User talk:John254/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dirty Fork

Did it seriously not matter at all when you closed the AFD that not one person refuted the assertions of the nomination? Did it seriously not make any difference to you that of the people who said keep one of them admitted that the sketch isn't notable and the other two based their comments on calling me a troll? Was there even the slightest consideration given to the quality of the arguments presented, or does the simple fact that there are no sources that attest to the notability of the sketch not matter in the face of people saying "oh sure it's notable" without backing up the claim at all? Just exactly how bad does a keep argument have to be before it fails to overcome objections based in policy, guideline and dozens of precedents? Otto4711 22:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I would observe that there was a nearly unanimous consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dirty Fork to retain the article. Every established user who commented at the AFD besides you supported retention of the article. Under such circumstances, the AFD discussion would almost certainly have been closed as "keep" regardless of who closed it. I doubt that there would be many administrators willing to delete an article as a result of an AFD discussion in which many established users supported retention of the article, and not one established user besides the nominator supported deletion, unless the article constituted a serious WP:BLP violation, a copyright violation, or was otherwise exceptionally harmful, or there was clear evidence that comments favoring retention were the result of canvassing, abusive sockpuppetry, or other unacceptable activity. Why? Simply put, the strengths of arguments offered at AFD discussions do not exist as absolute quantities which are not subject to any reasonable dispute. Instead, the perceived strength of arguments varies as a function of the person evaluating them. So, an administrator who decided to delete an article in the face of essentially unanimous support of established users for retaining it would be putting himself in the position of claiming that his personal judgment regarding the merits of the arguments presented was so far superior to the judgment of every other established user who expressed an opinion at the AFD that his personal opinion properly outweighed nearly all others. An administrator might properly advance such a claim only in rather exceptional circumstances, which were not present here. This is not to say, however, that AFD discussions are decided purely by counting the votes of established users: they clearly are not. Rather, the applicability of the principle that AFD is not a vote is subject to limitations, which are most clearly reached when there is absolutely no support by anyone except the nominator for the deletion of an article. Administrators have been known, on occasion, to delete articles as a result of AFD discussions in which a clear majority of established users supported retention of the article, if they personally believe the arguments for deletion to be more firmly supported by Wikipedia policy or otherwise more persuasive; even in such cases, however, they generally require some substantial support for the deletion of an article before deleting it (though the supporters of deletion may be distinctly in the minority).
As a corollary to the principle that administrators quite rarely delete articles against a nearly unanimous consensus for retention at AFD, it is quite rarely the case that there would be a nearly unanimous consensus for the retention of an article that was in clear violation of Wikipedia policy or otherwise clearly needed to be deleted. With regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dirty Fork, you appear to be claiming that the arguments presented for the retention of the article were entirely unreasonable (and thus should be afforded no weight). I find this claim to be unpersuasive. While it is true that Wikipedia's verifiability and notability policies require that articles concern topics of which there is significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources, and while the presence of such sources in the article itself at the time of the AFD provides the clearest possible evidence of notability, there is no support, in either Wikipedia policy or practice, for the contention that any article which comes to AFD without the necessary sources to establish its notability, and to which no such sources are added during the AFD discussion, must therefore automatically be deleted. Rather, where it is reasonably believed that the sources necessary to establish notability are likely to exist, the community may choose to retain the article, even if such sources are not present at the time of the AFD. So, if someone were to nominate, say, our article on the National Electrical Code for deletion on the grounds of inadequate sourcing and failure to establish notability, the article would properly be retained, even if sufficient sources weren't produced during the AFD discussion. Often, the belief that acceptable sources can be found for an article is little more than subjective opinion. Consequently, arguments of the form "keep, I believe this subject is notable" are valid at AFD, if a sufficient number of established users assert them. This does not, of course, excuse personal attacks or unsupported accusations of trolling; however, I do not believe that many of the comments favoring retention of the article were offered solely or primarily on such a basis. (If it were clear that certain comments were motivated primarily by personal animus towards the nominator, such comments would, of course, need to be disregarded.) John254 00:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User: Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Hi there, I see this admin is again blanking his Talk & User pages, making following a dialogue a little difficult. Can he do this? --Rodhullandemu 12:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it shows that he's read what people have put. If he's removing it, it probably means he's not interested in replying - not saying it's a good thing, just his choice. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your AFD closure

With regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winzapper, exactly which sources do you believe meet the requirements of WP:RS? shoy 04:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I would observe that there was a nearly unanimous consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winzapper to retain the article. Every established user who commented at the AFD besides you supported retention of the article. Under such circumstances, the AFD discussion would almost certainly have been closed as "keep" regardless of who closed it. I doubt that there would be many administrators willing to delete an article as a result of an AFD discussion in which many established users supported retention of the article, and not one established user besides the nominator supported deletion, unless the article constituted a serious WP:BLP violation, a copyright violation, or was otherwise exceptionally harmful, or there was clear evidence that comments favoring retention were the result of canvassing, abusive sockpuppetry, or other unacceptable activity. Why? Simply put, the strengths of arguments offered at AFD discussions do not exist as absolute quantities which are not subject to any reasonable dispute. Instead, the perceived strength of arguments varies as a function of the person evaluating them. So, an administrator who decided to delete an article in the face of essentially unanimous support of established users for retaining it would be putting himself in the position of claiming that his personal judgment regarding the merits of the arguments presented was so far superior to the judgment of every other established user who expressed an opinion at the AFD that his personal opinion properly outweighed nearly all others. An administrator might properly advance such a claim only in rather exceptional circumstances, which were not present here. This is not to say, however, that AFD discussions are decided purely by counting the votes of established users: they clearly are not. Rather, the applicability of the principle that AFD is not a vote is subject to limitations, which are most clearly reached when there is absolutely no support by anyone except the nominator for the deletion of an article. Administrators have been known, on occasion, to delete articles as a result of AFD discussions in which a clear majority of established users supported retention of the article, if they personally believe the arguments for deletion to be more firmly supported by Wikipedia policy or otherwise more persuasive; even in such cases, however, they generally require some substantial support for the deletion of an article before deleting it (though the supporters of deletion may be distinctly in the minority).
As a corollary to the principle that administrators quite rarely delete articles against a nearly unanimous consensus for retention at AFD, it is quite rarely the case that there would be a nearly unanimous consensus for the retention of an article that was in clear violation of Wikipedia policy or otherwise clearly needed to be deleted. While it is true that Wikipedia's verifiability and notability policies require that articles concern topics of which there is significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources, and while the presence of such sources in the article itself at the time of the AFD provides the clearest possible evidence of notability, there is no support, in either Wikipedia policy or practice, for the contention that any article which comes to AFD without the necessary sources to establish its notability, and to which no such sources are added during the AFD discussion, must therefore automatically be deleted. Rather, where it is reasonably believed that the sources necessary to establish notability are likely to exist, the community may choose to retain the article, even if such sources are not present at the time of the AFD. So, if someone were to nominate, say, our article on the National Electrical Code for deletion on the grounds of inadequate sourcing and failure to establish notability, the article would properly be retained, even if sufficient sources weren't produced during the AFD discussion. Often, the belief that acceptable sources can be found for an article is little more than subjective opinion. Consequently, arguments of the form "keep, I believe this subject is notable" are valid at AFD, if a sufficient number of established users assert them. John254 13:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
In my eyes, the two keep !votes after the initial one by the article's creator were based on an assertion that reliable sources had been added to the article, which I feel not to be the case. shoy 21:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I just stumbled across this one, but I have to agree with shoy. There is not a single reliable secondary source cited in the article. Most qualify as self-published, and the one from symantec is really a primary source. I also question the notability of this. The premise "...demonstrating that once the Administrator account has been compromised, event logs are no longer reliable[1]" is really rather laughable. Of course the logs are going to be unreliable. There is a good reason why computer event logs are not admissible as evidence in court, unless the logs were printed out hard copy in real time as the events were logged. That is why you will see a tractor-fed printer in every datacenter, that is busily printing away 24/7, and a security guy is tasked with checking it every hour to make sure it hasn't jammed or run out of paper. This is true on Unix, Linux, Sun, and Windows. Any high level account (like root or administrator) can change log entries. This just isn't something that is notable, and it appears to me to be simple promotion. I think it should be relisted to gather more consensus, because I would certainly vote strong delete. - Crockspot 23:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winzapper has been relisted to allow a more thorough discussion of this issue. I'll recuse myself from closing it again. John254 23:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Non admin AfD closure

Don't worry, I'm not about to abuse you :-) I also do Non admin closes, and I though I might give you a couple of tips. It might help to link the WP:SNOW and WP:DPR#NAC policies when you close articles like I do. Also, make sure you put the {{oldafdfull}} on the talk pages of the articles - if you see a {{Rescue}} one there, remove it too.. it has served it's purpose with a keep decision. Fosnez 02:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for quickly reverting 70.50.229.55's vandalism of my user page. I've been busy most of today and only just saw it. Thanks! --Imroy 13:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-Admin AfD Closures

I would suggest that when doing this, you identify that you are not an administrator. i said 01:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? Administrators are normal editors with a few extra buttons. If someone closes an AFD in accordance with consensus and weighs up the arguments against the relevant policies correctly, adminship shouldn't be an issue. Melsaran (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Because it is suggested at the deletion process. A non-admin closing can be undone by an administrator without going through deletion review. If you feel qualified to close AfDs, then run for adminship. Otherwise, you should identify the fact that the community has not (officially) decided they trust you enough to do administrator tasks. i said 01:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Mattisse

My reply on my talk page: "I notified Malik on his talk page. I didn't consider that to be an added signature and I'm not the one who moved the RfC to "approved" -- I listed it as not currently approved because I considered myself the sole signature. I was only adding him to the list of people who tried talking to the subject. If the template is ambiguous, it should be changed." Also, if you don't consider the subject's actions to be important enough violations to call for an RfC, what do you think qualifies? As borderline? What do you believe the main reason for a Request for Comment is? Like I said on the page, I am asking for commentary, not for someone's banning which you seem to imply. - Cyborg Ninja 05:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider in light of the extensive documentation I just provided. If this matter isn't given consideration at the RfC, I may report Mattisse's abusive behavior at AN/I. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The requests for comment process is generally used in response to persistent policy violations or other misconduct occurring over a significant period of time. It is not normally employed in response to a single incident, unless the incident involves egregious misconduct (which, of course, would probably be better reported at WP:ANI). John254 05:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. After reviewing WP:RFC again, I don't see anything wrong. The first paragraph of the article says: "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, consensus building, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines." Later on, it adds "Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours." So, it is saying that it must involve the same dispute, not requiring repeated violations specifically, and that it is an informal process asking for commentary like I said earlier. Mattisse spread the dispute outside of the article itself, and so I am asking for commentary from other users about the situation. I think you are mistaken about the purpose of RfC. - Cyborg Ninja 05:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
And yet, somewhat contradictorily, the section entitled "Request comment on users" states that

An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. The Arbitration Committee closely considers evidence and comments in RfC if the editors involved in the RfC are later named in a request for arbitration. Filing an RfC is not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.

So, just because RFC is a "lightweight process" doesn't imply that it is "to be taken lightly". John254 06:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
"A user that is the subject of an RfC should be notified on their talk page." "Should" instead of "must." If you'd like to edit that page to make it unambiguous, then go ask for a consensus. And as you saw before, I said that I was going to notify the user, but later decided not to after reviewing the RfC policy guidelines again. I'm done with the talk page commentary. - Cyborg Ninja 06:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am very disappointed at your seeming unwillingness to reconsider your opinion in light of the detailed information I provided, and your description of the RfC as "unwarranted" in your comment at User talk:Mattisse. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Templates

I've reversed the redirects, and also the unprotections of the templates I unprotected. Evidently this was a large error on my behalf, and I am deeply sorry for the trouble I have now caused. Acalamari 20:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaime Ekberg

Hi John, just got a deletion notice about copyright,. I need some help, I am not sure how to put this on. It is a scanned copy of a newspaper article. Not sure what to do about that, I have included a link directly to the online version of the article so that it is obvious that it comes from the HS. Also, when I do a search under Jaime's name nothing comes up. Have I done that wrong as well? Cheers & many thanks, Marg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaretmulheron (talk • contribs) 15:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Kurtgnu

I blocked him indefinitely for the username. But username violations should be reported to WP:UAA, not AIV. Daniel Case 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundant warning

Why was my warning on User_talk:Asdsdf redundant? He hadn't been warned for anything since September 11. F-402 22:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It was redundant because the user had previously received a final warning for vandalism, which expressly stated that it was his "last warning". While it might be appropriate to issue an additional warning in the case of an IP, which might not be the same person, a logged-in user who engages in further vandalism after a final warning should be summarily blocked, without the issuance of additional warnings. John254 22:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from Burlywood

Thank you for reverting the damage to my user page. I must have irritated someone, but I have not idea who or why! Burlywood 13:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Brother

I am not sure why I am not entitled to know who the primary account holder is. I was the sole subject of this attack account who filed two separate 3RR complaints, one of which was completely erroneous. It was clearly someone I have had contact and possible disputes with, and I think i have a right to know at least the true username of someone stalking my edits. I have never received any contact from Heavy Brother, despite the little song and dance he did for the admins, talking about how he was going to contact me, apologizing for the false 3RR.
Usually, someone who creates a sock account incorrectly, if reinstated, clearly identifies the doppleganger nature of the account and the parent. A private account used solely to attack another user doesn't seem to be in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. I should have a right to know which user is specifically not employing AGF when it comes to me, so I can either avoid or be prepared against their attack efforts. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 01:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

With thanks!   
Thanks for participating in my RfA, which closed successfuly.
I leave you with a picture of the real Blood Red Sandman!
Note his 'mop' is slightly deadlier than mine!
- - Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

Ready to swab the decks!   
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew.
Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh!

- - Jehochman Talk 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan-tv-stub &c

Hi there! In regards to your comment on the WP:SFD page, about Taiwan-tv-stub and ethics-stub, the proposal is to keep the templates and delete the categories for now. Does your comment support the proposal, or is your preference to keep both the templates and the categories? Thanks for clarifying - Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I support keeping both the categories and the stub templates, as no justification for their deletion has been offered. The mere fact that a category has a small number of articles does not justify its deletion. John254 23:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The justification is that, by stub sorting standards, it's not efficient to have a stub category with fewer than 60 or so articles (although if there's a WikiProject associated with a stub type, 30+ will do). There's a different standard for stub categories than for "regular" categories. If we keep the templates, and they end up on more than 60 items, the categories will be created in due time. Would that compromise be acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegship (talk • contribs) 03:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how the number of articles in a stub category affects the efficiency of stub sorting at all. The stub templates include the associated categories, and add articles to the categories automatically when they are transcluded. No extra work is required for categorization. John254 03:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Further discussion of this matter should be directed to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/October/10. John254 03:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Policyalteration

Template:Policyalteration has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Melsaran (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Dear John254, 
 ______  __                       __                               __     
/\__  _\/\ \                     /\ \                             /\ \    
\/_/\ \/\ \ \___      __      ___\ \ \/'\   __  __    ___   __  __\ \ \   
   \ \ \ \ \  _ `\  /'__`\  /' _ `\ \ , <  /\ \/\ \  / __`\/\ \/\ \\ \ \  
    \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/\ \_\.\_/\ \/\ \ \ \\`\\ \ \_\ \/\ \_\ \ \ \_\ \\ \_\ 
     \ \_\ \ \_\ \_\ \__/.\_\ \_\ \_\ \_\ \_\/`____ \ \____/\ \____/ \/\_\
      \/_/  \/_/\/_/\/__/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/`/___/> \/___/  \/___/   \/_/
                                                /\___/                    
                                                \/__/                     


For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes.

The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I am privileged to stand among them. Thankyou for putting you trust in me, I'll not see it abused. And now, I will dance naked around a fire. Party at my place! Cheers! Dfrg.msc 09:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC for User:Scipo

I have started a request for comment for User:Scipo regarding his reverting of genre changes. If you'd like to endorse this RfC or comment, please do so at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Scipo. Wyatt Riot 23:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thanks, Archive 10!
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was a success, and I look forward to getting started! Hiberniantears 17:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Issues on User:Bushytails

You and Bushytails keep reverting each other but I don't see any evidence of any attempt to talk about it. Don't just revert, talk. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting edits like this and this, both of which threaten Wikipedia contributors with violence, isn't revert warring. Instead of admonishing me for removing the threats, would you consider blocking the user who issued them? John254 02:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Moore

John, your non-admin closure blatantly contradicted with WP:DPR#Non-administrators closing discussions, so I undid it and deleted the page, according to consensus. The issue is being discussed here, your comments are welcome. MaxSem 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments regarding this matter here. John254 22:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Archive This 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.