User talk:Hobit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search




RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 01:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Professor Hewitt[edit]

What Michael Knowles wrote was misleading because Professor Kowalski’s contribution to the ALP newsletter did not complain about Professor Hewitt nor does the contribution by Professor Pereira. In fact, Professor Hewitt was not even mentioned.

During his brief time editing, Professor Hewitt made valuable suggestions for improving articles. 50.0.72.102 (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Hewitt fell into a classic Wikipedia trap. He thought that the primary purpose was to improve articles and that the normal rules of professional conduct applied.
By Wikipedia rules, he should have ignored Knowles's antics. 50.0.72.102 (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Some amateurs here got on the wrong side of highly technical arguments with computer science professionals. Replay of the Global Warming fiasco? 76.102.7.120 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

  • No this isn't the same as global warming. It's one person promoting their work (correctly or not) and others pushing back, probably too hard. I've seen similar issues elsewhere on Wikipedia--academics can be very prickly about getting credit for their work. And that includes the very best researchers. Also, if you are going to contribute to a discussion where one user has been known to use socks, it would be best if you did so via a registered account. Hobit (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Professionals like Hewitt are primarily motivated by accuracy in Wikipedia articles. They don’t gain any professional credit from references in Wikipedia. So, he is not being “prickly” in order to “promote” his work over others. In his editing, Hewitt has included references to publications of many other people.
There are two issues:
  1. Wikipedia insists on authoritative references which include Hewitt because he has done and published much of the work.
  2. Wikipedia insists on accuracy which means that references to Hewitt’s publications must be appropriately included.
50.242.100.195 (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Professionals work to promote science. In the course of so doing, they sometimes promote their own work in the context of the work of others. Of course, they must take care not to unfairly promote their work over others lest it be self-defeating by causing resentments amongst other professionals.
50.247.81.99 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Professionals are primarily motivated by the following:

  1. Science: They spend their whole lives working to improve science. Bad articles hinder their work.
  2. Education: They put enormous effort into communicating with each other and teaching students. Bad articles interfere with education.

Unfortunately for them, the Wikipedia website is currently a defacto monopoly. Nevertheless, because of insults and harassment, almost no professionals contribute to Wikipedia.

Being referenced in Wikipedia does not enhance the reputation of top-ranked professionals. Instead, their reputations are determined by other elite professionals who already know precisely who contributed what and certainly don’t need Wikipedia to tell them.

BTW, the comment above is correct that Professors Kowalski and Pereira did not criticize Professor Hewitt in the newsletter.

50.242.68.99 (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Professor Hewitt has written to the Wikimedia Foundation. See Professor Carl Hewitt.
Professor Hewitt requested that Wikimedia remove his biography (in which he was attacked) from the Wikipedia website.
45.33.44.129 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Note: For better or worse, China has broken Wikimedia’s monopoly there. 66.166.238.203 (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Hobit. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Marriage[edit]

You commented at Template talk:Marriage, I hope I addressed your concern. Are you going to make a firm vote? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series[edit]

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 50.247.81.99 (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC[edit]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

not you...[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. And I love your top tag. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Eugene Kontorovich for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eugene Kontorovich is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Kontorovich until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KDS4444 (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack?[edit]

Thank you for hatting the off-topic section at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 14. However, you wouldn't be aware that Andy and I have met many times in real life and I've ribbed him more than once about his bushy beard. Humour is a strange thing, but I assure you that the joke photo of the bearded baby is far more likely to have Andy laughing along with us than taking any offence, and I hope you'll accept that my post was meant as an affectionate observation, and never as an attack of any sort. Andy's been pinged here and he can doubtless contradict me if he feels I've in any way caused him offence. Nevertheless, I thank you for coming to Andy's defence; I know he'll appreciate the gesture. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I was unaware of that. But I will say that that whole section got off topic and could easily be viewed as a personal attack. I'm glad to hear it wasn't intended that way! Hobit (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No offence taken, RexxS - but I will have my revenge. Mwa ha ha! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

YGM[edit]

As per the section header. —Cryptic 20:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:USO comes alive[edit]

I see that you noticed WP:USO (User:Herostratus/Understanding SCHOOLOUTCOMES) and approved. The first draft is kind of finished, at any rate it hangs together and there no half-sentences and so forth. It is very long, and I don't expect anyone to read the whole thing; it's more my notes as I went through the February RfC outcome and considered the issue generally.

But there's a very short overview (accessible via WP:NOTTHISAGAIN) which presents the basic arguments. I intend to soon deploy this in rolling back the edits made on the basis of the February RfC.

I don't have a point. Since probably only you and I even know about this page, I'm just mentioning that it's about to go public -- not today, but within a few days. Obviously any suggestions for improvements would be welcome, but I don't expect you or anyone to actually wade through all that. What will follow that I don't know. Maybe nothing, maybe a shitstorm. But I believe I have to right to roll back wrong edits made on the basis of, essentially, an RfC decided by supervote. Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I read it when I marked it and thought it was a good summary of the situation. I'd urge you to not be too hasty--it's still an RfC close. And more so, one by a fairly large group. But yes, the conclusion about not using SCHOOLOUTCOMES was utterly bogus and very much a supervote. Hobit (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Aaron Bastani / Novara Media[edit]

Hello, Thanks for the advice on the Deletion review page.

Please see the references I added, especially the Guardian article. Is that the type of thing required?

Novara media is also a verified account on Twitter with over 28,000 followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbettington (talkcontribs) 16:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

B4 clarification[edit]

Information.svg

A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Adminship?[edit]

Would you mind if I nominated you to be an admin? Based on your participation in WP:DRV, you seem eminently qualified. We need more good editors to step up and help with admin tasks. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi Roy. Thank you very much. I think pretty highly of you and appreciate your vote of confidence. That said, my contributions on the content side are too weak to have a real shot (which I honestly think is reasonable as an admin should certainly have more content creation experience than I do) and too erratic (number of edits per unit time is pretty small with work and family pulling me away with little notice). Further, I don't really have time to do much more (wife and kids, 50+ hours/week job, friends, and just got elected to a new job at work (yes academics are weird)). I do think in the areas I know best I'd actually _be_ a solid admin. But the package comes as a whole, and until that changes, I don't think folks would be wrong to vote against me getting the bit.
Again, and very sincerely, I really appreciate this. It's funny how someone you've never met can make a suggestion like this and feels like such a complement. Thank you! Hobit (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Not sure I agree with your self-eval. I don't actually create much content these days. I used to write more, but now I mostly just hang out in WP:DRV, and once in a while drop in on WP:AFD. Just like any volunteer job, you get to pick and choose what you want to work on, and how much. The only difference is now you have some new buttons to play with (and a mop). And, of course, you get double the salary! But, anyway, thanks for considering it, and if you change you mind, please let me know. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Urban Extreme listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Urban Extreme. Since you had some involvement with the Urban Extreme redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi () 08:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

News articles as primary sources[edit]

For the most part, news reports on current events (at the time the report was written) are primary sources. WP:USEPRIMARY is a fairly detailed explanation with clear examples as a supplement to WP:NOR. The section 'Examples of news reports as primary sources' shows why almost all of the sources (I didn't check them all) at the recent AFD are primary not secondary. They were either interviews, minor human interest fluff or bare event reporting. The idea that newspaper articles are primary not secondary is not a 'silly' idea, its how they are classified in reliable sources, academia etc, and how Wikipedia itself classes them. The idea that they are *not* primary is actually the minority view here. WP:GNG is very clear that secondary not primary sources are required, and our (and in general outside Wikipedia) definition of primary classes most current event news reporting as primary. That many editors make this common mistake is a lack of understanding of primary & secondary sourcing. Ideally this would be spelled out in a higher level policy page like NOR etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Granted when you have a lot of primary news sources, at some point you might have to over-ride the GNG's requirement for secondary sources, but that's why we also have WP:NOTNEWS - a policy which is even more ignored than the actual wording of WP:GNG in AFDs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
That is an essay mainly about a historians definition of the term. There is no indication at all that that was what is intended at WP:N. To do so would eliminate nearly every modern BLP and any coverage of events in the last few years. Hobit (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome to attempt to re-write WP:GNG to include primary news sources, you would have more luck with that than attempting to re-write WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOR (and its supplements) to redefine news articles. It wouldn't eliminate every modern BLP. If people actually paid attention to what WP:GNG actually says it would eliminate almost overnight all modern BLP's that rely on routine news coverage as their only sources - rather than just treating it as 'there are lots of newspaper articles about this person, meets GNG!'. But the fact is by both Wikipedia guidelines, policy etc most news articles (that are used for biographies) are defined as primary unless they can satisfy the requirements to be secondary (keep in mind one news article could be both primary and secondary depending on what is being used from it). This is line with how encyclopedia's, publishers, scientists, academia, historians and so on define what is and is not a primary source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sticking by my guns here. This interpretation of "secondary" is not what is intended in the GNG. The term was used to eliminate true primary sources (first person accounts, resumes, etc.), not news reports. That isn't how things actually work at AfD or DRV. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Well precisely. Which is why we have a load of non-notable events/people articles based on news reports that show little true notability. Because people are following what they think GNG says, rather than what it actually says. If the intent is that it says something different. Propose a change to the wording. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Oyi. I don't see a need for a wording change. You are the one who thinks everyone is doing it wrong--bring your interpretation to WP:N and see what people think. Hobit (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Marriage[edit]

The previous people involved in the discussion of Template talk:Marriage are being contacted to help gain consensus. --RAN (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, Hobit.

I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Hobit. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ankur Jain[edit]

I am not sure that you would be willing to accept this draft at AfC. However, I would appreciate your input on this page. What can I do to improve it? ShadesHeroGurly (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Medwriter77/sandbox/Rome Criteria and Rome Process[edit]

I'm confused about this edit of yours. Sounds like you're talking about an AfD, but this was a CSD. Did you put this under the wrong discussion? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Yep, that's exactly what happened. I noticed it before I saw your note at least... Thanks! Hobit (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Buddhist concept[edit]

The thread has been closed, and what I really want to address is hardly related to Andrew anyway, so writing this here. I didn't click your links yesterday because mobile device, slow internet, so didn't address them in the original response. The ABC source is interesting, and I've spent quite some time wondering why someone with scholarly credentials in a relevant field would write those things, but the fact that he explicitly got some of his information from a Wikimedia Commons information page means we probably don't have to treat it like something the same author might have submitted to the Journal of Japanese Studies. As for the NPR source, it clearly either got its information from Guedes, who got it here, or the NPR author directly consulted us. "ancient" is anachronistic as the word is first attested in the middle ages, but our crappy article already called it ancient in April 2011 when the NPR article was published;[1] maybe "ancient Japanese" could be a layman's term for "Old Japanese" or perhaps "Old Japanese to Early Middle Japanese" (the Heian period in which the latter was used is often called "ancient"), but mottai nashi is first attested in Late Middle Japanese -- I've hardly ever seen the fourteenth century referred to as "ancient", but an author who didn't know what a "Muromachi" was might be aware that it means "fourteenth century", and their using the same word as Wikipedia, makes it pretty obvious. It's still a laughable error whether Andrew got it directly from some popular media source who made the laughable error, or he wanted to uphold the Wikipedia status quo and went looking for sources that might kinda-sorta support it, and this would be true even if I hadn't already refuted it before he first made it, let alone continuing to double down on the article talk page weeks later. He doesn't like deletion/redirecting, and will knowingly cite erroneous popular sources to support his view, and this really is not acceptable.

All that said, the article itself is fine now (still looks like NOTDICT to my eyes, but it doesn't push any fringe historical/linguistic theories), and I'd be happy waiting however long it takes for the community to forget that debacle before attempting a more carefully filed discussion on the topic.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the comments. If this is a case of Wikipedia creating something from whole cloth that others are using, that is a problem. So it might be that I misunderstand the sources. That said, we do tend to follow the sources rather than the expert opinion of editors. So on this particular issue, we'd need some source that agrees with your comments. (And yes, the expert thing is annoying and probably wrongheaded in many ways. I have a PhD and I tend to stay out of editing Wikipedia in my area of expertise because it gets really frustrating.) All that said, it does feel like you need to step back a bit with Andrew. I've worked near him often and he can be really frustrating. But he's generally not wrong (which is different than right...) Hobit (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Meh. My understanding has always been that we are not under any obligation to cite all sources indiscriminately, and when the specialist sources that only expert editors have access to (it is a Japanese word; editors who read Japanese are of course going to interpret sources discussing the word's etymology differently from those who don't: I know that when a source says mottainai appears in a fourteenth-century work, they are using mottainai as shorthand for the more accurate mottainashi; mottainai could not have been used in the fourteenth century as it incorporates a grammatical structure that didn't exist yet) appear to contradict the popular media sources, we give priority to the former.
Anyway, it's a truism that I need to step back from Andrew -- as I said on the AN thread, I really didn't want to deal with that now, and wish the OP had consulted me first. The only reason I posted at all, in a clumsy, no-diffs manner that I knew would invite blowback, was that I didn't want to miss that chance to bring some semblance of my concerns with Andrew's editing to the community's attention, lest the thread be closed with "Andrew did nothing wrong" and a de facto moratorium on such discussions being opened until long after I was more ready to deal with it. At least this way I know Sitush "gets it", having encountered the same problem with his India-related edits, and several other editors would be open to hearing us out if we presented coherent evidence, and the close was more of a "Yeah, this isn't going anywhere anytime soon" than a "Nothing to see here".
To be clear, that's not something I'm planning on doing for at least a few months. Honestly I'm considering an AFD vacation once the current completely coincidental but unfortunately connected ANI thread is closed. If you check my contribs, it's basically put all my editing on hold for the last three days, and that's really not something I wanted.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Hobit. 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.Drkarger (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. Lourdes 08:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hi Hobit. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, do check back at WP:PERM in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Lourdes 08:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Added to Afc list[edit]

Of course, I've also added you to the list of active reviewers at Afc. Thanks, Lourdes 08:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Kanishk Sajnani[edit]

Denied twice. So saddened to see the complete disregard of Wikipedia Policies. What do you suggest to do in this case now? 2405:205:C8AE:D33B:F946:BDF1:DF84:510A (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

  • No idea. I can understand where people are coming from, but wow, do I disagree with this. I'd wait for some other source to appear before doing anything else. When it does, reach out to me. If the source is decent, I'll move it to main space. Also, in all honesty, while I understand your frustrations, I'd urge you to be a bit quieter and generally on your best behavior next time around. People here, and at DRV in particular, get their backs up a bit when people are even a bit ranty. "Attract more bees with honey than vinegar" and all that... But yes, if a new source appears, let me know. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Hobit. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI to AFD canvassing effect[edit]

The explicit intent of the post at ANI was to WP:WIN the AfD, so, yes, it was blatant canvassing. And it had that exact effect. While ANI regulars stayed at ANI and nearly boomeranged the poster, lots of looky-loos ran to the AfD to post reflexive "keep" !votes (like every single one posted shortly after the ANI) that very clearly took no account at all of anything actually said in the AfD, and simply counted "sources". That's despite the sources being already debunked as inapplicable for notability-establishment purposes (being the subject's own works, other SPS/UGC, non-independent breeder-published sources, non-independent material from the breed registry that "recognized" her, and non-in-depth material in news sources). Despite efforts of the closer to weigh the arguments and not vote-count, the close is actually vote-counting anyway. It even says explicitly that the arguments against these sources, for WP:N purposes, are strong, then closes with "keep" anyway. While I actually predicted this outcome a long time ago (right after the first relisting, on my own talk page, in discussion with the primary editor of the article), it's still sad to see it happen. Every time something like this takes place, it further erodes our ability to police subtly promotional content (CIVILPOV, etc.) being added, both because of the "I'm afraid to buck a numeric majority" closure approach, and the "I can canvass and get away with it" message it sends. This is important, because as we near the start of WP's third decade, the threat to the long-term viability of the project isn't vandals and trolls, like it was in the early days, but manipulation of the content in ways that undermine the encyclopedia's credibility. This particular case isn't a bad one (having a pointless memorial article is the least of our worries), but the process that led to this "keep" can be applied to much worse. I'm not going to open this as a big "drama" thread, for WP:BEANS reasons. The likelihood of overturning this close isn't very high, but the likelihood of spelling out in a high-profile venue exactly how to manipulate AfD is quite high.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Generally having something gain visibility in a neutral location like ANI isn't considered canvassing. WP:CANVAS, second bullet, makes it clear that posting things to noticeboards isn't generally problematic canvassing. I see a different problem here--asking people to evaluate how important a person's contribution is should be outside of the scope of AfD. We evaluate sources, not contributions as a part of a deletion discussion. Maybe that isn't how it should work (I have doubts some days), but it is what our guidelines ask us to do... Hobit (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

a star[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Keep up the excellent work! Lubbad85 () 02:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)