Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:32, 23 June 2022

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

List of unaccredited higher education institutions in Switzerland

I'm not sure what's going on either, but I would love someone to have a look. (nb/ G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose seemed a fair description). Cheers, PierreLsn (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@PierreLsn so that has very specific criteria which that page doesn't meet. Can you say what your issues with the page are? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Right. Thanks. New here but trying. Yes, to be fair this is what I summarised in the Speedy Deletion note:

Based on reviewing leading to this diff, institutional attack page with disregard for Misplaced Pages:Etiquette. Albeit trying (tens of edits), page makes no sense to maintain (list of institutions not in a list), and is already duplicated here ]. For these reasons, I propose deletion. PierreLsn (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@PierreLsn, a breach of Misplaced Pages Etiquette is not a reason to delete an article on English Misplaced Pages . Duplicate content is called a WP:FORK. That is bad. You could try to start a WP:MERGE discussion to see if the articles should be combined. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha, thanks. Will review that. You're right, the information is not bad to have if handled in the proper manner - The attack wasn't about the Etiquette but about where it's coming from and its multiple user accounts. Will review WP:MERGE. thanks! PierreLsn (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Good luck! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at RfA/RfB

I see you're on your RfA reform hobbyhorse again ;) This is in no way of criticism, mind, something has needed to be done about that place for years, but IMO, NPP which you were so good at managing for a while is a far more pressing function of WP than the occasional RfX. I do fully appreciate though, that as volunteers we all choose to work in our favourite areas, or like the majority of NPPers, not work at all! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung I appreciate the feedback. The issue with NPP leadership is that when I'm not actively doing NPP patrols I don't feel like I have the moral authority to provide leadership. When I'm off ArbCom and can start doing reviews of new pages more regularly I'm guessing I'll go back into those waters. On the other hand, RfA/RfB fits nicely around my ArbCom work and I certainly remain active there so the chance for leadership remains. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

<butting in noises> It's been in the back of my mind for a while that RFA could use formal clerks tasked with keeping decorum on RFA pages. However, in the case of arbcom, the committee oversees the clerks, at SPI the checkusers oversee the clerks, I'm not sure who would oversee RFA clerks. The 'crats don't actually run RFx, they just close discussions, and they don't, as a group, seem interested in doing this. So I think it's an idea with potential but I'm not sure what it would actually look like. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

There are a couple other groups of clerks but you're right that there's some group that oversees them in each case and for RfA it would have to be the crats. In 2015, or thereabouts, formal clerking was pretty roundly rejected and some people didn't like it at Wugs' RfA but there is more of a frustration over the tone of RfA than there has been in a while so you're right that there might be community consensus for it. But it does kind of fall apart if the crats aren't interested. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The reason why RfC often fail is because the proposers got their wording wrong or didn't do sufficient research into what has previously been done or debated. None of the major RfA reform discussions have been a resounding success. Some less important points may have reached a consensus and sometimes tangential things have been spawned like the new complains noticeboard for admin actions (which IMO is dead and should remain so) and its mess of multiple RfC.

On the history of clerking of RfX, although the idea has never gained traction, one might wish to start at RfA Clerks which was a discussion within the framework of RFA2011 propsals, most of which never went to RfC stage because the reform project coords closed everything down due to the trolling from some well known (and legendary) users who seemed to think RfA was a playground for incivility and silly or disingenuous behaviour with impunity. Some of them were finally T-banned from RfA or indeffed years later but it took huge pressure from the community to get rid of them.

Various discussions on RfX clerking have left the community with the misinformed opinion that clerking, if any, can only be done by 'crats. It has indeed been suggested several times over the years that RfX clerking should be formally included in the official 'crat remit, but AFAICS, never has it been formally agreed that they are or should be the only ones allowed to.

Suggested changes to 'cratship or expansion of its role have mostly met with resistance, although some new blood on WP could change that (but I'm not hinting here at a recently failed RfB). Any responsible, uninvolved user can insert a formal-sounding remark that a vote is inadmissible by policy, or remove 'heat-but-no-light' threads to the talk page. I'm not the only user who has voted on nearly 500 RfA since 2010 and nominated a few, but perhaps only editors with a long institutional memory fully recognise the changes in style and tone of RfA that have snuck in over the years. @Beeblebrox, Primefac, and Worm That Turned:. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

From a crat perspective, we are here to read the consensus that is built out of an RFA. If there is one "hot button" issue that is sinking an RFA, but otherwise everyone is happy (e.g. Vami, Tamzin), there's not really much to "clerk" other than conversations that get off-topic or otherwise out-of-hand (which can happen in any RFA). With the exception of Wug's RFB, I think I've watched almost every recent RFX (even if I didn't close it), just to stay on top of any improprieties. I do try to use a light hand in that role, and as such do little more than shift long threads to the talk page or hat excessive badgering of the opposition, but I can't really think of a time when this wasn't enough to "maintain decorum".

I honestly don't know if we should be clerking from the perspective of "this isn't a valid oppose reason" - while it is true that we each give weight to the various arguments made — and thus a no-opinion Oppose will be weighted severely less than one that has rationale — to even get to the point of a 'crat chat you would need a fairly large number of those, and recently there have been almost none.

In other words, I don't see a need for clerks, or even expanding the 'crat role; if anything the major changes need to come from the community itself. Primefac (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac I have always found moving long on topic discussions to the talk page dubious. I am curious what the consensus of the RfC that spurred this thread will be as it might give an updated consensus about that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Moving long discussions to the talk page was normal even before I became a 'crat, and as far as I understand it is to keep the main page somewhat "cleaner", i.e. someone skimming through the oppose section doesn't need to scroll past pages of potentially off-topic discussion about the appropriateness of someone's !vote. Obviously there is some discretion involved on the part of the moving 'crat, but I can think of only one or two times where I've felt it was heavy-handed. Primefac (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: I think that approach ignores the reality of RfA for the candidate. I think that, simply, the English Misplaced Pages has outgrown the old RfA atmosphere, but that atmosphere persists out of inertia. People join a relatively civil project, gain some experience, are asked to RfA, and discover that RfA is still run by 2010 standards—where if one user calls out another for remarks that would be personal attacks anywhere else (even in many CBAN threads), it's the admin doing the calling-out who's the bad guy, and where the truth quickly takes a back seat to what makes for a catchy oppose rationale. (I don't think that most people opposing me on outright factually incorrect bases were intentionally spreading misinformation, but rather confused by a chaotic RfA that begged to be skimmed rather than read. What's more troubling, I think, is that people were cowed from correcting these misstatements by an inexplicable stigma against asking people to justify their !votes.)There's been consensus in several RfCs that RfX's attitude is toxic and that the 'crats have the power to clerk it. I think the problem is that the 'crats have clerked it on a standard of "What goes beyond the pale for RfA?", when that's a pretty weak limit. That's like taking a highway with a "Whatever's safe" speed limit where people routinely go 100mph and crash and kill people, asking the cops to crack down, and the cops say "Okay, we'll definitely pull over anyone who goes over 100mph" rather than "Maybe 100mph isn't safe to begin with and we should be pulling people over well before they get there".If you ask yourself, "Why should RfXs be the most acrimonious community discussions, often more so than CBAN threads?" it's hard to come up with a good answer that doesn't rest on "Because that's how it always has been." They are part of Misplaced Pages. There is no consensus to enforce civility norms more weakly there, and if anything the opposite. 'crats should enforce civility at RfA, and should flag or strike votes that are hyperbolic or based on misstatements of fact or policy. It's really not so much to ask that people put together superficially valid oppose rationales. "Doesn't have enough experience in X" will basically always be there, for some value of X. Because yes, bad votes can be disregarded in the closing 'crat's analysis or the 'crat chat (although I'm not sure if, in practice, they are, aside from the most egregiously bad), but that assumes that the RfA closes above 65%. And it assumes the candidate makes it to 168 hours without burning out. Candidates are humans. There's a reason no one runs. -- Tamzin (she/they) 20:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I cannot make any guarantees, but given what happened with your RFA I can certainly see where you're coming from and will try to be more proactive in the future. I think the hardest thing for me is finding that balance between reasonable discussion and BLP violations/NPAs/harassment; there isn't a bright line difference, which is likely why the 'crats usually take a "beyond the pale" model of clerking. Primefac (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Quoted in the press

Thought you might want to know this if you didn't already. Stephen Harrison in Slate quoted some text including a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere in the community RfA discussion. Near as I can tell, the phrase first occurred around the inception of WP:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Issues by you. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bri heh. When I read the story I thought the quote was attributed to Tamzin and was like "yeah that sounds right". No wonder it did! Thanks for noting that for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Something I did was once noted on Fox News. I wanted to hide under a rock. My essay getting a mention on Slate was a much more pleasant experience. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Was this now or for a previous article? If now I missed which link was your @Beeblebrox. best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

No, sorry, should've been more clear, this was years ago . Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That was a good article - still resonates today - and yes UNBLOCKABLES is a good thing indeed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox and Bri: It doesn't really matter whose comments Harrison is alluding to. More to the point, his Tamzin RfA article focuses on the extraordiary high participation. As his title image depicts, there could only have been some massive canvassing somewhere. Stuff for a significant mentions in the the News & Notes and ITM columns in The Signpost but the new editorial team appears to have other ideas about what constitutes compelling reading.

On another note, the 2014 Slate article hits Misplaced Pages's major civility problem squarely on the nail's head and also highlights what's generally wrong with Arbcom. Both articles are what I call excellent journalistic opinion; written a couple of years later (like mid 2018), I'm sure Auerbach would have mentioned a few more men's and ladies' names. Sad to say, if The Signpost staff were to write anything like it, they would be tarred and feathered at best by the peanut gallery, blocked and banned at worst at ANI, and the article deleted and oversighted by WP's governance obsessives. Time to put the publication on an independent server. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Kudpung. If you'd like to accuse me or anyone else of canvassing or any other misconduct, well, you know where to find the drama boards, I'm sure. -- Tamzin (she/they) 23:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

One of the problems of WP, Tamzin, is reading too much into what people write. That is important for admins to remember. Perhaps you should follow the links and read Harrison's article. I did support your RfA, and I am extremely familiar with the drama boards. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I have to say, watching your RFA did make me wonder if there was some canvassing going on, but from the other side, not from you. I'm sure nobody canvassed my support. Nobody ever brings me in on their conspiracies! How am I supposed to uphold my reputation as a corrupt and abusive admin when I don't even get the opportunity? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I'm sure there was some amount of canvassing on both sides, as is inevitable in basically any large discussion, and probably considerably more "soft canvassing", as in "Hey, did you see what's going on at Tamzin's RfA?" But, for the same reason I don't believe in IRL conspiracy theories, I don't believe there could have been anything coördinated, on either side, involving more than 5-10 people. My more AGF explanation is that a lot of people don't participate in discussions that seem to have already settled in one way or another. In some cases, RFX200 and RFX300 may even be deterrents: You see a candidate you have a moderately favorable opinion of is running, and you see they're already at 220 support, and you ask yourself, "Sure, they should be an admin, but are they a 221-support admin?" Or in the other direction there's "I want this RfA to fail, but it's already on track to, and I don't wanna pile on". But if someone gets the watchlist-notice and sees the near-unprecedented sight on an RfA that's still being actively contested past the 200-supporter mark, then the incentives to vote or not vote are different. The normal safety valves against runaway support or opposition vanish, and each new support makes someone more likely to oppose than sit it out, and vice versa.People justify RfA by saying it prepares you well for adminship. Well yes, I'm sure it's prepared me well for all those many times as an admin I'll be forced to sit through a week of people debating my moral character at airport novel length. (Not grumbling at you there. Just. Grumbling.) -- Tamzin (she/they) 23:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Just

@Tamzin:, you still seem to be demonstrating some bitterness about your RfA. The main thing is, it passed (I supported and even reaffirmed my vote). One 'support' vote less, but certainly just one 'oppose' more and it would have failed. BTW, there was also an unprecedented number of user questions on your RfA too. Some voters are just plain ridiculous. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung one support less and one oppose more it would have been in the discretionary range and gone to a crat chat. Which is exactly what happened despite it being above the technical range. I also think it's quite natural, a couple months on, to feel what Tamzin is feeling. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm bitter. As far I'm concerned, I walked out of that RfA with one of the strongest mandates any administrator has received, 340 in support, outnumbering opposes 3:1. That's nothing to be bitter about. If there's an enduring negative emotion, it's confusion, maybe. A significant contingent of a community I've called myself a part of for a decade told me that they view it as disqualifying from a position of trust for me to speak out against my own oppression (but that it's not disqualifying to speak in favor of said oppression). A month and a half on, yes, I'm still processing that. I think we should all be still processing that. -- Tamzin (she/they) 02:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 and Tamzin:, Barkeep, that's where you and I differ. One 'support' vote less (mine perhaps?), but certainly just one 'oppose' more and it would have been below the technical pass mark and the 'crat chat might have ended very differently. 340 support votes is not a strong mandate, the mandate is the math percentage difference between the supports and the opposes. There is also the question of the extraordinary, unprecedented high turnout, for whatever reason it was; just for the hell of it, I'm going to spend the rest of this morning analysing the voters like we did back at WP:RFA2011. RfA can be a tough place for many who passed, and who even passed with a reasonably healthy margin, but IMO those who passed should be content and just get on with the job with the tools they won, and avoid making rash accusations so early into their adminship. If RfX fail, however, it's generally because they should have (even one of my nominations failed). Now if you want to poll some users about being jaded and having lingering feelings, the people to ask would be those industrious users who were desysoped in the 2020 Arbcom rampage. That takes some getting over, even for those who have continued to be interested in what happens in WP's highly toxic back office and who still create articles and make some edits. There is also another, different issue that left Tamzin very upset, but that's not up for discussion here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh I do greatly beg your pardon if I have spoken out of turn, sir. I'll get straight back to my duties at once. -- Tamzin (she/they) 03:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

For future reference, here is the article in question. Folly Mox (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

So the absurdity of the idea that anyone would read this in the future made me look at the page views for my archives over the last 30 days. Archive 1 has 173 page views. What's up with that? Meanwhile half of my archives have no views and the most any other archive has is 8. That feels more like it. Bottomline, including this link out of consideration for future readers, which may be like 3 people ever, is such a Wikipedian thing to do. I love it. No changes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion ArbCom case

Hi Barkeep,

I noticed that the prior dispute resolution on the main case page for the present deletion-related case lists the present ANI thread on Lugnuts but not the other threads, on TenPoundHammer and John Pack Lambert, that appear relevant to me – and potentially also the one on Alansohn, if the list of named parties to the case is expanded. I wondered if there was a good reason to list one thread but not the others? My first thought was that these links will need updating once the threads are archived, so only having the biggest one listed is just easier. But then I thought, if I were a party or even closely connected to or watching the case, I might wonder why... and if I had doubts about ArbCom's coming to the evidence with an open mind, I could be concerned by the apparent selectivity in which ANI threads were listed as prior dispute resolution. Perhaps it's only a symbolic difference, but I thought you might choose to add those current ANI discussions to the list?

I haven't posted on the talk page knowing that there are some Arbs who do not believe that IP editors should be allowed to participate – not being "real" Wikipedians. But that's a different issue. I noticed you were engaging on the talk page, so figured you were the Arb to approach with my observation / thought / suggestion. I hope you don't mind me putting it here, but if I posted on the talk page and was then dismissed or had my comment removed without comment, I'd be even more disillusioned.

Thanks, 172.195.96.244 (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

That got lumped over from the case request filing. The ANI threads about others was added as things went along. I will query the other drafting Arbs to see what they think. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Should REVDEL be mentioned as a possible remedy for DEADNAMING?

Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion regarding WP:DEADNAMING and WP:REVDEL at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Refund / NPP interaction

While patrolling, I AFD'ed Four Rivers Conference (Missouri) where it was deleted with no discussion, then refunded. Now it is in mainspace without having been patrolled due to the inconclusive AFD. I think it's unlikely anyone could engineer this sequence to circumvent NPP, but it still should probably be back in the queue. I put this one back manually. Is there something better? Ask at User:SD0001/RFUD-helper? Is that used for all/most undeletes? MB 21:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@MB making the suggestion to SD seems reasonable. I'm trying to think of something better because it is a weird way to end up avoiding the queue - a logical reaction might be for someone to renominate it, but to do that you'd have to know it was back in the first place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I knew this one was back because, I believe, I AFD'ed it with Twinkle which put it on my watchlist. But there is no guarantee an article is on the watchlist of anyone, or even if it is, that that person is still active at the time of a REFUND. I assume that UNDELETE restores the article to the exact state it was at the time of deletion (which in this case would be with the patrol flag being set when sent to AFD).

One solution: upon undeletion, check to see when the patrol flag was set, and remove it if it was set within a month of deletion.

Or maybe just remove the patrol flag on undeleted articles regardless of how/when they were patrolled. We don't have this problem if a deleted article is re-created. Should we just treat undeleted the same as re-created? MB 16:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm wondering if there's a way to just make this a phab task and have a brief onwiki discussion to get consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Mandatory draftification

Re. : I assume you meant to say against mandating? – Joe (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks @Joe. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it awful that I hoped this was about drafting editors to be admins... Worm(talk) 13:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks @Worm (I kid, I kid). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Everyone must do their service. If only we did RfA where you had to convince people that you wouldn't make for a good admin. Lee Vilenski 14:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski People from all over the globe are joining up to fight for the future... They're doing their part. Are you? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Hello, greets to meet you.

As you're an admin, you can help me!

I want to link my second account.

I carefully read and understand Misplaced Pages policy of SOCKPUPPETRY.

Am I eligible? Tell me so that I can give you my second account's info.

Thanks. LängeBreitoben (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)