![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humour | |
🦘 🪃. Discussion closing comments often need to be serious, but sometimes a little humour helps. The second emoji hasn't hit mainstream support yet, but it is in Unicode 13 ;-). — andrybak ( talk) 10:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
Note the post to my talk page. I have no idea what this IP is on about. I have never even heard of that Wiki before this. LTA? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
...and the IPs are blocked for a week. :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Given this do you have thoughts on this? I did a massive amount of filtering sources and writing the new version of the article. At the very least I believe it deserves an AfD. - Scarpy ( talk) 04:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Someone is trying to edit war a bizarre redirect for "Trump virus" (referring to SARS-CoV-2) at the List of eponymously named diseases article. The IP user has had multiple reverts by multiple users with multiple warnings on their talk page and persists in doing this. Just FYI. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 20:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Guy, I figure you might be a good sounding board for two questions I have, neither of which are related but since I'm here...
The first is my "indef-lite" idea that I've proposed a few times. My initial idea had been something like a block/ban that had no time limit but also wasn't meant to be onerous to reverse. We effectively do have something like this for inappropriate user names and I think an admin is free to indef a user with a comment that "it can be appealed any time and all they have to do is X to address the original concern". But on their log it still shows as an indef. I suspect I'm not the only one who sees any indef on an editor's record as "one step away from off the island". Would it make sense to have a different term for blocks/tbans that are meant to be "until corrected" vs something else? An example was given on my talk page of two different indef behaviors [ [1]], one where we might never want the person back, the other we might look at as "one time dumb mistake". Anyway, I thought I would get your take on the question.
The other question relates to the SashiRolls discussion but again is a somewhat generic question. More than once I've seen cases where it looks like an admin made a questionable consensus call. Per my example here [ [2]] I'm thinking in part of cases where things seem to come down to a numeric vote and an admin comes in and says for example 55%=consensus. As in my example my rule of thumb is 2/3rds is where I say numerical consensus. Less than 1/3rd = means consensus against, 1/3rd to 2/3rds = no consensus, over 2/3rds= consensus for. I would hope that most editors would agree that 55% for is not "consensus for" (assuming good argument on both sides etc). My problem in such a case is, by the numbers, it's almost impossible to overturn such a bad close. Reviews are so often not about "was the closing logic good" but instead, "did I agree with the closing outcome". So in my 55% case the Against side feels this should have been a no-consensus and they open a review. During the review perhaps some of those who voted For will agree the close was bad but enough say "happy with it" and we get say 50/50 good/bad close. Since it's no consensus it sticks. Would it be better if in such a case there needs to be a "consensus the close was good" rather than "consensus the close was bad"? If there isn't a consensus to support the close then the discussion is reopened and a different admin (or panel) gets to close it. Take a deletion discussion. If the closing is contested on grounds that "closed as consensus but was not consensus" then the review discussion could have three outcomes. A consensus to uphold the close (2/3rds) would cement the close. A consensus to reverse (2/3rds say it was bad) would then change the closing to what ever the 2/3rds said it should have been. A no-consensus would simply reopen the discussion for a period of time and then require a different editor/admin to close it. I think such a system would avoid the double jeopardy we have now where a bad call is exceedingly difficult to overturn since it takes a solid consensus to overturn a disputed consensus call. Is that reasonable? What problems would it cause that I just haven't thought of?
Thanks Springee ( talk) 18:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of
Archduke Markus of Austria has been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per
Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "
if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". Such consensus is particularly required before moving a title with incoming links in order to create a disambiguation page at that title. If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion to form the appropriate consensus. Again, please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. -
dwc lr (
talk) 07:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
So User:DWC LR moved Manuel Prinz von Bayern back to the ridiculous page title Prince Manuel of Bavaria. The editor keeps doing this sort of thing despite warnings, I think it is very disruptive. Smeat75 ( talk) 20:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
When are you gonna start oin the "Bourbon Two Sicilies" crew? - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 10:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Smallbones/Proposed commercial editing policy
Smallbones( smalltalk) 18:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
If you can spare a little time to help with a CIR issue, discussion here, that would be great. There's also an AfD of the same article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Mel Honey; your intervention there would be welcome but supererogatory. Thanks in advance for whatever you can do. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Its here, since you asked. TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
While the RfC is archived, it still hasn't formally been closed, despite my request for closure several days ago. Regardless, there seems to be a firm concensus to at least add an edit filter. As Facebook technically isn't a depreciated source, I'm not sure 869 is the correct filter to use, would it be worth coming up with a custom filter, or is there a more appropriate pre-existing one? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Given the confusion and resistance citing COMMONNAME, it might be helpful to split the RfC into two proposals: one for article title and one for inclusion of people in templates/categories and how we reference them in wikivoice. What do you think? JoelleJay ( talk) 16:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humour | |
🦘 🪃. Discussion closing comments often need to be serious, but sometimes a little humour helps. The second emoji hasn't hit mainstream support yet, but it is in Unicode 13 ;-). — andrybak ( talk) 10:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
Note the post to my talk page. I have no idea what this IP is on about. I have never even heard of that Wiki before this. LTA? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
...and the IPs are blocked for a week. :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Given this do you have thoughts on this? I did a massive amount of filtering sources and writing the new version of the article. At the very least I believe it deserves an AfD. - Scarpy ( talk) 04:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Someone is trying to edit war a bizarre redirect for "Trump virus" (referring to SARS-CoV-2) at the List of eponymously named diseases article. The IP user has had multiple reverts by multiple users with multiple warnings on their talk page and persists in doing this. Just FYI. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 20:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Guy, I figure you might be a good sounding board for two questions I have, neither of which are related but since I'm here...
The first is my "indef-lite" idea that I've proposed a few times. My initial idea had been something like a block/ban that had no time limit but also wasn't meant to be onerous to reverse. We effectively do have something like this for inappropriate user names and I think an admin is free to indef a user with a comment that "it can be appealed any time and all they have to do is X to address the original concern". But on their log it still shows as an indef. I suspect I'm not the only one who sees any indef on an editor's record as "one step away from off the island". Would it make sense to have a different term for blocks/tbans that are meant to be "until corrected" vs something else? An example was given on my talk page of two different indef behaviors [ [1]], one where we might never want the person back, the other we might look at as "one time dumb mistake". Anyway, I thought I would get your take on the question.
The other question relates to the SashiRolls discussion but again is a somewhat generic question. More than once I've seen cases where it looks like an admin made a questionable consensus call. Per my example here [ [2]] I'm thinking in part of cases where things seem to come down to a numeric vote and an admin comes in and says for example 55%=consensus. As in my example my rule of thumb is 2/3rds is where I say numerical consensus. Less than 1/3rd = means consensus against, 1/3rd to 2/3rds = no consensus, over 2/3rds= consensus for. I would hope that most editors would agree that 55% for is not "consensus for" (assuming good argument on both sides etc). My problem in such a case is, by the numbers, it's almost impossible to overturn such a bad close. Reviews are so often not about "was the closing logic good" but instead, "did I agree with the closing outcome". So in my 55% case the Against side feels this should have been a no-consensus and they open a review. During the review perhaps some of those who voted For will agree the close was bad but enough say "happy with it" and we get say 50/50 good/bad close. Since it's no consensus it sticks. Would it be better if in such a case there needs to be a "consensus the close was good" rather than "consensus the close was bad"? If there isn't a consensus to support the close then the discussion is reopened and a different admin (or panel) gets to close it. Take a deletion discussion. If the closing is contested on grounds that "closed as consensus but was not consensus" then the review discussion could have three outcomes. A consensus to uphold the close (2/3rds) would cement the close. A consensus to reverse (2/3rds say it was bad) would then change the closing to what ever the 2/3rds said it should have been. A no-consensus would simply reopen the discussion for a period of time and then require a different editor/admin to close it. I think such a system would avoid the double jeopardy we have now where a bad call is exceedingly difficult to overturn since it takes a solid consensus to overturn a disputed consensus call. Is that reasonable? What problems would it cause that I just haven't thought of?
Thanks Springee ( talk) 18:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of
Archduke Markus of Austria has been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per
Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "
if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". Such consensus is particularly required before moving a title with incoming links in order to create a disambiguation page at that title. If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion to form the appropriate consensus. Again, please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. -
dwc lr (
talk) 07:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
So User:DWC LR moved Manuel Prinz von Bayern back to the ridiculous page title Prince Manuel of Bavaria. The editor keeps doing this sort of thing despite warnings, I think it is very disruptive. Smeat75 ( talk) 20:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
When are you gonna start oin the "Bourbon Two Sicilies" crew? - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 10:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Smallbones/Proposed commercial editing policy
Smallbones( smalltalk) 18:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
If you can spare a little time to help with a CIR issue, discussion here, that would be great. There's also an AfD of the same article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Mel Honey; your intervention there would be welcome but supererogatory. Thanks in advance for whatever you can do. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Its here, since you asked. TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
While the RfC is archived, it still hasn't formally been closed, despite my request for closure several days ago. Regardless, there seems to be a firm concensus to at least add an edit filter. As Facebook technically isn't a depreciated source, I'm not sure 869 is the correct filter to use, would it be worth coming up with a custom filter, or is there a more appropriate pre-existing one? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Given the confusion and resistance citing COMMONNAME, it might be helpful to split the RfC into two proposals: one for article title and one for inclusion of people in templates/categories and how we reference them in wikivoice. What do you think? JoelleJay ( talk) 16:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)