Misplaced Pages

Deleted article "Jihae" question

Hi Blade of the Northern Lights, I have a question about an article you marked for deletion several months back, "Jihae". I want to resubmit it with proper sourcing, but I can't find a copy of the article on my own computer. Is there any way to recover the content of the article so I can make edits where necessary, rather than just starting from scratch? I'm having trouble finding information in the documentation, so I'd really appreciate your advice. Thanks! - trafficattic trafficattic (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it to my page. I've updated the Jihae article to include a print source. Would you mind taking a look at it? If it looks good, I'd like to re-publish it. Again, thanks for all your help. Trafficattic (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

WT:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012

Anything I've said so far you'd like to push back against? Any preferences for things you do or don't want me to talk about in the near future? - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing that I've seen so far, really. I'll take a closer look once my Yankees finish off the Indians, but I can't think of anything I've read yet that I don't agree with. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Blade, hope I'm not disturbing your thread here (and feel free to move it if it is), but my comment's related to the same topic.

I noticed you seemed rather pissed off in the reply you gave me to my comment after the close. Granted, I certainly didn't pull any punches in what I said, either, so I'm not getting after you for that, just hoping for something that'll help me get it. I don't really recognize DQ, but all the other names I saw on that close (you, Dank, and Fluffernutter) would be about as close to who I'd hand pick to close a tough discussion, because you're all very levelheaded and have excellent judgment. So I was rather astonished to see a close that seemed to be for a different discussion than the one it appeared above. I don't think that's just because I was against the result, either—I've seen discussions go against me before, but agreed that they indeed did. Dank's comment regarding fear of admins being a primary factor makes me even more curious. Taking the first 20 comments in each section as a sample, both option 1 and option 2 had 6 sysops (who presumably do not fear sysops) of 20 commenting, and I don't think the ratio's that different for the rest of the discussion. At a very casual look, I even saw a couple arbitrators commenting in option 1—not exactly people you'd expect to have that kind of fear. I saw that as a very minor point.

I was also rather disappointed in the structure of the RfC, where bulleting was encouraged and discussion was not. Something this big should've been primarily a discussion, and rather than having a default and a deadline, if we can't come to consensus on how to use this thing, we shouldn't use it. There wasn't, like normal RfCs, a chance to add new positions that better expressed one's unique views, but rather more a "ballot question." Risker's concerns that clear issues with PC were not brought up during the discussion were germane to this—essentially, "Too broken to use" (which would be best phrased as "Fix it before we'll use it") wasn't even permitted as an option. Whether or not the Foundation would do it, people should've been able to state that as their desired position. If people wanted it fixed before enabling, and the Foundation was unwilling to fix, that would mean that either A: Someone or someones would have to volunteer to do the fixes (it is open source, after all), or B: We won't use it. Instead, a determination seemed to have been made that the Foundation is the only possible maintainer of open-source software, and what was previously a very popular option ("Seriously flawed, fix before any possible use") was totally suppressed.

Anyway, like I said there, I'm not trying to get this overturned—never be consensus for such, so it'd be a waste of time. What I would like to be able to do is to learn from this experience, so that perhaps we can design the next big RfC so that people don't get out of it with the impression of being hit by a steamroller, and to that end we can perhaps have more discussion/less voting. Seraphimblade 06:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond to the rest tomorrow, but I'll say now my response was intended to be tension- breaking, not tension making; I have a sense of humor, and I was trying to be a bit facetious (though I actually did read that). Sorry that didn't come off right; I have no objection to anything you said there. Bluntness is somewhat refreshing at times, and nothing here on Misplaced Pages gets me too worked up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

No troubles, such is communicating in text. And I won't argue on bluntness, either—I certainly don't mind if people are nice but honest, but I'd rather have someone straight off tell me to fuck myself than think so but not say so. I will be interested to read the rest of your response when you have the time to post it. Seraphimblade 06:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't know for sure yet who the closers are ... by convention, people should be given a week to respond to anything ... so I'm going to wait til Saturday before I respond on the "admin culture" point. - Dank (push to talk) 11:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, the rest of my response. First, I'll start by agreeing with Dank above. Also, the structure of the RfC wasn't our work, it was the idea of Beeblebrox; we probably could have changed it, but we didn't. The "improve it first" option wasn't available because the devs said they weren't going to put more work into it until and unless the community here indicated they were going to use it. I don't know if anyone would be able/willing to work on the platform outside of the WMF, although in hindsight we could have asked. I also learned, somewhat the hard way if you remember, that pissing off the devs isn't a good idea, so we didn't want to do anything that might lead to that result (and that's also why we picked November 1 and December 1 as dates; the devs didn't want to be working on this over the holiday season). As to people stating their positions; I actually thought that worked out reasonably well, as it didn't seem like anyone felt so constrained that they felt their arguments were truncated. We also did have the discussion section, which again in hindsight I think we should have put above the actual voting; not the typical way of doing it, but it couldn't have hurt to try. And finally, the close (the part that most directly involved me). It was a pretty close call for all of us, though we independently seemed to reach the same conclusions. Now that I've stepped back from it for a few days, I do think the closing statement makes the consensus appear a little stronger than the RfC shows. Our thinking was that it'd be better to write something that looked more definitive; if it was too delicate, we were afraid that would lead to questions of whether we really meant what we wrote and/or people demanding a new RfC with a more definitive close (or something fairly similar). I hope that at least clarifies things a bit. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to think of what we might do to keep things moving over the next 4 months, and increase the chances of a favorable reaction to our close, but with maximum guidance from the participants and minimum guidance from us. I'm going to react to what's going on from time to time; the clearer I can be, the fewer "Where did that come from?" comments I'm going to get after our final closing statement. Feel free to adopt a different style. I'm not going to push anything that you're not comfortable with, including in the final closing statement.

I don't think we've done this before on Misplaced Pages, but then, I don't think we've ever done a good job of un-fubar'ing totally fubar'ed processes, so it's time to experiment. I'm thinking of encouraging people to create a page in either the form WP:PC/(your username) (with a commitment to at least participate in the main threads that arise there), or in the form User:(Username)/PC (with a commitment to moderate discussions that arise there in a responsible and effective way). These pages, not the main talk page, are the ones that I'd prefer to look at when trying to decide which positions seem to have enough momentum to warrant a mini-vote. That puts the burden on the participants, if they want to be heard, to take the initiative in arguing their positions and in offering reasonable compromises on the main talk page designed to attract more discussion to their personal page. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the subpage idea is great, because that will help make it clear exactly who's saying what. It'll make our lives that much easier, and I think other people will generally appreciate it. Your suggestion about closing and how to respond is also a good idea, in the interest of both transparency and clarity. Hopefully that will lead to less general gnashing of teeth; no guarantee it will, but it's worth trying; better to try and have it fail once than never to try at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings. (This invitation sent because you signed up as a member of WP:UWTEST) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48 Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Kunbi

Please could you advise an appropriate remedy for the tendentious anon contributions at Kunbi. The contributor(s) is using the 117.269.* range but with 117.269.67,*, 117.269.68.* and 117.269.69.* all in the mix it is my uninformed guess that the range is too big to block. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Wikimedia New York City Annual Meeting Sat Jun 30

Join us at Jefferson Market Library on Saturday starting at 1pm for our annual meeting and elections, details at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC!--Pharos (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Do I hear crickets?

There's been little activity so far over at the PC talk page other than criticizing what went on the past ... It's Canada Day today and July 4 in, well, 3 days :) ... so I'm not worried, but if we don't get much activity for a week or so, then I have to consider becoming more pro-active. At some level of activity, then either I should back off and let you close, or we could both become more active, try to push things forward, and then turn the process over to other closers to run an RFC after inviting the larger community to approve or disapprove of ... whatever we've got ... before Nov 1. I'm easy. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

GLAM Night Out at Wikimania

On the night of Thursday 12 July in DC at the Newseum near the Wikimania conference, Consumer Reports and the GLAM-Wiki US Consortium are hosting a social event and a panel on health information and Misplaced Pages. I would like to invite you to attend. Please RSVP here if you want to attend either or both the social event or the panel. I am sorry you could not attend the NYC Wikimedia election and I hope that I can meet you at the DC conference. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks for the extra help.

I appreciate it!

Dave (D.L.) Robertson (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Ĺ

Six months is completely absurd.

The guy who said this is my first real warning was right. Before, with the incident involving Cooper, the issue was repeaded editing. And what we were editing over had NOTHING TO DO WITH AA. This time it was about expressing opinion in edit summarys. No one ever really told me I shouldn't do that, they just linked a page to rules without explaining which one I was breaking. Six months is unfairly wrong and I'd like it to be much shorter or none at all, which would make sense because three days is plenty for a first offense. Am I still able to edit the talk pages of AA articles? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The only problem I see was I voiced my opinion in the summary. Besides that, there was nothing wrong with my edit. It was actually an older edit, but after some time azeris began to put speculation (or more acctuaratly, denial) that the chess player said anything racist. They imply he was wrongly quoted but there's no proof to that anywhere. Grandmaster even told me in a previous debate that we have to go with the reference even if have have reason to believe it's wrong. So no, I don't see any problem. This was the first offense I have had on a AA page and to ban me for six months over it is completely zealous. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)