User talk:Coren

Respect

You're right, I do respect you and your opinions. I'll take your advice about Brad and stop asking him about the RfC issue until he is ready and willing to discuss it with the parties to the mediation. Thanks for taking the time to offer your well-regarded opinion. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

AfD closing statement

Nicely put --Dweller (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the "quoted citations" MfD. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Okip socking

Hello, I was somewhat confused about the Okip situation — you said that Dragdrag and Calendar2 were being used to disrupt XFD, but Calendar only appeared once at an AFD and nowhere else, and Dragdrag has never edited an XFD. Could you help me see what I'm missing? Of course I understand that they should be blocked because they're socks of someone who's been disruptively editing under a different account; this is purely a "help me see what I'm missing" request. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That grammar might have been better. I meant that (a) Okip was socking, and (b) Okip was disrupting XfD with a sock. I didn't mean to imply that all the socks were used around XfDs (although Okip also defended articles created by one other of his sock at AfD) – the problem isn't the XfD but the evasion of scrutiny. Although, to be fair, the level of disruption from the Spoildead sock was in itself problematic enough to independently attract the attention of three functionnaries and would probably have led to sactions on its own even without the other socks. — Coren ^(talk) 13:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, understood; thanks for the help. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

MfD close

That wasn't "no consensus" by a mile, it was an overwhelming "Keep". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Taking account the posturing by both sides, the arguments were no stronger either way; and many of the keeps were on procedural grouns (i.e.: MfD of the list is not the way to go about it, use an RfC or MfD on the project itself).

Having two "camps" battle it out is the epitome of "no consensus"; it means that no amount of discussion will reach common ground – the numbers who show up to the fight has very little value. — Coren ^(talk) 17:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That was the correct close for the additional reason that about half of the keep votes were from project members. One cannot discount the reality that project members are very likely to show up in droves to support keeping their pages.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't look up membership, but I did give very little weight to discussion mostly based around "OMG, ARS is teh evul inclusionsists and must be destroyed" and "OMG, ARS is being victimized by the evul deletionists!!1!". — Coren ^(talk) 17:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No! MfD decisions are *not* made on *who* comments, but on *what* people say. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry Coren, but I think what you showed there was your inability to cancel out and ignore all of the non-policy "warrior" contributions (from both "sides") and judge it on a policy-based consensus of those who are neither strong deletionists nor strong inclusionists. I won't contest your close, because the practical effect is as good as a "Keep", but I think this is a good example of why I didn't want to support you for ArbCom - you acted as a conventional real-world "Manager" and did what you personally thought was best (and that's admirable in a real-world management context) rather than accurately yielding to the consensus of the community, no matter how combative it might have been going forward. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and "many of the keeps were on procedural grounds" actually means "Keep" - it doesn't mean they should be discarded! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, that's actually exactly what I did; and found that what's left couldn't be tarted up to look like consensus if you dipped it in gold. Hence, "no consensus". — Coren ^(talk) 17:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree, then - I find it sad that you do not seem to be open to re-examining your judgment when challenged, but instead respond by entrenching yourself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Where did you pull that out of? The first thing I did at your initial objection was to reread the entire discussion to see if there was a trend I had overlooked (although, admitedly, I skimmed a lot). That I remain confident in my assessment doesn't mean I haven't reevaluated it, and I rather resent the accusation that I did not take your objection seriously! — Coren ^(talk) 17:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You cogitated for an entire five minutes!? Give me a fucking break! I challenged your decision - you came out fighting -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the membership status of many keep voters is just about pointing out that the overwhelming number of keep votes is not compelling in itself. One has to also consider that partisan inclusionist types are more likely to view the list page and join the discussion. Just because there were a lot more keep votes does not mean they should be regarded as representing a high-level of community support.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And nobody is arguing for that - consensus should be decided on what people say in line with policy, not on *who* is saying it. It is *you* who is suggesting that some people's inputs should be discounted simply because of who they are - shame on you! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Less weight is often given, rightly so, to people who have a conflict of interest regarding a discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

When it's a discussion related to policy and practice, *everyone* gets a say, and opinions are judged on what people say, not on who they are - that is how consensus works. Besides, if pro-ARS people should be excluded from the consensus because of their opinions, then so should anti-ARS people like you, shouldn't they? Consensus does not work by "People supporting X get less say than people opposing X", and you really should be ashamed of yourself for trying to claim that you should have more say than other community members. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• What I notice is that the discussion was closed after 4 days rather than the standard 7. This extraordinary action seems inappropriate when Coren is, at the same time, prosecuting Okip/Ikip at WP:AN. Warden (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What. — Coren ^(talk) 17:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
    • You don't seem to understand me so I shall expand. I'm fine with a no-consensus result — this seems much better than the bogus consensus which was claimed at an earlier case of this kind. Early closes might be ok too — I often call for speedy keeps at AFD. But at AFD, we don't actually get speedy closes very often and I can't remember this ever being done to snow close as no-consensus. It's much more normal there to extend a discussion in the hope of obtaining a consensus rather than closing it early. So, my main perception is that this action is extraordinary. I'm not understanding why you went out of your way to do this and so suppose that it has something to do with the parallel discussion of Okip/Ikip which you started at WP:AN. This gives me a general impression of you being too involved. Further clarification of your position might therefore be helpful. Warden (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah! Hm, well, the short of it is "the heat is rising, and there's no way in hell this will reach a consensus given the entrenched positions so there is no real value in keeping this going".

        The Okip bit is accessory, in that I noticed it while keeping an eye on the MfD (and not the other way 'round), and I really don't think that it has any bearing on the MfD itself (one of his sock had been commenting there, but as one of nearly 50 the actual impact was not significant). If there is an influence, it'd be in the other direction: that the MfD was that volatile had the potential to poison the discussion on AN/I about Okip (already there are a number of comments there that mirror the inclusion/deletion factionalism at display at the MfD). — Coren ^(talk) 20:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• There had already been 42 votes, as well as a few non-voting participants, and 28 of those votes were from non-members. It is not as if the discussion was closed without there having been significant participation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• So first you're complaining that too many "involved" people took part, and now you're saying it's fine to close it because lots of uninvolved people took part? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is no inconsistency. ARS members discounted, the vote is 2:1 in favor of keeping the list, without considering the validity of the given rationales. A no consensus decision with a 2:1 split is not inappropriate when there is a large base of opposition.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• And where does it say that ARS members have no say in it? Sorry, but all you are saying here is "I'm right and those who don't agree with me shouldn't have a say" - and that is misguided and arrogant in the extreme -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Folks, its not really worth grumbling over "no consensus" vs. "keep," the discussion speaks for itself. It was closed after 4 days because there was no way it was going to go delete. Indeed, it was very heartwarming that the editors coming to the discussion after the first 48 hours were on a huge keep trend. The vast majority of editors on wikipedia don't frequent AfD that regularly. Kudos to Coren for putting an end to an MfD that should have never been made.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  You've just contradicted yourself, Milowent - if it was "an MfD that should have never been made", then it should have been a snow Keep - "no consensus" should never even have been an option if the MfD should not have been made. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see how that's a contradiction; that something may not have been producive or wise to make doesn't mean that those who made it did not do so in good faith. I see you're jumping on TDA above saying he's simply trying to discount those who disagree with him; isn't that exactly what you're saying now? — Coren ^(talk) 18:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  Firstly, Milowent did *not* say it "may not have been productive or wise", the claim was that it was "an MfD that should have never been made" - please do not distort what people are saying, and please stick to discussing what people actually *are* saying. And secondly, no, I am not remotely suggesting that people who disagree with me should have less say - TDA explicitly claimed that ARS members should have less say, and I explicitly said that all should have equal say - open your fucking eyes and read my words! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Boing, yes, it should have never been made. It wasn't a "snow keep" because rationality doesn't always reign on wikipedia. My personal opinion is not meant to denigrate the nominator's good faith.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's all just a matter of trying to read more into "no consensus" than there is. "No consensus" doesn't mean "we keep it, but it's weaker than keep" it means there is no way to reach a consensus on the matter. I.e.: general agreement. It also happens that, in basically every case, we simply don't delete pages unless there is consensus to do so. There isn't. The page is not deleted. Why in blazes is it important if the close was done because I chose to note the lack of consensus rather than count the majority of commenters for keeping? It's not a vote, remember? It's a discussion. And it didn't reach consensus (and could not, given the entrenched positions). — Coren ^(talk) 18:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Had you responded thus when I first challenged you, I expect we could have quickly reached a practical and friendly (dis)agreement. But instead you chose to lie and say "The first thing I did at your initial objection was to reread the entire discussion to see if there was a trend I had overlooked" - you managed a proper reflection on all of that, including the time to write your response, in five minutes? You're either a genius or a liar! You then chose to attack me by accusing me of trying to discount the opinions of some contributors, when that was the exact opposite of my thrust - my position is that *all* members of the community should be treated equally, regardless of what project they may or may not be members of or what project they may or may not oppose. So this has turned, in my eyes, from a discussion of the ARS list to a discussion of abuse of power, yet again. At the very least, you should apologise for lying about having "reread the entire discussion", and for having accused me of doing what I am railing against. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC) modified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That... what? First of all, have you read my closing comments where I actually write explicitly that "there isn't going to be consensus regarding the list itself"?

Secondly, I am sorry if I misconstrued your position: it seemed to me that you were saying a snow keep was appropriate, and those are only reasonable when there can be no reasonable argument for deletion or the nomination was in bad faith – you can see why I'd see arguing for one to be arguing for the other.

Thirdly, I obviously will not apologize for "lying" when I have, in fact, not lied. If your criteria for "genius" is the simple ability to revisit a discussion one had already examined in detail minutes earlier, then I suppose I am one – but your bar is low indeed. — Coren ^(talk) 18:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I accept your apology for having misconstrued my position, and I accept that "snow keep" was an exaggeration (though it was only a hypothetical response had Milowent's "an MfD that should have never been made" claim been accurate) - though I really do see it is a clear "Keep". But I'm sorry that I cannot accept that you genuinely reread and reconsidered the discussion and properly considered my challenge, and replied, in just 5 minutes (and no, I don't think you are a genius any more than I am - that was sarcasm). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC) (Updated)-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have. And while I was waiting for a response from you I succumbed to curiosity and reread the entire discussion (threaded commentary and all) whilst timing myself. It took me just a hair under six minutes (although my first read obviously was much longer given I followed diffs and refs).

I'm guessing the quick reread I did skimming over the threaded responses must have taken under three; reconsidering my position ("No, the numbers aren't telling given the rethoric, the positions are entrenched and no consensus is possible") after having reviewed the comments certainly took not much longer than typing the response did – I tend to formulate my thoughts as I type, and it often shows with broken grammar as I rejigger statements midstream.

I may be known for a number of flaws, but lying is not amongst them. If I told you I have sincerely reevaluated my assessment it's because I did, and if I did not alter it it's not because I dismissed your objection, but because I disagreed with it. — Coren ^(talk) 19:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That really comes across to me like a rather arrogant "I'd already decided that people who might disagree with me are wrong, before they even speak", and your response was a very long way from what I'd expect from someone in authority here. Also, I hope you appreciate that I let you away lightly with your accusation that I claimed it should have been a snow keep - you are welcome to reread the discussion and see it was only conditional on Milowent's claim that it was "an MfD that should have never been made". Anyway, the issue is moot in practice - I'm just disappointed by what I see as your authoritarian response, which I see as one of Wikipedia's problems at the moment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: It's late where I am, and I'm off to bed - goodnight. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I had responded to that as you were editing it. Yes, I realized when you pointed it out that the snow keep bit was an hypothetical; that's why I apologized for having misconstrued your position. I obviously had not properly understood it as such when I wrote my original response to it.

Good night to you, then. — Coren ^(talk) 19:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

Coren, I want to apologise for over-reacting in my disagreement with your MfD close, above - I do still disagree with you, but my forcefulness was neither justified nor respectful. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries, Boing. Loosing one's temper happens to everyone now and then[1]. — Coren ^(talk) 14:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

super vote

You seem to ignored consensus of those participating in an AFD and cast a super vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Albannach. Warden found and added two references to the article, and two other editors said that was enough to pass the notability guidelines. It should've been closed as no consensus, not delete. You aren't there to judge the references, but instead to judge consensus of what others think of them. The rules are quite clear on this. Dream Focus 22:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are quite clear: Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. — Coren ^(talk) 23:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and policy gives you the ability (as closing admin) to say "X is rational" or "X is irrational". It doesn't let you go "X isn't a reliable source"; that's effectively the insertion of a new argument, which is an action for !voters, not closers. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)