User talk:Daniel

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Guideline and policy news

Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Millanguir

Actually, Sandstein's argument is circular: Despite everyone who regularly watches DELSORT religion treating BISHOPS and CLERGYOUTCOMES as normative, Sandstein argues that without the imprimatur of guideline, essays aren't sufficient basis for AfD rationales. However, as WP:POL says The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors. such that if we're routinely keeping bishops per BISHOPS (and we do; I can't remember a single one that's been deleted) then it's actually an SNG even without an RFC to bless it as such. TNT is another essay that's routinely cited as authoritative even if it's not; it just happens to be used in favor of deletion. While I appreciate the thought of looking out for the minority view that is more policy compliant... this ain't one of those times. Jclemens (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree with that. Those pointing at BISHOPS, in my opinion, do not advance an argument that is as strong as 'does not meet GNG' (which is, in effect, Sandstein's argument). If BISHOPS is an exception to GNG that enjoys such widespread support that it should be applied here, then it should be codified as such at RfC. I surely can't be expected to take the temperature of the project in assessing an essay as being stronger than a guideline, based on it being routinely applied at other debates; isnt that why we have policies, guidelines and essays marked as such? Daniel (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the meta-topic of if we're routinely keeping bishops per BISHOPS...is actually an SNG even without an RFC to bless it as such when assessing consensus at AfD's, do you have any objection if I start a topic at WT:DELPRO to test this theory as it would apply to other oft-cited essays? Daniel (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N is a guideline, which means articles don't have to demonstrate notability, but most should. That statement itself will trigger rigid thinkers. So it's perfectly fine to say "A bishop of a major denomination where this is an area-level leadership position should always have an article, even if notability is not met" is not a policy-noncompliant statement. Presumptive inclusion doesn't run afoul of NRVE, because N is itself not necessary for a topic to merit an article.

Essays become guidelines because no one seriously denies their general applicability. BISHOPS should probably be a guideline, if only to keep new folks who don't understand the descriptive nature of guidelines and essays. I've written a couple of essays that are linked from policy pages; they got that way not because I had any positional authority, but because each accurately described how Wikipedians can think sensibly about those topics.

If you bring it up, the editors who like to dabble in policy will probably reject it, because we have a lot of Procrustean editors who cannot imagine anything having an article without meeting GNG. They've gradually been rewriting SNGs like NCORP and NSPORT to make criteria more stringent, rather than just different, because really writing a consensus-driven project is messy and uncomfortable. I don't think all of them are stupid and/or evil, but a lot of them don't think clearly about the purpose of writing down some of our policies. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Essays become guidelines because no one seriously denies their general applicability. - this is the statement that I agree with, but also struggle with a lot. Practically speaking, how am I as a closer of an AfD meant to know if an essay is one which is significant disputed, or one which has general acceptance outside of that singular debate? (Somewhat of a rhetorical question.) Daniel (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's a fuzzy situation, but when it's a 1AM--or nearly so, when only one editor agrees with the nom--in a well-attended discussion, that's a pretty good indication that such is the case. Absent obvious red flags like socking, canvassing, and the like, of course, which don't seem to apply in this case. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning

Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper

In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!

Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South

Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night

Book review: The Editors

Humour: The Newspaper Editors

Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hello, Daniel,

Thank you for closing the ANI discussion that refused to die. It's appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll disagree about the close. Homeostasis was doxxed, and our solution is to prevent her from discussing about it? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LilianaUwU, my job is to assess consensus. There was consensus to implement the topic ban. I can absolutely understand your argument but it was firmly in the minority. While assessing consensus isn't a vote count per se, strength of support for the respective positions is absolutely considered. Daniel (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that once you put aside votes from WPO, the vote was tied. Did you give every vote equal weight?

There was also new evidence posted and a new oppose vote came in, along with a request not to close the thread for 24hrs, just before you closed it. Why close it right after new evidence was posted? Levivich (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting I'm currently drafting an RFAR and will post it within the next few hours. Sincerely, Dilettante 14:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, I did not disregard contributions from those who are either confirmed or alleged to have WPO accounts, no. They are editors in good standing and offered a reasonable argument that had consensus support. The statement "once you put aside votes from WPO" is divisive and the view to disregard their contributions to the debate, again, did not have support to do so.

Sincerely, Dilettante, no problems. Daniel (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was pretty normal to set aside canvassed votes even if the canvassed editors are in good standing, and you didn't answer my second question about the new evidence, new votes, and timing of the close -- but it's all moot anyway if it's going to RFAR. Levivich (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, thanks for your kind words as always. Hope you are doing well. Daniel (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also thank you for closing it, it didn't get the result I had intended, but that's the way it goes sometimes and it had clearly outlived any usefulness. Your read of the consensus throughout is fair. This is seemingly on its way to arbitration so the complaints here will probably stop when that happens. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]