Misplaced Pages

Removal of speedy template on M2 motorway

Can I please ask why you removed the speedy template on M2 motorway. User:Sarah777 continued to remove it despite her being the page creator. She has created an inappropriate disambiguation page, completely ignoring the existing M2 motorway (disambiguation). Do you believe that her actions are correct and that the proper disambiguation page shouldn't be in the correct place? Jeni 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As per your suggestion

Hi BlackKite, I went ahead in good faith to kick off a discussion to help formulate guidelines on this page. Your participation, both as a potentially interested party, and as a voice of reason, and mediator, etc, would be greatly appreciated. One of the main reason I decided to go down this route was because you and Snowded suggested this mechanism, and I anticipated some moderate views for balance. --HighKing (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please take special note of MidnightBlueMan edits. If we're supposed to be resolving this at the Task Force, it's going to need help a little intervention and nudging in the right direction if you have the time. I've tried to discuss with him on the Task Force to date, but with no progress. --HighKing (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you could pop over to the Specific examples page to mediate a little? You intervention on matters of civility and personal comments, in particular, would be greatly appreciated. --HighKing (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

I've now answered Q11 (c) which you posted after I had answered all the other questions. I hope the answer is to your satisfaction. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• For my money you didn't answer the question. I think the implied question is "if you could change it, how would you do so", obviously noting that you can't change it. Maybe Bk was looking for some understanding of where the NFCC comes from fair use law and where it comes from our principles (meaning that only a small portion of the NFCC actually has to do with justifying the re-use of copyrighted material). Maybe he was looking for you to suggest a way to thread the needle on living persons as this nyt piece seems to hint? But I doubt he was looking for an answer like yours. Just my thoughts. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The policy is clear in relation to LPs. The solution is in the hands of the celebs, they can authorise a decent photo of themselves for use in their article. I don't buy the arguement that by having one allowable free-use photo no photographer will ever be able to sell another photo of that celeb. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt the clarity of the policy, the NYT article was speaking to its wisdom. Nor do I feel that you had to give a specific answer with respect to non-free images. What I wanted to get across was that a complete answer to the question would have explored the counterfactual rather than demurred. It is your choice, and perhaps it was a proper one, but it didn't answer the question. Protonk (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't intend to go steaming in on image work anyway (or anywhere). I intend to start slowly in one or two areas and gradually expand from there once I feel I'm comfortable with the areas I've been working on. If a direct request for assistance with images comes in I'll deal with it if I think I can, or ask another admin for guidance if I feel I'm out of my depth. Mjroots (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Given RFAs unfortunate track record of flaying candidates for thoughtcrime, a candidate would be something of an idiot for actually answering these hypotheticals. A candidate who says "I would relax restrictions on Fair Use" would cause one faction to puff up and sanctimoniously shred the candidate for not understanding the principles of the project blah blah blah. Some variant vice versa, etc. We've seen enough examples where someone says "I understand the current policy, though if it were up to me I would change it thusly" and then get opposed for supporting something different than current policy. It's unfortunate, but the problem here is not with Mjroots -- he's been backed into a corner by the mindless partisanship that characterizes a lot of our disputes, and the large number of children at RFA who don't understand the difference between disobeying a rule, disagreeing with a rule, and merely wishing a rule could be different. --JayHenry (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty fair characterization of the bind candidates find themselves in. Even a penetrating response would face some unfair criticism. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would actually argue a stronger form -- the more penetrating the response, the more opposition it will draw. I guarantee you that if I ran for RFA and outlined my detailed thoughts about NFCC, BLP, WP:NOT or CIV it would 1) be well-reasoned, deeply-considered, articulate and, I hope, penetrating; but 2) it would draw a bloodbath of opposition even though 3) I've barely worked with any of those issues and would have no intention of ever doing so. The only answers that don't create a lose-lose-lose are to demur, or to take on some completely vapid subject area along the lines of "if it were up to me I would let users delete their own userspace subpages." --JayHenry (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Therein lies a fundamental paradox of politics (both internal and democratic), of course. I probably would have demurred had someone asked me on my RfA. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, some of these questions are reasonable; it's certainly far better than the "old days" when the only questions people would get asked are ones that they could find the answer out to by reading the relevant policy page. For example (from my RfA) "When considering a protection request at WP:RFPP, what steps would you take in order to determine whether to protect or decline? ". Black Kite 20:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I agree the questions are marginally better. The stable of questions like "what is the difference between a block an a ban" are bad mostly because they are exceptionally asinine. But I only think that the questions are better if the candidates have an incentive to answer them honestly. I don't know if those incentives exist. Where we have incentives driving the other direction, the questions may be much worse. Protonk (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If a candidate did say, to use your example, that they wanted to relax the use of fair-use images, I would oppose them not because that's their opinion, but because I wouldn't completely trust them to close IfD debates, for example. Now that may sound like assuming bad faith, but to take another example if someone said that they considered the notability guidelines to be too stringest, I guarantee they'd get a pile of opposes because people wouldn't trust them with deletion decisions. Black Kite 20:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But I think you need to engage w/ Jay's point. There is a difference between assent, disagreement and disruption. Answering a hypothetical with a position that NFCC ought to be different isn't the same as saying that the candidate would act as though the NFCC were different. Protonk (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Black Kite proved my point, although I'm not sure it was his intention. Litmus tests, thoughtcrime, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, actually - my oppose was based on the "There is a lot of friction created when fair use images are nominated for deletion" part of MJ's answer. This just seemed like a very odd point to make, and sounded like it was leading towards an "I'd relax fair use" answer without actually saying it, which is why I asked the supplementary question, and I don't think MJ answered that satisfactorily. That's the only reason I opposed. Black Kite 20:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to defend the premise, a bit. Asking a hypothetical like that allows the candidate to present their feelings on some rules which aren't normally discussed. Sometimes this exposes the rule and sometimes it might expose the candidate--most of the time you are right that it only really exposes the voter. But where it exposes the candidate I find questions like that helpful. There are a few RfAs in the past where a question like BK's has come up and a candidate has said something to the effect of "I think we should restrict editing to registered accounts". A perfectly reasonable position and one that is held by a large number of wikipedians (and if you ask me, Jimbo). However when that answer comes up, I feel compelled to look at the candidate's interactions with IP editors and new editors more closely. Obviously the candidate couldn't make the policy change himself and it would be close minded of me to oppose based on a difference of opinion but is it necessarily wrong to bring scrutiny to bear on that friction? I mean, if I had another RfA tomorrow and the question were asked of me I would respond by suggesting we nix WP:PSTS on the grounds that it is incoherent and inconsistent and nix WP:BLP on the grounds that is was born of a small scale moral panic. I can see the first one fomenting helpful discussion and the second one bringing about wailing and gnashing of teeth for the reasons you point out. But treating my answer as a proxy for my views isn't nefarious by itself. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

More Philscirel

User:IcazOne was created with as only edit the Fethullah Gulen article; can you please block?

Can't we apply for an IP range block to prevent Philscirel from creating more sockpuppets, as this is rater annoying (and bad for the project). Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Canadian vandals

There is a steady stream of vandalism coming from 142.29.0.0/16. This range belongs to the government of British Columbia which probably means it is a bunch of schools. I think you are probably going to say this is not heavy enough to justify a range block but could you take a look anyway to confirm that? It is quite difficult to detect unless you happen to spot several IPs in a row on the same article (eg the sequence on Vandals is clearly the same person or a group working in concert), and then who do you block, it will just switch to another IP. SpinningSpark 20:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination)

Hi, you closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination) as "no consensus". Since my comments were added at the latter half of the debate when all the previous participants had already voted, they did not take my arguments into account when they voted. Those who voted "keep" did not return to the debate to either agree with or rebut my arguments. Could I speedily renominate it to gauge more consensus? If you think it's okay to speedily renominate the article, please add something along the lines of "The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate." This ensures that the debate won't get speedily closed for disruptive, repeated nominations. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)