Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
| Line 203: | Line 203: | ||
Just a side note, really searching for smartphone not related, or minimal link to China or Chinese Company, trying to avoid to any extent, can someone else give a hint [[Special:Contributions/183.178.222.138|183.178.222.138]] ([[User talk:183.178.222.138|talk]]) 18:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC) |
Just a side note, really searching for smartphone not related, or minimal link to China or Chinese Company, trying to avoid to any extent, can someone else give a hint [[Special:Contributions/183.178.222.138|183.178.222.138]] ([[User talk:183.178.222.138|talk]]) 18:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC) |
||
Even if you really because of the notability reason, after some research, It seems that he should include the link [[WP:CORP]] in the reason. a guideline means a thousand words. or we expected that everyone is an "expert" and this is an "expert only community do not welcome newcomers" [[Special:Contributions/183.178.222.138|183.178.222.138]] ([[User talk:183.178.222.138|talk]]) 18:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:58, 26 January 2015
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
|---|
|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
ANI thread concerning Yasuke
(Initiated 68 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 16 days ago on 22 August 2024) It doesn't appear as though consensus is going to emerge for anything in this discussion that's been going for 2 weeks. Can an admin please close this. TarnishedPathtalk 11:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 10 days ago on 28 August 2024) Opinions vary; a summary of consensus (if any) as to whether there is involvement, and if so the scope, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm willing to close this, but will wait a few days to see if Shushugah's new proposals go anywhere. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
RFA2024, Phase II discussions
Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:
- (Initiated 129 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
- (Initiated 126 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
- (Initiated 126 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA
Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it.
—Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it.
- Poking this again - we definitely need someone uninvolved to take a look at this and figure out the most appropriate path forward. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 97 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 77 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?
(Initiated 63 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 62 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 55 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- +1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 53 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 50 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPathtalk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 45 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 42 days ago on 27 July 2024) – This discussion is a month old and consensus is very clear. Could an uninvolved editor please summarize and close it so that the foot-draggers will finally let the article be updated? 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 33 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPathtalk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 29 days ago on 10 August 2024) Another infobox image RFC winding down. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 27 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPathtalk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 22 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 24 |
| TfD | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 65 | 0 | 65 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 72 days ago on 28 June 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 58 days ago on 11 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 57 days ago on 13 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 50 days ago on 20 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 47 days ago on 23 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 38 days ago on 1 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 29 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 24 days ago on 15 August 2024) Several discussion need closing on the currently oldest active RfD daily subpage. Experienced discussion closers are invited to help with the backlog of discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 20 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 19 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 19 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 323 days ago on 21 October 2023) a merge discussion related to Antisemitism in the United States and Antisemitism in the United States in the 21st century now without comments for 4 weeks; requestion a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 169 days ago on 23 March 2024) This discussion died down, unclear what the consensus is. (uninvolved editor) The Banner talk 10:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 125 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 103 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 101 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 92 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 70 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 62 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 52 days ago on 18 July 2024) – I'm requesting that the discusion reguarding the merger being being discussed be closed so that the pages may be merged as the proposed merger is unlikely to controversial.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done. There seems to be a lot of cursory support and little discussion, which doesn't make for a good formal closure. I would encourage you to just be bold and do it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 29 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 27 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 13 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Harrasment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently, I am being threatened with blocking without any explanation by several users (i.e. Psychonaut and DGG). Both of them accused me vandalism and when I requested an explanation from them they chose not to respond. What is the deal with users throwing threats like that? If I am not mistaken, DGG is one of administrators. I need an advice on the issue or may be mediation. It seems that the mentioned users have some personal issues with me and refuse to communicate with civilly. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG. It's pretty easy to see what is really going on here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I do not understand. Are implying that I initiate an "edit war"? Well, thanks for your big help. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Aleksandr, you appear to be pushing a nationalist point of view with disregard for WP:ARBEE in the most disruptive way possible - by nominating articles you disagree with for CSD under the criteria "made up". For someone with 59k edits, I'd expect you to be aware of WP:ARBEE by now and to know how to edit neutrally. Your use of quotes around "edit war" suggests that you're intentionally wasting our time and playing dumb. Woosh woosh woosh.--v/r - TP 23:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I do not understand. Are implying that I initiate an "edit war"? Well, thanks for your big help. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I never threatened this user with blocking, and I never characterized his edits as vandalism. DGG and I (completely independently of one another) have repeatedly explained the problems with his edits, either directly to him or in discussions in which he was participating. In particular, I remarked that he is using spurious grounds to remove information about groups he disagrees with, and that he is violating WP:BLP by tagging their members as criminals and terrorists without providing any sources ([1] [2] [3] [4]). I suggest that he be formally warned per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions. Unless he continues the disruption, I don't believe he should be blocked or topic-banned. He is keenly aware of and can identify POV issues in this topic area, but needs to learn that the mere presence of a POV in an article is not the same thing as it failing WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT, etc. Whenever practical, POVs should be fixed via editing, not wholesale blanking or deletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Psychonaut did not threaten me with blocking, but accused me in providing bogus arguments soon after I was accused in disruptive editing and possibly to be blocked. At that time I did not know what to think. Priviously, after some changes of Psychonaut to an article I introduced additional information (here), which I guess Psychonaut missed. Nonetheless, I was puzzled how exactly my edits were "bogus" when I followed on the subject and provided supporting references. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is more like miscommunication between Psychonaut and I. I guess the issue could be qualified as resolved. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I apologize to Psychonaut in my accusations about threats. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is more like miscommunication between Psychonaut and I. I guess the issue could be qualified as resolved. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Psychonaut did not threaten me with blocking, but accused me in providing bogus arguments soon after I was accused in disruptive editing and possibly to be blocked. At that time I did not know what to think. Priviously, after some changes of Psychonaut to an article I introduced additional information (here), which I guess Psychonaut missed. Nonetheless, I was puzzled how exactly my edits were "bogus" when I followed on the subject and provided supporting references. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- For more information, see User talk:Aleksandr Grigoryev#WP:AN notifications. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Severe backlog at WP:ANRFC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FYI, there is a severe backlog at WP:ANRFC, with over seven dozen sections that need to be addressed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion of Reasons for Backlog
- There would almost never be a "severe backlog" at ANRFC if a couple of individuals (non-admins) hadn't decided that about 90% of all RFCs "needed" to be listed there, regardless of the views of the people actually involved in the RFC. I asked them a few months ago to actually ask participants if a formal close was wanted (WP:RFC directly says that a majority of RFCs should not be formally closed), and they refused on the grounds that identifying and respecting the wishes of the participants in a discussion was "too bureaucratic". I disengaged when every comment there made me start thinking about hat-collecting and résumé stuffing for RFA. "I spent last year writing completely unnecessary closing statements for 500 RFCs!" could become the new version of "I've created Featured Portals!".
- On a related note, if someone could change the "Skip to TOC" link to become a "Skip past the needlessly bloated RFC list" and get to the actual AN board", then I'd certainly use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I'd argue there wouldn't be such a backlog if some of us non-admins hadn't been told in the discussion on the talk page that "only admins should close anything that will require administrative tools to finalize". I'll note that there were a couple three of us working through everything listed and "keeping the red at away" there and most of us have stopped pending the closing of WT:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. From where I'm standing as a non-admin, asking an admin to delete a page is no different than asking an admin to move a page that isn't a simple move or move-over-redirect. —
{{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)20:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)- I agree that it's very annoying to be told not to do things that you're competent at, although specifically for deleting a page, your work might not actually save the admin any time (as s/he would feel obliged to review the discussions thoroughly anyway). However closes that might require admin tools appear to account for just 14% of the current list. That should leave non-admins with plenty of work (or make-work) if they want to do it.
Perhaps we need some sort of WP:DYK-style quid pro quo rule: if you aren't involved in the discussion, then you can only list one discussion per month at ANRFC "for free", and after that, you can only list as many as you've personally closed that month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that it's very annoying to be told not to do things that you're competent at, although specifically for deleting a page, your work might not actually save the admin any time (as s/he would feel obliged to review the discussions thoroughly anyway). However closes that might require admin tools appear to account for just 14% of the current list. That should leave non-admins with plenty of work (or make-work) if they want to do it.
- I have to agree that said baclog contains numerous discussions that do not require a formal close and/or do not require admin involvement. I closed a few the other day and was found that many of them are minor content disputes where consensus is exceedingly obvious. Why do we need to jam up this noticeboard with that sort of thing. Perhaps an RFC on ANRFC is in order to establish better guidelines for what should and should not be posted there, them we can add to the backlog when that needs a closer... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, I understand that 14% isn't much. My personal experience is this:
- I was working through a backlog of RfD requests that the "normal" closer felt too involved to close.
- Many of which were clear cut "no brainer" discussions that had strong support one way or the other. (most, or all, of the !votes were for one side or the other or there was only an objection by the creator with no justifiable "reason" other than they were being defensive of their work).
- These were XfD discussions (which are suppose to be closed after seven days nominally with preferably less than three relists for a "21 day" discussion period) that had been sitting around for three or four months because there is apparently only one or two admins that close discussions at RfD.
- I was then told (or it felt like I was told) that non-admins are not competent enough to close any discussion which requires an admin to carry out the result despite there being a specific {{Db-xfd}} for this purpose.
- This made me feel unappreciated for the closes I had done, whether they required an admin to carry out or not, made me feel like I was incompetent, despite getting many thanks and few complaints about the discussions I had closed, and left me feeling bad for helping out in a place where there was an incredible backlog.
- People (including myself) don't appreciate being made to feel incompetent, unappreciated, and bad for doing good work and as a result no longer want to contribute to closing discussions until the issue that caused that bad feeling is resolved. In this case, it will be a matter of how that RfC is closed for me.
- Beeblebrox, I would love to be part of an ANRFC reform proposal. I'm guessing such a thing should probably wait at least a month or three before being proposed because I'm guessing people are a little burnt out on the topic because of the current NAC discussion.
- —
{{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)01:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)- Yeah, I've got phase two of the BASC reform RFC on my to-do list as well, so I won't be putting anything together anytime soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the answer is to subdivide the page. WP:ANRFC for things you need to be a sysop to close, and WP:EERFC ("Experienced editor requests for closure") for the content-page-discussion sort of things that may or may not need closing. (Necessary or not, it's no real effort to close them.) Scrolling could be reduced even further by having a link to ANRFC rather than a transclusion, if anyone's in serious danger of carpal tunnel.—S Marshall T/C 16:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- The page does say that requests for obvious closes shouldn't be listed (only ones where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implication). On the other hand, I find there are obvious requests listed quite often. In the end though, it would take more effort to discuss whether to close or to discuss why signed comments were deleted, than to just close them (which as you say requires no real effort). It might be the matter is moot since User:Nyttend has deleted a massive chunk of the requests, though I'm not convinced that completed requests should simply be deleted like here until it is agreed that an archive is unnecessary (given that completed requests have been archived to-date). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I can't find it now, but I recall objecting when the archiving first started. Why would we need an archive of requests to close discussions? We don't archive AIV, RFPP, UAA, etc, why this? If and when we do the proposed RFC this is something that should certainly be discussed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- We archive them? I had no idea that anything got archived. For a long time, I've removed items from the list once I've fulfilled them. I agree with Beeblebrox that there's no need to archive them. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well I'm personally not fussed as to which it is, but if we are going to enforce what's said on the page (which is fine), that goes for everyone. In the same way the page currently says that requests for obvious cases shouldn't be listed, the page also currently says completed requests are archived. Currently, neither is apparently being followed, so either the page needs to be properly changed to reflect the agreed position(s), or people need to properly follow what's said on the page; doing neither is unhelpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- AIV and UAA should not be archived because they are trouble user specific issues (so, kind of a special case like BLP). PERM is archived and RFPP is archived (kind of) all of the other AN boards are archived (AN ANI 3RR BON (current)). It makes sense that ANRFC would also be archived. —
{{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)18:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- AIV and UAA should not be archived because they are trouble user specific issues (so, kind of a special case like BLP). PERM is archived and RFPP is archived (kind of) all of the other AN boards are archived (AN ANI 3RR BON (current)). It makes sense that ANRFC would also be archived. —
- Well I'm personally not fussed as to which it is, but if we are going to enforce what's said on the page (which is fine), that goes for everyone. In the same way the page currently says that requests for obvious cases shouldn't be listed, the page also currently says completed requests are archived. Currently, neither is apparently being followed, so either the page needs to be properly changed to reflect the agreed position(s), or people need to properly follow what's said on the page; doing neither is unhelpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- We archive them? I had no idea that anything got archived. For a long time, I've removed items from the list once I've fulfilled them. I agree with Beeblebrox that there's no need to archive them. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I can't find it now, but I recall objecting when the archiving first started. Why would we need an archive of requests to close discussions? We don't archive AIV, RFPP, UAA, etc, why this? If and when we do the proposed RFC this is something that should certainly be discussed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with Nyttend's wholesale removal of the closure requests.
Three "consensus is clear" discussions; the discussions are forgotten and the consensus unimplemented
Here are three "consensus is clear" closure requests he removed:
- Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack/Archive 3#Request for comment on media section (initiated 2 December 2014).
The discussion has a clear consensus to remove or severely trim the media section. Yet, 22 days after the the bot removed the RfC template, the "Media coverage" section still is in the article at its bloated size.
- Talk:Elizabeth Warren#RfC: What should be in this article: a short summary of United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, or a longer version? (initiated 7 December 2014).
There is a clear consensus for the "short summary" of the election, but the "long summary" still is in the article 17 days after the bot removed the RfC template.
- Talk:SupremeSAT(Pvt.)#Proposed merge with SupremeSAT (initiated 9 December 2014).
The discussion has a clear consensus for a merge, but no merge has been done 15 days after the bot removed the RfC template.
Oftentimes, an experienced editor's RfC close provides the spark needed to get the consensus implemented. Or the close helps editors better frame the next discussion so that the dialogue doesn't just peter out.
Mariah Carey birth years discussion; a "consensus is clear" close is referenced 16 months later to enforce the consensus
Here is a "consensus is clear" closure request from September 2013: link. The consensus was already implemented. Mariah Carey's two possible birth years were added to the article. An admin wrote "no need for a formal close of this". I asked again for a close after someone reverted against consensus, and Armbrust (talk · contribs) closed it.
In January 2015 (16 months later), a new editor disputed the consensus version, saying only one year should be listed. Another editor responded with a link to the RfC, Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 9#Request for Comment: Birth Year. Had the RfC not been closed by an uninvolved editor, it would have been far more difficult to ensure the consensus is respected. "Read an uninvolved editor's summary of the RfC" is more likely to be heeded than "read this long, unclosed talk page discussion".
Of course something like this doesn't happen to all "consensus is clear" discussions. But it is impossible to distinguish between the two types because we cannot see into the future. It is impossible to determine whether the consensus will be overlooked or ignored in the future. And it is not worth the time to hazard a guess because as S Marshall noted above "Necessary or not, it's no real effort to close them" and as Ncmvocalist wrote, "it would take more effort to discuss whether to close or to discuss why signed comments were deleted".
Archiving
I support archiving of the noticeboard for transparency and easy reference. I've referenced discussions in ANRFC's archives before (in fact, I've done that just above about the Mariah Carey birth years discussion), as have other editors. And it allows editors to easily determine who requested a close rather than laboriously paging through ANRFC's history.
It takes no more effort to archive a discussion than to remove it. First, see an example here using the OneClickArchiver. Second, ClueBot automatically archives closed discussions (example from 21 January 2015). Since it is easy to maintain an archive, I don't see a pressing reason to remove it given the benefits of having one.
Recent backlog
The recent backlog is because I did not update the closure requests list for around four weeks. (I usually try to update it every two or three weeks.) In the past when a large number of requests has been added, the backlog has returned to a reasonable number within two weeks.
"Experienced editor requests for closure" noticeboard
S Marshall's idea for an "Experienced editor requests for closure" noticeboard is worth exploring. A concern I have is that a separate noticeboard will have less visibility and not improve the backlog.
- Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack/Archive 3#Request for comment on media section (initiated 2 December 2014).
- When I first started contributing to ANRFC, I asked Cunard
"C, is there a userscript available to make the technical component of closing these discussions easier? I know there are scripts for XfD discussions, and I'm wondering if you know if there is one available for this."
to which he replied,"I don't know of a userscript for closing these RfC discussion, sorry!"
As a result of this, on January 9, 2015, I created and started working on User:Technical 13/Scripts/Gadget-closeRfC.js. Currently, all the script does is sort the page based on a weighted value for how long each section has been waiting on a response. I decided to not develop the script any further than that pending the result of the NAC deletion discussion that has been closed with a final weighing of the result waiting on the result of the subsequent "Vandal Fighter" new usergroup discussion. Currently, using the script seems to interfere with using OneClickArchiver to archive sections, the TOC isn't sorted (but could probably just be hidden since the sections are all sorted and the goal would be to start at the top and work your way down), and the script doesn't "do" anything except sort. I'm hoping to add the ability to review and close discussions from ANRFC itself (opening the discussion being assessed in a new window/tab/or a moveable popup interface) and do so with less work (only have to click on close, select an outcome, and click save and it both properly closes the discussion and marks the ANRFC listing as done for you). If it turns out that NAC deletions are ultimately shot down, (which I'm not convinced there is consensus to do based on the multiple "I don't want to delete things based on non-admin closes so no-one else should be allowed to either" comments which add little weight to the consensus but is ultimately up to the closer, Dank, and anyone he recruites to help with the close if needed, to decide), then I would be happy to have the script make use of thesysop-showcss class that is available to hide things that don't concern non-administrators to hide those sections. This will in effect create a page where it appears as "Experienced editor requests for closure" to non-admins and ANRFC for things you need to be a sysop to close. The best part of this possible solution will be that both of those pages will be the same page. It would reduce fragmentation and give the maximum possible viewership possible without driving another wesge in between administrators and other editors. —{{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)01:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. This needs to not degenerate into an edit war. The restored list of requests should be left in place pending discussions in whatever venue, which are plainly called for. Formerip (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's no requirement WP:AN and WP:ANI threads have formal closures. If they go to archive without being acted on that should be a hint to the filing party / participants. Not a bureaucracy, remember? NE Ent 01:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Cunard, you requested an admin to look into a lot of items; your requests were handled by being rejected because there wasn't any need for formal closures for these. Please don't forumshop by adding new requests for lots of closures. Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your deletion of the requests was a no-tools affair, so your decision to delete has no special status over Cunard's decision to restore. BRD applies.
- Even if there's a problem with the number of requests appearing (I'll reserve judgement on that for now), I don't see how mass deletion is going to be an effective solution. Even in the unlikely event that Cunard had let it slide, we'd be back in the same position within a few weeks. Formerip (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's another approach: How about we re-org ANRFC, so that the difficult XFDs and closes that were requested by participants get listed in one section, and all discussions listed en masse by uninvolved editors are put in a separate section? Then the short list of (more urgent) ones could be transcluded here, and anyone who wanted to do routine closing could follow the full page separately. Would this satisfy the people who want to have formal closes written for almost everything, while controlling the effect that has on this page? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Benefits of Formal Closure
Some posters to the above section have said that the listing of all open RFCs is unnecessary and is itself the cause for the backlog of requests for closure. They have pointed to the policy on RFC closure, which says that often RFCs do not need formal closure, especially if consensus is clear. Other posters have said that, even in such cases, formal closure is useful. I agree that formal closure is useful even in (and sometimes especially in) cases where consensus "should" be obvious. Just because consensus "should" be obvious doesn't mean that it is obvious to everyone.
I have closed several RFCs where I thought that consensus was clear, but that required follow-up for either of two reasons. Either one of the posters ignored the consensus, in spite of the formal closure stating the consensus, or one of the posters objected to the close and requested that I re-open the RFC to allow them to insert a statement. When there was move-warring against consensus or edit-warring against consensus, formal closure put the enforcing administrator on firmer ground in enforcing consensus. Formal closure establishes what the consensus is, unless reviewed. Otherwise the resulting WP:ANI thread would itself have had to establish consensus before warning or blocking, causing drama on a drama board. In cases where I have been asked to re-open a closure, I have instead asked for closure review. Without closure and closure review, the most likely result would have been edit-warring.
I think that listing 30-day-old RFCs for closure is useful. Maybe the policy should be changed so as to encourage formal closure in seemingly non-contentious cases. (A case is only non-contentious if no one comes out of the woodwork to start contending.) Maybe there should be more encouragement for experienced non-administrators to close open RFCs rather than to treat them as not needing closure.
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- On the off chance that my semi-close yesterday concerning non-admin closures of deletion discussions is contributing to some of the drama today ... it shouldn't. I asked for more information on backlogs and offered to do what I could. I hope no one got the idea that I would just invent some remedy that wasn't already supported in the RfC, if the backlogs suddenly got bigger. I made the suggestion because I can see the possibility that some kind of recommendation might help, but I need the supporters to document what they see as the problem for me; there wasn't enough in the RfC to go on. (It might not be a bad idea to have an RfC some day that discusses how to close RfCs on user-rights, so that voters will know what closers are looking for.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think it is just coincidence, Dank. A couple of days ago, there was a large influx of new items to the request list and this prompted discussion. You can see from the timestamps that the mass removal actually happened before your close. Formerip (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's an ongoing issue, look at it right now, over 40 requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I believe this thread was started when there were over 90 requests, so it's certainly improved in a fairly short amount of time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's an ongoing issue, look at it right now, over 40 requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think it is just coincidence, Dank. A couple of days ago, there was a large influx of new items to the request list and this prompted discussion. You can see from the timestamps that the mass removal actually happened before your close. Formerip (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Robert, there are benefits to formal closures. If there were none, then (I hope) you wouldn't waste so much time writing them. There are also several serious disadvantages. The two that seem most salient to me are these:
- When you formally close something that doesn't obviously "need" closing, then you're indirectly telling the participants that you don't trust them to be able to figure it out and act on it. (Some discussions do require a formal close, including all XFDs.)
- When you formally close something, you are officially enshrining the result of one discussion as The Consensus™. Even if your closing statement is a perfect summary of that discussion, the very fact that you posted a formal closure makes it much harder for future editors to follow one of our most important policies, which is WP:Consensus can change.
- Overall, I support formal closures when the participants want them, not whenever one editor sits down to look over the entire list of dozens of RFCs that have happened during the last few weeks and see which talk pages have such "bad" editors that they didn't write something that looked like a formal closing statement before he got there. We've got someone listing about 90% (ninety percent!) of all RFCs that happen on the English Wikipedia. I support respecting the participants' wishes, which means actually finding out what their wishes are before posting a request for a closure.
- I specifically do not support requesting a formal closure as a mechanism of prodding people to implement the consensus. If someone's really worried that the consensus from some discussion hasn't yet resulted in the article being changed, then he should make those changes in the article itself. He should not post a link to an admin board to ask someone to write a summary of a discussion that might (he hopes) make some other editor finally edit the article; that means using at least three people's time (the editor listing it, the editor closing it, and the editor fixing the article) to do the work of only one (the editor fixing the article). If he really can't edit the articles themselves in these cases, then he could leave a note at the talk page and ask whether anyone wanted a formal closure, or even just leave a nice note that says, "It looks like everyone's agreeing with this, so does anyone want to implement it?" It's not that hard, and it would be more respectful, more efficient, and more consistent with our basic principles than the current approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with WhatamIdoing. In fact, I was not pleased with at least one of the requests for closure a while back as I was fairly sure closure was not actually sought, so I pinged the user who initiated the discussion and it turns out that was indeed the case (see this for more detail). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Review of the Closing for a WP:RFC for America: Imagine the World Without Her
I would like a review for this closing. [5] I just don't think it reflects consensus at all, but would like others to review it.Casprings (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's a fair close for the question "is Breitbart.com a reliable source for that [Ben Shapiro's] statement?" However, there doesn't seem to be consensus for actually including Shapiro's statement in the article, which is somewhat at odds with "...yes it's appropriate to include that source in the way that it's currently included in the article." in the RfC closing statement. The close does not address the issue of WP:DUEWEIGHT; It merely assesses the question of reliability. My Facebook page would be a reliable source for my opinion, but unless secondary sources took note, I doubt it would make its way into a Wikipedia article. By the way, I do not eat children. - MrX 00:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I read over the RfC, the close, and the previous talk page discussion S Marshall linked to in the close, and... it looks like a perfectly reasonable close to me. 28bytes (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't know enough to endorse or not endorse, but the close looks basically within discretion. I'd make two points, though. The question asked was narrower than appears to have been called for. I'll AGF, but note that this can sometimes indicate an RFC question that is not made in perfect good faith. If I had closed this, I would, therefore, have declined to reward the question with an answer about whether the material can or should be included in the article. I would probably have instead invited further discussion. There are pros and cons to this. My approach might end up prolonging the dispute. S Marshall's approach might risk interpreting answers to a very specific question too broadly (i.e. some editors may not have considered the wider issues, because they were not asked to). However, skimming the responses, I'm not sure this is actually the case. Secondly, the close appears to recognise that the source being discussed is controversial and should be attributed. I'm not very familiar with the source, so I make no judgement on this. However, being unfamiliar with the source, I'm not sure whether the words "writing for Breitbart.com" would alert me to whatever it is I need to be taking into account. Perhaps a brief characterisation of Breitbart is also needed, but this is not really mandated by the discussion. So, if I had closed this, the fact that there were issues with the source to which the discussion did not provide answers would have been a further reason for me to invite further discussion. I'm really offering these comments for S Marshall to consider and feel free to ignore - they should not be interpreted as an overturn vote. Like I said, it looks within discretion to me. Formerip (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just to say that I'm aware of this discussion. The disputed wording is the stable version, or at least was in the article at the time of the October 2014 RfC which considered it. This is also at RSN and DRN, by the way. I'm happy to be overturned if editors feel I've made a mistake here.—S Marshall T/C 01:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Opinions are always citable as opinions." So if I find a statement on anyone's facebook page that compares the president to a Nazi, I can now include it in Wikipedia articles so long as I attribute it to the facebook account? I didn't think WP was set up to just past everyone's opinions where ever you wanted so long as you attributed them.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- The key difference here is between verifiability (is there reason to be absolutely certain that this is person x's FB page) on one hand and notability and WEIGHT. Why should anyone care what person x's opinion on the president may be, and if we do find it notable, where should it be (it's more likely to belong on person x's bio than on the president's). Guettarda (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- The hypothetical assumes the facebook page belongs to the person who said it. But, you admit there are other WP policies that apply and the statement "Opinions are always citable as opinions." is not true or sufficient. For example, WP:ABOUTSELF says that self published sources, like facebook, can't make contentious claims about others and have a whole myriad of restrictions on their use. So do you agree that those policies apply to attributed opinions from a self-published source just like weight and notability?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say it's true, but not sufficient. And we should always prioritise secondary sources over primary ones. Guettarda (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- You say what's true? That "Opinions are always citable as opinions," or that other WP policies apply to attributed opinions as well? Please look at the policies and questions described and give a direct and succinct answer. If opinions are always citable as opinions, then there are no other policies relevant and any opinion can be cited so long as it's attributed. However, if other policies have to be met, like with the facebook "president=nazi" example, then opinions are NOT always citable as opinions and have to meet other WP standards.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say it's true, but not sufficient. And we should always prioritise secondary sources over primary ones. Guettarda (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- The hypothetical assumes the facebook page belongs to the person who said it. But, you admit there are other WP policies that apply and the statement "Opinions are always citable as opinions." is not true or sufficient. For example, WP:ABOUTSELF says that self published sources, like facebook, can't make contentious claims about others and have a whole myriad of restrictions on their use. So do you agree that those policies apply to attributed opinions from a self-published source just like weight and notability?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- (ec)Actually WP:BLP is the policy invoked when any notable source calls a living person a "Nazi" - and it is not the fact that it is an "opinion" in that event, and as noted Facebook is exceedingly rarely usable as a source for anything at all. For material salient to an article and allowed under policy, opinions are always citable as opinions, and are not allowed to be cited as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. In any event, the material does not impinge on WP:BLP in the manner some seemed to suggest, and the closure was certainly within normal discretionary limits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for reaffirming that there are WP policies that have to be met before citing an opinion.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- The key difference here is between verifiability (is there reason to be absolutely certain that this is person x's FB page) on one hand and notability and WEIGHT. Why should anyone care what person x's opinion on the president may be, and if we do find it notable, where should it be (it's more likely to belong on person x's bio than on the president's). Guettarda (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Opinions are always citable as opinions." So if I find a statement on anyone's facebook page that compares the president to a Nazi, I can now include it in Wikipedia articles so long as I attribute it to the facebook account? I didn't think WP was set up to just past everyone's opinions where ever you wanted so long as you attributed them.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- The close doesn't reflect consensus and misinterprets a previous RFC as the basis for its rational. The previous RFC mainly asked if Breitbart.com is reliable for its own opinion and was allowable with regards to a review by Christian Toto. The closer agreed with that it was reliable for its own opinion but didn't address the issue of allow-ability. However, the closer admitted that the inclusion Breitbart.com into the article is an entirely separate issue here [6]. So this close completely misinterprets the previous RFC to try to apply it to whether the Shapiro quote should be in the article. The close also ignored the BLP issues of Shapiro's quote and the issues of weight.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- The close was proper and the RFC was presumably constructed the way it was to address the specific policy claims being cited to object to the segment, as the first one was. VictorD7 (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
A Radical Suggestion
There have been too many RFCs and WP:AN threads about this article. Usually when there are too many WP:ANI threads about a topic, they indicate that there is battleground editing, and that it will eventually have to go to ArbCom. However, I don't see battleground editing, just a lot of questions where everyone is acting in good faith but getting nowhere. I would suggest that formal mediation at WP:RFM is the next step for this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's important to bear in mind how unimportant this article is. It made it into the news, it's something that people are worked up about now, but give it a year and things will look very different. I still remember how the Expelled article, at its height, was 20% longer than it currently is and had spawned 2 or 3 daughter articles. Now, few people would care if it was trimmed back to half its length, and no one has written anything new on the topic in more than half a decade. Guettarda (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mediation can not overturn an RfC close as far as I can tell, and a significant number of "declines" at the RfM are already noted. Sorry. Collect (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I would take the view that a mediator can overturn the close of a content RfC such as this one, if that's warranted. Formal mediation is a higher stage in the content dispute resolution process than an informal RfC. However, I don't think a mediator could overturn something like an RfC/U.—S Marshall T/C 16:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Please review my deletion of Sampernandu
Hello all.
- Shirt58 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Sampernandu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I question whether I have used my community-granted deletion privileges appropriately when I deleted this article.
It was affecting Facebook, but not Wikipedia. The relevant discussion is here.
Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think this is a very good use of WP:IAR. And I suggest not bringing the redirect back, unfortunately. ansh666 20:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well done. Other organizations will fail to solve a technical problem because the letter of the rules did not anticipate it. We have the wise principal of Ignore All Rules to save us. Chillum 20:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Basically, a Facebook page was relying on a mis-created WP redirect, so you deleted the redirect? If I understand the situation rightly, you were getting rid of a problem, so I'm not complaining; I just think it would help to have a fuller explanation. You should note, however, that Thenonhacker moved the page to this title and immediately moved it back; he was apparently the creator and only editor, so you could also delete it under G7, i.e. your appeal to IAR wasn't needed :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Could an administrator please fix the talk page archives for this article? None of them are attached to the article, because they have a previous title. RGloucester — ☎ 20:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: It doesn't need an admin to do it - you just need to move them to an aligned title. Number 57 00:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Has anything yet been archived under the current title? Talk:2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 1 doesn't appear to exist, but I hesitate to do anything until I know where all the pages are. And do you want me to move Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Sandbox as well? Figuring so, but I don't want to make a mistake. I've protected Talk:2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 1 temporarily to ensure that the bot doesn't start archiving things there before everything's fixed. If any non-admins perform the pagemoves, notify me and I'll unprotect, or leave a note anywhere else for any other admin; my protection summary is clear that this is just to prevent bot mixups. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, nothing has been archived under the current title. I forgot about the sandbox, but I figure it should be moved as well. Please go ahead with the moves. Thanks for your assistance. RGloucester — ☎ 04:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. We admins have a "move all talk subpages" option, so the easiest route is moving the article to the old title and immediately moving it back while checking the option box: much easier than moving all of the pages manually. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Much obliged. RGloucester — ☎ 04:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. We admins have a "move all talk subpages" option, so the easiest route is moving the article to the old title and immediately moving it back while checking the option box: much easier than moving all of the pages manually. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, nothing has been archived under the current title. I forgot about the sandbox, but I figure it should be moved as well. Please go ahead with the moves. Thanks for your assistance. RGloucester — ☎ 04:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Has anything yet been archived under the current title? Talk:2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 1 doesn't appear to exist, but I hesitate to do anything until I know where all the pages are. And do you want me to move Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Sandbox as well? Figuring so, but I don't want to make a mistake. I've protected Talk:2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 1 temporarily to ensure that the bot doesn't start archiving things there before everything's fixed. If any non-admins perform the pagemoves, notify me and I'll unprotect, or leave a note anywhere else for any other admin; my protection summary is clear that this is just to prevent bot mixups. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Need help with deleting revisions
I am aware of an article that contains a few revisions that include a serious accusation against a specific living person. I contacted oversight but was told that the revisions don't meet their criteria. I am hoping that an administrator could reply here to indicate that he or she would be willing to look over some diffs and possibly delete these revisions if I send the information via e-mail. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Administrators follow the same guidelines as oversighters, so I don't see how this is possible. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, isn't revdel less stringent than oversight? Squinge (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oversighters should do admin-style revdeletion when it's more appropriate than oversight. No action would normally indicate a refusal to do revdeletion as well as oversight, hence no one rushing to offer help. However GaryColemanFan is still welcome to ask for a second opinion. There is a category of admins who might do this: CAT:REVDEL. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I understand, thanks. Squinge (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Perhaps I'm not as well versed in policy as some other editors. What I do know is that there are several revisions of an article that contain a direct accusation of murder against a living person who is mentioned by name. I don't understand how that would not qualify for oversight, but I'm trying to help the encyclopedia by bringing it to an administrator's attention. I might not have my terms correct, but I'm fairly confident that accusing a living person by full name and hometown, when the police have not pressed charges related to the death in question, fits some sort of criteria for hiding or deleting the revisions. If no administrator is willing to take a look, maybe I'm wrong. If trying to help out meets with so many closed doors, let's let the revisions stand as they are. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- CAT:REVDEL. You'll find loads. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hopefully one of them will stop by here. The non-action from oversight didn't exactly make me feel like the concerns were taken seriously, and I don't want to go fishing for someone who might be willing to take a look. This noticeboard undoubtedly attracts a few administrators. If none of them want to look, and oversight said it's not a problem, I am fine with assuming I was wrong. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- @GaryColemanFan: Email me the diffs of concern and I will take a look. 28bytes (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- @GaryColemanFan: Email me the diffs of concern and I will take a look. 28bytes (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hopefully one of them will stop by here. The non-action from oversight didn't exactly make me feel like the concerns were taken seriously, and I don't want to go fishing for someone who might be willing to take a look. This noticeboard undoubtedly attracts a few administrators. If none of them want to look, and oversight said it's not a problem, I am fine with assuming I was wrong. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- @GaryColemanFan: While I haven't seen the specific diff in question, it seems like your request might fall under the oversight guidelines. If you feel that your request wasn't addressed properly, you can contact the audit subcommittee to review it. Mike V • Talk 06:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- CAT:REVDEL. You'll find loads. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Perhaps I'm not as well versed in policy as some other editors. What I do know is that there are several revisions of an article that contain a direct accusation of murder against a living person who is mentioned by name. I don't understand how that would not qualify for oversight, but I'm trying to help the encyclopedia by bringing it to an administrator's attention. I might not have my terms correct, but I'm fairly confident that accusing a living person by full name and hometown, when the police have not pressed charges related to the death in question, fits some sort of criteria for hiding or deleting the revisions. If no administrator is willing to take a look, maybe I'm wrong. If trying to help out meets with so many closed doors, let's let the revisions stand as they are. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I understand, thanks. Squinge (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oversighters should do admin-style revdeletion when it's more appropriate than oversight. No action would normally indicate a refusal to do revdeletion as well as oversight, hence no one rushing to offer help. However GaryColemanFan is still welcome to ask for a second opinion. There is a category of admins who might do this: CAT:REVDEL. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, isn't revdel less stringent than oversight? Squinge (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This is an example which the undo is somewhat harmful articles: List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country
A little search in internet show these brand do exist but the undo is harmful which is driving people away. should improve it rather than hitting the Undo button directly
- Please follow the rule Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary 183.178.222.138 (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Concerned user: User:Discospinster
- Evercoss https://www.google.com/search?q=Evercoss+mobile
- Mito https://www.google.com/search?q=Mito+mobile
- Polytron https://www.google.com/search?q=Polytron+mobile
- Advan https://www.google.com/search?q=Advan+mobile
- Axioo https://www.google.com/search?q=Axioo+mobile
183.178.222.138 (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Backlog which i didn't clarified one by one 183.178.222.138 (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country&oldid=642013762
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country&oldid=641577492
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country&oldid=641102473
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mobile_phone_makers_by_country&oldid=640511167
- It would be wise for you and the other editors to read the note at the top of the list:
- ... Subjects without articles will be removed per WP:NLIST. Write the article on a given subject before adding a link to the article to list pages, cf. WP:WTAF.
- --David Biddulph (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure is it what you mean, can you help ? 183.178.222.138 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- He means that typically on lists on Wikipedia, they are not meant to include every single example of something, but rather, every example that is notable - as in, has its own article. Almost every one of your examples don't have their own Wikipedia articles, which is why they were removed. Discospinster was not wrong in doing this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I really doubt the link decision, so we can simply say others work are not notable, mis-format, below-standard, without reference. The obvious facts here is that peoples are driven away indeed. The simple concept, please "improve it" rather than "undo" it, at least there is option to improve one of them and ask others to follow. leaving it open actually are providing others chance to complete the Wikipedia:Stub, why wikipedia didn't ban Wikipedia:Stub 183.178.222.138 (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a side note, really searching for smartphone not related, or minimal link to China or Chinese Company, trying to avoid to any extent, can someone else give a hint 183.178.222.138 (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Even if you really because of the notability reason, after some research, It seems that he should include the link WP:CORP in the reason. a guideline means a thousand words. or we expected that everyone is an "expert" and this is an "expert only community do not welcome newcomers" 183.178.222.138 (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)