Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2024/September) (bot |
→Invitation to participate in a research: new section Tag: |
||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 4:
}}
{{User talk:Sandstein/Header}}
:Please wait for a [[WP:AfC]] review. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 07:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)▼
:::OK, [[UFC 27]] can now be created. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 10:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)▼
== [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 February 8]] ==
Line 25 ⟶ 12:
::Apparently I didn't notice that @[[User:Stifle|Stifle]], who closed the discussion, was also an administrator. If it can't be restored via [[WP:DRV]] could it be restored under [[WP:REFUND]]? [[User:1234qwer1234qwer4|1234qwer]][[User talk:1234qwer1234qwer4|1234qwer]][[Special:Contribs/1234qwer1234qwer4|4]] 18:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:::As per the advice in the DRV, you can recreate it if you want. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 18:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::::That makes it unnecessarily harder compared to restoring the content that was there. [[User:1234qwer1234qwer4|1234qwer]][[User talk:1234qwer1234qwer4|1234qwer]][[Special:Contribs/1234qwer1234qwer4|4]] 23:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
== ITN Recognition ==
Line 33 ⟶ 21:
::Hi, I'm not entirely sure whether you implied I would receive it or not, is there anyone I could ask to receive it? Since you promoted it I thought it would be ideal to ask you for that. [[User:Ornithoptera|Ornithoptera]] ([[User talk:Ornithoptera|talk]]) 17:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't know, maybe the people who updated the article? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 18:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Smith (underwater search sonar expert]] ==
Yet again, you make a bad decision just because of your long-standing animosity to me personally. [[WP:INVOLVED]] much? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 15:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:No, I make AfD decisions based on the quality of the arguments presented, and where necessary, I explain why. It was necessary here because had your opinion been taken into account, it might have contributed to an impression that there was no consensus. If you want to avoid such situations in the future, you should make arguments in AfDs that address why an article should be kept or not based on our applicable policies and guidelines, and I'll be happy to take such arguments into account for assessing consensus. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 15:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::I'm also unclear why you think I have a "long-standing animosity" to you personally. I do not know you and am not interested in what you do on Wikipedia or why. See, generally, [[WP:AGF]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 15:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
== Why did you close a discussion on improperly deleted maps? ==
You have closed a discussion on whether a speedy deletion that was clearly incorrect as a matter of wikipedia policy. On what grounds?
Map 1 was allowed for many years. IT WAS DELETED FOR NO REASON except that it was the same as map 2.
Map 2 was redundant. IT WAS DELETED FOR NO REASON except that it was the same as map 1.
Both maps were deleted speedily without discussion. The sole consensus is that it is improper to delete BOTH of two redundant maps on the grounds they're the same as each other. No NFCC issues were ever properly raised.
If you disagree with this point, I propose arbitration. But I know you know that that would be a ridiculous reason to delete an entry. If that were true, I could create redundancies throughout wikipedia and then delete every single image!
So on what grounds do you close discussion?
I ask you respectfully to reopen the discussion and to restore one of the maps (preferably the older one). If you then want to delete the older map, you can make your NFCC arguments and we can have a full and complete discussion on the issue.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 18:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
▲:Please
== Telegraph RFC ==
Thanks for closing the RFC. Do you intend to update [[WP:RSP]] with the details of your close? It was a point of contention in the prior close. If not I'll open a discussion on [[WT:RSP]] about how it should be updated. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 14:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
▲:
::Thanks again Sandstein. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 14:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
{| style="border: 2px solid orange; background-color: #FFFAF0;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" |{{#ifeq:I promised one of these as an incentive on [[WP:CR]], and, in slaying [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues|this beast]] after two separate unsuccessful attempts, you have certainly earned it. Enjoy!--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|talk]]) 16:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)|alt|[[File:The Closer's Barnstar.png|100px]]|[[File:The Closer's Barnstar.png|100px]]}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Closer's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid gray;" | I promised one of these as an incentive on [[WP:CR]], and, in slaying [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues|this beast]] after two separate unsuccessful attempts, you have certainly earned it. Enjoy!--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|talk]]) 16:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
|}
:{{+1}} <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b> ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] • he/they) 02:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
*I'd like to reiterate the thanks above, but I'm a bit confused about the close. AFAIK when closing a discussion vote-counting is at most a supplement to the more important assessment how arguments are supported by PAGs. Near as I can tell, you haven't commented about {{tq|the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines}} ([[WP:CON]]). Would it make sense for you to amend the close to include, at the very least, an explanation of why vote-counting was the only way to decide the discussion? [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 16:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::{{tpw|v}} A cast of characters bigger than ''[[Ben-Hur (1959 film)|Ben Hur]]'' has already commented on the "quality of arguments"; we [[WP:IAR|needn't hear them again]]. The important thing is that the {{Strikethrough color|hydra was ousted}} discussion was closed. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 17:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::In my view, this RfC was not amenable to or appropriate for an assessment on the basis of the strength of the arguments presented. This works where there are well-established policies and guidelines establishing broader community consensus on matters that are often in dispute, e.g. the inclusion guidelines often cited at AfD. They provide a basis on which a closer can assess the strength of individual arguments (e.g., by discarding "delete because I don't like it" types of arguments). But when it comes to the application of [[WP:RS]], the arguments are very fact-specific: based on their prior reporting, their corporate structure, etc., do we trust a source to reliably report the facts? I see no basis on which I as closer could assess whether somebody makes a good or bad argument about this, except by imposing my own view, which I must not. So, yes, vote-counting it is. I don't really see a need to amend the closure to spell this lout, though. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 17:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Good arguments were brought up in the discussion e.g. The Telegraph giving fringe voices disproportionate weight. If think that assessing the arguments is an impossibility, you should not have closed the RfC to begin with. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 08:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Of course there were good arguments, as well as bad ones, on either side. But as soon as I as closer attempt to take that into account, without a very clear basis in guidelines and policies on which arguments to discard and which to weigh more heavily, I'll be accused of supervoting by all who disagree with the closure - and not without reason. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::And what exactly did vote counting achieve here? I ask you to revert your close and let someone else close it based on arguments. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 11:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::It achieved an assessment of rough consensus (or in this case the lack thereof). I decline to undo my closure. Attempting to assess the strength of individual arguments in this case would be a fool's errand, because there is no prospect of the RFC participants or the community agreeing on the standards by which arguments should be considered persuasive or unpersuasive. Moreover, given the sheer number of opinions, there is no practical way of assessing the degree to which consensus exists (or not) other than a quantitative assessment, i.e., counting. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 14:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I broadly endorse this view. Even in the absence of perfectly suited policies/guidelines to guide the closer in evaluating arguments, there are classes of arguments that are still discardable: vote-style responses with no reasoning given, ones based on falsified evidence, etc. I think it's ''extremely'' unlikely that a reasonable closer who was not supervoting would have found enough such responses to tip the balance away from a no consensus close. I strongly urge that a closure review based on these grounds not be started. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 14:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No, it did not. Consensus isn't achieved by counting votes. As an admin, you should know that. The RfC was, in fact, closed before, and now you decided it's too difficult to close properly. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 14:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues|Your closure has been challenged at the administrators' noticeboard.]] [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 19:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Glad to see this was speedy-endorsed at AN. Rightly so. Thanks for stepping up and closing the RfC, Sandstein. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 00:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
== Invitation to participate in a research ==
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this '''[https://wikimediafoundation.limesurvey.net/294789?lang=en anonymous survey]'''.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its [[Special:MyLanguage/Research:Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition|Meta page]] and view its [[wmf:Special:MyLanguage/Legal:Administrator Experiences 2024 Survey Privacy Statement|privacy statement]] .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
[[mw:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Research|WMF Research Team]]
<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">[[User:BGerdemann (WMF)|BGerdemann (WMF)]] ([[User talk:BGerdemann (WMF)|talk]]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->
| |||
