User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2021/10

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Administrator changes

Blablubbs

Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Mkdw

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should take a look at this

See ticket 2021100110005621. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning a file you undeleted that was deleted again on the Wikimedia Commons

@King of Hearts:, I didn't want to do this as I personally think that it's quite a tasteless barnstar, but... I've added the "Hot Sex Barnstar" here as it's a controversial one that was discussed in a reliable source. If you wish you can file an undeletion request at the Wikimedia Commons (I would advise against using your sysop powers to undelete it again), it could theoretically be used here, but I don't think that it would be a visual treat to the readers. In fact I didn't really want to add that section here, but it's relevant and it means that the image itself now has educational value for another Wikimedia website as it seemed to constantly fall on deaf ears there. Do with this information as you wish. --Donald Trung (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It could theoretically be linked to like this as is done in the source article itself. --Donald Trung (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I realised that you might not see the thing there (as I don't seem to get pings on Wikipedia talk pages), note that I specifically state file an undeletion request and not undelete as that would be a sysop edit war. I would advise against directly using the file on the page simply because it looks very tacky (I only "like" the file because its absurdity gives me such a laugh), but what's odd is that finding information about Wikipedia "barnstars" is scarce online, but this "barnstar" (actually anchor stars) seems to be described in detail so I would argue that this is the most educational barnstar. Anyhow, do with this information as you wish. --Donald Trung (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify my intent from the discussion as I noticed that some users used it to both insult you and me. My issue with the original DR was that it was interpreted against policy, as usual it attracted a Deletionist user that immediately began arguing that it was within policy despite "COM:INUSE" arguing the opposite (as the file was in use at a template which after long discussion had consensus to stay), the DR just circumvented this consensus and the nominator claimed that another barnstar was better (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) but didn't actually insert the barnstar after deletion making it seem like blatant censorship. At the VP discussion the other user kept misrepresenting policy and arguing with a Contrarian is like playing chess with a pigeon, every time the goal post moves, the user says that the file should be deleted because it's not educational, I point out that the policy dictates that in use files are considered educational, they say that Wiki-specific files aren't so, so I point out that their interpretation of policies would get the Treahouse logo deleted (which they deny without actually building an argument as to why), note that this user has spearheaded many DR's that violate "COM:INUSE", of their DR's quite a number of in use files have been deleted over their assertion that fantasy flags don't have educational value, the issue is that they don't actually care about sources, for example a file sourced at the English-language Wikipedia was ignored because they claimed that "the uploader was likely the same person as the designer in the source" (note that everyone else in the DR was discussing copyright). When I mentioned that this barnstar was controversial and mentioned by external parties he called it "trivial", so I found a reliable source and then he dismisses it. You can't argue with a person who's always moving the goalpost, yet I am supposedly "trolling" to point out that breaking policies shouldn't be allowed and that it's a slippery slope. I will admit that the above was done to spite the user for calling reliable sources "trivial" whenever they dislike something, a behaviour they also express in their DR's.

Note that at the time I was quite upset about a closed UnDR where the admin refused to undelete a file that was exactly as I had described it based on an external source and she told me specifically to not ask admins how it looked, likely because it was identical to the description of the source, the file was in use at half a dozen different Wikipedia's and the nominator is known for a similar crusade against symbols they consider "fictional" and ignore any policy and contrary evidence when presented. While the file is undeleted now, I notice how a lot of admins that came from Nlwiki tend to have this dismissive personality, this is due to the culture there essentially allowing insults by admins and admins never respond to users who ask them why they ignore policies.

As I rather don't want any arguments with people that clearly assume bad faith and can't seem to be collegial I prefer not to continue discussing the topic over there, I just find it odd that such blatant ignoring of policies like "COM:INUSE" and "COM:CIVILITY" are considered acceptable. By preference I would rather not have to deal with these people, I just wrote it here for clarity, as I don't know if any of them e-mailed you with more insults towards me. My issue is that "COM:INUSE" is systematically ignored and many admins don't actually seem to care about policies like that. To give an example, this file is actually a free file as it's ineligible for copyright under United States copyright, but was deleted at the Wikimedia Commons as "a fantasy flag" despite actual photographic evidence being presented in the DR which the nominator dismissed as "trivial", so a "COM:INUSE" flag with no copyright issues gets deleted despite photographic evidence, I would rather not upload it locally here but in the current culture I am not sure if it would be wise to upload it to the Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2021-40

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

A more efficient way of sending changes from Wikidata to Wikimedia wikis that show them has been enabled for the following 10 wikis: mediawiki.org, the Italian, Catalan, Hebrew and Vietnamese Wikipedias, French Wikisource, and English Wikivoygage, Wikibooks, Wiktionary and Wikinews. If you notice anything strange about how changes from Wikidata appear in recent changes or your watchlist on those wikis you can let the developers know.

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 October. It will be on all wikis from 7 October (calendar).
Some gadgets and bots that use the API to read the AbuseFilter log might break. The hidden property will no longer say an entry is implicit for unsuppressed log entries about suppressed edits. If your bot needs to know this, do a separate revision query. Additionally, the property will have the value false for visible entries; previously, it wasn't included in the response. [1]
A more efficient way of sending changes from Wikidata to Wikimedia wikis that show them will be enabled for all production wikis. If you notice anything strange about how changes from Wikidata appear in recent changes or your watchlist you can let the developers know.

Future changes

You can soon get cross-wiki notifications in the iOS Wikipedia app. You can also get notifications as push notifications. More notification updates will follow in later versions. [2]
The JavaScript variables wgExtraSignatureNamespaces, wgLegalTitleChars, and wgIllegalFileChars will soon be removed from mw.config. These are not part of the "stable" variables available for use in wiki JavaScript. [3]
The JavaScript variables wgCookiePrefix, wgCookieDomain, wgCookiePath, and wgCookieExpiration will soon be removed from mw.config. Scripts should instead use mw.cookie from the "mediawiki.cookie" module. [4]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Sunday: Wiki-Pavilion Picnic NYC (part of WikiConference NA, Oct 8-10)

Sunday October 10, 12-5pm: Wiki-Pavilion Picnic NYC
(part of WikiConference North America 2021, Oct 8-10)

Welcome to Wikimedia New York City!

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for a planned socially-distanced Wiknic ("the picnic anyone can edit") in Brooklyn's Prospect Park, being held at the historic Concert Grove Pavilion to coincide with WikiConference North America 2021, which will run virtually from Friday to Sunday.

For this occasion, and to allow more space as desired, we have individually packed lunches provided by the chapter, and attendees are encouraged to RSVP at Eventbrite and give sandwich/entree orders.

Sunday October 10 Wiki-Pavilion Picnic NYC (optional RSVP on-wiki).

12:00pm - 5:00 pm at the Concert Grove Pavilion 40°39′34″N 73°57′51″W / 40.65934°N 73.96414°W

(Prospect Park, Brooklyn)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 17:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Community Banana Stand

On 10 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Community Banana Stand, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in downtown Seattle, approximately 8,000 bananas are given away daily by Amazon "banistas" under the supervision of their "bananagers"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Community Banana Stand. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Community Banana Stand), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

Corrosive RfA atmosphere
The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
Level of scrutiny
Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
Standards needed to pass keep rising
It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
Too few candidates
There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
"No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
Admin permissions and unbundling
There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
RfA should not be the only road to adminship
Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2021-41

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 October. It will be on all wikis from 14 October (calendar).

The "auto-number headings" preference is being removed. You can read phab:T284921 for the reasons and discussion. This change was previously announced. A JavaScript snippet is available which can be used to create a Gadget on wikis that still want to support auto-numbering.

Meetings

You can join a meeting about the Desktop Improvements. A demonstration version of the newest feature will be shown. The event will take place on Tuesday, 12 October at 16:00 UTC. See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-42

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Toolhub is a catalogue to make it easier to find software tools that can be used for working on the Wikimedia projects. You can read more.

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 October. It will be on all wikis from 21 October (calendar).

Future changes

The developers of the Wikipedia Android app are working on communication in the app. You can now answer questions in survey to help the development.
3–5% of editors may be blocked in the next few months. This is because of a new service in Safari, which is similar to a proxy or a VPN. It is called iCloud Private Relay. There is a discussion about this on Meta. The goal is to learn what iCloud Private Relay could mean for the communities.
Wikimedia Enterprise is a new API for those who use a lot of information from the Wikimedia projects on other sites. It is a way to get big commercial users to pay for the data. There will soon be a copy of the Wikimedia Enterprise dataset. You can read more. You can also ask the team questions on Zoom on 22 October 15:00 UTC.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-43

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

The Coolest Tool Award 2021 is looking for nominations. You can recommend tools until 27 October.

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 October. It will be on all wikis from 28 October (calendar).

Future changes

Diff pages will have an improved copy and pasting experience. The changes will allow the text in the diff for before and after to be treated as separate columns and will remove any unwanted syntax. [5]
The version of the Liberation fonts used in SVG files will be upgraded. Only new thumbnails will be affected. Liberation Sans Narrow will not change. [6]

Meetings

You can join a meeting about the Community Wishlist Survey. News about the disambiguation and the real-time preview wishes will be shown. The event will take place on Wednesday, 27 October at 14:30 UTC. See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Query

Hello, King of Hearts,

I look at the Deletion log and noticed a page restoration based on Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation (closed). I was wondering if your decision also meant that List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II should be restored as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II was not explicitly discussed as a separate entity in either the AfD or DRV, so whatever happens to the main article should also happen to this appendix. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And BOOM! It's done. I usually don't get such a fast response to my talk page messages. Hope all is well with you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re. your DRV close. I don't understand it. consensus at this DRV is that the closer erred in concluding that there were only two valid "keep" !votes does not seem to be an appropriate summation of the discussion: whether there were only two or maybe a few more arguments about the list not being OR (when the more convincing argument, re. the overall lack of sources presenting a similar list and the differences with sources which did present a Nobel affiliation list in some form or another; was firmly on the side of the list indeed being OR) does not seem to have been a major concern (although there was plenty or relitigation of the OR question itself). I might have missed a few bits in all the noise, but secondly, it has been argued that WP:NLIST is in fact a valid counter to NOR, since it establishes that the concept of the list is not fundamentally flawed does not seem to have been a major concern, either: could you point out some comments which discuss this point? Because of how lopsided the !vote count was in the end, it is not sufficient for "endorse" !voters to simply point out that some of the "keep" !votes, or even a significant proportion of them, did not address the reason for deletion does not seem accurate, either: lopsided or not, it was not merely half, but the vast majority, which did not address the OR issue. And finally, I don't see how there is a consensus for overturning, period. A "no consensus" close (whatever that entails for the list itself - likely, allow recreation in a policy compliant manner) would probably have been more appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many different policy-based arguments were presented in the DRV on both sides, and it would be impossible to mention every one of them. On a raw !vote count I see 28 to 20, so it is definitely within the DRV closer's discretion to find a consensus here. I chose to highlight one argument, because it directly refuted the evidence Sandstein used to defend his close while accepting his framework. There are many other plausible arguments, like this one from Andrew which challenged the framework altogether: "You can't have it both ways. If you're going by strength of argument then you consider only the arguments. If you're going by headcount, then you do just that. So, far as the argument goes, the close conceded in conclusion that the topic was viable; they just didn't like that version. But, as the article has a huge history of over 1500 versions over 15 years, it is not sensible to delete that long history which may well have contained better versions."

A lot of arguments are implicit, and that is something I think Sandstein missed in the original AfD. Returning to the DRV, the explicit association of NLIST with NOR was made by Sdkb, Alalch Emis, and Danstronger, but there were several arguments which made a similar argument without explicitly mentioning one or both by name (e.g. Hut 8.5, Dream Focus, Mysterymanblue). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When both sides have equally valid arguments, and neither side has an overwhelming majority (28-20 [ignoring those that should be discounted per NOTAVOTE] is 58%, which is not particularly striking as a "strong majority" to me), the outcome should have been "no consensus". Some of the overturns are as flimsy as the AfD keeps: Overturn. The topic is clearly notable, and the Nobel association itself has a list, so NLIST is satisfied (does not address any way how the close was wrong); Overturn per SDKB and several others. (useless, not only because it is vague but because, of course, those very points have been disputed and they are not offering any new argument), Overturn I totally agree that it is now WP:NOR-compliant. (self-explanatory)... re. the NLIST/NOR argument: A few editors out of 48 making one side of an argument (and likely an equal number saying the opposite, like Sandstein answering Sdkb's claim; Tompa and XOR answering Alalch, ...), is not a "consensus" that this argument is valid. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can also find poor endorses (e.g. scope_creep's, which belongs on AfD, not DRV), and ones that add little in the way of new argument (e.g. Zaathras, Stifle, Hemiauchenia). 48 is a lot of participants at a DRV; the more participants you have, the lower the rule-of-thumb threshold for consensus drops. In an ideal world where we can get literally everyone's opinion, a simple majority is sufficient for consensus. But we don't live in that ideal world, so any real discussion is subject to sampling error. The reason why we require a supermajority is because we don't want consensus to shift every time the populace is re-surveyed, but in a theoretical environment where consensus cannot change, there is no reason for tyranny of the 49% minority. If we do a one-sided confidence interval on 28/48, we are 85% confident that the true proportion of support is over 50%. To me that is enough confidence to declare a consensus assuming the arguments are sufficiently well-reasoned. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the concern is sampling error ("every time the populace is re-surveyed,"), your confidence interval would be calculated using the 48 participants out of a population of (total number of usually active editors, which, judging by this; (and going by the number of editors with 100+ edits/month, which is pretty much the case of everyone in that DRV), would be something like just about 5 thousand);... Of course, disregarding that discussions are not votes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so let's return to the substance of the arguments, shall we? WP:VAGUEWAVEs by the "overturn" side can, of course, be answered by VAGUEWAVEs on the "endorse" side, and vice versa. However, once we get into the specifics, the "endorse" side has not made convincing arguments as to why the AfD opinions of Andrew Davidson, Mysterymanblue, Gah4, and Tiredmeliorist, among others, should be thrown out. If we're counting !votes at AfD, then that gets us to a dead heat. If we're not counting !votes at AfD, then to get to a "delete" result you would have to decide that these 6 "keep" !votes are somehow weaker than the 6 "delete" !votes - something which the "endorse" side has failed to do. Instead, many of their arguments boil down to WP:OSE - because some of the "keep" !votes are weak, nearly all of them must be weak. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that it was a very bad DRV close. It has failed to even acknowledge very strong policy-based endorsement points, and ultimately resorted to vote-counting. Effectively, you have torn up WP:NOTAVOTE, by not enagaging with the policy-based position of either camp. Like RandomCanadian, I do not see a consensus to overturn in that DRV, not even close, and I don't find your argument that WP:VAGUEWAVEs by the "overturn" side can, of course, be answered by VAGUEWAVEs on the "endorse" side as persuasive... in fact, it was very WP:VAGUEWAVE itself. I did !vote "Endorse" but I'm totally indifferent as to the future of this particular article; but I find the points raised in that DRV too important for future cases to be so laconically closed (and wrongly summarized). I'd respectfully ask that you undo that close and leave it to someone else. No such user (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Really a very good close, though I strongly disagree with one sentence. I get that you and RC see the world in a certain way--that the policy-based arguments for deletion are just obviously true. But the policy-based argument for deletion A) really misunderstands how lists work on Wikipedia and B) was strongly rejected at AfD. The justification used for deleting the article by the closing admin (counting those that mentioned NOR) was utterly bogus on all levels. Even if one accepts counting references to a policy as a reasonable basis for a close, as KoH points out, *that* didn't really did get there either because of all the folks that discussed the issue of OR without actually linking to WP:NOR. All that said, the notion that counting votes in the way the closer did is an even vaguely proper way to close a discussion is wrongheaded. One judges strength of argument, not counting who mentions what policy. Hobit (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is probably not a place to discuss philosophical differences. But, try as I might, I haven't seen a cogent argument addressing WP:SYNTH allegations in all those megabytes of discussion and the DRV closure. And your explanations such as "really misunderstands how lists work", "utterly bogus", and "wrongheaded" do not help my understanding as to the way you see the world. No such user (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The way I see the world is that many of our list articles require local consensus about what to include. For big schools, a "List of Alumni" article can't include everyone with an article. And for a very small one, such a list (often in the article) will include people without an article. We do allow editorial decisions. We do this in lists. We also do this in articles. I spent a fair bit of time reviewing British Empire. There are tons and tons of editorial decisions made about what to include and what not to include--the topic is just too large. What you see as "original research" I see as "editorial discretion". Not every decision can, or should, be based on exactly how the various sources address things--especially when the sources are all different. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on the British Empire, it means we need to work to find the best way to cover the topic. I see that as applying here as much as it does in the British Empire article. I don't expect you to agree with that, but do you understand my philosophical viewpoint here? I believe that was the view held by many in the AfD. Hobit (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand now, and even sympathize. But that essentially means that we should have no rules other than local consensus, and that would be a rather different project than Wikipedia. My understanding is that this project (its content part, specifically) is very much rules-driven, to the extent that many decisions can be made almost algorithmically: "this is WP:SYNTH, isn't it?" "well, um, but it's notable!" – "well, WP:TNT, then". This AfD and the DRV were all about policy-wonking (or wikilawyering, if you prefer) so I'm disappointed to see it ended by the close that does not even acknowledge the fine points, and proclaims consensus where there is not one. As for the article itself, I wouldn't mind an IAR-keep, but let us at least acknowledge that. No such user (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        And I understand your point though I think to some extent it ignores the shades-of-grey that must be involved in any project like Wikipedia. But thanks for the serious question. While we continue to disagree, I'm glad we understand where the other is coming from. Hobit (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The contrast between Sandstein's much better close (which honestly and clearly explains how the conclusion was reached) and this very poor close (which would have been much better as your own contribution to the discussion) is really striking. --JBL (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Sandstein couldn't identify what WP:OR argument he found strong enough to go against the strong numeric consensus. That's a huge problem. "Count folks who mentioned a specific policy" is not the basis of a good close... Hobit (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because of how lopsided the !vote count was in the end, it is not sufficient for "endorse" !voters to simply point out that some of the "keep" !votes, or even a significant proportion of them, did not address the reason for deletion; in fact, discarding half of the "keep" !votes would not be sufficient to find a consensus to delete. – So that means that dodging a key issue and arguing a strawman is now an acceptable approach to discussion, as long as your side garners significant enough number of !votes to lopside the count? No such user (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this DRV close sets an extraordinarily bad precedent. Strawmen and red herrings should be disregarded whether they are made up of thin air or whether they appear to point at Wikipedia policy (as was argued by plenty of folks at the DRV, folks whose opinion was disregarded based on apparently a mere numeric counted). Anyway, this is all moot as the article has now been TNTed and started over again, so the issues of the AfD and DRV don't apply anymore (although they vindicate that my rationale, that this needed TNT, was correct). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When the AfD !vote is close, like 6 keeps and 5 deletes, then it is valid to argue that the discussion should be closed as "delete" since the "keep" side was weak in general. However, when the AfD !vote has an overwhelming supermajority to keep, you cannot simply talk in such generalities, but must pick apart every individual "keep" !vote which has been plausibly argued to be relevant and policy-compliant and explain why it is not. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good close at DRV, Kudos to you assessing such a contested issue and coming to a conclusion. Some people were bound to be flummoxed by any decision. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that this was a good close, exceptionally well-articulated. To those who continue to object, I'd say it's time to WP:LETITGO. The article was challenged through the AfD. That AfD was challenged with the DRV, a challenge to a challenge. We're now at the stage of challenging the challenge to the challenge to the article, which is a bit much. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I have followed this with some slight interest. I agree with Sdkb's rather comical analysis: We're now at the stage of challenging the challenge to the challenge to the article, which is a bit much. Indeed, I don't think this can or should persist anymore. KoH closed the DRV as no-consensus which I think could (should?) have applied to the initial AfD and as such, on balance, was perhaps the most appropriate decision. The fact the article has now been started from scratch surely means it should be put to bed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KoH closed the DRV as no-consensus This is not true. --JBL (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBL: I guess I meant that the debate was concluded overall as being one without consensus. Yes, the DRV "specifically" wasn't NC closed as that would in turn not affect the AfD outcome I guess, but maybe I mis-phrased. I didn't expect a somewhat pedantic scrutiny of my attempt to suggest the debate should be retired. KoH will no doubt appreciate getting his talk page back! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You possibly feel like the Tommy Carcetti character in The Wire right now. However you closed that DRV there were going to be brickbats; irrespective of agreeing with you, my respect for stepping in and concluding a difficult close in good faith. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)