User talk:Coffee

This user is a member of WikiProject Arkansas,which seeks to expand information about the state.Please feel free to join us.

Wikipedia ads	file info – #128

Thanks

for keeping watch over me [1]. It's appreciated ;) - Josette (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Uchitel

You closed this about 30 hours too early. Would you mind reopening the discussion please? NW (Talk) 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait what? O_O I misread the time. Damn. Kk. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You do know that that close would have led to much unneeded drama, right? ThemFromSpace 00:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR and oh yes WP:DGAF. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP defaults to delete

That got passed?]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Uchitel&action=historysubmit&diff=330144971&oldid=330140452] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

*Sigh*, WP:IAR --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a huge deal but I just wanted to point something out about your closing remarks, which I'm assuming will be replaced as-is when the time comes --

The result was no consensus, default to delete. I've looked through this debate, and there are rather even amounts of discussion for either side. However the delete !votes are far more compelling and cite strong policy.

You've judged the arguments on one side to be better than the arguments on the other side, enough that it should be closed as delete, despite there not being an overwhelming majority on either side. That indeed IS a consensus, and I'm pretty sure it's okay to say so, despite the vote count. Equazcion (talk) 01:11, 7 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm happy to see you're the first one to catch that. That's my whole idea behind defaulting to delete. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's the "default to delete" wording that might raise a red flag in some minds though. That wording sounds scary to some who see it as being passive about deletions, and is inaccurate anyway. You've described a consensus without majority, but that's still a consensus, and no default is actually coming into play. Equazcion (talk) 01:33, 7 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Coffee, I understand where you are coming from (though I am of a different view), but I wanted to mention that a "no consensus, default to delete" rationale has been overturned twice in DRV recently, DRV for Human disguise, and DRV for Wendy Babcock, so its probably best not to employ that rationale.--Milowent (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting call just now, and good rationale (I approve!). Just hope you have your Nomex underwear on today, is all ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 06:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I found it the best way to go. Yes I've got my Nomex underwear, right next to my oxygen mask, and my uniform is fire retardant. Hehe... --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Had to stop by and thank you for that call. I was worried it would default the other way. Wizzy…☎ 08:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
      • No problem, someone has to do it. :) --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Very good "outside the box" thinking Coffee. Oh, and if you get a chance and see me anywhere online - PM me. I had a couple things I wanted to mention to ya. Cheers buddy. ;) — Ched :  ?  09:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I am after all in a cup... I'm not near my laptop right now, but I should be in an hour. So I'll PM you then. It better be good ;). --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hey Coffee, as I noted above, I don't think this type of close (no consensus, default to delete) is kosher. I agree with the no consensus finding, though. You ok with it being brought to DRV for review? Cheers, --Milowent (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

lol, apparently i was one minute premature looking for it already.--Milowent (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, what did you mean by the phrase "fully unanimous" in your closing statement? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rachel Uchitel

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rachel Uchitel. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cyclopia^talk 15:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

you deserve this

		The BLP Barnstar
		With your work in getting rid of marginal BLPs, I reward you the BLP barnstar Secret account 00:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Secret/BLP you may want to participate and expand this RFC before it goes live, the best solution to this problem is probably an RFC. Secret ^account 00:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Secret, I'll get to that RFC tomorrow. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about your RfA standards

I had a quick look at them, as I saw you linked to them in your oppose on Ucucha's RfA.

While I understand them, one puzzled me: why would you oppose someone who had been admin coached? I must admit that I have a slightly selfish reason for asking, as I am currently being coached!

I realise that you also say on the page that there are exceptions, but I was just curious about this particular standard, as the others I understand completely!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally view people who are admin coached, as wanting the admin tools too badly, and sometimes they view Wikipedia as a game. I don't always oppose people who are admin coached, I instead take my entire list and compare it to the user. So there's always more than one thing that I look at when I !vote on an RFA. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. If I ever do go for an RfA, I'll have to hope that I meet enough of your criteria for you to look beyond my coaching! I decided to go for coaching as I know that I have areas in which I need the advice of a current, experienced admin so that I can improve myself. Whether I go for an RfA or not, this will hopefully improve me as an editor - so I see the coaching as a win-win situation for Wikipedia: whatever happens - whether I go for adminship or not - hopefully I will be a better editor as a result of the thinking about issues and procedures/policies/guidelines that I need to do during coaching. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA standards

Hi there. I found your RfA standards at User:Coffee/RFA-standards and was a bit curious about one of them. I'd just like some insight into why you would vote oppose if the editor was admin coached. Not disagreeing with you, just curious to the justification behind your argument. Thanks, --Shirik (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And now I see that someone has literally just asked the same thing above. Wow. Feel free to reply there instead :) --Shirik (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

eeeeep! You people scare me when you do that... --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Again...

Looks like this is the third post you are receiving because of your oppose on my RfA. I'm here to hope you can clarify a point in your statement. You stated that I "would have not complied with the BLP policy to remove this." and also noted the outcome of the DRV. However, I don't see in the BLP policy a requirement to delete marginally notable BLPs, and as I read it, the DRV concluded (question 3 in the closing rationale) that keeping the article would also have been acceptable ("The policy clearly allows for No Consensus delete in this situation, even if that is not the only option." second emphasis mine). Could you please clarify to me where exactly I have misunderstood policy so that that misunderstanding can be cleared up for the future? Thanks, Ucucha 22:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a misunderstanding with policy, it's a misunderstanding of consensus. We don't cite policy when we have cases that we can point to that have gone the other way. Remember IAR? That's what it's for. You need to understand that IAR is actually a rather important part of being an admin, and in dealing with BLPs. You stated that you would have gone against full consensus to have that article stay deleted, and would have closed that AFD the opposite of how it was closed. "It's not in policy", is not a WP:BOLD answer, and is not at all satisfactory. If you're going to use policy, don't try to simply cite that as the reason when you're dealing with something as controversial as BLPs. It's because of your lack of understanding with AFDs and BLPs, that causes me to oppose you. I hope that you will eventually see what I was talking about, and keep our BLPs safe. Until then I say good luck. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You asked me to close the AFD, not the DRV. As I read it, the DRV concluded that it was within the closing admin's discretion to delete the article, not that that was the only possible outcome—a rather important difference. Ucucha 23:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to close anything, I asked you how you would close an AFD like the one of David Shankbone. DRV is a process that reviews AFD closures. Therefore your hypothetical close should have coincided with the findings at that DRV. If not, then that shows you lack an understanding of our deepest policies. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote before, one of the findings of that DRV was that "The policy clearly allows for No Consensus delete in this situation, even if that is not the only option."

I'd like to add that, as I wrote in my answer to your question, I see the point for the position that marginal BLP AFDs should default to delete and know that this position derives from very real concerns about BLPs, and I commend the concerned editors who are pushing for new ways to protect BLPs, but I also note that a recent proposal for this "default to delete" to be added to the deletion policy specifically failed to achieve consensus (WT:DEL). Under such circumstances (and I guess that is where our views differ), I prefer to be conservative; whatever Kurt Weber may say, I feel it's a sensible thing to follow a section of policy that has just been discussed so thoroughly and kept.

Thanks for discussing this matter with me; I'll certainly keep it in mind when the community trusts me with adminship and I am to close some discussion at one of the processes I intend to participate in. (Finally - I'll watch your page for the moment, so talkback templates are unnecessary.) Ucucha 03:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you want to follow our policies. Now that we have a fairly good understanding with each other, would you care to enlighten me as to what your personal opinion on protecting BLPs is? Do you like the idea of preventing libelous information by deleting marginal BLPs in no consensus discussions? I'd be glad to know where you yourself stand on this issue (whether or not you'll act on your own opinions). --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote before, I think it is an idea that has some merit. But I also like Wikipedia as a great source of information on absolutely everything, and in some cases Wikipedia may in fact be doing subjects a favor in reporting what reliable sources are saying, instead of the gossip that may be the only thing people hear about marginally notable BLPs if Wikipedia does not have an article. If kept, all BLP pages, and risky ones (such as Shankbone) in particular, should be very vigilantly watched for verifiability and use of reliable sources, and perhaps semiprotected as someone at the WT:DEL page suggested. That is the position I would like to take until I'm persuaded that it does not work in protecting BLPs (which shouldn't be that difficult, because, as I wrote at the RFA, my experience with BLP has been limited). Ucucha 03:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You're moving a bit too rapidly between wanting to know my opinion and my understanding of policy (two very different things) for my taste. Ucucha 04:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoops

Cheers. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Article deletion

Hi there. Can you help me find the specific reasons why you deleted [2] this article? Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Without putting words into Coffee's mouth - because there was a very clear consensus to delete. I was about to close the same way. Kevin (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because the consensus was for the article to be deleted. Perhaps you should take a look at our deletion policy. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, what should I do to have it reconsidered? I didn't consent, it seemed like it was just hounded on by a hostile group. I found a number of sources. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want the deletion to be reconsidered, you can go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and follow the instructions there. The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Got it ... Thanks, I see, the instructions seem to indicate I should get Coffee's ok. Coffee is it Ok with you if I have this reconsidered? (BTW ... I am an airman too ... just not exactly in the force.) Kindly, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't have an issue with it going to DRV, even though the close was done correctly. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

Ret.Prof (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

IPBE log

Heya I noticed your recent addition of IP block exemption to an account. Ensure that you note this change (and any future IPBE additions) in this log here. The log is used to monitor IPBE usage, etc. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

• Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

• News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops?

Morning Coffee (two words which sit simply beautifully beside each other)! - so I think I've gotten to the bottom of yesterday's bungle - if I'm right, then the file I uploaded contained the banter at the end of the first bit - ie. after the mention of a 'break' - when there was a bit of chit chat, which was probably not intended for 'broadcast'. I think awadewit noticed this, and a commons deletion ensued, followed by the deletion of any edits I made over here mentioning the episode? It was an oversight to put the whole file online, I do have a mini-edited version which I think is interesting, and worth getting online as quick as poss. - I'll flick awadewit an message after this, and hopefully publish in a little bit. I do have some questions about the 'copyright' aspect which was raised on commons (though I also sort of presume that it was the simplest way to quickly delete the file with the personal banter on the end - which I totally support!) - and obviously it would have been nice to get a quick note from someone about this - though there may have been a feeling that time was of the essence in terms of deletion, a notice before or after would have been appreciated.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)