User talk:Cenarium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Page reverted[edit]


I have searched in vain for the good path to get administrator’s help for the following issue and so I decided to send this request to some including you.

I have considerably expanded the article Guerrilla filmmaking and took care in referencing it as far as I could (over 90 links to trustful sources). I am an experienced editor of Wikipedia. For my surprise, the article was reverted by user CIRT to a preceding stub version mainly consisting of a very narrow list of films. Many important contents were removed. Self promotional vandalism seems to be the reason of such intervention, sustained by acute threats. I do not intend to respond with helpless and inconsequent arguments and the time I have to dedicate to Wikipedia is quite limited.

I’d be happy if you could pay some attention to this occurrence and let you decide whatever you think is reasonable.

My best,

Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 04,54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Cenarium. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: Replied. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Deferred changes[edit]

Hi Cenarium, I found your draft proposal to be a very interesting/good idea for effectively stopping vandalism even before admins have time to respond. Can you please keep me updated on this (it's already on my watchlist) and let me know if I can help with the proposal? Thanks, Tony Tan98 · talk 00:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'll keep you updated. I'm working on other things at the moment but I'll get back to it in a few days. Cenarium (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
@Tony Tan 98: Hey, I wanted to let you know that I won't have much time for deferred changes in the next couple of weeks, and likely won't get back to it before early to mid January. I'm also planing to describe the proposal at meta then and maybe suggest it to other projects so that we have more weight when asking the devs to implement the feature (this may also work with the global abuse filter...). I also need that the upcoming proposal on bot tagging of edits (update : proposal is here 12:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)) be adopted by then since it's going to be of great use for deferred changes (and maybe here also try to get the support of other projects). Cenarium (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Media viewer close[edit]

You are not a reader. Don't pretend to speak for us.[edit]

"The arguments that the media viewer is closer to the needs of readers compared to a classic file page are well supported, since nearly all readers are interested in only viewing the image with its description or caption, as opposed to reusing it or perusing metadata." No, that argument is not supported at all. As a reader whose sole participation in Wikipedia has been to decry the horribleness that is Media Viewer, I am tired of being told that it suits my needs. If you look at other readers who have chimed in, all prefer the old file pages. I must insist that you provided some justification for your assertion or you withdraw it.

If I click on an image, I want to know more about it or see the original image. Media Viewer hides the caption, version history (maybe I don't want the terrible "retouched" versions that some people are so fond of making) and shows me a downrezed version. It meets absolutely none of my needs. It should have never have replaced the file page, though I certainly wouldn't have cared if they added new UI to trigger it, then I could just ignore it.-- (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I am a reader more often that I am an editor, but it's besides the point. My assertion is justified in the sentences that follow it. The media viewer shows the caption and clicking on the image will give its full resolution, as in file pages. I have looked at all comments in the RFC, the previous RFC, and elsewhere as well. Cenarium (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The Media Viewer truncates the caption. Clicking on the image gives the full resolution, but you have to deal with the loading of the downrezed version first. File page is faster. If you're going to use your experience as a "reader," why can't the 2:1 majority use it as well and agree with every "reader" who participated in any of this who said Media Viewer should be backed out? Again, I must insist you justify your assertion or withdraw it. -- (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
We don't truncate the caption. The font size adjusts automatically to show the largest amount of text right below the image; in the rare event where that still isn't enough a click shows you the full version within the viewer. You may be referring to the content from the file description page. We don't show all the info from the File: page, but we do show the machine-readable description (if any), as well. These are relatively recent changes (MV used to show the filename below the image, and everything else below the fold). As someone who's followed the product from the beginning, I'd be curious about your thoughts about these specific changes, 98 (feel free to post to my talk page or email me at erik(at)wikimedia(dot)org). Yes, I understand you're still not a fan, and I read all your previous comments.
Both the File: page and MV show a down-scaled version before the full-size image. The only difference is that MV may load a larger version of the image, depending on your screen resolution. That is also the main reason at this point why it might be slower for you, depending on your connection speed. To understand how Media Viewer performs in the real world, we sample data from users around the globe and compare it with the File: page. We also have a dedicated test machine for comparison. The data shows that MV performs better than the File: page, even discounting the next/previous functionality (where MV intelligently pre-loads the next image in a sequence). See data here.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The caption is not shown in full here and a click doesn't bring it up: . But really, the best improvement you could make is make clicking the image go to the file page and making the enlarge icon go to the original image and not bother with all this slow javascript nonsense. Yes, you say your metrics support this. I question whether your metrics work correctly. -- (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding some captions that are not entirely displayed, I mentioned this in one of my final points as "cases of improperly displayed documentation".
Opening the media viewer only when clicking on the enlarge icon is something that has been requested by some users and I had in mind in my point on allowing to customize media viewer.
None of those concerns were sufficiently strong to overcome the lack of consensus. Cenarium (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
A 2:1 majority said Media Viewer should be returned to opt-in. The minority largely relied on an unsupported bogus argument that "readers" prefer Media Viewer, never mind that every single "reader" who has participated in any of this says otherwise. A strong majority plus bogus arguments from the minority... in just about every situation I've been in that would qualify as consensus. But not on Wikipedia, apparently. And anyway, this is precisely backwards. While you have a crazy argument that there is no consensus here, it's indisputable that there is no consensus for Media Viewer to be enabled. The WMF thus gets to force their defective as designed and implemented software on us. That's bullshit. The game is rigged, and you're enabling them. -- (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Discount the comments on both sides superseded by subsequent improvements, which only expressed personal feelings at the WMF, did not provide a rationale, were about irrelevant matters such as speculation on the WMF response, then it's much closer to 1:1: than 2:1. That there were no consensus to enable media viewer is clear to everyone, but it's insufficient to take action. I am not enabling the WMF, I recalled in my statement that the community was very unsatisfied of the way it was deployed without appropriate consultation. Cenarium (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I am another reader whose only interaction with Wikipedia in the last five or six years has been to comment--vocifersouly--about how terrible media viewer is. There is NOTHING about media viewer that is an improvement on the old image information page. The old page was faster, more informative, linkable in a useful manner, and did not instantly change the way in which I was interacting with the Wikipedia. Mediaviewer is an ugly, unecessary, intrusive, broken-by-design kludge. (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Last five or six years ? I think you meant months. That doesn't really change my reading of the RFC, though. I've requested a survey on the latest media viewer version which should give us a better idea on what readers think in terms of aesthetics. Cenarium (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I mean last five or six years. I've had _zero_ interaction with the behind-the-curtain wikipedia world in that time except to comment on media viewer and report a single photo. I am a regular user of wikipedia and a one-time editor, from back before everything required account registration. (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Media viewer has only been enabled for a few months, precisely on June 3, 2014, cf Wikipedia:Media Viewer. So I don't think that we're talking about the same thing. Cenarium (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah ok, I've got what you meant. Cenarium (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, there are lots of readers who don't like file pages, and prefer media viewer. It's not possible to satisfy everyone. That's why I've asked the WMF to make a new survey, where the question should be more of a direct comparison, such as do you prefer file page or media viewer. This way, we'll know the proportion more precisely. Cenarium (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


Admin Barnstar.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for closing the Mediaviewer discussion and for the very long and detailed rationale. Being an administrator can be a thankless job sometimes, so I just thought I'd chime in to say Thank you. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@Oiyarbepsy: Thanks for the barnstar, much appreciated. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC Close[edit]

Prior to your closing I had notified Edokter that I had concerns with his close on part-2. I was literally in the middle of filing a formal request to have it reviewed and invalidated for clear error when I saw you closed part-1. For the moment I am holding off on that submission to consider this new development.

You're probably thinking "Oh God, this guy runs around challenging any close he doesn't like". I beg you to consider that I only challenged Mdann52's initial close when he went actively non-responsive to discussion, and the virtually-unanimous result of that close review confirms that I had a reasonable and valid basis for challenging that close. I beg you to consider that I was only about to challenge Edokter's part-2 close after he also went actively non-responsive. I hope you will assume good faith on my part, and consider that maybe I see a genuine problem with his close. In a nutshell, there were "Support all but bulletpoint 6" votes in the Oppose section, as well as "Oppose only bullet point 6" votes. He basically acknowledges that does yield a level of Support worthy of consideration on 1 through 5. There are valid reasons not to return a consensus for a solid majority, but I-don't-want-to-bother is definitely not one of them.

I see you're an admin, so I'm hopeful that you're open to collaborative-discussion. Policy allows people to come to a closer and raise concerns or request improvements. The goal isn't to get the answer someone wants, the goal is a close that most accurately summarizes the results on the issue that was debated.

I'm still digesting your close. I respect that you've clearly put a lot of work and deep thought into it. I see the major theme is your difficulty determining consensus on what the Media Viewer default setting should be, and repeatedly stressing of the lack of discussion and debate on that question. I've got to run, but when I get back I'd like to try to shed some light on why it was so difficult and why you found a lack of discussion and debate. I'm really really really hoping that when I get back I find some indication from you that'd you're open to listening to that, and possibly even revising your close if you see that it could more accurately reflect the debate. Alsee (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was expecting your arrival. The second part of the RFC has been rendered essentially moot. I can explain and clarify my close, there are lots of things that I haven't detailed or mentioned because I needed to keep the statement at a reasonable length. Cenarium (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm disappointed to find no indication that you're willing to listen to my concerns, and to give good-faith consideration to whether you might find that your close could be improved. Alsee (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Did you misunderstood, I just said that I would explain and clarify my close ? I cannot modify the close of the second part of the RFC, as it was closed by another admin. I'll listen to your concerns, and I may amend some aspects of my close if warranted. Cenarium (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah sorry, I did misunderstand. "Explain and clarify" sounded like you meant explain-and-clarify-to-me. I didn't realize it meant potentially-edit-the-close. Okeydokey, we're good. Alsee (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason you found a "lack of a proper discussion" and "lack of thorough debate" on what the Media Viewer default should be is because participants were explicitly not debating that question. That's not the question asked and debated at RfC. For example lets look at Support #15:

15. Support. WP:Consensus can change, but it is up to someone else - and WMF is certainly invited to do so - to make a new RfC to see if that's the case. Until then, we have a consensus, and it needs to be implemented properly. VanIsaac 00:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

VanIssaac is quite deliberately withholding his arguments on media-viewer-default-setting. We can't guess at his position on that issue, or the strengths of his arguments on that issue. It's entirely possible that VanIsaac would vote for Media Viewer to be default-on, if an RfC were run on that question. It's entirely possible that VanIsaac would present an extremely powerful argument why Media Viewer should be default-off, if an RfC were run on that question. There is no way to evaluate or issue a consensus on something that is explicitly not being debated, and where people are explicitly not presenting their arguments.

The question asked and debated at RfC was "Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: WP:Media_Viewer/June_2014". In my challenge to Mdann's original close I requested a close which answers the question that was asked. To make the issue as crystal clear as possible, I requested a close that addresses the outcome separately and specifically on #1 "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and #2 "Implement June_2014_RfC".

I am eager to hear your thoughts on the above. Alsee (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

When I mentioned that the initiators had explicitly acknowledged the issue, I was referencing this comment that you made, which I quote "I see some comments about this RfC being too early, that the items in the Media_Viewer_consultation outcome have not yet been implemented. I based my personal position on the assumption that everything in that list does get implemented. I guess I assumed other people would interpret it the same way, but I'm not going to re-write the question. The RfC clearly asks people to review that consultation outcome, and people can intelligently respond based upon that consultation outcome."
You explicitly pointed out that the situation had changed, and that therefore, the question as posed (implementing the previous RFC results) had to be interpreted in light of those new developments. A large portion of commentators did so, and I had to do so in my closure. Not having given the community an opportunity to discuss these new developments in depth before the poll, so not knowing the community's stance on those before the poll, I had to analyze the comments made in the poll on this very question. And those new developments changed not only the question as a whole, but as to how they would apply to each of the first RFC's subquestions (logged in vs logged out).
The question as posed was simply inextricable from the recent developments and it was necessary to determine the community's take on those in order to answer it, if it had been discussed beforehand I would have known the community's stance and could have interpreted the question on its own in light of it, but it was not, so I had to determine both at the same time through this poll.
As an aside, I am quite aware that it is sometimes better to remove new software that receives a poor initial response, let things settle down, then have a reasoned discussion about it anew; this worked (almost) perfectly for pending changes (we got consensus to remove it, then consensus to reenable it). Cenarium (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Media viewer setting is an utterly trivial issue. Whether the community wants to re-assert June_2014_RfC after Superprotect is an huge issue. As long as you're trying to examine media viewer setting you're missing the debate that happened here. Again, I ask you to analyze the debate on "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and "Implement June_2014_RfC".

Discussion of Media Viewer itself is only relevant insofar as is someone might mention it as part of their reason for supporting or opposing a renewed call for somebody to get off their butt and resolve the badly backlogged action on June_2014_RfC. Any mention of improvements to media viewer are only relevant in so far as it offers their argument why they do not support issuing a renewed call on June_2014_RfC. I fully respect that argument and I actively invited it in the RfC. However participants overwhelming rejected that argument as wrong or irrelevant.

You say Implementing June_2014_RfC and better media viewer setting are inextricable.

  • Someone could have voted oppose in June_2014_RfC, they could still have the position that media viewer is better as opt-out, and it it perfectly valid for them to Support this RfC on the basis that they respect a valid standing consensus. Specifically in light of the Superprotect event.
  • Someone could have voted support in the June_2014_RfC, could still have the position that media viewer is better as opt-in, and Oppose this RfC in order to abandon the June_2014_RfC. Specifically in light of the Superprotect event.

Not only do the two issues involve different arguments, someone can literally have opposite positions on them. Alsee (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The argument on whether the improvements fundamentally changed the issue has been debated by several commentators, and your reply was a response to some of them. Many support votes said the improvements didn't change their view, many oppose votes said that most issues had been resolved or that one should wait until the improvement drive is finished. Those comments addressed this argument directly. In addition, a lot of commentators (on both sides) did comment directly on media viewer, acquiescing the validity of the argument. Numerous support comments were on attribution and licensing for example, which were rebutted by Alanscottwalker in this RFC, and others in the previous one (for example TheDJ who pointed out that file pages are inefficient considering the large number of newspapers using "© Wikipedia" or similar, and others on TLDR, etc). The question on benefiting readers was also heavily debated, and others (clunkiness, documentation, etc). So this was recognized explicitly or implicitly by a large majority of commentators. That someone may have different positions on implementing the previous RFC or the underlying issue is true, but I cannot guess those, I can only consider the comments made there. And only the relevant comments. If those without a rationale, speculating on WMF response, expressing anger at WMF, and such, are discounted, we get closer (corrected) to 1:1. Cenarium (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I would very much like to see the list you say gets close to 1:1. It would very much help clear up whether I am misunderstanding you, or you are misunderstanding me, or both. At least a bare list of comment-numbers which you are discarding to reach that result, although any more detailed explanation you provide would be helpful. Thanx. Alsee (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I can list those if you want, but first what about the first part of my answer, on the argument of implementing the previous RFC vs underlying issue ? Cenarium (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Correction : I meant "closer", not "close", as in my answer to the IP above. For example, there are ten support votes with no rationale, compared to just one oppose vote with no rationale. However, counting votes is tangential and not the core of my reasoning, the arguments were foremost. Cenarium (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Alsee: Don't modify the close, in any way. The close has been made, and it would take exceptional circumstances for it to be modified. I never exclude such a possibility right off, I am listening to any concerns you may have, but there's nothing that you've raised until now that could even slightly alter the validity of my core reasoning. Cenarium (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! Miscommunication! Misscommunication! Peace offering, peace offering..... That's not what I was saying at all.
One was a comment on the part 2 close, indicating that he had been notified of a possible challenge to his close. It wasn't directed to you.
The other merely indicated that you said there was a chance you might be revising your close. I absolutely-positively wasn't going to touch your close.
There was was a reason I added them. Oiyarbepsy did an abnormal premature manual archiving. The edit summary reason was to "ensure they archived together". Premature archiving is potentially disruptive if there was a chance the close might get edited. I unarchived them and added comments to timestamp them together ensuring simultaneous archiving (resolving Oiyarbepsy's edit-summary concern). The edit to add a simultaneous timestamp might as well include something useful, like updating any interested parties that there was the possibility of new developments. Later Oiyarbepsy commented on my talk and that comment made it clear that the "ensuring simultaneous archiving" edit summary was a sham. Oiyarbepsy was deliberately burying them in the archive to obstruct any new developments. Alsee (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Back to the discussion: A person who provides a rationale brings an argument to the table and presumably agrees with a non-specific assortment of other arguments, even if they don't spend the time to repeat them all. A person who offers no rationale brings no new argument to the table and is indicating non-specific agreement with the other arguments made by his side, it is non-specific repetition of those arguments. Five people saying the same thing is more significant than four people saying it, and four people saying the same thing plus one no-rationale Support is a fifth repetition of what the other four said. It adds non-specific repetition weight to the other arguments, and contributes to consensus.
Regarding "implementing the previous RFC" vs "underlying issue": Analysis starts with the issue being debated "Reaffirm&Implement_JuneRfC". We're looking for the consensus of reasonable arguments on the issue being debated, to generate a consensus close on the issue being debated. The only significance of "implementing the previous RFC" vs "underlying issue" is that arguments citing media viewer constitute a valid class of reasons one might support or oppose Reaffirming and Implementing JuneRfC. For Supports there is a general argument that any standing-consensus should obviously be Reaffirmed and Implemented in this sort of situation, and people can also comment on media viewer itself to offer more specific amplifying reasons they support Reaffirm&Implement_JuneRfC in particular. Supports can also mention media viewer itself as a part of disputing potential Oppose arguments against Reaffirm&Implement_JuneRfC. As for Opposes.... I have taken a personal position of being as respectful as possible for anyone to Oppose for any reason whatsoever. However the closer has a range of reasonable discretion in how critical he is going to be in examining (and potentially discarding) arguments. I simply expect that the evaluation for Supports and Opposes be done in an unbiased manner. I do not expect a closer to share my infinitely-forgiving view of problematic Opposes if his usual standard is to aggressively discard as many comments as it's possible to reasonably discard. You say you reached a list that gets close to 1:1, I'm asking to see how you got there. Alsee (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You attempted to disqualify the close with your comment, saying that there was a problem and it was on hold, it was very inappropriate. I'll reply to your other points later but you may have missed this edit where I clarified that I meant closer and not close. I made clear that vote counting is not the point and that the arguments matter. A support without rationale is meaningless when one analyzes the arguments, same for a vote which basically only says "I hate the WMF." or "Anyway, the WMF will not heed this RFC.", those did not contribute to the result of my analysis of arguments. Cenarium (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I cannot guess at the arguments underpinning a vote without rationale, and this cannot be considered as a general endorsement of the previous arguments because some of those arguments are mutually exclusive. As you rightly pointed out, a user may vote support because they think it should be a community choice even if they would support enabling media viewer, but another user may vote support because they think the media viewer is bad and should be shelved. Those two arguments are irreconcilable and I've no way of knowing which one is endorsed (here again, the difficulty is that the two issues were conflated). Once again, the previous RFC debate has to be interpreted in light of improvements so the argument that there's a standing consensus and therefore it should be implemented, without any reinterpretation of the previous RFC, is flawed. Cenarium (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I had already addressed the archival concern, and will verify that it's properly archived. Cenarium (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You attempted to disqualify the close with your comment, I clarified above that the comment was explicitly posted after the part-2 close, and that I clarified above that I was explicitly not referring to your part-1. I see absolutely nothing inappropriate in noting that I had notified him of an intended challenge against his close, and that intended challenge was placed on hold. I may decide that it is moot and I may decline to file it. I am particularly disturbed that Oiyarbepsy's bad-faith effort to deliberately disrupt discussion on this issue has succeeded spectacularly. I just saw a new response by Oiyarbepsy, and I retract my assertion that it was done in bad faith. Alsee (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
As a general rule (and as noted in the archival template), users should not edit a closed RFC, especially involved users, except for noncontroversial fixes or to revert invalid non-admin closures, neither is the case. Whether it's the second part or the first doesn't change anything and I have no doubt Oiyarbepsy acted in good faith, so let's leave it at that. Are you satisfied with my close now (which would render part 2 moot) ? Cenarium (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me??? Oiyarbepsy actually preformed an edit on a closed RfC and that gets an instant statement of good faith and call to drop it. I post a comment after the RfC, you falsely accuse me of editing a closed RfC, and you accuse me of bad faith or blatantly insinuate it was done in bad faith. I would like to remind you that there was substantial discussion posted by multiple people below the original invalid close. That is the obvious place for people to look for, and engage in, discussion of the close itself.
As for whether I am satisfied with the close:
  1. I request to see how you reached the result you said was close to 1:1. Specifically I would like to see which people you discarded-for-cause, and your cause for discarding each of them. I am explicitly noting that this is the third time I've made this request.
  2. I request a close which accurately examines and answers each of "Reaffirm JuneRfC" and "Implement JuneRfC". The same request I've been making repeatedly here, the same remedy I requested in the successful challenge to the first close.
  3. If I did accept the current close, the result would merely demonstrate the problem in your close. I've been trying to explain to you this wasn't an RfC on what the media viewer setting should be, and it's impossible for you to issue a valid consensus on that question based on this RfC. This was an RfC on whether people wanted to reaffirm and implement consensus itself. The true outcome is that there was a consensus to reaffirm and implement consensus itself. Writing a fictional consensus on media viewer and issuing that as a close isn't going to alter what consensus actually is. It won't alter the actual consensus on media viewer, and it won't alter the consensus to insist that consensus itself be followed. Opposers made a bad-faith argument that RfC examination of Media Viewer should be done after that round of development was completed. Accepting your close as-is simply results in Opposers being given exactly what they asked for, exactly when they asked for it. In other words, now. That's why the current close does not accurately reflect the outcome of the debate. An accurate close would either be to affirm the RfC question, or a close calling for that fresh RfC re-examination of media viewer to be done. Alsee (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
You yourself said that Oiyarbepsy didn't act in bad faith, archiving is maintenance, it was mistaken because the RFC results should be visible for some time as you said, but it got reverted and that's it. I don't say you acted in bad faith, but below the RFC isn't the place to discuss a close, it's on the closer's talk page or at AN; that this was done once previously without getting reverted isn't a good reason, it shouldn't have been done then either. The closer's talk page is linked in the signature and if there's a review at AN a neutral notice can make users aware of it.
I'll list the votes that didn't contribute to my weighing of arguments, but keep in mind that for the other votes, which contribute in some way, there is a great degree of variability. Votes with no rationale in support : 19,23,24,25,42,51,53,62,69,70, in oppose : 34. Votes per above and such : 6,43,58,60 in support, 12,33,36 in oppose. Votes only expressing dissatisfaction at WMF or personal feelings : 31,40,41,45,73. I may have missed a few or got the number wrongs. We get closer to 1:1 (closer ≠ close).
As you mention, there were two parts in the question : Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC ?. I told you numerous times that the question as posed had to be interpreted in light of recent improvements, and I explicitly stated in my closing statement that in view of the comments in the RFC regarding those improvements, the previous RFC results had been made irrelevant. So there's no consensus to reaffirm the previous RFC, I think it's pretty clear. The main issue was the second part of the question, whether there is consensus to implement its result nonetheless, and the underlying issue of the media viewer default has to be considered there. This is the issue on which most people in the RFC commented on, and here as well there's no consensus as I've demonstrated in my close. I've asked the WMF to publish survey results on the new version and people will be able to review it, and consider the improvements, have a RFC if necessary, I don't have to make an explicit call for it. Cenarium (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the list. I hope you can understand that any comparison whatsoever to "1:1", whether it was "close" or getting it "closer", raised reasonable concerns about what was being struck and why. It shifted things from 68% to 64%, I have no interest in quibbling over it. I'll resist the distraction of commenting on anything that seemed unusual, or why any of them might be includable. I'll get back the the main issue next post. Alsee (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I was about to try to get back to the main issue, but then it dawned on me that I was trying to explain the same thing for the *fifth* time. I've been really dedicated to the principal of AGF, I've been really dedicated to the ideal of trying to work with you in a shared goal of reaching an accurate close regardless of the particular outcome anyone wanted. And I thank you for your efforts participating in this discussion. However one of us needs to decide that it's going in circles, and that more circles is not productive for either of us. Your last post makes it clear that you're so focused that the Media Viewer setting might be changed (and your view on that) that you cannot or will not issue a proper close on the debate that did happen.

I had incredibly inflammatory diffs to make the case that Mdann was acting in Bad Faith in his closing, and I deliberately withheld those diffs to avoid the category-9 shitstorm they would have provoked. I've got diffs and case that Edokter was not only acting in bad faith, but engaging in deliberate sabotage. I am probably going to withhold that as well, and get his close overturned on simple blatant error, to avoid unneeded drama. However there's nothing I can do to avoid that drama that's going to ensue if three closers in a row all get overturned, all for trying to block a more-than-2-to-1 Consensus they didn't like, all on the same RfC, especially when blocking-consensus is the exact the issue Supporters worked up over.

I'll take a little time drafting a single close-review request that covers both part 1 and part 2 of the RfC. I'll probably check back here before filing it to consider anything else you might have to say, but I'm not hopeful. Alsee (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to ask for a review anyway, then go ahead. Cenarium (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Cenarium, just wanted to thank you for making a far better job of this than I did; Unfortunately, I have a tendency to be overly brief. Looks like a decent enough close to me. @Alsee: please don't make accusations of bad faith against me without the decency to notify me first; I closed the discussion based on what I could see on the page, however as I have said before, with hindsight my close was probably overly brief, and I didn't treat the responses in the best way, so will do better in the future; I've learnt from this instance, and hope I will be better in the future because of this. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Request_after_overturn_and_reclose Alsee (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

about article of Akshata Shete[edit]

Hello sir, Akshata Shete is a real gymnast from India. She has played for India in Common wealth games too. so i don't find your argument very flattering. and you simply undid my work of hours gone in a click.

If still you are going with the same argument, then you should find other sportsmen/sportswomen articles too as advertisements. So i request you too look into carefully before you delete/undo something without even thinking.

And where was the advertisement in my article, I was just filling in the personal details of the gymnast such as name, date of birth, nationality and i was not yet done with it completely . The article was not yet written apart from those details(name and all), so from where did you get all that advertisement vibe, even before a article is started. and i hope it is some Wikipedia bot that undid all these things, otherwise am really disappointed in how you really treat a new article( and i quote, "non-advertising") into which nothing was written except name, date of birth and nationality and profession(Line of work).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamranahmedar (talkcontribs) 23:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kamranahmedar: Hello. I didn't do anything to this article, I had no idea it even existed. It was tagged by another user for deletion for having no content. It wasn't deleted, just tagged, and you removed the tag and added content so it's okay. (For your information, I'm an admin so I don't tag for deletion myself, since I can delete.) The user who tagged your article is MelanieN as you can see in the message about it at the bottom of your talk page (the most recent messages on a talk page are placed at the bottom, the first message you received, from me, was from two weeks ago). No content was deleted, this is how you created it, almost empty, you probably saved a wrong version and forgot to save the new version. The edit interface is not intuitive at all so it's the kind of things that happen when you start, but don't worry, you'll get used t it. Next time, you can create a userspace draft then move your draft to the article title, or use the wp:article wizard, this way you won't be bothered by deletion tags. You may also want to try the wp:visual editor. Cenarium (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)