User talk:Music1201/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

This is what happens when experienced admins decline to close RfCs

No evidence close was against consensus and the tone of this discussion (not that great to begin with) is now degenerating quickly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:21, 9 July 2016 (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.

So yeah, the RfC re
Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
09:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think the consensus is correctly judged, but the close probably ought to have established also whether there is a a consensus for or against rewording the policy. This is however also partly because the wording and contents of the rfC itself is unclear (and somewhat non-neutral). I think in any case a second RfC will be needed to establish which potential alternative wording to use. So the closure is in fact fine I think because it doesnt preclude an alternative wording to be established subsequently, it only establishes that there is no consensus to remove (which there clearly isnt).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The close lacked nuance, and it should have included an evaluation of whether there was consensus to revise the section with slightly softer wording. The exact wording would probably need another RfC anyway, though. What the closer did write is accurate, in my opinion. There was clearly not a clear enough consensus to remove the section entirely. Has anyone tried talking to this editor? I fully support non-admins being molded into proper closers and I'll reach out to this editor if no-one else has yet. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  - If you consider berating them and then adding a mocking welcome template to their talk page to be "talking", then yes I suppose you could say that Lingzhi tried talking to them first. Jenks24 (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    - Berated yes, then harsh remarks struck through. If any admins wanna make themselves useful, you can take this editor under your wing. I strongly support that idea for positive action. But this whole problem was caused by admins not doing their jobs, and fobbing the job off on newly-minted editors.
      Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
      10:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
      - The real problem is admins not fobbing more of their "job" off to experienced editors, in my opinion. Closing doesn't require the mop for RfCs, but plenty of people consider it admin work because that's how it's always been. Given the shortage of admins and increasingly shrinking numbers, it's time to aggressively expand the role of experienced non-admins. But I'm on my way to NYC (fingers crossed for Hamilton lotto tickets!), so I'll get off my soapbox for now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
      - I would also like to point out, that the closers first day of editing included fairly advanced editing like creating new pages, using userboxes etc. The chances of them *not* being an experienced wikipedian (even if all their previous editing was as an IP) are slim-none. So relying on the user registration date as a method of discrediting them is a waste of time. Had I not commented, I would have closed it the same way. No consensus to remove. No consensus to change the wording (although it was stronger than the remove faction) etc. If you can think of a re-wording that people might find appropriate instead of the current, you are free to propose it on the talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Disclosure: Lingzhi performed this edit on
  WP:FAMILY. No consensus for any change to the existing wording. Any changes for existing wording, should be taken up in a new RfC". A bit more of a nuanced explanation would have helped. --Lemongirl942 (talk
  ) 10:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  - Admins are janitors. You don't need a janitor to close an RFC, you need any capable editor. It would have been preferable for the editor in this case to have explained their reasoning to give some indication that they had considered all sides of the debate before calling the consensus. But the actual outcome (maintain status quo) is not outside the realm of credibility given the multiplicity of views put forward. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I, like others, agree that, although the consensus was definitely not to remove the section, at least some attempt at addressing the possibility of changing should've been made in the closing rationale. Note that this isn't the first time that Music1201 has made a poor close, their talk page archives are full of complaints about their AFD and RM closes. However, I'm sure the edits were made in good faith, and so Lingzhi's comments were incredibly

WP:BITEy, and giving them a sarcastic welcome template was inappropriate. I'm honestly surprised that they weren't blocked for personal attacks, as their behaviour here has been, to put it simply, well below the standard expected of editors here. I'm almost inclined to slap a {{uw-npa4im}} on their talk page. Omni Flames (talk

) 12:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: Just to comment on this, my talk page archives actually contain very few complaints about my closures if you consider the number of closures i've done. — Music1201 ^talk 20:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

- Also, has anyone even notified Music1201 of this discussion? As far as I can tell, no.
  Lingzhi, since you've failed to do so, I have left a notice for you. Omni Flames (talk
  ) 12:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If I can add my non-admin $.02 here, I'd like to share my thoughts on this. I'd consider myself an "experienced editor" being here over 10 years and having a good working knowledge of policies and procedures here. With that being said I would not feel appropriate as a non-admin to closing RfCs. Whether right or wrong, having a non-admin close an RfC does not give the closure the "legitimacy" as the closing by an admin would. Simply put, an admin's closure carries much more weight as editors would feel less likely to re-open a RfC that an admin closes versus one a non-admin experienced editor would. As stated above, it's become almost an "unwritten policy" that admins have to close RfCs. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore: Non-admin closures have, for some time now, applied to RFCs. See Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Closures_of_RfCs. Omni Flames (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  - Oh I'm quite aware of it, however having it in writing there and actually APPLIED in practice tend to be two different things. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    - @
      WP:ANRFC, it's pretty backlogged. I do agree that the tough and large-scale discussions should be left to one or more admins, but the idea of not allowing non-admins to close RFCs at all is quite absurd considering the fact that most are very easy closes. The fact is that a large number of straightforward RFCs are done by non-admins, as there aren't enough admins to handle them all. Omni Flames (talk
      ) 12:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
      Well I may have to dab my toe in the waters there and see what I can do to help out then. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@

^Pocketed

12:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, talk about diving headfirst. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I read that a few times, and honestly do not feel like I can make an informed closure there, sorry! RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@
Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
01:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- @
  Lingzhi: A user who's got 6.5k edits and is closing RFCs doesn't need to be welcomed to Wikipedia. As for finding an admin mentor, honestly, I'm not sure what I would need one for. I've been closing discussions at RM for some time now, and I've even closed the occasional RFC. No one has ever brought up a problem with my closes. Omni Flames (talk
  ) 01:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  - In all honesty, with exactly zero-point-zero-zero sarcasm or snark, you need a mentor to help you with the fact that you think you don't need a mentor. You show all the signs of a high probability of being a gunslinger and an asshole admin instead of a reflective admin. I deeply, genuinely hope you fail your first RfA so that you can gain a sense of perspective. But in all honesty once again, I have something that just barely bounces the needle above zero-point-zero faith in the RfA process, so I see a higher probability of a bad outcome here than a good one. Best wishes all the same.
    Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
    10:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously now, does no one actually take NPA seriously anymore? "You show all the signs of a high probability of being a gunslinger and an asshole admin". Sigh. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- It appears layering feigned sincerity on top of mockery and personal attacks makes them taste like chocolate cheesecake. Rebb ing 15:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  - It's a personal attack no doubt and a pretty bad faith one at that. That said, the relevant policy to follow now is
    WP:DENY/WP:DFT. I suggest a speedy close to this section. --Lemongirl942 (talk
    ) 11:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I also agree this should be speedy closed. Lingzhi opened this section, started the complaint on my talk page, and opened the RfC in the first place (likely dissatisfied that it didn't pass). — Music1201 talk 18:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

|}

{{
Catholic Church
}} RM closing

Hi Music1201. Your close of

re}} talk | contribs

) 21:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jujutsuan: Slight Oppose + Support (+nom) ≠ Consensus. You can open a new RM if you have a better justified reason to move. — Music1201 ^talk 22:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

So one person with only an admittedly weak objection is enough to overthrow the other 2/3 of the opinionated discussion participants? With so few participants, why wasn't this at least relisted first?

re}} talk | contribs

) 22:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jujutsuan: per RM guidelines, relisting typically only occurs if their is no discussion. I'll revert my close and let someone else close it, but the result will likely be the same. — Music1201 ^talk 22:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it.

re}} talk | contribs

) 22:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Hello Music1201. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Richard J. Monocchio. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Thanks for the notice, but after doing a quick Google search, I did not turn up a single result. Please revert the CSD tag removal. Thanks. — Music1201 ^talk 01:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It's still a

WP:BITE violation as a look at the author's talk page clearly shows good faith. We should give him a chance. Adam9007 (talk

) 01:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. — Music1201 ^talk 01:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

For this reason, it's a good idea to patrol from the end of the queue. You may already be doing that, but I only recently noticed the link. Rebb ing 01:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

OTRS

I don't have access to that so can't see the ticket. Tim! (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tim!: Can you "shoot now, ask questions later" (block now, confirm with another OTRS member later?). The user requested immediate blocking. Thanks. — Music1201 ^talk 18:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I checked their edits and there seems to be very minimal disruption 5 hours ago and limited to the sandbox, so block doesn't seem to be necessary in my opinion. Tim! (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tim!: It's not disruptive. The situation is that the IP addresses I requested be blocked are the school's new IP addresses. I requested that the user made a few sandbox edits to verify ownership of the addresses. — Music1201 ^talk 18:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The template reads "Due to persistent vandalism (see edit log), anonymous editing from your school, library, or educational institution's IP address is blocked (disabled)" but I am not seeing any evidence of this. Tim! (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

See User talk:66.242.64.226. That is the schools old IP address. — Music1201 ^talk 18:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Move closure

You closed the move on talk:Anti-Russian sentiment saying that there was a concensus not to move. I previously stated that I would agree with concensus, but this wasn't it. There was definitely no concensus to not move it because the arguments in favour of that were all quickly rebuked. I would have understood "No concensus", but not this. Note that Wikipedia doesn't work on votes. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: I've changed the closure to not moved because either way they're not getting moved. — Music1201 ^talk 13:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Music1201: Yes, thank you, that was what I meant. I'm aware that it won't be moved but the consensus (or, rather, lack of consensus) showed arguments worth considering from both points. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing discussions

I saw your recent close of the WP:SOCK discussion and wanted to thank you for being willing to close difficult discussions. Would you be interested in a sort of mentoring deal with regard to closing discussions? You're going to draw some flak for that less than ideal close, but we do need more non-admin closers willing to take on the backlogs. I believe most editors go through three phases on understanding consensus: thinking they understand consensus, wondering what the heck consensus even means, and then actually understanding consensus. If you're interested, I'm happy to work with you to get you to the last step as fast as possible. Cheers! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Sure that'd be great. — Music1201 ^talk 20:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the radio silence! I had my RfA going on and had just moved to a new city. If you're still interested, let me know and I'll set up a subpage in my userspace where we can talk a bit about how I approach closing discussions and then work on some less-than-straightforward closes together. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I'm still interested. (Congrats on your RfA!) — Music1201 ^talk 01:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

See User:BU Rob13/Mentoring/Music1201. Rather than pinging each other every comment, please place it on your watchlist. I've done the same. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Rivers of Europe

Was realigning sections: "in Greece" was a separate section when it should have been a subsection of "Ionian Sea" Akwdb (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Akwdb: Oh sorry about that. — Music1201 ^talk 20:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I should have left an edit summary. Akwdb (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tony Scherman

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tony Scherman. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Melnick

Hi! Could I ask you to undo your premature close at

WP:AfD reads, right in the first paragraph, "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus". Since there's only one opinion there apart from that of the article creator (who predictably voted keep), a lot more input is going to be needed before consensus can be judged; and it hasn't been open seven days yet, either. The article still has, as far as I can see, no independent reliable in-depth coverage of the subject at all; what sources did you see that persuaded you that my nomination was not well founded? Justlettersandnumbers (talk

) 20:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Sorry about that, I misread the dates, I'll reopen. — Music1201 ^talk 20:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)