Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Omegatron

Seems that Omegatron himself has endorsed this view as he has acknowledged making several mistakes.

I acknowledge that it was a mistake to undelete the article without discussing it with Tom first. I don't see anything wrong with undeleting the redirects, though. (And as I mentioned on the noticeboard, there are a variety of other synonyms that should be redirects, too, like Watergas.)

that it is quite possible that the the community does not view the summary undeletion of a speedied article as wheel warring or otherwise as an improper use of administrative tools

As per policy, summary undeletion of a speedied article is not improper (though it's certainly sketchy if you are involved, and you should always discuss it first). In this case, the speedy was not proper, especially since the AfD was left open. But yeah, I should have discussed it before doing it myself, or waited for someone else to do it.

And I don't think I ever wheel warred. Wheel warring requires you to re-do something that has been undone by another admin.

Not wheel warring:

X deletes an article
Y undeletes it
X and Y discuss

Wheel warring:

X undeletes a redirect
Y re-deletes it
X undeletes it again without discussion. — Omegatron 00:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disagree at all up through your wheel comments ('specially since I wrote the outside opinion....) But on Wheeling, I'd suggest checking Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed_decision#Sanction, which also references Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Wheel_warring At least one Arbitrator has a different opinion in at least in WP:BLP situations. And it may be considered Arbcom opinion in general as the Arbcom opinion on the pedophilia bolds, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute." from WP:DR in the above case under the Wheel heading. Not sayin' you're wrong -- in fact I might well be here -- just that Arbcom might take a different opinion of it, God forbid you ever get to that point. ;) LaughingVulcan 00:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxyhydrogen

I see that Oxyhydrogen, where these articles redirected to, is already a horrible mess. Sigh. EliminatorJR ^Talk 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it's going to keep happening as long as users keep trying to get stuff deleted despite all reasonable consensus to keep it. If the articles didn't have to be re-written from scratch every few months, they'd be in a high-quality state by now.

The old talk pages like Talk:HHO gas need to be undeleted and stay undeleted so that users can continue working from the references and hard work already done. I'd do it, but my hands are obviously tied.

I hope everyone notices that I have barely edited the current article. So everyone can stop parroting the ridiculous claims that I'm a promoter or saying that I'm the only editor trying to write articles about this stuff. — Omegatron 01:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]