This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrevan/Archives/56.

	Andre🚐's Talk ☎️ Page Archive 📇 Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64
☕ Threads archived by ClueBot III after 72h ☕

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start or revisit a discussion, please do so here.

⬅️ Previous Archive Page (#55) ☕ 🗄️ ☕

Next Archive Page (#57) ➡️

Regarding this edit: I imagine you hope that regardless of the outcome of the request for administrative privileges, the candidate may learn from the raised concerns? The conditional in your statement makes it seem otherwise. isaacl (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, that's fair. I can clarify. Andre🚐 22:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that suitably clarifies [1] Andre🚐 22:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to say this, and for Isaacl's benefit, that I'm surprised that you, as a once respected veteran Wikipedian, Bureaucrat, and prolific content creator 'par excellence' do not understand the differences between policies, guidelines, essays, and so called rules made up on the fly, and then voting 'as per' without doing your own research and checking the veracity of laundry lists of others who are determined to destroy an RfA because of the non existent rules some users perceive as policies - a logical fallacy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My comment was strictly regarding clarity of the message, and shouldn't be construed as support for the message. Please don't feel a need to provide comments for my benefit. isaacl (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do understand the difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. I was under the impression that there was indeed a rule about contesting drafts, but apparently I was mistaken. There are many minutiae about Wikipedia and drafts did not exist at all when I was mostly active as an admin from 2004-2011 or so. In my view there should be a rule that a contested draft should not be re-draftified, similar to PRODs. I think enough reasonable concerns were raised in this RFA by other still-respected admins that I am not alone on this. The RFA may still yet succeed, but I do not think you should assume that legitimate concerns are "determined to destroy" the RFA either way. Andre🚐 04:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What may be 'in your view' is not a reason to oppose an RfA so vehemently on a rule that does not exist even if you believe it should. RfA is not the venue to create new polices for the benefit of the voters and giving them right. If you want to establish such a view, what we do nowadays on Wikipedia is to hold a site-wide RfA and let the community decide, but bear in mind that there are 750 New Page Reviewers who will vote for what they know best from their vast anecdotal experience. The reviewers handle literally hundreds of thousands of new pages and they know best how to proceed in all situations - especially the edge cases, and it is the rare edge cases that some voters have deliberately singled out to destroy the good faith of a user who has done more to modernise NPP than I did 11 years ago. Hence any concerns voiced about non observance of rules that do not and never existed are certainly not legitimate.

  I'm not Wikilawyering, but am sure that you as a user with once the highest rank as a former Bureaucrat will understand that. It's just rather shameful that an RfA can be torpedoed on 'as per' the one vote that got it it all completely wrong (and incidentally I do have the proof). If it goes to a 'crat chat, let's hope that today's bureaucrats are up to date and get it right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But again, Kudpung, RFA is about more than simply whether a user followed the policy on the books, and these are legitimate concerns about attention to detail and how experienced users deal with new articles from new users. I stand by the concerns. Andre🚐 13:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• While we are here: with all due respect to Sdrqaz, I do not think they can be called an "experienced admin", given that they became an admin became an admin less than a year ago (and I say this as someone who supported them at WP:ACE2022). You were probably confused because they seem like they have been doing it forever ;) HouseBlaster^talk 07:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, maybe I confused them with someone else. Andre🚐 13:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Mark Wiens. Thanks! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I also started a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#13:30:26,_4_January_2023_review_of_submission_by_Andrevan Andre🚐 14:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think "wait and see" is likely to be the best, here. The reviewer's remit is to accept borderline drafts if they believe there is a better than 50% chance of it's surviving an immediate deletion process. I think this has a 55% chance, and will be edited down by the community which will raise the probability.

I could also be in error, but I'm old enough and ugly enough to take that on the chin 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks. Andre🚐 14:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Administrator changes

• ComplexRational
• Extraordinary Writ

Stephen

• Andrew Yong
• Dbenbenn
• DESiegel
• GlassCobra
• Joe Decker
• Nancy
• Pathoschild
• StuffOfInterest
• William Pietri
• Wwwwolf
• Xdamr

Interface administrator changes

Nihiltres

CheckUser changes

Moneytrees

• Ivanvector
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• GeneralNotability
• Moneytrees

• Guerillero
• SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

Arbitration

• Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
• The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
• Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mark Wiens and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andrevan! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CNMall41 (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41, as should have been obvious if you did the diligence, I am not a new user. There are more than a few sources on Draft:Mark Wiens and it meets WP:GNG so why was this declined again? Andre🚐 13:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree. See my most recent comment on the draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is obvious? I did due diligence so please WP:AGF. If there is an issue, please enlighten me. If it meets GNG and you are an experienced user, why submit through AfC?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't mean to come across as snippy. I would assume it would be obvious that I am not a new user from my user page and contributions. I didn't create the draft, it was created long ago by someone else, and I didn't want to just override the AFC process. Anyway, there is a related discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#13:30:26,_4_January_2023_review_of_submission_by_Andrevan and Draft talk:Mark Wiens if you are interested. Andre🚐 22:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It did come across that way but so does a lot of things in Wikipedia so no offense taken and no apology necessary. I actually do not look at user pages of a submitter in most cases and the message above is auto generated. I also understand what you mean by circumventing the process although I don't think you would get any flack from other editors if you moved it to mainspace. The worse case would be someone recommending it for AfD. I will take a closer look at the discussion later today and provide input. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks Andre🚐 17:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally reasonable to move it to mainspace. It may take its chances there. I am almost certain it will arrive at AfD. I intend to stay neutral in any further discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I moved it to mainspace. Thanks for your help and working with me on this. Andre🚐 15:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday January 15: Wikipedia Day 2023 NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our Wikipedia Day 2023 at Jefferson Market Library in Greenwich Village, a Wikipedia and Public Domain Day celebration and mini-conference as part of birthday festivities marking the project's founding in 2001. In addition to the party, the event features presentations by Jason Scott of the Internet Archive and Anne Hunnell Chen of the International (Digital) Dura-Europos Archive, panels, and, of course, lightning talks. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! And there will be WIKICAKE. Sunday January 15 Wikipedia Day 2023 (RSVP on-wiki). 1 - 5PM at Jefferson Market Library, 425 Sixth Avenue in Manhattan After 5PM, migration to afterparty at Ace Hotel, 20 West 29th St Livestreaming is likely, watch the wiki meetup page All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. New York Public Library encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity. P.S. Next regular event February 15 will be Feb WikiWednesday.

(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 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your responses on the talk page. It's an excellent example for the civil acceptance of a consensus that you may not agree with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note! Andre🚐 22:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andrevan. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Will Boyd, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Democratic Party (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Campaign finance reform.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Administrator changes Gimmetrow Bjelleklang Bob the Wikipedian Leithp WhisperToMe 100 inactive admins

CheckUser changes BDD Bradv Donald Albury Maxim MusikAnimal Oversighter changes BDD Bradv Donald Albury Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
• Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.

Technical news

• The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
• In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
• Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

MediaWiki message delivery 10:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrevan. I asked you about your closure of an RFC. Although I ((ping))ed you you did not respond so I am asking here. You provided the closure justification-

There is a reasonable consensus that the RFC question is not answerable as it does not pose a constructive question relating to a change to the article or a question of fact. The question is not neutral and leading per WP:RFCNEUTRAL since it jumps to a conclusion as to the implication of a truth value of a statement.

That is not asserted by any editor in the thread Talk:Allegations of CIA drug trafficking#RFC on geography. That is not so much as mentioned by any editor. Where did that idea come from? Invasive Spices (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Invasive Spices, I assumed that ScottishFinishRadish had said what needed to be said[5] that is my paraphrase of the close - because this was a procedural close based on a consensus (commonly called a "Bad RFC" consensus). The 2nd statement is a suggestion of what kind of improvement you could make to open a new RFC based on policy. If you are objecting to the rationale because it contains a policy interpretation for a procedural close, I could strike the whole thing and replace it with simply the words "Bad RFC - procedural close." Andre🚐 20:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish's reply doesn't resemble your statement and your statement doesn't resemble any opinion in the RFC thread. Certainly SFR's reply did not help and did mislead.

This is an opinion I have not seen you state before. This opinion Bad RFC comes from what part of WP:RFC? — Invasive Spices (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5 users said it was malformed and should be closed. Those who did respond responded to a different question. "Bad RFC" is the Wikipedia jargon for this. Andre🚐 22:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]