Archives
Jan 2008 - Feb 2012

Archives
Mar 2012 - Mar 2017

Archives
April 2017 - June 2018

Shane Greenstein at Harvard Business School has authored several studies on Wikipedia’s reliability, and says that the encyclopedia needs a variety of sources to maintain a neutral perspective and avoid becoming one-sided. “You need multiple editors to debate and identify different points of view, and in the absence of a large supply of those editors Wikipedia won’t perform very well,” he says.

New Scientist, 2016

Hi, the date when 2Joules was blocked is not important as it is the date that the sockpuppet master (the real editor) was blocked that counts and renders all subsequent edits invalid. The real editor is user:FreeatlastChitchat who was blocked on 6 March last. Regarding the AFDs only those with no delete votes can be closed due to the sock nomination, the others have to continue but with the sock's comments struck out, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks, Atlantic306. Do you have a link to the policy about the process as you described it? (The above is about this AfD.) -The Gnome (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry didn't get your ping, WP:SOCKSTRIKE gives clarification, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306, so, you're saying that an AfD put up by a sock can get shut down if it gets no votes agreeing with the sock's nomination, but if some editors agree with the AfD proposal then the AfD stays up until a decision is made. Right? Well, I find nowhere in Wikipedia such a rule, and especially not in WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Am I missing something? -The Gnome (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, see this thread Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Sockpuppet nominations and the link there to WP:Speedy Keep#criteria4, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither of the two links takes us to something that agrees with what you claimed, I'm afraid.

"Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Sockpuppet nominations" concludes by everyone getting directed to SK4 (Speedy Keep criterion #4), which is the second link. But SK4 says nothing about sock-nominated AfDs getting closed when they have "no delete votes"!

SK4 states: [A reason to Speedy Keep an article nominated for deletion is when] the nominator is banned. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be speedily deleted as a banned contribution. However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed. As you can see, the only reason an AfD can be speedily deleted (and the article speedily kept) is when the AfD was tabled by a banned editor. SK4 says nothing about the kind of responses the AfD attracts. So, there is no basis for your description of when an AfD is closed down.

Importantly in this, AfDs cannot be retroactively deleted. If an editor is banned today and last year they had started one hundred AfDs that were all accepted, it would be illogical to annul them. That would be an invitation to chaos. -The Gnome (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can't understand your point as it seems clear to me. Closed AFDs are not affected except at deletion reviews but open afds nominated by a sock with no other edits supporting deletion can be closed as happens regularly. An administrator Nick (talk · contribs) recently closed some by speedy keep started by a sockpuppet before he was discovered. Ask Nick about it, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just e-mail me. Deb (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking over the text. You helpful remarks prompted me to try and improve it. All errors and omissions are mine only. Foolishly ignoring your advice, I plowed on. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't modify my statement as was done here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I did not know it was not a mistake. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome, just wanted to compliment your work here [1]. I was expecting a close along the lines of "no consensus" but it was clear you put effort into a well crafted closing. Thanks for that hard work! Springee (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the acknowledgement. Appreciated. -The Gnome (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Didn't really want to drop an open comment onto the AfD talk page, but I was wondering (as someone with fairly different AfD views) whether you thought that Admin closers were poor at closing what should be merges and making them redirects and, in effect, saying someone else do the merging. This seems to bring two problems - i) Worst, it risks no content actually getting transferred if no user steps up to move it, ii) it gives incorrect judgements, meaning any assessment based partially off an AfD score will be wrong (more in my head as i've been wandering around WP:PERM, I suspect). Let me know if you think I'm more than mildly making a mountain out of a molehill, but I've been seeing a couple of cases per week, and I guess I participate in around 7% of AfDs. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You're essentially saying that, in general, Admins who decide against Keeping and in favor of Merging or Redirecting should be obliged to undertake the actual Merging (in both cases) themselves. If that's the gist of your query, I'd think this would not work too well. An Admin would be disinclined to decide to Merge/Redirect since that would mean obligatory, additional work for them. Some would probably choose to stay out of the AfD altogether. Thus far, we're witnessing Wikipedia editors coming forward without the least prompting and doing good work so you're possibly worrying too much. This would be my first reaction; I have not thought about this issue at all before. -The Gnome (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say they would be obliged to do the merging (obviously if it was an actual, legitimate, redirect, there wouldn't be any merging beyond creating the redirect) but there are quite a few "redirect but users are free to merge" which is obviously fine if the justified !votes have gone to redirect, but stating redirect when there is a merge is a concern. If users are always stepping forwards to do merging where appropriate, then obviously it doesn't matter, but I'd be concerned that an article with a closed AfD discussion might not get that person stepping forwards. Since you don't think it's a problem I'll just have a look over the next week or two and if that's the case then obviously I've spotted an outlier and mapped a concern to it and can leave it be. Cheers. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Let's wait a while and see what the law says. -The Gnome (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your excellent contributions. I'm rather looking for cases or criticizing than able to write integral pages.Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. And I'm sure I could write in the Polish Wikipedia about one millionth of what you can write in the English one. -The Gnome (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About this...

First, this was not a proper RfC but a side discussion and there are only 8 !votes.

If you look at the !votes:

keep the draft form

1. StrayBolt
2. Antony–22
3. RicknAsia
4. Slatersteven

use a reduced form

1. Jytdog
2. HouseOfChange
3. DGG

Note that the last ~vote in that section, by Zubin12, is clearly about the RfC question above; it often happens when discussions get split, that people !vote in the wrong place.

There is clearly no consensus about how much detail to include. This could perhaps be settled by an actual RfC focused on the question. Please reconsider your close. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• HouseOfChange supported having photos down the side after some discussion, and so should be in the first list. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antony-22 posted up the above as I was typing my response. We seem to be pointing out the same thing. -The Gnome (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for dropping in, Jytdog. First of all, your assessment as this not being "a proper RfC" but a mere "discussion," albeit a "side" one, I believe is not supported by the title of the section: "!Vote about list format". Note the exclamation mark denoting suggestions but not votes, typical in RfCs. I agree, of course, that this was a "side" RfC, an RfC that resulted from the previous, already closed one.

The choices put forth were quite distinct: (1) Keep the table per the Draft version; (2) Keep the table without the photos; (3) Use a bulleted list.

For choice #1, we had StrayBolt, Antony–22, RicknAsia, Slatersteven, and Houseofchange, who initially !voted "no photos" but as I pointed out in the closing statement, changed their mind. (See "Comment" thread starting with "WP:MOS From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Tables: "the use of tables, etc" where HouseofChange eventually accepts photos: "Photos down the side look like a good solution based on somewhat similar examples. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC).") Although it's recommended, someone who changes their mind is not obliged to strike off their previous vote. I counted not just words in bold but the whole suggestion by every participant. The !vote by Zubin12, submitted without a signature, could be assessed as supporting the Draft version, since it fell within the section (probably by mistake) but I did not include it in the count.

For choice #2, we had Jytdog and DGG. This is a clear numerical majority for choice #1, i.e. 5 against 2. Rest assured I would have no problem reconsidering my closing if there was a reason to do so, but frankly I see none. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the "is it an RfC" -- The actual, tagged-as-an-RfC, was opened by me on 5 June 2018. The side discussion was opened on 11 June 2018; if you look at the actual RfC you will see that there there were only 2 more !votes after 11 June (one there, and one below in the format section). So it wasn't advertised as an RfC.

While HouseofChange was willing to bend on the pictures, their basic stance was very much "simple and modest." They did not support a table at all.

And the consensus is far from clear, especially given that some of the support !votes don't give any policy-based rationale.

Please do reconsider your close. We should do an actual RfC on this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, an RfC is not a matter of "advertisement" but of substance. WP:RFC has been followed, perhaps not in precise style but unquestionably in substance. I understand, though, that the RfC going against one's position, provides incentive for one to dispute the very nature of the RfC. I cannot go into a long discussion about this.

Now, as I explicitly stated in my closing, there were no violations of policy. The !suggestions were a matter of opinion about the most appropriate format. Neither of the three choices offered by the nominator violate policy - and if you think otherwise, please point out the policy being violated.

Which brought us, as I also said, to a simple numerical count. And the count, as I explained above, was quite clear in favor of the Draft-table choice. You keep asking me to "reconsider" but I truly see no grounds for a reconsideration. It is obvious you not only disagree with my closing but you will not accept it. It's up to you what you do next, I suppose. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog appears to be correct - The Gnome appears to have misread what was and wasn't in the RFC - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, David Gerard. Could you please be more specific? You seem to also dispute this was an RfC, which begs the questions: (A) Why was not an objection posted about the nature of the discussion when it was clear it was an RfC, before it closed? And (B) Why no objection was put forth when the RfC was placed on the Admin board requesting closure? (See here.) Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnome. Thanks for the back and forth. My next step will indeed be taking this to AN, and I would rather not do the drama. Will you please at least withdraw it? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot in all honesty accept I've done something wrong when I cannot see something wrong having been done, Jytdog. As it happens, I have corrected myself, as far back as I can remember, to the point of not just changing my !vote in RfCs and AfDs, but even withdrawing nominations, on the basis of and faced with substantial arguments. But you have not presented a case for me to accept that something I did was wrong. I believe I was quite careful in this closing, as I tried to be in all closings I ever did. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Framing this as you have "done something wrong" is a bit ... overdone. It is too bad you are framing it that way. It's a mistake, is all. People make them. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accept both terms. Either "being in the wrong" or "made a mistake" is fine. As I said, many are the mistakes I've made, and I hope to live long enough to make as many in the future. But, to reiterate, I cannot see a mistake in the closing. If I did, I'd try to correct it without much prompting. -The Gnome (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [unsolicited opinion] The Gnome, determining whether to call something an RfC is very much a technical matter. The RfC system is formalized and intended to bring outside participants into the discussion. It's with that basis that a consensus determined by RfC tends to carry more weight than consensus determined more informally. So something needs to be tagged as an RfC to qualify as such. However, it was a subsection of the RfC section, started a few days into it. In my experience, subtopics of an RfC may or may not be considered part of the RfC but when they are, they're typically closed at the same time as the RfC or specifically acknowledged in the close. I would want to ping Winged Blades of Godric about that, since it looks like he closed the top part of the RfC but left the section in question open. It's a hard call, from a procedural standpoint.

That said, an RfC is not required to have a discussion or find consensus. The Gnome felt there was a clear consensus to present the table in a certain way, and it's certainly hard to read that thread as a consensus not to (i.e. no consensus would be the alternative). IMO it is hard to justify removing the content at this point, but I also think it should be uncontroversial for Jytdog to immediately open a second RfC focused on presentation since, at very least, that subsection did not receive the participation of the original RfC thread and was seemingly not included in WBG's close thereof. In other words, I don't think AN is necessary. Default to including based on a weak consensus on the talk page and use RfC, if desired, to find a stronger consensus one way or the other. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, Rhododendrites. Although, of course, I'd have no say in that, I'd have no objection whatsoever if a new RfC were to be tabled, with the same subject. I'm a fan of the appeals system. . Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice -- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_review. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, Jytdog. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Update The decision at AN has been : While there's not a clear agreement with the exact closure nor the process leading to it, there's equally no consensus that the close was improper per WP:BADNAC. Not surprised. -The Gnome (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Gnome. I undid your edit on this AFD where you changed my Keep !vote to a Comment. Perhaps you saw my (indented) discussions with other !voters, or recalled seeing my !vote on the DRV, and thought I had voted before, but it was actually my one and only vote in the AFD. I recognize you meant well, and appreciate the need for such gnoming work. However it is disconcerting to check back on an AFD one has participated in and find one's !vote "disenfranchised" so to speak by someone else editing the words you have entered. Might I suggest in future situations like this you strike but leave in the prior editor's actual words, and drop them a note on their talk page why you feel changing their words is needed, all to increase visibility that their contribution to the discussion has been changed. It helps flag for attention that someone else felt a change was necessary, allows for a discussion whether this is truly the case, and avoids the feeling of "WTF, I didn't mean to say that...wait, I didn't say that, someone else changed my remarks!". Cheers, Martinp (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the myopic edit, Martinp. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting not because of what I stated here, but because I am wondering why you chose to close the RfC when there has been animosity between us in the past. I would not close an RfC if the starter of the RfC was someone I've expressed animosity toward in the past and who expressed animosity towards me in turn. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Flyer22 Reborn. I honestly have no recollection of the "animosity" of which you speak, nor do I keep records of past differences of opinion here, no matter how strongly we behaved. Or it may all be due to mental deterioration. In any case, I don't think you'd be satisfied with my personal assurance that I tried to be as fair as possible and that I tried, as I always do, to have a robust close. So, I can only allow the closing to speak for itself. As far as I'm concerned, you can appeal that closing any way you choose; I do not take these matters personally. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The discussion in the closed RfC was quite productive. In case the issue is tabled again anywhere, I'd suggest a link to it would be helpful. Just a simple suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I felt that you would state you have no recollection of our past animosity. Rather than point to the specific case, I will move on. But I do ask that you consider not closing RfCs that I'm the starter of in the future. I don't keep record of past differences of opinion here, by the way. I just have a solid memory. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, he was a sockpuppet master not a sockpuppet and was not blocked at that time. WP:DWS is an essay not even a guideline so can you point to any policy that backs up your revert of my edit, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Atlantic306. I believe it's standard practice to strike off AfD input by socks, be they puppets or puppeteers. And I did not revert anyone's edit; I simply struck off the sock's input. Do you want to leave their input up as a fully legitimate !vote? -The Gnome (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, often all kinds of socks are not struck off. I agree about sockpuppets but I'd welcolme some policy guidance on sockmasters before they've been blocked as for example speedy deletion G5 is for deleting articles created by sockpuppets but does not apply to articles created by the sockpuppet before the sockmaster has been blocked, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. You put a question to me, or at least some sort of comment that prompted me to reply. The discussion was closed shortly after, so here it is again.

• It's a judgement call, of course, cygnis insignis, but do you truly believe that a Wikipedia user would type and look up "physical"+"comparison"+"lions"+"tigers" instead of the obvious and plain "lions"+"tigers"? I highly doubt it. Take care. -The Gnome 08:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC) AfD reply

No, I do not. And yes, I will. cygnis insignis 11:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, cygnis insignis. -The Gnome (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Gnome. I posted several sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nxt (3rd nomination) after you commented. Would you review the sources I provided? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I will. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the sources to the article. I think there is more significant coverage for Nxt than for NeuCoin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeuCoin, where you supported retention. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMVHO, the text is now worth keeping up. -The Gnome (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You made changes (many but not all improvements) to Suhai Aziz Talpur leaving the following edit summary: "removed unnecessary language indicators abt source being in English (default language here), fawning and adulatory verbiage e.g. quotes from media, irrelevancies, and solicisms ; added wikilinks; wikified sources, not afraid of listing dates in full and easy-to-the eye text; removed empty ext.link"

The article has been worked on by several editors whose native language is not English. It should have been possible for you to improve their work, and describe your process, with a more collegial edit summary. HouseOfChange (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive criticism, HouseOfChange. I typically comment without deferring to people's backgrounds, which is why I do not look much into them. Also, I take Wikipedia quite seriously, as I do my work in it. Consequently, I may respond somewhat harshly to casually lazy, incompetent, or haphazard contributions, though I assign no malevolence to anyone. The free nature of Wikipedia should not be, in my view, taken as a pass for drive-by, poor-quality edits: Users (and their numbers are significant) should not have to check who wrote what when accessing the encyclopaedia for information. These are general statements; not a reference to the specific article's edits. But I will try and improve my approach to edit summaries. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your civil and constructive response. I suggest you remove my initial remarks from your talk page, because your edit summaries in general are civil, so this one complaint may give readers a false impression. It was written a little crossly before I had coffee this morning, apologies. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! -The Gnome (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	:) Sammartinlai (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Gnome, thank you for closing the discussion at WP:RSN. I just wanted to clarify that the discussion was a plain discussion, and not a RfC. Could you please amend the closing summary and the archiving template to reflect this? Thanks. — Newslinger talk 07:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Thanks for pointing that out. Could you please check and see if everything's alright now? -The Gnome (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing it! My only other request is about the last sentence:

Note: Participants in this discussion have objected to the use of the referenced text in the Wikipedia article on the basis of WP:WEIGHT, and other similar, contextual arguments but such objections fall outside the scope of the discussion.

Since this discussion wasn't a RfC, I don't think the scope of the discussion was strictly defined by the initial comment. Could you please also remove or rephrase the last part of this sentence ("but such objections fall outside the scope of the discussion")? — Newslinger talk 07:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to remove that, then the discussion cannot be closed, perhaps never as long as new issues are tabled within it, even implicitly. I'd think that the "headline" issue is the one on which a discussion should be closed, since I cannot imagine a closing that in one go addresses multiple, different issues. That would probably present significant difficulties and invite controversy. What do you think? -The Gnome (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. Thanks again for closing this. — Newslinger talk 07:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]