SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) →Technical question: random comment |
BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 344: | Line 344: | ||
::One no longer needs to assume good faith when there's been a clear demonstration of bad faith. I've built consensus multiple times in this episode. And then you've used your administrative powers to thwart that consensus. [[User:Jweiss11|Jweiss11]] ([[User talk:Jweiss11|talk]]) 17:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC) |
::One no longer needs to assume good faith when there's been a clear demonstration of bad faith. I've built consensus multiple times in this episode. And then you've used your administrative powers to thwart that consensus. [[User:Jweiss11|Jweiss11]] ([[User talk:Jweiss11|talk]]) 17:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::Wrong on all counts. But we'll sort it at ANI. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span><span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired</span>Girl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 18:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC) |
:::Wrong on all counts. But we'll sort it at ANI. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span><span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired</span>Girl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 18:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
I wrote a long reply for [[WP:ANI#Obstructive,_spiteful_administration_by_BrownHairedGirl]] but that discussion was closed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=838248243&oldid=838248213] by {{ping|Bbb23 |p=}} so I will post it here rather than discard it: |
|||
* '''Wow'''. {{ping|Jweiss11|p=}}'s tiarade is the biggest barrage of [[WP:IDHT]] and assuming bad faith that I have in a long time. And I have the dubious honour of having it all directed at me. |
|||
:So I will unpick it. |
|||
:* '''the CfD/speedy nomination''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&oldid=825436412] |
|||
::the issue here is very very simple |
|||
::#[[WP:CFDS#Admin_instructions_for_handling_listed_entries]] says very clearly ''"Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria"'' |
|||
::#Jweiss11's nomination met none of those criteria, so I opposed it |
|||
::In such cases, even when the proposal seems to everyone to be a good idea, it can proceed only after a full discussion. This is the is the same principle applied in speedy deletion (see [[WP:CSD]]), that the speedy process is only for use in a few precisely-specified circumstances. Everything else goes to XfD, to build a consensus. |
|||
::Every week, several nominations are made at [[WP:CFDS]] which are oposed because they do not fit the criteria. (In the last 7 days, I count 4: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&diff=837952520&oldid=837951143]&[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&diff=837633805&oldid=837632823] by me, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&diff=837882287&oldid=837872261], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&diff=837606145&oldid=837601362] by {{ping|Armbrust|p=}}). So this oppose was not some rare event, orsome picking on one editor; it was routine piece of scrutiny, which in 99% of cases is uneventful |
|||
::In this case, Jweiss11 rapidly abandoned his mistaken attempts to claim that his proposal met either [[WP:C2C]] or [[WP:C2D]], but instead retreated to a generalised assertion that this was {{tq|an obvious slam dunk move that has countless analogues}}. |
|||
::It doesn't matter whether that assertion is true or false, because {{tq|an obvious slam dunk}} is ''not'' one of the [[WP:CFDS]] criteria. If Jweiss11 (or any other editor) believes that it should be a criterion, they may of course propose a new criterion, and see if there is a consensus for the change. Meanwhile, my job as an admin is to uphold the ''existing'' consensus ... for which Jweiss11 chose to personally attack me. |
|||
::So this was a classic case of admin abuse: abuse ''of'' an admin by an editor who chose to throw a temper tamtrum because they don't like the community consensus on process. I was attacked because I upheld that consensus rather than abusing my admin powers in breach of [[WP:CFDS#Admin_instructions_for_handling_listed_entries]], just to satisfy Jweiss11's demands and soothe his tantrum. |
|||
::{{ping|SMcCandlish|p=}} posted a message[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jweiss11&diff=825489263&oldid=823690990] a warning on Jweiss11's talk about such misconduct. Jweiss11 did not reply. |
|||
::Below it, I posted a request[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jweiss11&diff=next&oldid=825489263] to Jweiss11 to retract. Again, no reply. |
|||
::I considered taking it to ANI, but decided it would be too time-consuming, and the point had been made. In hindsight, that was a bad call; it seems Jweiss11 has very much ''not'' got the message. |
|||
:* Jweiss11 then took the proposal to a full discussion at [[WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_22#Amherst_Mammoths]], where there was a clear consensus to proceed. |
|||
::This is a common situation: a proposal which did not meet any speedy criteria is nonethless agreed at XfD to be a wise action. It happens every day at XfD: in CfD, AfD, TfD, MfD. However, the point which Jweiss11 is unable or unwilling to comprehend is that a consensus in a full discusison on deletion or renaming does not alter the speedy criteria. If a hundred editors had pile on in support, it might have merited a [[WP:SNOW]] close ... but even if a thousand had supported it, that would not change the simple fact that it was ineligible for ''speedy'' renaming. |
|||
::When the full discussion had been open 11 days Jweiss11 posted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2018_February_22&type=revision&diff=828357652&oldid=827814539] there pinging me to as me to close it. I replied a few hours later to say {{tq|after the vicious personal abuse which you heaped on me when you tried misusing [[WP:CFDS]] to do this renaming, the answer is "no way". Some other admin will close this discussion in due course.}} |
|||
::That remains my view. Lie every other editor on en.wp, I am a volunteer. I will not abuse any privileges to harm another editor and I will usually try ro help if I can ... but my volunteered time is not avaialble to assist editors who have chosen to make unretracted personal atavks on me for uholdiong comunity norms. If the communitu decides that an admin is not free to make such choices, then I will promptly resign my 12yo adminship. |
|||
::Jweiss completely ignored my point about the personal attack and asked again[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_22&diff=prev&oldid=828678826] that I close it. I replied at greater length,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_22&diff=next&oldid=828678826] concluding {{tq|:No matter how much a requested action might improve Wikipedia, I will step aside and leave others to make their own choices about whether to volunteer their time to assist an editor who ignores basic en.wp policies on user conduct, and who abuses admins for following consensus on process}}. That remains my view. |
|||
::Jweiss11 then pinged {{ping|Marcocapelle|p=}} (an experienced much-respected and non-admin who oten closes CfDs) to lose this one as {{tq|long overdue for closure}}. Marcocapelle replied[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_22&diff=next&oldid=829797976] to point out that it was not "long overdue", pointing to a discussion which had by then been open for over 10 weeks. Unclosed CfDs are listed at [[WP:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions]], which at that moment (21:51, 10 March 2018) had 95 entries[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Old_unclosed_discussions&oldid=829730500]; the Amherst Mammoths discussion was midawy down the lsit at #50. The discussion was closed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_22&diff=832236416&oldid=832236159] on 24 March by non-admin {{ping|DexDor|p=}} ... but in the meantime Jweiss11 had again posted to say {{tq|it should have been pushed through as speedy}}. |
|||
::This is all v poor behaviour by Jweiss11. A self-important belief that his nomination was expecuia;;y worthy or urgent and a continued denial of the simple fact that his proposal had not met any [[WP:CFDS#Speedy_criteria]]. Echoes of [[WP:THETRUTH]] and [[WP:IDHT]]. |
|||
:* [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_3#Category:Big_Sky_football_team_navigational_boxes]] |
|||
::Scroll on to April. I had some time to clear the CfD backlog, so I closed 4 discussions on that page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_3&diff=835784188&oldid=835780416], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_3&diff=835832706&oldid=835830553], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_3&diff=835834759&oldid=835832706], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_3&diff=837227843&oldid=836350778]. |
|||
::The third of those closes on 11 April[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_3&diff=835834759&oldid=835832706] was of [[:Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes]]. There was clearly no consensus and discussion had stalled ater only one other editor had respnded. Jweiss's reply was the last contribution, only 2 days after listing and 6 days before closure. I saw no reason to believe that leaving it open would bring responses or that relisting would generate new interest. This is not a content category; it an adminstrative category of templates which shoud never be visible to our readers. Such categories rarely attract much attention at CfD which in any case has wofully few participants. The previosu day I had relisted about 10 discussions at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 10]] so CfD was busy. In such cases, when faced with a close call on whether to relist, I swing the balance a little to "no": when a discussion forum is backlogged with under-discused reader-facing categories, I am a little more reluctant to relist. |
|||
::When closing a CfD I ''try'' to avoid paying attention to the name of the nominator; I focus on the contriburions not the contriburiors. So in closing that Big Sky discusison I have no recollection of noticing the name of the nominator. A fter that closure I recieved no communicationfrom anyone about it; no ping no message on my talk. Like 99% of my hundreds of CfD closures in rhe last 6 months, it seemed uncontroversial. |
|||
:* Today I was reviewing ope nominations and spotted [[WP:Categories_for discussion/Log/2018 April 24#Category:Big_Sky_football_team_navigational_boxes]]. The title rang a bell so I checked the history, spotted my recent closure of the prvious discssion checked that I had recieved no cimmunication about the previous close, and promptly closed the new discusison as blatant forum-shopping.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_24&diff=838208573&oldid=838120060] |
|||
:Later I received notice of this ANI. |
|||
:Only at ANI did I learn that Jweiss11 had in fact chosen to discuss the 11 April close without either notifying me of his dissatisfaction or opening a [[WP:DRV]]. Instead of following the community's long-established processes for challenging XfD closes he opened a discusion at WT:CFB and after responses from only 2 other editors decided that he now had a mandate to open a fresh CfD. |
|||
:So we have in Jweis11 an editor who: |
|||
:# made personal attacks against an admin whose refused to break established procedures for his covenience |
|||
:# failed to retract his personal attacks when ased to do so by an univolved admin |
|||
:# threw another tantrum when his CfD nomination was not closed promptly by the same admin |
|||
:# found a CfD closure he dislie and chose to ignore established procedures |
|||
:# threw yet another tantrum when his forum-shopping was closed. |
|||
:Not great, {{ping|Jweiss11|p=}}. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span><span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired</span>Girl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 21:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:28, 25 April 2018
Thanks + invitation
Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks! |
Merge Proposal
Hi there!
Rembrandt research in Australia
Hello BrownHairedGirl,
I am researching a Rembrandt that may have been in the collection of Dr John Radcliffe 17th century inherited down to Dr J R Radcliffe 19th -20th century. Rembrandt was exhibited title Christ raising the daughter of Jarius in a major exhibition in Birmingham Art Gallery and Museum 1934 loaned by Dr JR Radciffe . I am attempting to link the two. Very difficult. Note The painting has been located in Australia with exhibition label,also no record of where the work is. I feel it was in the collection of Dr J Radcliffe as he did collect Rembrants work. For your interest. Regards Bryan Collie
Nikola Kicev
can you change my height in my bio :) 191 cm
Deletion review for 2018 UPSL Season
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2018 UPSL Season. 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.
Hugh Thomson article assessment
Hi BrownHairedGirl, thanks for adding WP Northern Ireland to Talk:Hugh Thomson. You auto-classified this article as a stub, I think based on the same rating by WP Biography - is that correct? That rating was added in December 2012 (to this version of the article), and since then the article has been significantly expanded and improved. I recently requested an assessment because I believe the article is at least at Start class or C class status. Would you mind taking a look at the article and perhaps reconsidering your rating? And, if you still consider it a stub, I'd appreciate any suggestions you have for how to improve it. Thanks! extabulis (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker): extabulis, I have reassessed it as a Start-class and added the Ireland Project banner because it is the whole island project. ww2censor (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Many thanks, @Ww2censor.
- @Extabulis: I hope that is all OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl and ww2censor, it is, thanks! extabulis (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor and Extabulis: I only just looked at the article now. I wonder if it's not more C-class than Start-class on the Quality scale? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Extabulis and BrownHairedGirl: I do tend to be rather conservative in my article assessments and as you know well they are quite subjective, so it's just my opinion. I think it's fair but will not get upset if you uprate it to C-class. ww2censor (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor thanks. I do think that in general it's best to stay on the conservative with article assessments. But in this case I think you was a little too conservative. So I'll up it to a C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Extabulis and BrownHairedGirl: I do tend to be rather conservative in my article assessments and as you know well they are quite subjective, so it's just my opinion. I think it's fair but will not get upset if you uprate it to C-class. ww2censor (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor and Extabulis: I only just looked at the article now. I wonder if it's not more C-class than Start-class on the Quality scale? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl and ww2censor, it is, thanks! extabulis (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
María Elvira Pombo Holguín
Hello BrownHairedGirl,
could you please update information about María Elvira Pombo Holguín?
She is currently the ambassadress of Colombia in Germany.
Thank you in advance,
Miguel Hernandez (Colombian citizen living in Germany) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.100.111.139 (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Please explain
Enough already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Your block of Wumbolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems harsh and unnecessary. It also doesn't seem to violate the fool rules. What am I missing?- MrX 🖋 20:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- WP:FOOLR #1: "Jokes that affect articles, including files, categories and templates that are used in the article namespace,[8] will be treated as vandalism. Depending on the nature, you risk having your account possibly blocked from editing.".
- Also WP:Rules_for_Fools#AfDs: don't tag the nominated page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, so it was for the tag on Category:Category namespace. I would have thought a level one warning and a revert would have sufficed for an editor who has a clean block record. Hell, we give drive by vandals and Nazis better treatment than that!- MrX 🖋 20:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- We assume that drive-by vandals don't know better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, we don't. Did it escape your notice that WP:FOOLS says "A vandal should not be blocked immediately simply because the vandalism occurred on April Fools' Day."? I've inquired at WP:AN, in case you have an interest in weighing in there.- MrX 🖋 20:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- No. I just want to get on with building an encyclopedia, rather than waste time on meta discussions about precisely how big a trout to use on people who disrupt it with "jokes" which were stale years ago.
- Thanks for your comments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- It was a bad block. Period. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, we don't. Did it escape your notice that WP:FOOLS says "A vandal should not be blocked immediately simply because the vandalism occurred on April Fools' Day."? I've inquired at WP:AN, in case you have an interest in weighing in there.- MrX 🖋 20:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- We assume that drive-by vandals don't know better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, so it was for the tag on Category:Category namespace. I would have thought a level one warning and a revert would have sufficed for an editor who has a clean block record. Hell, we give drive by vandals and Nazis better treatment than that!- MrX 🖋 20:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- BHG, just unblock them. It's an editor who's been around since all of 2016. Is this really the way you want to register your personal dislike for April fools day? By blocking a productive editor? GMGtalk 21:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Notifying you: WP:AN#Block review. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- BHG for future reference if an editor makes an April Fools joke and you disagree with it .... warn them first ..... don't instantly block them as that's just asking for a desysop right there, Failing that come 1st April stay off of Wikipedia for a day ..... It was a bad block no doubt about it. –Davey2010Talk 21:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Block reduced to time served, and lifted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Good. This was borderline stupid. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 22:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Administrators' newsletter – April 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).
- 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
- Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando
- Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
- Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
- The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
- The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.
- There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
- The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.
- A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
- The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Not perfect
I believe you were acting in good faith with the block above but you have to remember that WP:FOOLS is in my opinion only improves each year. I went ahead and added a footnote for Rule #1, I would like your input seeing that it did effect you above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Knowledgekid87: you didn't supply a diff, so it's unclear which of your ~15 edits you are referring to. However, on a quick scan, I don't see any big change, just a lot more words. More WP:CREEP
- Look, the underlying issue is your view that
WP:FOOLS is in my opinion only improves each year
. I strongly disagree with that; from my POV, the flood of juvenile "let's delete X 'cos I don't like it LOL" AFDs gets more tedious each year, and yesterday's crop was no exception. The only one which made me even smile was the nom of yesterday's AfD page, to make it all stop. - Clearly, we we will not agree about the funniness, which is exactly my point. Sense of humour varies widely by language, country, culture, class, gender, religion, level of education, etc ... so most humour has a very limited audience.
- En.wp has editors from a huge variety of backgrounds, so shared humour is rare. Sadly some people — esp younger people — seem unaware that their humour has limited appeal, so feel entitled to inflict it on others.
- So, whatever the details of your tweaks, they amount to yet more rules designed to legitimate the antics of editors who assume that their worldview is universal and show no sign of respect for those who don't share it. Tedious.
- I'd be way more impressed if you devoted your energies to ensuring that WP:FOOLS antics were kept out of the workspaces which editors use to build and maintain en.wp. So no "joke" XFDs, RFCs, etc, unless they are kept clear of the usual workspaces.
- I doubt we'd get (or need) a new Fools: namespace, but we could have a WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 1/Fools linked from a hatnote on WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 1, and so on for any other such venues.
- That way
- those who think that "Delete Donald Trump cos Lolz" is earth-shatteringly funny know where to find it
- those who don't want to encounter it don't have to
- the AfD day log isn't clogged with more "jokes" than real AfDs, as it was yesterday
- nobody who isn't playing WP:FOOLS needs to waste time closing these things, 'cos they are not on the usual work pages
- Everybody happy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- I like your proposal, and we could have the venue arranged like RfD where we don't create a subpage for every nomination, and instead directly edit the log. This wouldn't mess up afdstats etc. wumbolo ^^^ 19:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding your unblock summary,
I couldn't be bothered aguing the toss
, I have to remind you of a previous comment you left at a past ANI:when I spot a perceived problem editor, but lack the time and/or stable connectivity to do the due diligence required of a admin, I leave a quick note for another admin, or at ANI, or I leave it until I can devote the required time.
Cheers, wumbolo ^^^ 16:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)- @Wumbolo: at the time I made the block, I thought I had done due diligence: I checked WP:FOOLS carefully.
In hindsight, I see that there is a body of opinion which takes a more lenient attitude than I did to April Fools disruption outside the already over-broad boundaries of WP:FOOLS, but I'm not sure that a reasonable level of homework would have clarified the appropriate response. My judgement about the breach of WP:FOOLS was not an issue at WP:AN, just the level of response.
Anyway, have fun trawling my ANI contribs for words to take out of context, as you did with that comment[1] about an admin who had entirely misread every aspect of both the substantive issue and the user's conduct[2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Wumbolo: at the time I made the block, I thought I had done due diligence: I checked WP:FOOLS carefully.
Edit summary usage
Your quantity of edits is too large for xtools (the limit is 350,000)! You may want to adjust the link [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/editsummary/index.php?name=BrownHairedGirl&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia my recent '''edit summary''' usage]
in User:BrownHairedGirl#My edit summary usage accordingly (though it may be better to retain the xtools link in some form, as the tool may expand its limit in the future.) E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 17:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- @E to the Pi times i: Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Category close request
Hi. The long-term RfD request for the category 'Broken hearts' (which should probably be renamed to 'Broken heart' per a suggestion in the discussion) has seen better days. You closed other sections on the page, and I'm concerned it will be left there. Would you please consider closing it, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: Links, please --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Good point, thanks. Here is the link. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 4#Category:Broken_hearts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. At least it's moving again. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 4#Category:Broken_hearts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Good point, thanks. Here is the link. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Women in Red
In connection with the success of your List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland, I was wondering whether I could encourage you to join WP:Women in Red (via "Join the WikiProject" in the box at the top RH corner). I thought with your interest in women and women's biographies you had been a member for some time, but I've just seen that you are neither on our main mailing list nor on our project membership list. I think joining the project would encourage others to follow in your footsteps. I think you could also offer advice on how we could improve the effectiveness of the projet.--Ipigott (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Ireland project banner
It looks like your tagging is adding a 2nd Ireland project banner to several talk pages, such as this one that I've removed as I did for the rest in today "reassessed" section of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ireland articles by quality log. There are probably many more but I did not go looking further yet. Have you finished tagging so we can try to got some more editors involved in Irish assessments? ww2censor (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Ww2censor
- ooops! Sorry about that, and many thanks for the friendly tone in which you alerted me to the glitch. (It's annoying when another editors' bulk edits make clean-up work, and you were kind not to express your frustration)
- I had several checks for pages which already contained a {{WikiProject Ireland}} banner (or its redirects), and AWB was supposed to skip them.
- However, there was a glitch in one of the regexes which I thought I had corrected in time. Looks like I didn't catch all of them.
- It's a fairly simple AWB job to identify duplicate banners on a given page , so I was about to set it to run through all 70,000 WPIE pages. However, I noticed that the pages you found this morning were all automatic assessments. I found at some point that here is a bug in the Kingbotk plugin which I was using at point for automatic assessments: it is supposed to do its own avoidance of duplication option, but while that had worked for other WikiProject banners (e.g {{WikiProject Gaelic games}} I belatedly found that it wasn't avoiding duplicates on WPIE ... and I couldn't make it do so. Grrr.
- So as a first pass I will run the check on all 9,321 pages currently in Category:Automatically assessed Ireland articles, and clean up any glitches.
- Then I will check the rest.
- I have finished tagging for now. I intend at some point to make a further run through biographies, which are difficult to set up because there are so many "leakages" into unwanted subcats (e.g. Category:Irish writers+ subcats includes every Dracula-related topic, which I didn't want to tag as WPIE; and there are similar issues with many other writers and other occupations). But I doubt I will get to that before next winter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- No need to apologise as I assumed if if notified you of an error you would try to fix it. Besides which I don't really understand the technicalities of your process. I just don't know how we will assess the 15K plus articles that now need review. That's about the same number of articles that were assessed just 10 years ago when we had just been going strong for about a year! Thanks for the explanation. ww2censor (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: Sorry, I meant to reply sooner on this. The only other double-tagged page I found was Talk:Bob Parkinson, which shouldn't have been in WP:IE anyway, so I removed him[3].
- IIRC I found a couple of others and removed them a few days ago, so doubt you would have found them. ww2censor (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- As to the 15K plus articles that now need review ... I'd suggest starting with the ~4500 pages in Category:Unassessed Ireland articles, and leave the ~9500 Category:Automatically assessed Ireland articles as a lower priority. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I wonder if articles such as Brian Horrocks should really be assessed by the project. I'm sure there are others whose connections are low to tenuous at best. ww2censor (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: Brian Horrocks was tagged 'cos he is in Category:British military personnel of the Irish War of Independence. Some of those in that cat — such as Frederick Shaw, Henry Hugh Tudor and Nevil Macready — very much belong in WPIE, and not as low-importance. However, others may not belong in WPIE at all, if their military role in Ireland was insignificant.
- As ever, editorial discretion is needed. In this case, Brian Horrocks#Back_home devotes only 1½ paras to his role in the War of Independence, apparently with the relatively junior rank of captain. The only source for this is his own autobiog; an independent source, esp an Irish one, might say more. So on balance, I'd leave him in, but I'd respect a difft judgement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I wonder if articles such as Brian Horrocks should really be assessed by the project. I'm sure there are others whose connections are low to tenuous at best. ww2censor (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: Sorry, I meant to reply sooner on this. The only other double-tagged page I found was Talk:Bob Parkinson, which shouldn't have been in WP:IE anyway, so I removed him[3].
- No need to apologise as I assumed if if notified you of an error you would try to fix it. Besides which I don't really understand the technicalities of your process. I just don't know how we will assess the 15K plus articles that now need review. That's about the same number of articles that were assessed just 10 years ago when we had just been going strong for about a year! Thanks for the explanation. ww2censor (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:DreamDoll songs
A tag has been placed on Category:DreamDoll songs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cabayi (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Pretty
Your username sounds pretty. 2600:1:F142:E9BE:884D:9655:8673:1703 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Category moving
Hello there! I very much appreciate you taking on the task of moving categories as you stated when you closed this discussion. I see you reverted the botched manual edits, but are you still going to move the others? Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Thanks, @Daybeers.
- I closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 27#Category:Lists_of_railway_accidents_in_Australia as "rename all"[4].
AFAICS, the bot did all the renaming with its usual thoroughness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Write a biography
I need a reliable source to write about my biography on Wikipedia please contact me if you are available Markpain (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Markpain: No.
- See the policy at WP:COI, and an explanatory essay at WP:Autobiography. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Album cover mistake
I uploaded a new version of the Twenty One Pilots album at File:Twenty_One_Pilots_album_cover.jpg, but the reference didn't get processed properly. Can you please edit it so it displays correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMGWP (talk • contribs) 04:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm assisting this editor on my user talk page now - you can consider this question resolved here :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Oshwah. Files are not really my thing anyway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- No problem :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Multiple categories for single politicians
Hi, I was about to close a CFD as Delete last night, but there was an edit conflict and I found that you had closed it as Keep.
Category:Tower Hamlets Independent Group councillors wasn't even in Category:Local political office-holders in the United Kingdom by party; presumably that was the large accepted overall sub-categorization scheme that you were referring to, so I have just added it there.
I still find it surprising that in that UK category with 16 party sub-cats, we have three for single notable persons in Tower Hamlets. I would have thought a more realistic outcome would be either to place those articles in the sub-cat for independent councillors, or not to categorise at that level by party. They will still be in the politicians-by-party hierarchy.
As for the cases about leaders of parties, Category:Leaders of political parties in the United Kingdom holds many biography pages directly, and I would have said that that was the overall accepted approach for leaders of local/micro parties. That category therefore does not need the two sub-categories for single pages for Tower Hamlets local parties. – Fayenatic London 08:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Fayenatic london
- It sounds to me a little like you are applying your own substantive judgement there. A reasonable judgement, but that is not the closer's role.
- In the actual discussion at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_11#Category:Tower_Hamlets_Independent_Group_councillors, Tanbircdq correctly cited WP:SMALLCAT, but was rebutted by the nom's inversion of WP:SMALLCAT. The discussion proceeded without any correction on policy.
- Same happened in the next section, WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_11#Category:Leaders_of_People's_Alliance_of_Tower_Hamlets.
- If policy had been correctly represented, maybe the discussion would have analysed the situation as you suggest above. Or maybe not; we can only speculate.
- But in the discussion which actually happened, the delete !votes were founded on an inversion of policy, which invalidates them.
- A new discussion some time in the future might reach a different outcome. But for now, I think it's v impt that a closer doesn't take a policy-inversion as the basis of a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining your rationale for setting aside a large number of Delete !votes in multiple cases. It seemed to me that there were multiple reasons given for deletion, not only the misrepresentation of policy. However, you were the closer, and the discussions needed closing; if you still think you made the best decision, I'm not going to take it further. – Fayenatic London 20:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure there was a best decision, @Fayenatic london. I was aiming for least worst, and hope I got somewhere near that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining your rationale for setting aside a large number of Delete !votes in multiple cases. It seemed to me that there were multiple reasons given for deletion, not only the misrepresentation of policy. However, you were the closer, and the discussions needed closing; if you still think you made the best decision, I'm not going to take it further. – Fayenatic London 20:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I need a little help, please...
I have a question for you regarding a category I created that was saved from deletion regarding World Series-winning managers. I started adding more names to the category, but now, I seem to be having trouble making sure the category's properly alphabetized. Is there any way you or somebody on Wikipedia can help me out with this problem? Thank you for any help you can give me. Please leave a message for me on my talk page. Mr. Brain (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Mr. Brain: see WP:SORTKEY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Mr. Brain: This is a known problem, and no single individual can do anything about it. Basically, we're waiting for the devs to complete a maintenance task; more at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Category sorting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: I think you are over-complicating things for @Mr. Brain. As far as I can see, there is no such problem in Category:World Series-winning managers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not now, indeed; but the maintenance task has caused many categories to show in a strange order, with the problems resolving themselves within a few days. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Ah, OK. I am just concerned to keep things simple for this user, who seems unfamiliar with many simple en.wp processes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not now, indeed; but the maintenance task has caused many categories to show in a strange order, with the problems resolving themselves within a few days. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: I think you are over-complicating things for @Mr. Brain. As far as I can see, there is no such problem in Category:World Series-winning managers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Categories for animal deaths
Hi BHG, would you be willing to reopen Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_25#Category:Ancient_and_medieval_individual_animals, please? I'm willing to undo the bot edits.
If I had seen this nomination earlier, I would have opposed the merge of animal deaths to deaths, as the "deaths" categories are sub-categories of "people". – Fayenatic London 20:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: so long as you undo the bots, no prob. I'll reopen now.
- BTW, for spotting such things, I recommend keeping an eye on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed! I have dipped into it but evidently had not scanned it as much as I meant to. – Fayenatic London 21:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Animal births
Would you be willing to undo your closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_13#Category:16th-century_animal_births and add your comments in the discussion? That would give another administrator the opportunity to close the discussion as merging with one merge target instead of two merge targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: In principle, yes, I'd be happy to reopen as above. However, in practice, I think this one had too much discussion without that issue being addressed, and I don't think that the achievement of a clear consensus would be helped by bolting on such a change so late in the proceedings.
- So I reckon it'd be better for you to open a new nomination which explains those issues and proposes whatever solution you want. Note that I didn't take a view either way on whether categorising animals as people is appropriate, just that if it is to be done, there should be an explicit consensus to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Technical question
Hi. Seeing as we have been talking about coding and stuff, I thought I'd ask if you could help with a bizarre problem I'm having with links. In reverting an edit at Easter Rising, I tried to link to Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 5#The Template: Executed Symbol. But – on my browser at least – that link doesn't take me to "The Template: Executed Symbol", it takes me to a later section, "Executed". I had the same problem in June of last year, but I didn't do anything about it then. This time, I decided to change the heading in the archive, on the assumption that the heading was the problem. I took out "The Template", then "Executed", then both "template" and "executed", but even without either word in the heading, when I linked to the new heading it still took me to the "Executed" section. For the life of me, I can't guess how this is happening. Can you? Or do you know anybody who might? It's a discussion I am quite likely to want to link to again in the future. Scolaire (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Scolaire
- Do not adjust your set; the fault is in the reality. <grin>
- Basically, it's a known bug. Your link to Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 5#The Template: Executed Symbol is fine. Unfortunately, the web broswers don't handle that page the way that they logically should.
- Here's what happens.
- Your browser loads the HTML code of the web page, along with CSS style sheets, images, and javsacript.
- Your browser renders the page, i.e. Web browser engine converts all the HTML, CSS and images into the layout you see on page
- Your browser scrolls you to your chosen the anchor on the page, in this case the anchor for the heading "The Template: Executed Symbol".
- Your browser then implements the javascript:
- part of the javascript on that page is to collapse any collapsed boxes.
- One of the collapsed boxes is in the first section: Talk:Easter_Rising/Archive_5#"British_rule"
- When it is collapsed, the displayed text below srolls up ...
- But unfortunately, the browser does not also adjust your place on the page ...
- ... so the effect is as if you has scrolled down beyond the place you had been taken to in step 3.
- AFAIK, all browsers behave the same way. It is a long-standing known bug (see e.g. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T42792), and it wreaks havoc on many many talk pages where sections are collapsed.
- I know of only one workaround, and it is crude:
- when the page has loaded and settled down, look at the browser's address bar and make a note of the section title
- scroll to the top of the page, and look at the table of contents
- click on the relevant heading. All the javascript-induced jumping is now done, so that will take you to the correct section header
- Curse the WMF for the absymal state of its software
- Hope this helps. Main thing is : you have done nothing wrong.
- Best wishes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- In some browsers (some versions of Firefox, for example), once all the collapsing has finished, you can click on the URL bar and press ↵ Enter, and it'll then take you to the right place. This doesn't work with all: Opera 36, for example, will reload the page, and redo all the collapsing and you're back where you were. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: I mostly use Firefox 56, which reloads the pages, and just replicates the prob.
- However, Google Chrome Version 66 gets it right first time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, BHG and Redrose. Yes, pressing Enter on the address bar does work for me. Unfortunately, it was not navigating myself I was concerned about. I wanted to add links for other users to follow, to take them to the archived discussion I was talking about. I guess I'll have to stick with "Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 5, section The Template: Executed Symbol".
- Is there a case for deleting collapsed sections from archives? I mean in a case like this, where a number of sections were collapsed because they were started by a troll and so weren't bona fide discussions about improving the article (I know there are other cases where it would not be appropriate). Is this something that would be worth raising at the Village Pump? After all, archiving talk pages is of limited use if you can't link to the relevant discussions in the archives. Scolaire (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Scolaire: the usual remedy is to simply uncollapse the section once it is archived. That way nothing is lost, and and navigation works. If you do that here, it will fix your problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, It's so obvious once you say it! Thanks for everything. Scolaire (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, It's so obvious once you say it! Thanks for everything. Scolaire (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Scolaire: the usual remedy is to simply uncollapse the section once it is archived. That way nothing is lost, and and navigation works. If you do that here, it will fix your problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, BHG and Redrose. Yes, pressing Enter on the address bar does work for me. Unfortunately, it was not navigating myself I was concerned about. I wanted to add links for other users to follow, to take them to the archived discussion I was talking about. I guess I'll have to stick with "Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 5, section The Template: Executed Symbol".
- In some browsers (some versions of Firefox, for example), once all the collapsing has finished, you can click on the URL bar and press ↵ Enter, and it'll then take you to the right place. This doesn't work with all: Opera 36, for example, will reload the page, and redo all the collapsing and you're back where you were. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
BTW, ALT+D is a useful shortcut to get to the URL/address bar in most browsers, instead of needing to mouse up and click there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes
BrownHairedGirl, it's clear that our personal beef is still operating on your decision-making. You appear to motivated to spite my editing efforts first and support the improvement of the encyclopedia second. I plan to open a ANI to discuss and investigate your behavior. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oh dear, @Jweiss11. There is no personal beef on my part. You are projecting. (Do read that link).
- You seem to be having very great dificulty accepting the simple fact that an admin's role is to upold communit standards about WP:consensus-building, which sometimes means that things do not happen in the way you would like. Sometimes you actually have to build consensus.
- You also clearly haven't ready WP:AGF.
- It seems perverse for you to air all this at WP:ANI ... but if you want a wider audience for your assumptions of bad faith and your unfounded assumptions of malice, so be it. It will be an interesting process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- One no longer needs to assume good faith when there's been a clear demonstration of bad faith. I've built consensus multiple times in this episode. And then you've used your administrative powers to thwart that consensus. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Wrong on all counts. But we'll sort it at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- One no longer needs to assume good faith when there's been a clear demonstration of bad faith. I've built consensus multiple times in this episode. And then you've used your administrative powers to thwart that consensus. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I wrote a long reply for WP:ANI#Obstructive,_spiteful_administration_by_BrownHairedGirl but that discussion was closed[5] by @Bbb23 so I will post it here rather than discard it:
- Wow. @Jweiss11's tiarade is the biggest barrage of WP:IDHT and assuming bad faith that I have in a long time. And I have the dubious honour of having it all directed at me.
- So I will unpick it.
- the CfD/speedy nomination [6]
- the issue here is very very simple
- WP:CFDS#Admin_instructions_for_handling_listed_entries says very clearly "Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria"
- Jweiss11's nomination met none of those criteria, so I opposed it
- In such cases, even when the proposal seems to everyone to be a good idea, it can proceed only after a full discussion. This is the is the same principle applied in speedy deletion (see WP:CSD), that the speedy process is only for use in a few precisely-specified circumstances. Everything else goes to XfD, to build a consensus.
- Every week, several nominations are made at WP:CFDS which are oposed because they do not fit the criteria. (In the last 7 days, I count 4: [7]&[8] by me, and [9], [10] by @Armbrust). So this oppose was not some rare event, orsome picking on one editor; it was routine piece of scrutiny, which in 99% of cases is uneventful
- In this case, Jweiss11 rapidly abandoned his mistaken attempts to claim that his proposal met either WP:C2C or WP:C2D, but instead retreated to a generalised assertion that this was
an obvious slam dunk move that has countless analogues
. - It doesn't matter whether that assertion is true or false, because
an obvious slam dunk
is not one of the WP:CFDS criteria. If Jweiss11 (or any other editor) believes that it should be a criterion, they may of course propose a new criterion, and see if there is a consensus for the change. Meanwhile, my job as an admin is to uphold the existing consensus ... for which Jweiss11 chose to personally attack me. - So this was a classic case of admin abuse: abuse of an admin by an editor who chose to throw a temper tamtrum because they don't like the community consensus on process. I was attacked because I upheld that consensus rather than abusing my admin powers in breach of WP:CFDS#Admin_instructions_for_handling_listed_entries, just to satisfy Jweiss11's demands and soothe his tantrum.
- @SMcCandlish posted a message[11] a warning on Jweiss11's talk about such misconduct. Jweiss11 did not reply.
- Below it, I posted a request[12] to Jweiss11 to retract. Again, no reply.
- I considered taking it to ANI, but decided it would be too time-consuming, and the point had been made. In hindsight, that was a bad call; it seems Jweiss11 has very much not got the message.
- Jweiss11 then took the proposal to a full discussion at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_22#Amherst_Mammoths, where there was a clear consensus to proceed.
- This is a common situation: a proposal which did not meet any speedy criteria is nonethless agreed at XfD to be a wise action. It happens every day at XfD: in CfD, AfD, TfD, MfD. However, the point which Jweiss11 is unable or unwilling to comprehend is that a consensus in a full discusison on deletion or renaming does not alter the speedy criteria. If a hundred editors had pile on in support, it might have merited a WP:SNOW close ... but even if a thousand had supported it, that would not change the simple fact that it was ineligible for speedy renaming.
- When the full discussion had been open 11 days Jweiss11 posted[13] there pinging me to as me to close it. I replied a few hours later to say
after the vicious personal abuse which you heaped on me when you tried misusing WP:CFDS to do this renaming, the answer is "no way". Some other admin will close this discussion in due course.
- That remains my view. Lie every other editor on en.wp, I am a volunteer. I will not abuse any privileges to harm another editor and I will usually try ro help if I can ... but my volunteered time is not avaialble to assist editors who have chosen to make unretracted personal atavks on me for uholdiong comunity norms. If the communitu decides that an admin is not free to make such choices, then I will promptly resign my 12yo adminship.
- Jweiss completely ignored my point about the personal attack and asked again[14] that I close it. I replied at greater length,[15] concluding
:No matter how much a requested action might improve Wikipedia, I will step aside and leave others to make their own choices about whether to volunteer their time to assist an editor who ignores basic en.wp policies on user conduct, and who abuses admins for following consensus on process
. That remains my view. - Jweiss11 then pinged @Marcocapelle (an experienced much-respected and non-admin who oten closes CfDs) to lose this one as
long overdue for closure
. Marcocapelle replied[16] to point out that it was not "long overdue", pointing to a discussion which had by then been open for over 10 weeks. Unclosed CfDs are listed at WP:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions, which at that moment (21:51, 10 March 2018) had 95 entries[17]; the Amherst Mammoths discussion was midawy down the lsit at #50. The discussion was closed[18] on 24 March by non-admin @DexDor ... but in the meantime Jweiss11 had again posted to sayit should have been pushed through as speedy
. - This is all v poor behaviour by Jweiss11. A self-important belief that his nomination was expecuia;;y worthy or urgent and a continued denial of the simple fact that his proposal had not met any WP:CFDS#Speedy_criteria. Echoes of WP:THETRUTH and WP:IDHT.
- Scroll on to April. I had some time to clear the CfD backlog, so I closed 4 discussions on that page: [19], [20], [21], [22].
- The third of those closes on 11 April[23] was of Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes. There was clearly no consensus and discussion had stalled ater only one other editor had respnded. Jweiss's reply was the last contribution, only 2 days after listing and 6 days before closure. I saw no reason to believe that leaving it open would bring responses or that relisting would generate new interest. This is not a content category; it an adminstrative category of templates which shoud never be visible to our readers. Such categories rarely attract much attention at CfD which in any case has wofully few participants. The previosu day I had relisted about 10 discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 10 so CfD was busy. In such cases, when faced with a close call on whether to relist, I swing the balance a little to "no": when a discussion forum is backlogged with under-discused reader-facing categories, I am a little more reluctant to relist.
- When closing a CfD I try to avoid paying attention to the name of the nominator; I focus on the contriburions not the contriburiors. So in closing that Big Sky discusison I have no recollection of noticing the name of the nominator. A fter that closure I recieved no communicationfrom anyone about it; no ping no message on my talk. Like 99% of my hundreds of CfD closures in rhe last 6 months, it seemed uncontroversial.
- Today I was reviewing ope nominations and spotted WP:Categories_for discussion/Log/2018 April 24#Category:Big_Sky_football_team_navigational_boxes. The title rang a bell so I checked the history, spotted my recent closure of the prvious discssion checked that I had recieved no cimmunication about the previous close, and promptly closed the new discusison as blatant forum-shopping.[24]
- Later I received notice of this ANI.
- Only at ANI did I learn that Jweiss11 had in fact chosen to discuss the 11 April close without either notifying me of his dissatisfaction or opening a WP:DRV. Instead of following the community's long-established processes for challenging XfD closes he opened a discusion at WT:CFB and after responses from only 2 other editors decided that he now had a mandate to open a fresh CfD.
- So we have in Jweis11 an editor who:
- made personal attacks against an admin whose refused to break established procedures for his covenience
- failed to retract his personal attacks when ased to do so by an univolved admin
- threw another tantrum when his CfD nomination was not closed promptly by the same admin
- found a CfD closure he dislie and chose to ignore established procedures
- threw yet another tantrum when his forum-shopping was closed.
- Not great, @Jweiss11. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)