Misplaced Pages

User talk:Mkativerata: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:05, 9 October 2011 editMkativerata (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,905 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad: re← Previous edit Revision as of 23:06, 9 October 2011 edit undoMkativerata (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,905 editsm →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad: add important qualification to that ruleNext edit →
Line 240: Line 240:
::#He later wrote: "Two keep !votes, one userfy vote, and one keep vote is '''not''' clear consensus." – I think he meant to write "Two delete !votes", but he again repeated his earlier false statement that there were two—not three—delete votes. His comment also indicated that he is counting the votes and not assessing the argument. ::#He later wrote: "Two keep !votes, one userfy vote, and one keep vote is '''not''' clear consensus." – I think he meant to write "Two delete !votes", but he again repeated his earlier false statement that there were two—not three—delete votes. His comment also indicated that he is counting the votes and not assessing the argument.
::My attempt at having Alpha Quadrant review his relist has been unsuccessful. He at first ignored my replies and then was unable to justify the relist. When admin {{user|The Bushranger}} made two questionable relists, he was willing to review his decisions (see ). Because this was a non-admin relist, I think you as an uninvolved admin can override it. {{user|Spartaz}} overrode a non-admin close at ]. And {{user|Sandstein}} Alpha Quadrant's non-admin closure of ]. Sandstein commented at ] (), and he doesn't seem to have acknowledged the message.<p>Since the discussion ran for at least 168 hours (prior to the relist), it can be closed at any time. Would you either assess the consensus in the debate or restore it to the 2 October log for another admin to close? ] (]) 23:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC) ::My attempt at having Alpha Quadrant review his relist has been unsuccessful. He at first ignored my replies and then was unable to justify the relist. When admin {{user|The Bushranger}} made two questionable relists, he was willing to review his decisions (see ). Because this was a non-admin relist, I think you as an uninvolved admin can override it. {{user|Spartaz}} overrode a non-admin close at ]. And {{user|Sandstein}} Alpha Quadrant's non-admin closure of ]. Sandstein commented at ] (), and he doesn't seem to have acknowledged the message.<p>Since the discussion ran for at least 168 hours (prior to the relist), it can be closed at any time. Would you either assess the consensus in the debate or restore it to the 2 October log for another admin to close? ] (]) 23:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Sorry, it's (hopefully) not that I don't have the balls that Sandstein or Spartaz have, it's that as a general rule I only act upon procurements for admin assistance on my talk page in uncontroversial circumstances. Even if I did, I'd probably say in this case that whatever my view of the merits of the re-listing, now that it has been done, it may be better to let it lie than unilaterally reversing it. I'd revert a dodgy NAC any day of the week, but re-lists like this do much less damage. --] (]) 23:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC) :::Sorry, it's (hopefully) not that I don't have the balls that Sandstein or Spartaz have, it's that as a general rule I only act upon procurements for admin assistance from involved editors on my talk page in uncontroversial circumstances. Even if I did, I'd probably say in this case that whatever my view of the merits of the re-listing, now that it has been done, it may be better to let it lie than unilaterally reversing it. I'd revert a dodgy NAC any day of the week, but re-lists like this do much less damage. --] (]) 23:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:06, 9 October 2011

Note: If you post me a message here, I'll respond here, so please put my talk page on your watchlist if you are expecting a response. I don't leave talkback thingies. Likewise if I leave a note on your talk page, I will watchlist your talk page for any replies.

User Nmate being uncivil again

Hello! The purpose of this message is to notify you about the recent actions of User:Nmate. You blocked him a month ago for personal attacks, but unfortunately he insists in being uncivil. As it can be seen here he engaged in an edit war, bringing unfounded accusations of wiki-hounding and sock-puppetry as arguments of his reverts. He is trying to re-insert two sources that were confirmed by 3 uninvolved users (including a administrator) to be unreliable per WP:SPS (see more on the article talk page).

In the same time he is pressing for the elimination of a phrase supported by a (at least apparently) reliable scholar book (Istoria României. Transilvania, coord. Anton Drăgoescu, 1997 - where one of the authors is Prof. dr. Ioan BOLOVAN from the respected Babeș-Bolyai University)

This editor is not at the first deviation, as it can be seen in his block log. This warning, given after multiple attacks (including affirmations like "Iadrian yu is not an I.Q. champion") is also relevant.

He is helped in his demarches by User:Hobartimus

Please take some measures to calm him down. Thanks in advance (Daccono (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

Hi there, you really should take this to WP:AE rather than to an individual administrator, otherwise it can be said that you are "shopping" for an administrator likely to take action. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Raja Petra Kamarudin

great work. Decora (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

World Universities Debating Championship

You removed the results listing from this page can you confirm to Manticore that it should not be on the page as per Misplaced Pages rules. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DebateOne (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC on the primary topic of China

Hi Mkativerata. In a discussion earlier this year, User talk:Mkativerata/Archive9#Triumvirate, you proposed a triumvirate for closing contentious debates. Would you look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC on the primary topic of China and User talk:Tabercil#Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226#RFC on the primary topic of China? I mentioned the possibility of a triumvirate of admins to close Talk:China#Requested move August 2011 which is related to the recently close RfC at Talk:China#Primary topic of China. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a very good candidate for a triumvurate. But regrettably I'm almost certain I'm involved. I commented in this debate (taking one side of it) a few months ago(). --Mkativerata (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I have posted a request for two uninvolved admins to join Tabercil (talk · contribs) in a triumvirate. Cunard (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

E-mail from Richwales

Hello, Mkativerata. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your oppose at my RfA

Could you please explain more to me the rationale behind your oppose? Thanks, Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 05:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is that is not clear... --Mkativerata (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Well, the phrase "green dooby-wacker" first made me go "WTF" but now I'm guessing it refers to it being classified as a good article. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I was looking more along the lines not so much of why you opposed, I guess, but why you feel that Storm Prediction Center does not deserve GA status (which seems to be the rationale behind your oppose, if I interpreted it correctly). It's pretty much my prize article, and if there are concerns that it is not GA quality I would definitely like to resolve those as soon as possible. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 21:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not that - it's just the over-use of WP:SPS and the fact that the article is out of date. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Note

Deletion review for Kristina Calhoun

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kristina Calhoun. 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. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

E-mail from Richwales (again)

Hello, Mkativerata. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Article

Deletion of Article
Why Did you Delete Pamela Bergonzado!! Mikelelealma (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Westbury Cricket Club

Hi,

I don't think that you finished closing the AfD on this one properly, the AfD tad is still on the article page. I would also like to know how a unsourced article could make it through AfD with a keep, the only links provided in the AfD were to mentions such as  :

  1. "Mr Ri V. Marris presided at the annual meeting of - the Westbury Cricket Club on Monday",
  2. "A CREDIT balance of £8 6s 7d was disclosed at the annual meeting of the Westbury Cricket Club".
  3. "This club has during the past season played nine matches, of which six were won and three lost"
  4. "A meeting of the committee of the Westbury Cricket Club took place in the reading-room on Saturday evening." or
  5. "A SPECIAL meeting of the Westbury Cricket Club was held at Mr. R. Ingamell's, and was well attended by members of the women's committee and players."

to say that these are significant coverage is stretching it Mtking 09:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the closing script obviously didn't do its job. There was nowhere near a consensus to delete this article. The sufficiency of available sourcing is often a matter of opinion and here the opinion was, at best, divided. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Main page images

Hello! Please remember to locally upload and protect images before placing them on the main page. Following this edit, File:Putin (cropped).jpg, remained unprotected (and subject to vandalism) until approximately nine minutes later, when a bot detected its transclusion and cascade-protected it at Commons. Thank you! —David Levy 05:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Barrett Trotter

Hi. I see you deleted the article on Barrett Trotter. Now that he is the starting quarterback for Auburn, a fringe top 25 team, would you mind undeleting it? ~EDDY ~ 15:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Because of the extensive news sources arising since the last AfD, the last AfD is clearly out of date. I've restored the article as a redirect. Feel free to update it and restore the article proper. The history is all there. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Misplaced Pages now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Misplaced Pages policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:

  1. Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks.
  2. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages.

The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Misplaced Pages community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Not any help

Hi, sorry, I've been being thick. I just realized that if you reblocked with no email access, it actually only prevents sending email, so that suggestion of mine was worthless. A developer seems your best option. Only other thing I can think of is asking a Crat to rename the account something like RenamedAccount123456, which would make it harder for someone to find the email. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I think if it will be that onerous, the harm I'm trying to prevent is too unlikely as to warrant it. My only concern is that users who have harrassed the user on his talk page in the past might now harrass the user by email, and the user's email address is controlled by his family members. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Yep, it took me a while but I figured out your likely motivation once I realized why blocking wouldn't work. Since it's been a while since they retired, I'm hopeful there won't be any disturbing emails. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Anomie RfA

Did you know you were currently opposing? I think someone missed the joke....Worm · (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As an FYI, it was moved back to support column, though Mkativerata should perhaps confirm here that it is in the right place (see also here; here). –xeno 15:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. I was feeling rather mischievous last night. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

AE

Just in case it gets overlooked, i've made a comment at AE where i make a proposal (the last paragraph) in regards to me and Domer48 that i think is reasonable in the circumstances. Mabuska 23:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 18#Edward E. Kramer

Thank you for closing Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 18#Edward E. Kramer. When you close an AfD as relist, would you link directly to the AfD:

'''no consensus, list at ]'''

This will allow editors easy access to the AfD from the DRV page. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and done. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mkativerata, if there is no BLP problem, could you restore the associated talk page ? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

woohoo!

The Empty Set Barnstar
Thank you for your efforts in eliminating unreferenced BLPs! joe decker 17:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC) { }
Wow! --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/R Viswanathan

The closing statement was:

The result was no consensus. Reasonable minds often differ on whether sources are sufficient to establish a subject's notability. It's especially the case when there are many sources that mention or quote the subject but not so many that are actually about him. Here, reasonable minds differ quite evenly and there is no consensus either way.

How can reasonable minds be said to differ when we don't know what they think about the evidence?  None of the first three delete !voters reported any research, and these !votes were refuted during the AfD on this point.  Subsequent to these !votes, more than 40 references were discovered.  Only one delete !voter made a statement after this discovery.  This one !voter reported nothing was found on Google news, yet there are numerous sources on Google news, and I reported five of them at the AfD.  When challenged on this point, there was no explanation given.  So all delete !votes stand refuted for not having considered the evidence.  Please revert your closing to "keep".  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is so inconsequential that, with respect, I'm not inclined to give any further explanation for my close. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Given your position that the difference between "keep" and "no consensus" "is so inconsequential", then would you be ok with changing the result to "keep"?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
No, sorry. --Mkativerata (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Then it is not inconsequential, right?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
You are confusing meaning and consequence. There was no consensus in the debate and I'm not changing it to "keep". --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Sounds to me like you are trying to end this conversation before it has started, which would start with your response to my first question.  We had a good conversation at WP:Articles for deletion/Australian Intervarsity Choral Societies Association.  I was the one that later recreated Australian Intervarsity Choral Societies Association as a redirect by writing a new subsection of InterVarsity Choral Festival (Australia).  Unscintillating (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am trying to end it. I don't mean to be impolite, but I have limited time to engage in a totally inconsequential debate whether an AfD should have been closed as "keep" versus "no consensus". I'm just not doing it. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand that you don't mean to be impolite, and we have a good conversation behind us to confirm it.  I think the drag on this conversation is your insistence or implication that some of the choices that you make don't have consequences.  If your choice was truly inconsequential, I think you would have found a way out of this conversation that doesn't disrespect the work I did during the AfD in improving the encyclopedia and analyzing relevant guidelines and policies.  As per your statements, this will be my last post in this section without some feedback.  Perhaps you have some suggestions.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy RFC closure

I ask that you reconsider your close of the Pregnancy lead image proposal. It is faulty on several grounds, the primary consideration being Issue #2, where the photographer, the husband of the subject, has submitted OTRS permission to use the photo of his wife, with her knowledge and consent. If this is insufficient, which no one involved in the RFC has advanced, then please explain why. The RFC should have been closed as 'no consensus'. Dreadstar ☥ 16:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The summary of the OTRS ticket is that it gives permission for use, not that the subject of the photo has directly consented to its use. Having said that, I don't have the OTRS ticket. I have just added an important proviso to the close about the eventuality of proper consent being obtained. --Mkativerata (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Then you can't close it as conensus for change based on a technical issue into which you have no view and has not become an issue until right now, at closure. Please reverse the closure until we can confirm what, if anything, is necessary to show the consent of the subject. Dreadstar ☥ 17:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
No, it was an issue raised by a number of editors in support of the proposal that was not adequately dealt with and in combination with other issues caused there to be a consensus. See in particular Steven Walling and Viritidas' contributions and the others that relied on them. I'm not going to speak for OTRS here, but I would ordinarily seek not just the consent of the subject of the photograph but reasonable evidence that the subject of the photograph is indeed the person giving consent. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
That was before there was an OTRS ticket, all arguments were based on that. Once the OTRS ticket was in place, there were no further objections. Until now. Otherwise, I would have requested extra OTRS permission weeks ago. I'm writing them now. I merely asked for a little time to verify if the current OTRS is ok or if we need more, and to obtain that extra permission if needed. Dreadstar ☥ 17:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
And can you point me to the instructions on how to obtain and verify this 'personality rights' consent? I'm not seeing instructions on how to accomplish this and I want to make sure it's done right. Dreadstar ☥ 17:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
That is not an accurate reflection at all. The OTRS diff is from 7 September. A number of the contributions raising concerns about consent post-dated that diff significantly. In any case, as to your question, WP:Image_use#Privacy_rights suggests the use of a "model release". But I can understand you wanting to get the terms of any such consent and supporting evidence "right" first. I'd suggest you contact OTRS yourself or one of the OTRS administrators listed at WP:VRT. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Certainly the one you pointed out was well before the OTRS ticket, , so I don't know that it's an inaccurate reflection at all. I don't see arguments that the OTRS ticket is insufficient. Dreadstar ☥ 17:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Viritidas' contribution, to take one example, was well after the OTRS ticket came in. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, even she is unclear on what is needed. At any rate, I agree that we'll investigate and I'm doing that now. Better late than never, I guess... :) Although I still think you should reverse your close and wait, the image has been there since 2006. Dreadstar ☥ 17:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I think it was a well thought out and measured response... but I would ask that you modify your last sentence... I think you should explicitly state what the proposal was for, to reiterate the conclusion.--- Balloonman 17:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and done. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I find that reiterating the conclusion helps to aleviate ambiguity later on... it also ensures that when somebody says "I support the proposal" that they understood the proposal.---Balloonman 17:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I would also suggest boxing the entire discusison to include discussion not labelled "support/oppose," but the whole thing as it should have been weighed in your final decision... and preserved in that condition. Right now it is already WP:TLDR, let any future discussion start with a clean slate.---Balloonman 19:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm a bit hesitant shutting down more discussion than needs to be shut down, and it would be difficult to work out where to draw the lines. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, all this and I still don't know what the proposal entails. (I deliberately didn't read which side was up and which side was down), but I wanted to say I was extremely impressed with your writing in your close. It reveals a tempered, restrained, and sensible mindset and clearly communicated what was being decided, why, and was respectful to all sides. I think you might have managed to thread the needle.--Tznkai (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I guess we'll see if this outcome "works". --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see a direct release from the subject for this image either. Please explain the difference. Dreadstar ☥ 08:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Obviously the image is not of a naked person so concerns about consent are far less signifcant. It also appears that the photo has also been published on a US government website. I doubt very much that we have stronger privacy protections than government websites. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Drno

This user has been slow edit-warring over a reference in the article Nazir Razak. He has been continuing the work of User:Nazirrazak which is why I sense a connection between the two accounts and the subject. It has been exasperating to keep on reverting his unexplained removals of a source. Warnings on his talk page have gone unheeded. Please deal with him, thanks. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 14:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him for one month. Normally I'd suggest going to WP:AN3 to avoid accusations of picking your admin but this is more vandalism than edit-warring so I'm happy to do it myself. I'll watchlist the page in case he/she comes back with a different account. My fear is that the account actually is Nazor or someone close to him and he's removing incorrect content (not that the article is incorrect, but perhaps the source is). Still, he/she needs to tell us that and not edit-war! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I was unsure whether it should have been reported for edit-warring or vandalism so I just brought it to your attention. The source seems pretty harmless (it was a pat-on-the-back softball interview) which is what baffles me so much. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 15:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Might ask how broadly construed (I believe that is how it is termed) Is it just articles I am banned from are talk pages still allowed? I ask as I am currently in a mediation regarding Holodomor? The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I am just about to post it on your talk page... The short answer is that it is the whole lot. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Short and painless is always good, thank you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that was fast. Anyway, are Igny and TLAM still allowed to participate in the Holodomor mediation? Since that may - let me stress the *may* - have potential long run benefits perhaps it should be exempt from the topic ban? Volunteer Marek  22:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I see no reason for there to be any exceptions to the topic bans. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Once again, "you're banning the wrong people". Igny, however much I disagree with him and however irritating I found his comment about the EEML (I AM the EEML, a mailing list of one!) is actually one of the good guys. In the sense that he actually tries to discuss things, brings sources to the table etc. (yes, yes, he can be stubborn and tentedious and even rude at times when frustrated, but this is sort of par for the course in this topic area...I was gonna close this parentheses but then realized that that was actually the main point...
Ok, look, this is a messy topic area where you will ALWAYS have disagreements. I would rather have disagreements with intelligent knowledgeable people, like Igny or Paul Siebert, than clueless vicious psychopaths, which is sort of the norm in this area. So please bring back people "I disagree with but respect" and try to figure out who the "people who are useless and just cause nothing but trouble" are next time. I'd give you some clues but there's some restrictions in place. Yes, yes, yes, I know it's hard and we all Eastern European sound alike and we bicker and oh my goodness it's such a pain to sort it out, but since you get paid the big bucks for being and admin... I mean ... it's your job, right?
The above is worded in a slightly obnoxious way. BUT. I wouldn't even bother posting it if I didn't think there was at least a chance that you would think about it. I actually have a ... more-than-average regard for your past admin actions at AE which is why I have bothered typing all them letters. If it was one of the other AE admins, I would not have even bothered.
Anyway, blah blah blah, I would like it if Igny particpated in the Holodmor mediation, since I want to know what he has to say, and if you're going to be all kafka about it, I'm just going to email him for his opinions. Which would be like "canvassing" except I'd be "canvassing" someone whom I know disagrees with me, but in this wacky world of Misplaced Pages, that too can be used against me. So heads up.  Volunteer Marek  08:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, thank you for your unsolicited opinion. It flies in the face of the clear impression I have of Igny's editing behaviour based on the objective evidence discussed at the AE. Behaviours change. Maybe your opinion would have been well-founded a few months ago (for even a few weeks ago, check out the edit-warring on Holodomor, which would have been sanctionable in and of itself). But not, in my view, now. I won't re-litigate this further. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration requests for amendment

Hello, I have mentioned you in a Requests for Amendment at arbitration, you can find the discussion here. I have requested that the topic bans of TLAM and Igny be modified, but realise that these requests need to be made to ArbCom directly. Feel free to comment at RFAR of course. Thanks, Steven Zhang 05:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Amanda Knox

Good morning, Mkativerata. I was reading the above discussion again today and it struck me as an excellent candidate for a triumvirate close: contentious, fraught, numerically split, and very long indeed. So I thought I'd ping you and see if you agreed?—S Marshall T/C 10:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I reckon it fulfils all those conditions. My only doubt is whether there's any dispute as to which way it could be closed. I can really see only one way myself, but I've participated in the discussion so perhaps my judgement is clouded. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think that you and I agree on what the only proper close is—but there are certainly vocal and passionate editors on the other side.—S Marshall T/C 15:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad

As an uninvolved admin, would you review User talk:Alpha Quadrant#Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad, regarding Alpha Quadrant (talk · contribs)'s non-admin relist of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad? I believe that the criteria for relisting at WP:RELIST has not been met and that consensus at the AfD has been achieved. Cunard (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see where AQ may have been coming from. But the problem with re-listing in these circumstances it that it jams up an admin who now might want to close it. If one neutral party has said the consensus isn't clear, it's very tough for another to come over the top and close it if there haven't been any more substantial contributions. And there may very well not be any more contributions to this debate in the next seven days: it is TLDR and no-one likes to jump into TLDR. So what is an admin to do in seven days time? That's why re-lists shouldn't be done as readily as they are. At the least, debates like this should be allowed to slip well off the last day of the log, to give as many patrolling admins as possible the opportunity to close them. It seems to me this was re-listed after the standard 168 hours, which is good, but it would have been better to give it more time on the last day of the log for an admin to close if the admin saw a consensus. Re-listing should actually be kind of a last resort.
I also agree with you that the statement "Discussions that have unclear consensus can be relisted" is not correct. Having said that, re-listing is very discretionary. There may very well have been admins who would have re-listed this, but had it been left to slip off the log I think it would have been closed and closed as "delete". --Mkativerata (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Judging by Alpha Quadrant's comments, it seems that he did not read the discussion.
  1. He stated: "Currently there is two users (you and the nom) arguing deletion". – there are three users arguing for deletion. Myself, MER-C (talk · contribs), and DonCalo (talk · contribs).
  2. He later wrote: "Two keep !votes, one userfy vote, and one keep vote is not clear consensus." – I think he meant to write "Two delete !votes", but he again repeated his earlier false statement that there were two—not three—delete votes. His comment also indicated that he is counting the votes and not assessing the argument.
My attempt at having Alpha Quadrant review his relist has been unsuccessful. He at first ignored my replies and then was unable to justify the relist. When admin The Bushranger (talk · contribs) made two questionable relists, he was willing to review his decisions (see User talk:The Bushranger). Because this was a non-admin relist, I think you as an uninvolved admin can override it. Spartaz (talk · contribs) overrode a non-admin close at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics. And Sandstein (talk · contribs) reverted Alpha Quadrant's non-admin closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mariko Honda. Sandstein commented at User talk:Alpha Quadrant (permanent link), and he doesn't seem to have acknowledged the message.

Since the discussion ran for at least 168 hours (prior to the relist), it can be closed at any time. Would you either assess the consensus in the debate or restore it to the 2 October log for another admin to close? Cunard (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's (hopefully) not that I don't have the balls that Sandstein or Spartaz have, it's that as a general rule I only act upon procurements for admin assistance from involved editors on my talk page in uncontroversial circumstances. Even if I did, I'd probably say in this case that whatever my view of the merits of the re-listing, now that it has been done, it may be better to let it lie than unilaterally reversing it. I'd revert a dodgy NAC any day of the week, but re-lists like this do much less damage. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Mkativerata: Difference between revisions Add topic