User talk:Seraphimblade: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:24, 13 October 2013

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Please read before posting

Post all new sections under a new header at the bottom of this page, not at random. If you make it clear you ignored these instructions by placing it elsewhere, I am likely to ignore your request in turn.

If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here, as fragmented discussions are confusing. I may or may not leave you a notice that I've responded on your talk page. If you specifically request that I do (or do not) give you such a notice when I respond, I'll honor that request. If I contact you on your talk page, I will watchlist it so that I can respond there. If you'd like to leave me a notice when you respond, it would be appreciated, and you'll probably receive a faster followup.
If you are an admin here to ask me about someone I blocked for vandalism or spamming/advertising, they've agreed to stop it, and you believe they intend to edit productively, go ahead and unblock them. If you still want my opinion please feel free to ask, but there's no obligation. For more complex cases I would appreciate a heads-up, but please go ahead with your best judgment if I don't seem to be online. I would appreciate it if you'd let me know after you do.
If you email me a question or request, and do not indicate why the matter is sensitive and must be handled privately (and such is not immediately obvious), I may ignore it or respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Talk pages are open to other editors to read, and so are the preferred method of communication for matters involving Wikipedia. If the matter you are speaking to me about is Wikipedia-related and would not violate anyone's privacy by being posted publicly, please use my talk page instead of email. This does not, of course, apply to editors who are blocked from editing, though I still may respond on your talk page rather than by return email.
If you are here to ask a question regarding deletion of any kind, please read this before asking, and ask only if you need further clarification or still disagree after reading. If you ask a question answered there, I'll just refer you to it anyway.
While I will generally leave any personal attacks or uncivil comments you may make about me here, that does not mean that I find them acceptable, nor that I will not seek action against attacks that are severe or persistent.
I reserve the right to remove, revert, or immediately archive any material on this page, but will do so only in extreme circumstances, generally that of personal attacks or outing attempts against others. I will only revision delete material on this page in accordance with the revision deletion policy, and will clearly denote the reason why.

Doncram

It seems none of the admins noticed my suggestion, but I think an indefinite NRHP topic ban is woefully inappropriate and excessive under the circumstances. The only real reason cited for the topic ban was the edit-warring over classification of articles and I noted that simply barring him from changing or adding such classifications would resolve that problem sufficiently. His contributions on the NRHP topic have been highly productive and there have been no compelling concerns raised about his content work in that area since the arbitration case. Please, consider changing it to the lighter alternative I suggested.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read and consider your statement. While I appreciate your effort to come up with a less restrictive alternative, many editors brought forth instances of Doncram behaving disruptively in ways other than the article classifications. So while the classifications were what immediately precipitated the AE request, they were not the only problem, and a narrow ban on article classifications would not stop the other types of behavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, would like to state my support for User:Doncram. He has been invaluable in the past on NRHPs and other geography and community articles in the Capital District, the place where I tend to spend the majority of my time with vandalism patrol. He has butted heads with a some editors, and I do know there is one editor who has, more than any other, tended to push his buttons and oppose anything he has tried to do. Doncram has always edited with good faith and in the vein of wanting to truly improve Wikipedia. An indefinite topic ban will not only hurt Wikipedia in the short and long term, it will allow those he has attempted to reign in to be allowed to do things that otherwise should not be, or at least those things should have a voice saying "no, think about". Yes, civility issues in doing so are a concern, but if we lose a dissenting voice, then that is terrible.Camelbinky (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand that Doncram's editing has not been uniformly bad. Editors who are constantly troublesome with very little redeeming quality don't generally wind up at ArbCom; they get summarily indeffed and no one cares enough to argue, or they're formally banned by the community with little fuss. The toughest questions are always when we have an editor who is doing good work but is also causing significant disruption. In Doncram's case, it was disruption enough to land at ArbCom and get the probation imposed. Since then, Doncram has been warned twice for inappropriate behavior, the last time specifically for personalizing disputes. At this point, I believe the best solution for everyone is that Doncram disengage from the area for some time. "Indefinite" doesn't mean forever, and hopefully at some point, Doncram will be able to return to that area without the friction that's there now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Seraphimblade,
I was looking at this decision and while I have no opinion about the result, I am always interested in the process. I checked and you are neither on the ARBCOM nor an ARBCOM clerk so can any Admin close an request for enforcement?
Just trying to understand how this place works. Thanks for any information you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liz: Yes. Arbitration enforcement is for cases where the ArbCom has already closed a case, and has delegated further enforcement to administrators, normally under discretionary sanctions. Any administrator may apply such sanctions where the ArbCom has authorized them; an AE filing isn't even a requirement, it's just a way to bring potential problems to the attention of admins. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Seraphimblade, this is exactly what I was wondering about. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AE

Hello Seraphimblade: I'd like to move beyond the Arbitration Enforcement and wondered if to begin with, would you reconsider your judgement on my case? Thanks for considering my suggestion.(olive (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

@Littleolive oil:: I would consider what you have to say, but I would need to know what you're requesting I change it to and why. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy off Wiki so its taken a while to get back to you. Apologies for the delay. I also wanted to give myself space and time to look at this AE again. Even with time, I still don't see reason for or understand a discretionary sanction, although I feel I made a couple of comments that indicated frustration. You did mention tendentious editing, but I walked away form every thread leaving the discussions even when I knew to do so would leave wrong content in an article. I'm afraid I don't know what "I didn't hear". If your comment was about the deletion of sourced content, the standard was set for all editors on the TM articles (below) when I moved one source and content to the talk page because I initially didn't see that the content was supported in the source.

From Will Beback:

Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational."

Deletions like this are disruptive and harmful to the content. Consider this an informal warning not to delete material peremptorily again. If there are repetitions I will request an official warning and enforcement. Will Beback talk 21:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is not the standard, I have no problem with that, but the standard has to be consistent for all editors. Maybe this is something the arbs should clarify.

At any rate, I wonder if you would consider taking another look at this AE, and lifting the sanction.Thanks for your consideration.(olive (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Ultimately, the ArbCom can't make policy, only enforce it. Only the community can make policy. The Arbs make their "principles" section to clarify their understanding of how policy stands at the time of the case and which policies are relevant to the case, but not to actually set it. That being said, being properly sourced is a necessary but not sufficient condition for material to be included in an article. Material must also be relevant, neutral, and given proper weight, for a few other requirements. In this case, the removal was not "peremptory", but was instead clearly based upon objections for reasons other than being unreferenced, and the removing editor was willing to provide those reasons. To then continue to focus on the material being referenced, rather than directly address the objections that were actually raised to it, is a type of I didn't hear that. Does that make things a bit clearer? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to reply, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you clarify what you are referring to here,"To then continue to focus on the material being referenced, rather than directly address the objections that were actually raised to it, ...(olive (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Let me give you a more general overview of the problems. As to your specific question, note that the ArbCom principle refers to peremptory removal of sourced material, which would generally indicate that the removing editor is unwilling to discuss the removal either beforehand or upon request. It is not an edict that "Thou shalt never remove a line having a source", which seems to be the attempt at use here: [1]. In this case, two editors above had clearly indicated why they believed removal justified, and that had nothing to do with the material being unreferenced. I'm not saying they were right, mind you, only that they had articulated a reason unrelated to the material having or not having references. At that point, if you disagree with their decision, the correct way forward would be to engage that objection directly, rather than referring to an arbitration principle that's at that point largely irrelevant. If you think they made the wrong call, just address their argument and directly state why you don't agree with it. What you're doing there raises significant concern of refusing to acknowledge what's actually said.

This also goes back to the concerns of casting aspersions. Here are some examples of what I mean by that:

Here was a veiled reference to BLP violations and also a reference to another editor as "unconscionable" by you ([2]). Accusation of a BLP violation is serious, and I took a careful look at this article and its edits to check for them during the enforcement case upon seeing that, but could not find any. I noticed that as far as I can see, this was never brought to the BLP noticeboard, or in any other way was the BLP violation you claimed to see addressed. This is concerning, as one would hope if you really did believe a BLP violation to be occurring, you would have at least asked for some more eyes on it. If you knew it wasn't a BLP violation but threw that out there anyway, you were accusing another editor of a serious policy violation without cause.
Here, you accuse IRWolfie of "threatening" when he made this edit [3]. There's no threat there. IRWolfie explains the reasoning behind why an edit was reverted quite calmly, as part of the normal BRD process, and offers to solicit more input if the other editor does not agree with that reasoning. The veiled threat is actually yours ("You are skating on the thinnest of ice.") [4].
Here, in the midst of a discussion with IRWolfie, where IRWolfie has clearly laid out the reasoning behind his editing, you claim that IRWolfie is refusing to discuss the matter: [5]. That is probably the best example of "I didn't hear you" that I could give here, but it's certainly a clear example of it.

When I reviewed what IRWolfie presented at the AE request, I saw a clear pattern where you would refuse to engage or even acknowledge what was actually said, and instead would respond by slinging an accusation of wrongdoing or a veiled threat of sanctions. This is not appropriate conduct or conducive to a calm discussion of what article content should be. I hope the examples clarify what the problems are? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with the way in which you have characterized those talk page discussions, I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me. Meantime, I will consider my other options. Thank you.(olive (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Random passing virtual hug

I read what you said on that proposal, and I'll just say that it made me very happy. Really, thank you for being lovely in so many ways. -— Isarra ༆ 18:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you, and backatya. :) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SAP HANA

Hello Serephimblade: I understand that you recently deleted this page due to article is inappropriate and useless, and may contain significant copyvio. But from my understanding, people already came in and deleted most of the violation areas. And I really did not see the content being useless, there is third party references as well as book references. Moreover, people are suggesting to keep the page just improve the content. I am just wondering if it is possible to take it back and work on the content, add a warning on top of the page asking people to help with the content instead of deleting the whole thing. Please let me know, thank you very much. 2A00:FE00:BFFE:2201:0:0:0:200 (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having been stubbified at AfD does not prohibit editing of the article—indeed, the idea is to do so when the consensus at AfD is that a subject may be appropriate for an article, but the article there is essentially unsalvageable. While my job in closing an AfD is to interpret the consensus of the discussion rather than going based upon my own call, I did go and take a look back at previous versions when you made your request. What I see there is junk and marketese, pretty clearly written by those who have a connection with the company or are paid by them. (See the previous "Market Position" and "Ecosystem" headings, themselves marketese buzzwords and filled with glossy brochure material, for one example.) At this point, better to start over. I hope the AfD will raise its profile enough to get some neutral editors involved and drive off the paid ones, but at this point there was just nothing salvageable in that text. The old references might be used to write an appropriate article, though, and the history is intact for anyone wanting to go back and view them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your quick respond and explanation. I understand what you are saying and I do agree the previous content is really bad full of marketese. Is there any way we can call some neutral editors to help the page? As a encyclopedia， and when everyone agree there is no notability issue here, we really should have more than one sentence here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.216 (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to look for more editors, you could try putting in a request at the WikiProject for databases. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you shine some light about how to put a request in that page? I went there and I am so confused about what I should do to put a request. Should I put it under New articles? Should I talk to the participants? And I am not really sure this is the right place since I glance through the Categories and assessment and I did not see anything familiar. thank you thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.145.89.204 (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

Can you make sure that this article get deleted? It have no references for almost 8 years, and it have only one external link. I'm more then sure that this article is a G11 violation.--Mishae (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've tagged them as such, and they'll get checked (I see one already has been deleted, and one is awaiting evaluation). When you speedy tag an article, they go into a queue that admins go through to evaluate. You don't have to directly let someone know, we'll see it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I letting you know in case if you will be one of the admins to review it (although I don't know if you are).--Mishae (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon enforcement

As I read Sandstein's most recent comment to that page, prior to yours, I don't think it's the case that he sees the appeal as non-actionable. He remarks "we can process it as an appeal." Perhaps you did not read that the same way, but I think a close based on standing, etc. would at least have opposition, though it may represent a majority opinion. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Op-ed: Commons medical diagnostic images under threat from unresolved ownership

Discussion report: References to individuals and groups, merging wikiprojects, portals on the Main page, and more

News and notes: WMF signals new grantmaking priorities

Featured content: Bobby, Ben, Roger and a fantasia

Arbitration report: Infoboxes: After the war

WikiProject report: U2 Too

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Traffic report: Shutdown shenanigans

WikiProject report: Australian Roads

Featured content: Under the sea

News and notes: Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed

In the media: College credit for editing Wikipedia

Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute and Ebionites 3 cases continue; third arbitrator resigns

Disruptive editing

You know very well that the first step before taking an editor to a noticeboard is to have a discussion with them. Just because you dislike somebody does not give you a free pass to skip that step. It is also wrong to accuse people without evidence. Your ban proposal is thin on diffs, and heavy on rhetoric. Would you please stop and have a think about this before proceeding? Jehochman ^Talk 01:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was already discussed with them in several venues, see the diffs I provided for exactly where that happened. They indicated clearly there that they have that position and do not intend to change it. The requirement is that discussion be had with them, not that I personally start another one when they've made it clear their position won't change. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't address your second point. I guess I'm not sure how it's "thin on evidence" when it contains several references to the editor in question's own words, explicitly stating they'll treat one of our guidelines with disregard and contempt. I provided diffs to those statements. Having made those statements, and presumably engaging in the behavior they clearly admit to, is exactly the problematic behavior I'm seeking resolution for. What else exactly do you want? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI is a guideline, much disputed, not a policy. You cannot ban someone for COI alone. It may be considered an aggravating factor if they are violating content policies. You provided no evidence whatsoever that any content policy was violated. You provided no evidence of sock puppetry either. Jehochman ^Talk 12:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, unilaterally, can't ban anyone at all. I can block them on my own authority in clear cases, like repeat vandalism or clear sockpuppetry, but that's not a ban. However, I can bring disruptive behavior to the attention of the wider community. If there is community consensus that this behavior is unacceptable and a ban is warranted, the community as a whole most certainly does have the authority to do that, for any reason whatsoever. And "guideline" doesn't mean "ignore it at will", it means "You should be doing this in almost all cases." If someone announced that they, for example, intended to ignore the notability guideline and create a bunch of inappropriate articles, they may be blocked or banned as a preventative measure, because they've stated they intend to disregard that guideline and act in a way we've stated is inappropriate. If this editor thinks the guideline is wrong, they have every right to visit VPP or the COI talk page and argue in favor of changing or removing it. They don't get to just unilaterally ignore it, though, that's point making. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tonyukuk_Monument_in_Old_Turkic_Alphabet.jpg

Dear admin Seraphimblade, I have been uploading this image on the title 2-3 times

each time it gets nominated for deletion based on false Copyright issues by this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yerevanci

I kept telling him this is my own work and do not delete it, he keeps deleting it.. then I noticed he is Armenian which led me to believe he has bias on this topic due to history.

here is my proof of raw image, that image is mine, please do not keep deleting it.. http://orhunyazitlari.appspot.com/media/tonyukuk5.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tonyukuk_Monument_in_Old_Turkic_Alphabet.jpg