User talk:Mdann52

to-do

Ongoing jobs: Keep WP:SPER backlog down Monitor Special:PendingChanges Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified Title Status User Time User Time User Time Talk:Robert (doll)#Suggested_Lead_Edit_v4 Closed Gabriellemcnell (t) 2 days, 12 hours Kovcszaln6 (t) 1 days, 20 hours Kovcszaln6 (t) 1 days, 20 hours Sales data dispute on Chris Brown article In Progress Instantwatym (t) 2 days, 9 hours Robert McClenon (t) 16 hours Robert McClenon (t) 16 hours Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV New Avi8tor (t) 16 hours Robert McClenon (t) 10 hours Robert McClenon (t) 10 hours Australia-China relations New MatthewDalhousie (t) 58 minutes None n/a MatthewDalhousie (t) 58 minutes If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options. Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 06:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC Close

!vote, but I object to baselessly dismissing a 2-to-1 result as "no consensus". Alsee (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Baselessly? Are you kidding? If you think they was any kind of consensus, then you need to read it more carefully. I absolutely endorse the no consensus close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy, If someone goes ahead and makes the edit, are you going to support that there is no consensus to revert it? Alsee (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Alsee: if you feel my close is inappropriate, feel free to raise it at WP:AN. However, let me explain the rational a bit further. I close discussions per this policy, and because of this, I consider the arguements presented; Not just vote count. Consensus on Wikipedia is not judged just on vote counts. Also, 2-1 results at WP:RfA have been closed as no consensus before; Before a major software change, we really need 70% or more support. I also took the statement from the WMF into account in the close, but gave it less weight in my decision then the communities votes when I closed the discussion. Of course, if you want further explination, feel free to come back, but as the RfC's author, it would probably be inappropriate for you to revert the close (I would not if I had started a RfC). --Mdann52talk to me! 07:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you consider the arguments presented in the original RfC? This RfC was basically asking, "Do you still agree with that?" Two to one, the answer was yes. --2601:9:3D00:93B:1D24:C6F0:6B9F:A8AC (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To a degree, yes. However, most of the arguments presented in this RfC and the previous one are identical on both sides, so I gave the more recent RfC more weight, especially considering the changes made since the original discussion. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I note your invitation to go to WP:AN, but I'd rather deal with this amicably. The policy you cited is exactly what I was referring to. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. He or she is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, he or she is expected to decide according to the consensus. The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument. There is no indication that vast numbers of support arguments should be discarded. Responsible Wikipedians considered the issues. Considered the WMF statement. Considered the changes that were made in Media Viewer and promised future changes. Debated. Two thirds (a very predominant 2-to-1) reached a clear conclusion on the issue. I do not think "no consensus" is an accurate summary of a clear outcome. Alsee (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No consenses != clear conclusion. A major change in software, be it enabling or disabling, needs a clear consensus, which is usually judged as 70%+ approval. I have not disregarded the majority of keep votes - I give weight to arguments, so everything is considered, however those repeating arguments (ie. per X, y and z), or stating rational, get less weight than the original point, although I still considered them. Until we can get wider participation in this sort of debate, in any case, consensus will always be hard to judge, but that is another kettle of fish entirely. In this case, I read the whole discussion, and my overall judgement was no consensus. I have self reviewed that since you came here, and my decision has not since changed. I've asked a couple of uninvolved (or as uninvolved as you can get anyway) editors to take a look at this on IRC, and they broadly agree with me about the close. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's probably also noting the consensus is not to implement this at this time; This should not detract from the previous discussion. The only consensus here is not to implement at this time. I can clarify this if you wish. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If you disregarded people repeating arguments ("per X, y and z"), did you also disregard repeating the argument that it should be kept "for the readers"? --2601:9:3D00:93B:BC2D:FB48:4363:7A9A (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

yes, I gave that less weight as it went on. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a long time writing and re-writing this. Chuckle. The issue is that you did not close on question that was asked and debated at RfC.

Before the RfC the community had in hand an uncontested RfC with a staggering 93% support to set Media Viewer to opt-in for logged in users, and overwhelming 83% support to set it opt-in for logged out users. Implementing that RfC was diverted when the WMF instituted Superprotect, retracted Superprotect with a message from the WMF director returning javascript control to the community and requesting that the community work together with us before making changes to site-wide JavaScript, and instituted a Community Consultation Process.

The community was no longer concerned with the question of whether there was a consensus for Media Viewer opt-in or opt-out. (The question you closed on). The dilemma the community needed to resolve was what to do when the community had in hand a resolved and overwhelming RfC, and what to do with it after the WMF first blocked then apologized and then returned control to the community with a request to work together before making changes.

The question at RfC was Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC (with question 2 being to work with the WMF before implementing the previous RfC). The brief preamble specifically cited Superprotect and Media Viewer Consultation as critical background to consider, in case anyone was unaware of the conflict. "Reaffirming" the previous RfC was specifically so that people could Oppose to avoid conflict with the WMF (even if they Supported the original RfC), so that people could Support in order to demand respect for a standing community consensus on the issue despite risk of conflict with the WMF (even if they Opposed the original RfC), so that people could consider the Media Viewer Consultation outcome to have invalidated the previous RfC, or any other relevant concerns in a complex and highly charged situation. And yes, it left people free to Affirm or Reject the previous RfC for the same pro/con Media Viewer reasons that established the first RfC.

Huge numbers of responses clearly did not view the RfC as re-litigating the case but as holding to the original outcome, and/or giving arguments wholly or partially directed to whether the original outcome continues to stand as valid, and/or the issue of community-WMF conflict. If you're not seeing that in the responses then I am willing to point out samples or go over them systematically. The community had a clear consensus that the original RfC stands as valid and that the original RfC should be held to even at the risk of WMF disapproval. The question two responses were slim, but they support trying to work with the WMF before implementing the original RfC. Alsee (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've posted a hint to the RfC on the MV/About page in MediaWiki. This strange closure is imho against the communities, not at all as forceful as the extremely hostile actions by the WMF against the communities in enWP and deWP show their utter contempt towards the community, but not warranted. edit by ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 11:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC) you're right, Alsee

♫ Sänger, I initiated the latest RfC so you know I'm not your enemy. The closer is not part of the WMF, he's just a editor who happens to view Media Viewer as beneficial. I would like to make an effort at positive discussion with him. As a favor, I request you remove your hostile comment here. If you do remove your comment then I request that you remove this comment (mine) at the same time. Alsee (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Alsee and ♫ Sänger, this editor User:Mdann52's incredible decision to ignore clear consensus and claim none exists as pretense for closing the RfC in manner seen could be interpreted by a reasonable person assuming good faith as a sign of astonishing incompetence, or something else entirely. It leaves one gob-smacked, because, despite this user's farcical claims otherwise, "The community had a clear consensus that the original RfC stands as valid and that the original RfC should be held to even at the risk of WMF disapproval." JDanek007^Talk 22:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann I came here and tried to discuss this with you constructively, like we're supposed to. I even defended you when someone jumped in angrily. I requested that he remove his hostile comment as a favor to me, because I wanted to promote a positive constructive atmosphere between us. I find your latest behavior to be unacceptably rude. We were engaged in dialog and you obviously knew I was expecting a response to my last post. If you considered my last comment unworthy of discussion, that's fine. But a minimum I believe it warranted a note informing me you were done. For several days I was patiently and actively checking in here looking for your response, and you wasted my time. You simply ceased responding to me or anyone else. You clearly have no interest in further discussion. To avoid wasting any more of my time I am accepting you invitation to move this discussion to WP:AN. I am going to take some time drafting and improving my request for review on your close. I'm more concerned with making a high quality review request than a hasty review request. I will notify you when the request is submitted. Alsee (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

When I have hostile comments made towards me, I think its more than fair to disengage. Last time this happened, any responded I made were turned against me, so I decided disengaging would be the best way to stop this escalating. Just to clarify, I have no plans to revert or radically change my close. In any case, I've spoken to someone in the WMF since, and was told whatever happened with MV, they stand by their previous statements that MV is here to stay. I'm not saying continuing this is a waste of time, but nothing useful is likely to cone from this, and risks causing more drama than it's worth. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of hostile comments? Alsee (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Did I ever say you were making hostile comments? Per your own admission, there was one further up this thread, so I'm trying to disengage to prevent any more. You might be wise to do the same; the WMF has made it clear that disabling MW is not an option, so persuing this further is just going to cause a lot of drama with no possible outcome apart from the status quo. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't an accusation, I was considering if I had missed something. I was thinking that if I had made hostile comments then it would be fair for you to disengage with me. If someone else makes hostile comments then I do not feel it was fair to disengage-me-without-notice. It helps that I now understand why you disengaged, but I shouldn't have taken collateral damage. Alsee (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

NOTICE: I have completed my review request and submitted it at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Media_Viewer_RfC

I am genuinely curious what you think of my reasoning. I regret that we were unable to get a full discussion going, Sänger was rather unhelpful. I would like to aim for a discussion or disagreement at WP:AN, rather than a battle. Alsee (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-46

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

• You may see a new tool on the mobile site of the English Wikipedia. It asks simple questions to make the article better. In the future, your answers will go to Wikidata. [1] [2]
• The MediaWiki API now shows information in a nice format. You can translate it in translatewiki.net. [3]

File information cleanup

• Reminder: You can help fix file information on your wiki. It will help robots understand the information. After that, it will be easier for you to search files and re-use them.
• You can join two IRC chats this week to learn more about the file cleanup project. One will be on Wednesday at 18:00 (UTC) and the other on Thursday at 04:00 (UTC). You can ask questions during the chat if you need help to fix files on your wiki.
• You can see a list of files to fix on the Labs tool. You can report bugs and ask questions on the talk page.

Problems

• Wikimedia Labs was broken for a few hours on Thursday. It was due to a hardware problem. [4]

Software changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf7) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since November 5. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from November 11, and on all Wikipedias from November 12 (calendar).
• You can now use more editing tools for tables in VisualEditor. You can add rows and columns, merge cells, and edit table captions. [5] [6]
• The style and insert menus in the toolbar of VisualEditor now show fewer tools. This helps you see the most common tasks. You can see all items by clicking "More". [7]
• The way windows inside VisualEditor work has changed. VisualEditor should be faster and have fewer bugs. [8]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Lixxx235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Also, 'grats on your nomination to the MedCom. Also, seeing as I'm already here, note that I replied to your note on my talk page.

Hello, Mdann52. You have new messages at Lixxx235's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy editing, Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 20:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mdann52 Hi, I have sent you a message a while ago regarding my draft EU research and innovation for the environment I am lost on how to procede and make it better for publishing, could you please advise?

Best, Monica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniamo (talk • contribs) 16:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

About Welcome tag

Thank U ! sir for your help.  :-) --aDHi..Talk 16:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification

User:Mdann52 Please consider this formal notification per Wikipedia guidelines that I am requesting that you cease and desist with your inaccurate edits to RightScale.Angelatripp (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Angelatripp, consider this a notification that Mdann52 is acting well within his rights to remove copyrighted material from Wikipedia, as it is against the rules to directly copy from other sites. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Primefac If you are implying that I have have infringed upon a copyright, please cite verifiable evidence to support your claim so that I can correct alleged issues or kindly cease and desist with unfounded remarks. Sincerely, User:Angelatripp (talk 13:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Angelatripp, kindly look at this page (the last instance of the page before Mdann52 removed the text), which shows the article contained a fair amount of text (highlighted for convenience) that was directly copied. When you redo the check with the current version of the page (after Mdann52 removed the copyvio) you'll see the highlighted text is only 2-3 word phrases (which can't be simplified any further). You are more than welcome to re-add the text Mdann52 removed, provided you write it yourself and don't directly copy from other sites. Primefac (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

GG

You were reverted. Also noted at the ANI thread you just closed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• The POV discussion is as recent as today and it took me less than a minute to find it. Note that the talk page is archived at a 1 to 2 day interval and all topics are active within a day. The tag was not within the pervue of ANI, rather WP:DR is the policy that governs content. That policy states there are specific avenues for disputes and ANI is not one of them. --DHeyward (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Whether or not it was the "right venue" is irrelevant. A wider consensus has emerged, and with no real fixes in a month, it seems the tag is not doing it's job. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that the tag hasn't driven consensus but it also hasn't solved the POV dispute that still obviously exists. Removing the tag really just creates more drama. --DHeyward (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Drama is only created by those who wish to create drama. The tag is designed to bring attention to the issues; As the tag has been present for quite a while now, and the claims are still going back and forth, as an outside observer, the consensus and common sense approach is to remove it. It's like tagging an article for more references when none exist; It's kinder to either AfD it, or not bother tagging. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't edit the article and occasionally edit the talk page. You are correct that the tag isn't helping resolve the dispute. --DHeyward (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Again by the way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't see it in the edit summaries, my apologies for initially reverting you, Mdann52. starship.paint ~ regal 09:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As I have not got any notifications of you reverting me, I guess I didn't even notice.... --Mdann52talk to me! 11:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a note and say thank you. I have tried to point out to these people, many times, that the removal of the tag does NOT mean that all discussion on POV issues on the talk page cease. I expect we will still discuss those matters, as dozens of editors on dozens of hot-button article talk pages do every day. All the tag removal means is that the initial "there are POV issues so serious that we must get more input immediately" phase is over; 5 weeks was enough. Thanks again. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As I have said on other issues in the past, sometimes the easiest way to resolve these issues is to ban one or two people from the article; I think this would help quieten cases such as this down a lot quicker. Anyway, let's see how this goes; the full protection will give some time for discussion, but unless new points are brought up, I believe this may go on for a long time yet.... --Mdann52talk to me! 13:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think your edit to WP:ANI was what you meant to do. — Strongjam (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you please explain to me by how you are defining consensus? That thread had a majority of users, including uninvolved users such as myself, favoring a keeping of the tag. I can understand a "policy trumps consensus" view, but I don't understand how that can be viewed as a consensus.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

For me, policy supported arguements are given more weight in determining consensus in cases such as this. Also, when evidence of a problem is lacking (ie. The point about the tag being there for ages without anything really being done) led me to believe there was no case for retention. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hatting reopened

Hi Mdann. I have reopened the section you hatted re disruptive editing at ANI. The last edit before your hatting was from an editor attempting to find information he had been asked for by others. He said " I will find the exact link where the admin said he felt threatened. Give me a minute please.". When he returned he found himself shut out. He surely has the right to provide the information and present it with the request it refers to. Moriori (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Your wine enthusiast image switch

Hello Mdann52. I don't particularly understand why you would upload an image [9] with dubious licensing template and otherwise incorrect information and replace a preexisting one [10] with the meaningless rationale "photosubmission", orphaning the original image and go through the process of nominating it for speedy deletion, unless you were really offended by the existing image, but that seems a stretch. I can gather no motivation to revert this set of edits and hold you to provide justification for them which would have been appropriate, I'll only suggest that maybe in the future you might seek to spend your time on more constructive edits. deMURGH ^talk 21:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Murgh: The copyright holder requested the file was uploaded via the WP:OTRS, so as it was the "photo submissions" address, I tagged it as such. Normally, I link back to the ticket, however I seem to have not done so in this instance, but I will do so now. --Mdann52talk to me! 21:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

All right. Thank you for the expanded rationale. deMURGH ^talk 13:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

RFCU RFC closure

Please revert yourself. There is no need to snow-close the discussion early over objections about early closure and you certainly should not be edit warring to reinstate your early closure where reasonable objections exist over the same. Snow closure is not appropriate here. –xeno^talk 15:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, it seems pointless to let a discussion run for 30 days when the outcome is clear after 11. The discussion after the !vote (which seems to be far more constructive) is still going, so that will hopefully generate a result. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not pointless; RFCU has existed for nearly a decade, not every user will login every day, or every week, even every other week, and a full 30 days to discuss closing the venue is not an imposition. There is no need for a "snow" close, the community deserves a proper close, at the appropriate time. –xeno^talk 15:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why you, Xeno, determine what is "proper" and what isn't. RGloucester — ☎ 15:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't. The RFC procedure does. Imagine a user showing up in a few days to file an RFCU, finds the venue shuttered and their investigation reveals it was closed, inappropriately, in a rushed manner, out of process. They will feel disenfranchised. RFCs last 30 days for a reason and there is no need to short-circuit this important discussion, and certainly one shouldn't edit war over it when there are multiple good faith requests to let the process run the full allocated time. –xeno^talk 15:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to run an RfC for thirty days if consensus is clear after ten or so. "Process" is not the be all end all. Whether it was done "inappropriately" is not a matter for you to decide. We don't have "franchise" here, because we are not a democracy. Do what's good for the project as a whole, as a collective. RGloucester — ☎ 15:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but to be fair, the RfC/U process has existed for longer than you've been using your account (or longer than Mdann52 has been using his). It's an established process (even if it is not necessarily a good one or one which should have existed for long as it has) and has been listed as a step in the dispute resolution process as I mention below. There is simply no urgency to remove the procedure in the absence of the Village Pump discussion running its course. Contrary to your opinion, there are others who are waiting for some useful proposal to flow from the Village Pump discussion - and even if none arises, at least the full opportunity was given for any member of the Community to propose a more effective dispute resolution step (if any). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've undid your edit on the RfC/U page which attempted to mark it historical. Can you please allow the Village Pump discussion to run its course before it is closed? As for any potential new RfC/Us, those can run their course if in fact they are created. It has been a listed as a step in the dispute resolution process for a very long time (possibly too long in fact), but it is unjustified to prematurely mark it historical. The urgency simply does not exist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)