| Revision as of 21:40, 7 July 2022 editTigerShark (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators17,510 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Megan Huntsman: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:08, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,133,056 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| (39 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| :'''2015 - ''' ] | :'''2015 - ''' ] | ||
| :'''2021 - ''' ] | :'''2021 - ''' ] | ||
| :''' |
:'''2023 - ''' ] | ||
| ==****** Please place new discussions below this line ******== | ==****** Please place new discussions below this line ******== | ||
| Scott Haze's birthday is incorrect. Please remove it from his page. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == help me == | |||
| hey help for protect my user page from anonymous edits. thanks ] (]) 17:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message == | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| </div> | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1187131902 --> | |||
| == Invitation to participate in a research == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''. | |||
| You do not have to be an Administrator to participate. | |||
| The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] . | |||
| Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns. | |||
| Kind Regards, | |||
| ] | |||
| <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 --> | |||
| == Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research == | |||
| Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Hello, | |||
| == List of 9/11 victims == | |||
| I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ]. | |||
| Hi. Can you please expand your closing statement and explain how you arrived at your conclusions (including why you decided to close at this time and not relist). Thanks, ]<sup class="sysop-show">]'']</sup> 14:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Take the survey ''''''. | |||
| :Hi Levivich. I am not sure what to add to expand the closing statement. As I mentioned, from reading the discussion there seems to be consensus that the subject of the list is notable, and also that being a list of deaths doesn't immediately exclude it as a memorial. There is plenty of discussion around the list being trimmed, which is a separate matter from deletion. I certainly could not see a policy based consensus to delete. As for relisting, it seemed that there had been a significant discussion, with LISTN and NOTMEMORIAL discussed in depth and didn't see scope for much new coming out of a relisting. Do you feel that a relisting would likely lead to a policy based consensus for anything other that the article being kept? ] (]) 15:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the quick response! | |||
| ::I'd start by saying that "keep"/"delete" aren't the only two outcomes. Had you considered the others, like merge and "keep title/change content"? | |||
| ::Second, I know you said from reading the discussion there seems to be consensus: can you explain that? Where do you see consensus, or how did you come to conclude there was consensus? Is it in the number of votes for one option v. the other? Is it in the quality of arguments? Did you weigh some votes more or less than other votes? Did you discount any votes? | |||
| ::What about the ] part of ]? Even if it's notable, that doesn't mean necessarily mean it must be kept. Many editors seemed to raise arguments beyond just "does it meet N", how did those arguments factor into the consensus? | |||
| ::What about the arguments that, while the subject is notable, it's already covered by the non-list article (]); i.e., the ] argument? The Casualties article was discussed by many voters, but I don't see that in the closing statement. | |||
| ::On the numbers, it seems like a 50/50 split between keep and delete. But then when you factor in the "or merge" and the "keep the title but not the content", the numbers favor delete. Even aside from the numbers, there were some arguments like, "keep, meets LISTN", which totally ignored the rationale for deletion (meeting LISTN is not an "automatic keep"), and I think those votes should be weighed less. | |||
| ::So if anything, I see a weak consensus towards delete/merge, but really it's pretty close to no consensus, which is why I think a relisting might help clarify the consensus, particularly when there hasn't been a relist yet. | |||
| ::Basically if there are a ton of !voters participating and the numbers are 50/50 or close to it, I believe it should be relisted. ]<sup class="sysop-show">]'']</sup> 16:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for your message. I wouldn't strongly disagree that the close could have been a "no consensus" rather than a straight keep, but I couldn't see any clear likelihood of consensus for anything else forming, as things currently stand. It may be that some bolding editing (perhaps attempts at the proposed trimming) and further discussion on the article's talk page may be the best way forward for now. A future relisting at AfD might be appropriate after some work to the articles and/or more talk page discussion, but I don't personally feel that it would be best to jump straight into a relist now. ] (]) 18:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I generally agree with that, and I recognize there is little practical difference between a keep and no-consensus outcome. But my issue isn't with the result, it's with the ''closing statement'', which I don't think accurately summarizes the discussion, and I think this inaccuracy will have a negative affect on further talk page discussion, because editors will point to the closing statement as "proof" that there is consensus to keep the article ''as it is''. Specifically, the sentences {{tqq|There does not seem to be significant disagreement that the subject of list itself is notable. There also seems to be consensus that not all lists of deaths are non-notable memorials.}}. What is missing is that -- at least in my view -- there was consensus that the list should not remain in its current form; that is, there was consensus that we should ''not'' have a list of ''all'' the victims of 9/11. I also disagree with each of the statements individually: | |||
| ::::*"There does not seem to be significant disagreement that the subject of list itself is notable." There is consensus that the ''group'' is notable, not that the list meets notability guidelines. A lot of people's arguments centered around the non-notability of most of the members of the group. In other words, there wasn't consensus that the list met ], but it sounds like you're saying there was. | |||
| ::::*"There also seems to be consensus that not all lists of deaths are non-notable memorials." Really? I think more than half the participants (like all of the delete/merge voters?) specifically said the opposite, at least for ''this list'', that it violates NOTDIRECTORY and NOTMEMORIAL. (In fact, NOTDIRECTORY was a very common argument, but is not mentioned in the closing statement.) | |||
| ::::I fear these two statements will impede future talk page discussion. I think a more accurate summary would be something like, "while there was no consensus to delete the page, editors broadly agreed that the page should either be culled to notable entries or merged, or some combination thereof, which can be decided through future talk page discussion." Anyway, thanks for discussing this with me, I'll leave it at that. ]<sup class="sysop-show">]'']</sup> 19:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tps}} Consensus that the group is notable '']'' means that ] is met. I also don't read the closing statement as weighing in on the question of ] for the list at all, which is to say that it doesn't affirm the current way that the list is structured. My reading of the close is that there is consensus that (1) some lists of people who died in an event are notable, and that (2) the people who died on 9/11 are notable ''as a group''. This does not mean that a list has to include every single member who is a part of that notable group (much like how ] certainly doesn't include every single Russian American). | |||
| :::::{{re|Levivich}} I do not believe a relist is appropriate; ] is for when {{tq|the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy}}. If you believe that {{tq|there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved}}, a close of ''no consensus'' would be the way to go rather than a relist. — ] (]) 04:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Further to this: (1) None of the opposing rationales adequately explained why this list is not notable. (2) None of the opposing rationales adequately explained why a list covering a notable topic infringes NOTDIRECTORY or NOTMEMORIAL. In the case of the latter, it expressly identifies that its basis is that memorial pages generally lack notability. Many responses simply cited those principles in a fairly perfunctory manner without addressing (1) or (2), both of which were squarely raised by Mhawk10 in their early response. No other result was reasonably available here. The closing statement, in my view, cut right to the heart of the issue and concisely summarised it. Also, given Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, closing admins need not give elaborate reasons rejecting every single proposition put forward, otherwise AfD would grind to a halt. ] (]) 09:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Kind Regards, | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hi, I am hoping you can provide some further explanation for your close of this AfD. I am wondering how a policy-based consensus was found for this article to be kept per ]. Thank you, ] (]) 02:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
| :Also, due to the extensive discussion in the AfD, would you be willing to undo the move and relist the discussion so further participation could happen, as suggested in the previous relist note? A relist note could be added indicating that it would be helpful to have further discussion about whether ] notability is supported. Thank you, ] (]) 03:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| ::Hi. Thanks for your message. My overall reading of the AfD is that the main concern is that the individual does not satisfy BLP1E, because their only notability comes from that one event. However arguments have been put forward that the event meets notability (perhaps not very strongly) due to the unusual nature of it, coverage in academic/professional literature and, to a lesser extent, the media. In terms of relisting, I do feel that a future relisting would be appropriate, but that the current article should at least be reworked to be about the event rather than the individual (beyond just the title change that I made). Once that is done, I think a relisting would be a reasonable way forward, so that a proper discussion on the event rather than the individual could take place. Do that sound reasonable to you? ] (]) 12:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::From my view, when there is an event article for a crime that academic RS describe as ''not unusual'' and for which ] to suggest it is unusual or historically significant, ] for the event. There also appear to be no sources that refer to the event by the new article title. This was a challenging discussion due to the types of sources raised and few participants in the discussion, and the limited engagement by keep !voters with the policies and guidelines. Changing the BLP to an event article was raised by the first !voter, which was responded to with a focus on the guidelines and polices, and a review of sources. From my view, relisting now and asking participants to focus their attention on the policies and guidelines would be helpful for facilitating a policy-based consensus. Thank you, ] (]) 14:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree that the current title is not one that has been used in sources, and another name may be more appropriate. I still feel that it would not be the most efficient approach to relist the current article for a discussion as an event, until it is reworked as an article about the event. It is likely that the discussion would include arguments about BLP1E, because it is current worded as an article about the perpetrator, even if the relisting questioned the notability of the event. ] (]) 14:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::From my view, a relist note could help address the concern about off-topic discussion continuing, by asking participants to focus on the event issue already raised in the discussion. It does not seem necessary to try to rework this article before the discussion continues, especially with the limited sourcing available and the apparent need to remove BLP issues (e.g. poorly-sourced allegations about a living person) from the current article. It may become more clear after attempts to revise this article that it is not adequately supported per ] and should be excluded per ], but I think this is already apparent based on the sources in the article and the sources identified in the discussion. I think a relist with guidance would be the most efficient route for the discussion under these circumstances. It also does not seem clear in the closing statement that editors are expected to revise the article with a focus on the event. Thank you, ] (]) 15:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| * Hi TigerShark, I decided to seek further input at DRV, as noted below. Thank you for discussing this AfD with me. ] (]) 20:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| *:Hi Beccaynr. Thanks for letting me know and for linking this talk page discussion into the request. I will watch the discussion and comment further as necessary. Cheers ] (]) 21:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| == Deletion review for ] == | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| An editor has asked for ] of ]. 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.<!-- Template:DRVNote --> ] (]) 20:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Can you please put Owen Cochrane in draft space, there is enough to work with. He plays in a top league as well. The fact you straight up deleted it is wrong in my opinion. ] (]) 09:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| :Hi Govvy. As I mentioned in the close, we should really only put the article in draft space if the individual can meet the notability criteria now, not in the expectation that they may do in future. There were no arguments put forward in the AfD to support notability. Are you able to put forward specific reasons that the individual meets specific notability criteria (either ] or ]) here? If you can, and you want to work on the article yourself, then I would be happy to move it to draft space. Cheers ] (]) 12:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 00:08, 19 November 2024
Archives:
- 2005 - 17th April
- 2006 - 4th April - 22nd May - 11th June - 23rd June - 15th July
- 2007 - 3rd February - 10th March - 31st August - 8th September - 7th November
- 2008 - 14th February - 4th May - 10th October
- 2009 - 16th May
- 2011 - 15th December
- 2015 - 12th May
- 2021 - 19th April
- 2023 - 28th May
****** Please place new discussions below this line ******
Scott Haze's birthday is incorrect. Please remove it from his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.208.5.129 (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
help me
hey help for protect my user page from anonymous edits. thanks Jhonblvk (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research
Hello,
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Take the survey here.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)