User talk:Opabinia regalis

If you send me an email, please also leave a {{You've got mail}} message here. Thanks!

DYK for Murine polyomavirus

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments like this one that Sitush posted on the talk page

Er.. I think you probably meant to mention the comments that Liz posted on Sitush's talkpage? Bishonen | talk 21:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Sitush posted a link on the RfA talk page, to Liz's posting on Sitush's talk page... and I need more coffee. Thanks, clarified. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that talk page, sorry. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC).

TFD RFC WDWDN?

As you may have noticed, the TfD RfC was closed in favour of the alternative proposal, which was to have a speedy orphaning mechanism. Would we need to seek further approval - say, at WT:CSD - or should we simply advertise the outcome and proceed with setting up the infrastructure? Paging Dirtlawyer1. Alakzi (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prod, figuring out where to start on this was on my to-do list this weekend but I seem to have stuck my fingers in too many wiki-pies. Funny, I thought in the beginning that 'new speedy criterion' would set off more alarms than 'trivial NAC deletes'. The fact that it was closed by a non-admin with no fuss is pretty great though :)

A hypothetical "CSD T4: Templates orphaned for four days, following a TfD with consensus to orphan" needs further discussion in a less backwater place, but that further discussion would benefit from a successful trial phase. There's some holes as constructed, though.

• What should happen when a TfD is closed as 'orphan', the template is duly orphaned and tagged, and then someone adds it to an article? The idea is to allow time for objections (though with most TfDs running well over 7 days, I'm not sure 4 more is worth much) but keeping track of objections may not be as trivial as it sounds.
• Should admins also close discussions heading for deletion as 'orphan' rather than 'delete', and send the templates through the same process? Only if there's more than n transclusions?

I want to say: announce the new 'orphan' outcome as a trial, and then some non-admins should close some easy discussions as 'orphan', orphan them, and list the templates in a new section of the holding cell for four days. Once there's some examples of success we can use them as evidence of the utility of a new CSD criterion, and get a better idea of any needed changes to the workflow.... but oh wait, the first part is basically the original proposal that people didn't like. I suppose it makes sense to move to WT:TFD to flesh out the trial workflow first.

Dirtlawyer, any thoughts? You're the strategist :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Also paging RexxS, who has expressed interest in closing TfDs. Alakzi (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if you take it to WT:TFD to start with, you'll eventually end up having to go to WT:CSD if you want to implement the outcome of the the RfC. So the only question remaining is "Is the proposal for CSD T4 sufficiently worked out to carry consensus?". That's a judgement call and you might want to ask some of the regulars at WT:CSD if they have any thoughts on what happened in the RfC. Personally, my interest was mainly in helping clear backlogs, rather than TfD per se, but I must admit that if consensus is that I'm not fit to do an NAC in that area, then I'm much less inclined to want to help out there. --RexxS (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting a little slowly this morning, so I will need a little time to understand and critique the new process that you're proposing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

RexxS, there's still a pretty good size backlog at TfD that could use some cleanup ;) But the appeal of the original formulation was minimal change to the existing workflow, whereas (ironically) implementing the alternative is a much bigger process change. I suggested a trial that stops short of actually using the CSD process, as a kind of 'log-only mode' for the 'close as orphan' concept, but there are some gaps to fill first. Amount of effort worth expending on this is probably proportional to likelihood of eventual consensus for a hypothetical T4, which I'm not sure I have a great sense of right now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps after an extended trial, people will come to realise there's no need for the new CSD. What are the gaps? Alakzi (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the two bullets I posted above are the biggest ones. If there's a 4-day grace period to allow for objections, there has to be some idea of what an objection consists of and how to handle it. And if delete discussions are being closed as 'orphan' by non-admins, it would make sense for admins to do the same, but in some cases that might actually increase the transit time through the process. I'm running out of time now but let me know what you think. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I imagine we'd do what we do now: the objector seeks out the closer, and, either the closer re-evaluates their closure, or the two come to agree; or the objector challenges the closure at WP:DRV. Whether the template remains orphaned during that time seems to me to be completely irrelevant.

Admins can do as they like. Alakzi (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)`

I actually prefer the CSD mechanism for the long term; it's just harder to get there from here. I don't like bureaucracy, but I do like predictability; it seems like a bad idea to make the procedural aspects of a close depend on who happened to have some time to deal with TfDs on any particular day. It either devalues the 'orphan and eventually delete' mechanism to also have a 'delete right now because I can' option, or it introduces an opportunity for anyone who got a 'delete' outcome to complain about not getting their four days of grace.

• Orphan NAC, template is duly orphaned, but someone un-orphans it in the 4-day window: why shouldn't this be treated as an objection? What should the admin who comes along to delete the 'expired' template do upon discovering it still has too many transclusions to fix manually?
• Orphan NAC is disputed but the discussion isn't resolved in the 4-day window: whose responsibility is it to reset the timer or otherwise signal that the template is past its grace period but not ready for deletion?
• Orphan NAC is disputed and the closer stands firm: the template isn't deleted yet, so is DRV the right place? Deleting it just to activate the DRV process would obviously be stupid.

Arguably, listing a bunch of hypotheticals is borrowing trouble, but I think it's worth figuring out in relative peace and quiet what to do with the disputed outcomes that can reasonably be anticipated before seeking further consensus for a larger change. Though given some other ongoing discussions, I may be in the minority in thinking proposals should be at least half-baked before serving. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you're in the minority, then so am I. This whole orphaning window business seems to rest on the premise that non-admins can't really be trusted; it smacks of elitism. If a discussion's run its course, and a consensus has emerged, why must we arbitrarily delay the template's deletion?

All of your points appear to share a common theme - is the deletion of a template to be treated as a speedy deletion, or an XfD deletion? Would one have to contest the original closure or the applicability of the CSD? I'd argue it should always be the former. Would it then be possible for the grace period to be implemented through different means? Would a banner akin to {{Being deleted}} not suffice? Alakzi (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, that RfC is even worse than the one I had in mind. More rules always sound great to people who imagine someone like themselves making all the new rules. How people think about "closing discussions" obviously makes no sense if a non-admin is welcome to close a complex RfC but an XfD with nothing but delete votes requires training wheels, but on the other hand admins are either miniature tyrants or lazy incompetents, so basically we all suck.

You're right, the basic problem is the hybrid XfD/CSD structure and what happens at the awkwardly glued-together interface. I'll have to think about that a little more. I can't think of an example in the short time I've been paying attention of what happens now when a TfD is closed as delete, listed somewhere in the holding cell, and then the result is contested before the template is deleted. Having a better idea of how long/disputatious this tends to be might help. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully you got my mega-ping, but I posted a summary of this discussion here at WT:TFD. If people think I'm crazy for worrying about grace-period edge cases, well, it wouldn't be the first time ;) And if most people aren't really so interested in the actual implementation, that's useful to know before investing time in the infrastructure, since the effect on the backlog might not be that large even if there's still some appeal in kicking a hole in the NAC-snob fence. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Andy closed three as delete here. I wonder how that's going to be received. Alakzi (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought the fact that this caused unnecessary arguments led to actually writing an RfC in the first place. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It did in my experience. But then again, I did have a red username at the time.... as I do now. Alakzi (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Closers

Not a problem. I like to be super-careful to be clear when I do these things. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion process

I hear you on your dislike for "disclose their status". But "Non-administrators closing deletion discussions should state this fact in the closing decision" is unclear. State what fact? How about something like this: "Non-administrators closing deletion discussions should state this fact in the closing decision, usually by adding (Non-admin closure)"? Or "Non-administrators closing deletion discussions should note, somewhere in the closing decision, that they are not admins" ? Maybe "disclose their status" wasn't so bad after all. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Hmm, "Non-administrators closing deletion discussions should state [the fact that they are non-administrators closing deletion discussions]" seems transparent to me, but maybe not. "Disclose" sounds like someone would otherwise trying to sneak something by, and the substantial majority of uses of the phrase "disclose their/your status" are about personal health (which has its own, unrelated issues).

"When closing deletion discussions, users should indicate in the closing decision that they are not administrators"? Seems clear enough, despite the quantifier wobble. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds perfect. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It didn't say that? Odd. BTW, I don't think I've ever seen a NAC where it wasn't disclosed. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: It did say that, but worded strangely. Before my edit it said Non-administrators closing deletion discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision, and I thought "disclose their status" was unappealing wording. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw your edit right after I left this message; the original was so bureaucratic that I guess I didn't even see it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Selective blindness to bureaucratese? I like it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on this . . . .

Alakzi, Alex, Andy and Aussie are in need of a good scolding: [1]. Please keep an eye on this, so these hard cases don't get themselves blocked. Appropriate maternal admonitions to the lost of them might be helpful. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If anybody were to come to my talk page to "maternally admonish" me, I'd show them the door. Alakzi (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Dirtlawyer1 needs to stop canvassing like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Andy, I love you to death, but you really need to re-read and understand WP:CANVASS. There is no !vote here, and requesting that an administrator who is friendly to both you and Alakzi to knock some sense into both of you before you get blocked by another randomly passing administrator -- who will probably not be so understanding and favorably disposed to the two of you as Opabinia -- is not canvassing. Honestly, guys, I don't know why you've both become such drama-mongers, but there is clearly something about Alex and Aussie which makes the two of you lose your damn minds. And lashing out at me for trying to keep the two of you out of trouble is kinda silly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake. All I did was revert obvious trolling. How's that being a drama-monger? Alakzi (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've replied here to your similar denial of your obvious canvassing, And if you want to avoid causing unnecessary drama, please feel free to stay out of any dispute I have with any editors, anywhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Aaah, I've barely even finished my coffee; some of you guys are in the wrong time zones ;) I'll take a look in an hour or two when I get some time.

Andy, I don't follow the canvassing argument. I commented in the last go-around of the TV template debates, I'm familiar with the participants involved, and I am probably not actually going to block anybody. Avoiding the 'weak investigation by whoever happens to see what someone eventually posts on ANI' problem is a good thing, no? Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If you cannot see how "in need of a good scolding" and the like are not complaint with "keep the message text neutral", please recuse from further involvement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I read that as intended to be a bit ironic. In any case, you'd have to think I was actually going to scold people because someone told me to, which wouldn't be very effective. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It - and WP:CANVASS - has nothing to do with your response. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether Andy needs a scolding -- literally, ironically or otherwise -- is irrelevant. It's not canvassing because requesting administrative action is never "canvassing" within the meaning of WP:CANVASS. I'm not requesting that Opabinia register her !vote or even voice her substantive opinion on the matter. Frankly, I could not care less whether the template tile is moved or not, and I'm pretty sure Opabinia is indifferent, too. I requested that she intervene to reduce the level of rhetorical incivility and outright silliness that was potentially going to get you, Alakzi, Alex and Aussie blocked. In the absence of an attempt to influence the outcome of the substantive discussion, "canvassing" does not exist. Personally, I haven't even expressed an opinion, and I have no intention of doing so. If there's no attempt to influence the outcome, there's no canvassing. Are we on the same page now? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a good use of everybody's time. Alakzi (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not a productive use of anyone's time. But there are plenty of editors of good will, including Opabinia and myself, who are determined that you, Alex, Andy and Aussie don't get blocked over the very minor issue of naming a template and its redirect. On your list of 200 productive things to do today, this should be hovering somewhere around 199 or 200. It's not worth fighting or insulting fellow editors, and it's surely not worth getting blocked. That's my point. Honestly, I really don't understand why you're so ready to fight over something like this. At least with the color-contrast-compliance tiff, everyone could see that there was a reason and valid concern behind the argument. This whole template RM discussion is just WP:POINTY. I expect more from you, A -- you are smarter than that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Who did I "fight", exactly? I reverted an instance of trolling, which prompted certain individuals to flood my talk page with warning templates. Afterwards, you invited an admin to put me in my place, who - for no apparent reason - move protected the template, which unsurprisingly annoyed me. Alakzi (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Why do you even care what this template title is? Given your and Andy's recent contentious history with Alex, Aussie and WikiProject Television why would you expect anyone would accept your split-vote NAC of a RM proposed by Andy as unbiased? Come on. You're not that naive. If you didn't see the WP:INVOLVED problems, you should have, A. BTW, Ritchie had already locked the template page against moves several minutes before I left my first message above. Ritchie is a big boy, and he can see a problem developing, too. It may be irritating, but it was done to protect the parties, including you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't realised making me out to be problematic is for my benefit; I apologise. I will also not be held accountable for the biases of other people. Ritchie did nothing but exacerbate the situation. This patronising nonsense has got to stop - now. Alakzi (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, enough. I've had it. Alakzi (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't keep up! Sorry, I spent way too much time drama-posting yesterday while procrastinating on doing the very boring things I now really have to get done today. Briefly: 1) I do not care at all about the name of this template; 2) asking someone to pay attention to a dispute is not "canvassing"; 3) even if one wanted to grant Andy's overbroad reading, its conclusion doesn't lead anywhere interesting unless I participate in the RM, which I'm not, because see #1.

On the "it's for your own good" dynamic: making a reasonable but arguably sub-optimal decision now stops some other admin from showing up later wielding fists of ham. You probably already know that Ritchie is well known for being generally averse to blocking people or seeing people get blocked. If anyone is being patronized by this kind of decision, it's not the participants in the dispute, though it does express a certain lack of confidence in the replacement-level admin.

As for all the warnings and templating and whatnot else, doesn't this look more like WP:POKING than trolling? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, and which was that reasonable decision? The template was in no danger of move warring, as I have repeatedly explained. To criticise authority when it is unable to meet its burden of proof is what every moral individual should do. Ritchie did little else but inform us that, he "particularly" wouldn't like to see Andy blocked, because he's exceedingly productive elsewhere - the rest of you be damned. What I referred to as "trolling" was this. If you don't see how the comments made to and about me are patronising, I don't know what to say. It is painful to be portrayed as some sort of miscreant; it is doubly painful when nothing you ever do or say could possibly dispel that picture. No tattling on me to the principal to "save me from myself" - I'll have none of that nonsense, thank you. Alakzi (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"This", if directed at me, would hurt me. - How such personal remarks would help content at all I don't see. (I confess that I don't know what miscreant means, nor tattling nor read the discussion.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs)

Thanks, Gerda. I agree, it's certainly rude. I think the best explanation for the posts in question is immaturity. A miscreant is someone who habitually misbehaves.

Yes, I know there wasn't any move-warring. I don't know if Ritchie would put it quite this way, but: the effect here is to signal somehow that Action Is Being Taken. Which ideally gets the people posting warning templates to stop doing that, and tells other admins who might get involved that they can find something else to do.

You're right, the comment about Andy is unintentionally insensitive. Maybe he meant that threatening Andy with a block was particularly spurious, since it was about "vandalizing" by removing a warning, and it would be particularly stupid to block a productive contributor for something like that. Maybe he just recognized the username. But, I think I'm missing something. Ritchie is not in my experience the kind of guy who labels people irredeemable miscreants - quite the opposite - and I'm not really seeing that in this conversation. In any case, does "portrayal" matter so much? We know you're not a miscreant. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

People have wanted to ban Andy for helping me (very shortened version), remember "Please describe what happens in this diff". (Good exercise.) Remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Every time you mention this case it makes me glad I missed out on it ;) My brain might have melted. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That was in reference to comments made by others regarding my appetite for "drama"; "issues" I have that need to be addressed; and editors I've befriended. Alakzi (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I see. Yes, there is too much talking about people's supposed flaws in the third person in scattered threads here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Reviewers Barnstar
	Yes, my DYK really did sit around for three weeks, not for want of 20 characters, but for want of a reviewer to check that the article had 20 more characters. Thank you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Thanks! That's 0.2% of the minimum required length of all the articles, but hey, I guess The Rules Must Be Obeyed ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polykrikaceae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taxonomy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red

	Formal merge proposal
	There is currently a merge discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Formal merge proposal. As you are a member of WiR, this is a courtesy notification in case you want to join in the discussion. Thank you. Rosiestep (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Warnowiaceae

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ocelloid

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Check your inbox x2

Hello, Opabinia regalis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks

For your calm and rational contributions to the recent Alakzi business. I'm very glad you decided to return to Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: Thanks. I was very glad to see Floq's post this morning. The set of articles I intended to fix when I first started editing again remains a mess eight months later, though... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. Did you know that I was convinced I had done it long ago, and was quite ashamed when I realized I hadn't. Now I remember what made me hesitate: I was only 95% sure it would not have been a fourth for the same (two by me, and intentionally so, called hat-trick, - before I took his design) ;) - Now: a user has been blocked for no good reason by five different admins, only two apologized. I know that there is no justice, but could it be a little less so? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

:) I think Floq had a good idea - everybody involved here could use a break. We can see about unraveling all of this after some time off. (Not taking my own advice, apparently... :) Opabinia externa (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)