; Iridescent 15:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have also thought it obvious that administrators shouldn't have edit notices taking potshots at people, and shouldn't have to be reminded about it first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, of course, but why not create a shitstorm of drama rather than fix it by other means, eh? Funny that. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, can't get behind this one, this is just outlining his thoughts, I don't see it as being beneath anyone just a grumpy old man.. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's more complex than that. The edit notice links to User:RHaworth/moans : "I have a firm "I don't talk to IP addresses" policy. Given how ridiculously simple it is to provide confirmation, is it unreasonable for me to ask for confirmation that the person writing about an article is actually the person that submitted the article? It also helps to train you in a basic matter of Wikipedia etiquette." I don't want to have to pull out chapter and verse at how refusing to talk to someone irrespective of the message or content is against the WP:ADMINACCT policy; I hope this explains things. Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Does deleting this really change the behavior? If the concerns are that deep a case at Arbcom is the way to go, I only say that because the piece by piece attempts are not really something that will resolve it, it will probably only make it worse. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. I wonder whose judgement is at fault.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep just ask him to change it, or remove anything considered polemic. Deletion is not required.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I don’t understand the ridiculous fuss. Roxy, the dog . wooF 15:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep which is think is what is meant by Oppose. I more agree than disagree with him, but I am a male retired information technology analyst.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This is rather tame compared to the MjolnirPants editnotice. CoolSkittle  (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Mnmh ehhhh... It's not a good look, really, consider the person is an admin. I'd be happier if didn't exist, or if it did that it was written more concisely, clearly, and politely ("Please use such-and-such format" or whatever -- edit notices are supposed to inform as quickly and cleanly as possible). And I mean I'd prefer that administrators start off with projecting a kind affect. If a person is grumpy, it's a good start to acknowledge that so one can make a start on working on that, but it's not something to, like, crow about? (And anyway, how often does this happen (links to articles encoded as external links)? It's not something I see a whole lot. And when it does, so what? If it's not a problem, why have an off-putting edit notice?)


 * Whether that makes it delete-worthy, I'm not sure. I guess not. If it's actually true -- that this person doesn't respond to messages containing links to articles encoded as external links -- that'd be a different problem. The editor is just saying he "reserves the right" to be all huffy about that, and he's probably doesn't really do it, and is just engaging in hyperbole. Herostratus (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Herostratus, "how often does it happen?" In this state of my talk page, I counted about six instances. "So what?" A wikilink goes into the database. An external link does not. Let us say that in six months time draft:The Isis Thesis crosses my radar. I will be able to go to Special:WhatLinksHere/Draft:The Isis Thesis and find that I had been involved with it in the past. Things like that happen often to make it useful for me to create a wikilink even if the correspondent has not provided one. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. Herostratus (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep he is perfectly entitled to ignore an IP (say belonging to a blocked account) or any user whining about their pet spam project page being speedy deleted. The deletion notice clearly explains things and some posts are best ignored. I believe strongly in WP:ADMINACCT but if someone really thinks he is breaching it by ignoring a post on hos talkpage, let them make a case. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have softened the wording a bit. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.  We're all volunteers, nobody is required to respond to anybody else, let alone be a punching bag for paid editors.  User talk:RHaworth/Editnotice is mild compared to User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice (text for non-admins) and is therefore not a fair comparison. -  F ASTILY   22:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh you're the second person to mention this MjolnirPants person, but I mean MjolnirPants is 1) not an admin and 2) has apparently been actually kicked off the project, so.... that's kind of a low bar for what we're trying to set up here as standards for project leaders? Herostratus (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Admins are held to higher standards of courtesy than other editors, but MfD is not the place to address this. It would have been more sensible to ask to modify the notice, bearing in mind that his talk page is going to be one of the first ports of call for good-faith newbies who don't understand our inclusion criteria, can't see redlinks & don't understand the point in linking to them, and that IPs include perfectly respectable long-term editors, and only escalate if that failed to produce a result. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.