This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 15:06, 26 December 2024 (→Possible sock?: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 15:06, 26 December 2024 by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) (→Possible sock?: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Thanks
I got my shoulder replaced this week and my one-handed typing needs improvement. Activist (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had trouble believing it was intentional. Sorry about your shoulder.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
G11
Out of interest, why was the G11 declined (for The Misguided)?
Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Axad12: It's not irredeemably " exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten". Some clean up is all it would need. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you.
- Can I request clarification on one point, albeit that it was not relevant to the decision here? In my admittedly limited experience of speedy deletion requests it seems that some users are prepared to authorise speedy deletion of material in draftspace and some users are not. Is this just a question of the luck of the draw (in terms of who deals with a request) or is there some underlying policy issue which I'm failing to grasp and which therefore looks like inconsistency due to a misunderstanding on my part?
- Any help on this point would be much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Axad12: I have stricter criteria for G11's that some (most?). Bbb23 is more insightfully incisive/decisive than I. There is a wide range of admin discretion at work, so sometimes it does depend on who sees it first, though I do not generally decline myself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will say though that I don't care where the promotional content is. If it meets my criteria, I will delete it, though I only do one iteration. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is a fair amount of discretion on G11s, but mostly on the gray ones. I don't think this particular one was gray at all; indeed, I thought it was relatively well written.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Axad12, that's a G11 that will most likely be declined by every admin, including me. Please keep that in mind when you put things up for speedy deletion. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify...
- I nominated the article under G11 as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", which it seemed to me was in accordance with the recent result of the declined AfC which described the draft as "reading like an advertisement".
- While accepting that the text might have been amended, the fact that the SPA creator had recently been blocked made that prospect rather unlikely.
- For the sake of my future understanding, where have I erred here? Is it the fact that the likelihood of clean-up is irrelevant and even if I was correct (and there were no future edits to the draft) it would have been deleted after 6 months anyway with no harm done? Axad12 (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't particularly read like an advertisement either. Even assuming that User:Bonadea's comment that "The quotations from reviews are decidedly cherry-picked" is correct (I haven't checked), while that's still a neutrality issue, it's not one that calls for deletion of the draft - it would still be coherent if the Reception section were just removed. —Cryptic 03:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd still be grateful for clarification on my post above (assuming, for the sake of argument, that a draft did read like an advertisement). Axad12 (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't particularly read like an advertisement either. Even assuming that User:Bonadea's comment that "The quotations from reviews are decidedly cherry-picked" is correct (I haven't checked), while that's still a neutrality issue, it's not one that calls for deletion of the draft - it would still be coherent if the Reception section were just removed. —Cryptic 03:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- For anyone trying to follow this thread, the page in question is Draft:The Misguided, and a block of the creator was decided at ANI. The article may continue to languish at AfC due to its issues but I agree with others that the page is not an obvious G11 candidate. EdJohnston (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Axad12: Perplexingly, blocking does not always mean the content met WP:G11. I weigh each candidate on its merits. Creator in this instance, "is indef blocked for WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND among many other issues," so that's apart from the quality of the draft in question. I infer the creator has a serious WP:COI with more at stake than, "don't delete my babies!' Having ones "babies" deleted is traumatic enough on its own. Hope that helps. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed that the block was unrelated to the quality of the article - although the user could as easily have been blocked as a promo only account if he hadn't made a complete fool of himself at ANI.
- The reason I mentioned the user being blocked was because that meant that the draft was unlikely to be improved - but as I said above, presumably that is irrelevant if it means that the draft would then just remain unpublished for 6 months and then get deleted. Axad12 (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Speaking as an administrator who had a lot of frustrating interactions in the last week with the blocked editor, I too agree that the draft does not qualify for G11 deletion. We should not let the fact that the primary author behaved like a monumental pain in the ass cloud our assessment of the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, the G11 nomination wasn't due to the pedigree of the creator but was rather to do with the comments left by the AfC reviewer - albeit that I now see that that was not grounds for a G11 nomination in any event.
- Thanks all for clarifying my understanding of the process, very much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Speaking as an administrator who had a lot of frustrating interactions in the last week with the blocked editor, I too agree that the draft does not qualify for G11 deletion. We should not let the fact that the primary author behaved like a monumental pain in the ass cloud our assessment of the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Axad12: Perplexingly, blocking does not always mean the content met WP:G11. I weigh each candidate on its merits. Creator in this instance, "is indef blocked for WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND among many other issues," so that's apart from the quality of the draft in question. I infer the creator has a serious WP:COI with more at stake than, "don't delete my babies!' Having ones "babies" deleted is traumatic enough on its own. Hope that helps. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Axad12: I have stricter criteria for G11's that some (most?). Bbb23 is more insightfully incisive/decisive than I. There is a wide range of admin discretion at work, so sometimes it does depend on who sees it first, though I do not generally decline myself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
.jpg)
Ekdalian (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Ekdalian (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Misplaced Pages in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025! ♦ Maliner (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Joeypike2021
Hey, Joeypike2021 you blocked but they are using their talk page inappropriately afterwards so may need a talk page revoke. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did so about 8 minutes before your post here. I was eating lunch during all the "excitement".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks anyway, and thanks for all your help Whac-A-Moleing all the 'problems' this year. Happy holidays to you and yours. KylieTastic (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You as well. Honestly, I think your work is harder, and you're very good at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks anyway, and thanks for all your help Whac-A-Moleing all the 'problems' this year. Happy holidays to you and yours. KylieTastic (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025! |
|
Hello Bbb23, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Abishe (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Socking at Moorgate tube crash
At Moorgate tube crash I see only one user - 81.111.22.107 (talk) - expunging the term "motorman", but one revert by yourself with the edit summary "revert sock". Who are they a sockpuppet of? --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- It says who in the block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Possible sock?
Not sure if this would be prefer to have a new SPI page created or not, but I've stumbled across the account 'Harold19289' which (at least to me) appears to be similarly-named to the blocked account 'Jake18288'. Along with that, both have a similar, "I am ______ and joined Misplaced Pages on _______" opening intro, Harold's on the userpage and Jake's on their talk page. It also appears that Harold attempted editing Untamed1910's talk page, which Jake has previously edited.
I also decided to report it here rather than make an SPI page as I see Jake's block is for sockpuppetry, but from what I'm seeing, it's not to avoid a block on another account (unless I'm missing something). Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also looking a bit more into it, there appears to be both a 'Knowledgeseeker2828' and 'Knowledgeseeker1928' account. Also not 100% sure here, but this looks a bit similar to this... so maybe it is a possible block evasion case altogether? Unless my mind is playing tricks on me at 5am, lol. Magitroopa (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you haven't already, you should look at that tortured conversation I had with Jake on his Talk page. I've blocked Harold as a sock of Jake, but I see no point in blocking the other accounts, even if they're obvious socks, who haven't edited in a while - that would include the two Knowledgeseeker accounts. However, if you're interested in finding more, you could file an SPI and request a CU. It's highly unlikely I'll find them on my own because I don't pay any attention to the articles they edit. Feel free to come here, though, if you see a new one. Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)