Misplaced Pages

User talk:Coffee

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ram-Man (talk | contribs) at 00:28, 23 May 2016 (→Deleted article: indeed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:28, 23 May 2016 by Ram-Man (talk | contribs) (→Deleted article: indeed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

User:Chetblong/bar

This is Coffee's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Misplaced Pages, the 💕!
This user is more awesome than you.
This user is more awesome than you.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Another sockpuppet

Please also block https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Cezaroanyad, which has a similar name with https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Cézárocskácska, confirmed sockpuppet of User:Stubes99.

Cezaroanyad edited a talk page comment made by Cézárocskácska yesterday, so it should be blocked per WP:DUCK. Thanks in advance for your help 86.126.46.47 (talk)

Repeat vandal

Hi, the anonymous user with the IP address 207.237.147.171, who you have blocked twice previously, has again added false information to the AB Logic page (reverted by me), and the Rhythm Is a Dancer page (reverted by another user) recently. It appears that this person may also be the anonymous user 184.153.18.12, as the same information has been added to the AB Logic article by this IP address in January 2016. Anonymous users with these IP addresses have a history of vandalising pages and being blocked. Would you mind taking a look at this?Nqr9 (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump

You recently added a warning to the Donald Trump article that 1RR now applies there. I had been considering trying to bring that high-profile BLP up to "good article" status, and then maybe up to "featured article" status, but that will apparently be impossible as a practical matter if I'm limited to 1RR. Right now, for example, I feel helpless to do anything about a long series of edits that are making the article much worse, since my last revert was less than 24 hours ago. Any advice from you would be appreciated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant: I understand your frustration but I refrain from becoming involved in content disputes (which this is). I hope you are aware that this decision was made to prevent disruption on one of the most viewed articles this year, and is not intended to inflict any more work on editors than required for such biographies. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the reply. I will keep at it, and see how it goes. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Am I allowed to report 1RR violations, and if so where do I report them? If I'm subject to 1RR, then I would like other editors to be as well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant: Feel free to contact me here, or, if I'm not available, make a report at WP:AE. For now I've blocked the user in question for failure to gain the required consensus before making those edits (I wasn't able to find the 1RR violation, but if you can give me some diffs that would be helpful). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. If I report in future, will include diffs. In this instance, there was an edit at 14 May 14:45

here that reverted to this version: . Earlier on 14 May, this series of edits reverted lots of stuff (including a change to a header).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

wearing my Trump suit

Hey, Coffee, I see that you've blocked ShadowDragon343 with an AE block for Trump-related shenanigans. They've posted a normal unblock template--if I understand correctly (AE is *not* my forte), that should be declined out of hand, since it takes more than that to overturn an AE block. Yet I also thought that a user must be notified of active AE sanctions before one can be blocked under them, and I can't see any warnings in ShadowDragon's talk page history. Am I missing something? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Writ Keeper: It is declined out of hand unless they request it be copied to WP:AE (which, besides contacting ArbCom, is the only way to get it removed). In this case they violated the page restrictions in effect, which are under a slightly different system. Page restrictions, according to WP:AC/DS, need only be placed in the page's editnotice (as it was in this case), and do not require a message about them on every editor's talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Coffee, does the edit notice appear if someone simply reverts an edit, for example with Twinkle (as opposed to opening the edit window)? I don't believe they do, and If not, then how are you justifying blocking some of these editors for a week without prior warnings?- MrX 20:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
MrX: If someone manually undoes an edit, as ShadowDragon343 did, then they definitely see the editnotice. With Twinkle or moblie edits the users do not see the warning (this should definitely be fixed somehow), but I have ensured that everyone who I've applied blocks/sanctions to so far has seen the editnotice. (In fact I just looked over almost all of my recent ArbCom blocks and saw that no automatic tools or mobile devices were used for the actionable edits.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. That does put my mind at ease.- MrX 21:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
MrX: No problem! I definitely don't want to concern anyone with my actions... This is just a very tedious area to try to administrate, especially when the information on these remedies is not exactly easy to find. :) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump edit

Hello, I see you reverted my edit to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 on the basis of it constituting an addition of an "administrative tag" to the article. Specifically, I added a page protection template, which I don't really consider to be a tag in the sense that word is normally used here, which is to refer to maintenance tags like NPOV or COI or OR or something like that. If you could explain to me why what I did violated the discretionary sanctions under which that page falls and/or how adding a protection template constitutes an administrative tag, that'd be great. Best, Everymorning (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Everymorning: The page isn't fully protected and you added a fully protected protection tag. Therefore your edit was reverted. Pretty simple. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Oops, thanks for letting me know. I just added the semi protected template I meant to add originally. Everymorning (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Doc9871

Hi Coffee, I noticed your block of this editor and the ensuing dialog. I was wondering if you would consider reducing the length. Normally, although there's no set rule, on a first infraction of an arbitration sanction, a block of 24 hours is typical, especially when the editor's block log is clean and, as here, it's a long-standing editor. I realize the user's reaction to the block isn't helping him at all, and it's tough when you're being screamed at to lessen the sanction. Also, you are absolutely correct about the 1RR policy, and the user is wrong, although, to be fair, many users think the way he does on that point. Anyway, it's entirely up to you, and I can certainly understand why you might want to leave everything in place. I should also add that in my experience often when you reduce a sanction after a user blows up, they don't even appreciate it, so if you decide to reduce the block length, be prepared for ingratitude. --Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I thought quite a lot about this, and continued talking with said editor; I was truly hoping the editor would be willing to be compliant or even admit they messed up. But, now that they've essentially admitted to deliberately and knowingly violating the page restriction, I see no good reason to lift the block at this time. That type of behavior on articles like this (which journalists are keeping an eye on) is simply unacceptable... long-standing or not. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I just made some comments at Doc's Talk page. Maybe they'll help. If not, I tried. As an aside, your ping did not work. For a notification to succeed, you have to get the ping right in the same edit that you sign. You signed first and then fixed the ping. Many people don't know that, so I figured I'd give you a heads up. Thanks for your response.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Thank you for that. I hope it does. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted article

  • I think you have made a mistake in closing the Linda Cohen AFD in deletion. There were strong, policy-based arguments on both sides by multiple editors. It should have been closed as a no consensus. Please reconsider.--TM 20:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • RM, and TM: I will only reconsider if you can provide sources that disprove the closing statement (backed by clear consensus), and provide clear established notability which can pass WP:GNG. Links are all that is necessary; I will review them and let you know my thoughts later today. Does that work? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
      No. The reason given for closing shows very poor judgment and/or lack of policy understanding and/or a severe bias in favor of deleting. The only appropriate action is to revert the close, recuse yourself, and have someone else close it correctly. This "offer" completely misses the point because it still assumes that the reason for closing is valid, when it clearly is not. For an article to be deleted there must be clear and applicable policy based reasons given for deletion as well as clear consensus to do so. Both must be true or the article must be kept. Clear consensus to keep is rarely expected in a contested AfD. The information you asked for has been clearly discussed multiple times in the AfD, and if you can't see that, you shouldn't be closing it.
The job of the closing admin is to determine consensus, not to determine if the sources meet the GNG. That is for the participants in the AfD to determine. If it isn't clear from the content of the AfD, you have no business making that determination yourself. It should have been closed with no consensus if this point was unclear. It's clear from the discussions that neither side could agree on the GNG.
Let me spell this out as simply as I can: The Bangor Daily News has a regional coverage area and WCSH Portland News broadcasts into New Hampshire. Obviously the content of the sources is local to the news outlet because it covers content within that coverage area. But it's also regional coverage at the same time. Many of those wanting to delete do not care whether or not the news outlet is regional or local. But coverage of Linda Cohen by these sources couldn't be anything else but local by definition. Under this standard no local politician could possibly ever be included except for something other than being a local politician, even if it passed WP:GNG, even if there were a thousand significant mentions in the "local" news outlets. It would have to be covered by a source in a different region entirely or a national source. Parts of NPOL §3 are being cherry picked while the rest completely ignored. No one has even made the argument that she is notable just because she is a local politician.
NPOL doesn't even say anything about local-only coverage of the subject of a biography, because a subject can be both notable and local. Citing policies pertaining to events suggests that supporters of deletion are really stretching hard on this one to find any reason at all to delete. The policies simply do not support the reasons given.
There is a heavy systemic bias against local politicians here and I freely acknowledge that there is a tradition of ignoring the policy and deleting anyway. This is evident in this AfD, and it's been evident in many others. But that doesn't make it right just because so few people bother to stand up for what the policies actually say. -- RM 01:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
RM: Since you have continued to fail to provide sources that actually pass the notability standards, I will not be reversing my decision. Consider this my final reply here. If you want to continue to claim that the consensus is on your side (which, it isn't), you'll have to take this to WP:DRV. If you do so, leave me a note here with a link as required by standard. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Clearly you should review the policy on consensus. As such, I will take it to DRV. -- RM 00:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)