User talk:Voorts/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Your close at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years

Hello Voorts, I request you to undo your closure at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Clean_up_decades_collage_caption for the following reasons:

• Your own closure statement contradicted itself. You claimed that "selecting a group of particular images as representative of a given year is OR and violates NPOV", but you also said "there's no question that Earthrise was seen around the world in 1968 and that that image is highly representative of that particular year". Why is a single image meaningfully different from a collage?
• There was no appropriate notification on all the affected pages. A bot should've been used to post notifications on all affected pages. Someone watching 2005 or 2010s would've had no way to know an RFC would have an effect on their page or a chance to give input.
  • Even then, people are interpreting the RFC to apply to millennia and decades, even though the original scope was only years. I strongly feel this is misconduct.
• Wikipedia guidelines were misinterpreted and misused. Proponents of removing colleges treated it as an WP:OR issue, but the core issue of WP:OR that Wikipedia does not publish original thought, but it does not concern the presentation of information. Instead, the debate should've revolved around whether the use of collages abided by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images
  • The argument that choosing the most important events of a year constitutes WP:OR boils down to saying "judging the most important aspects of a topic is WP:OR" This contradicts several existing guidelines, including WP:SUMMARY and MOS:INTRO - these articles establish that leads must concisely summarize a topic and go in less detail than the body text. Editors have to judge what details are less important in order to write leads - this is an essential part of the encyclopedia. I don't see why this would be WP:OR for images, but not for leads.
    • The year 2022 still has a lead that states the events of the year that editors have judged important enough for the lead.
  • If editors are, in fact, not allowed to judge the most important aspects of a topic to warrant inclusion in a collage because of WP:OR, this would have far-reaching implications and essentially constitute a ban on collages. And this would have impacts on articles such as World War I, World War II, and Seven Years' War. Since the entire rest of the Wikipedia community outside Wikiproject Years has already been using collages, I believe this closure - that selecting the most important events of a year constitutes WP:OR - goes against WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."
    • There was no discussion about whether collages were appropriate for the topic of years (let alone decades or centuries) specifically. The entire discussion was essentially running with a single, dubious interpretation of WP:OR, and using that as basis to ban collages from year articles (and then decade and millennia articles). Therefore, I believe the discussion fell afoul of WP:WRONGVENUE. If the problem solely regarded WP:OR, there should have instead been a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images about collages.

Koopinator (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You make a good point about notice. I think reopening the RfC with notification to MOS:IMAGE, IMAGEPOL (since that contains GALLERY), OR/N, and NPOV/N should be sufficient. What do you think? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please reopen and let's leave this one for two or three more weeks given the holidays. I learned about this from what I would call an impolite note on my talk page, and seeing that the "RfC" was tucked away on a little-viewed Wikiproject with - most importantly - no notes of notification on all of the decades and years pages on which the images are being removed. You seemed to have closed this without checking if it was a fully-informed RfC, which is important in these cases. Thanks, Randy Kryn (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I can work on notifying the individual talk pages too. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that there are almost 3,000 articles on individual years, I've decided not to notify each and every individual year article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

We can essentially just notify the ones with collages. I'll get onto it in a bit. Koopinator (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Koopinator. A bit beyond my capabilities. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned that re-opening a 'two month old' RFC, is going to annoy many editors. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that annoyance is a secondary concern to proper notice. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I re-requested closure & recommended that an administrator handle it. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

• Special report: Did the Chinese Communist Party send astroturfers to sabotage a hacktivist's Wikipedia article?

• News and notes: The Italian Public Domain wars continue, Wikimedia RU set to dissolve, and a recap of WLM 2023

• In the media: Consider the humble fork

• Discussion report: Arabic Wikipedia blackout; Wikimedians discuss SpongeBob, copyrights, and AI

• In focus: Liquidation of Wikimedia RU

• Technology report: Dark mode is coming

• Recent research: "LLMs Know More, Hallucinate Less" with Wikidata

• Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols

• Comix: Lollus lmaois 200C tincture

• Crossword: when the crossword is sus

• Traffic report: What's the big deal? I'm an animal!

• From the editor: A piccy iz worth OVAR 9000!!!11oneone! wordz ^_^

• Apocrypha: Local editor discovered 1,380 lost subheadings in ancient Signpost scrolls. And what he found was shocking.

• Humour: Guess the joke contest

• BJAODN: Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in AfC November 2023 Backlog Drive

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for your participation in the Articles for Creation's November 2023 Backlog Drive! You made a total of 155 reviews, for a total of 186.5 points. – robertsky (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

– robertsky (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

– robertsky (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Music Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Weak (AJR song) on a "Music" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

TFA

December: story · music · places

Thank you today for October 1 (film), introduced: "October 1 is a Nigerian thriller film, directed by Nollywood veteran Kunle Afolayan, about a detective investigating a series of murders on the eve of Nigerian independence. The film was critically praised in Nigeria and received over a dozen awards."! Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Gerda Arendt, and happy New Year! Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Your close at Talk:Self-referential humor is now at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 15:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

One more attempt

I'm going to ask you again to look at how many editors in that discussion are now blocked, and ask yourself whether you really want to enable WP:LTA harassment. I get that you may not have noticed this pattern initially, but now that it's been pointed out, and now that accounts are being blocked, I think you should look again and really consider whether you accurately assessed consensus, or whether you're, as I said, "feeding a troll", i.e. enabling socking, by giving a sock's !vote the same weight as a bona fide editor's !vote. See WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Also, does the close help at all, now that more editors have joined the discussion since the close, than participated in the now-closed discussion. Also, you closed a discussion that was over in March but restarted by socks in November without notifying any of the prior participants. So there's that aspect of it, too. As I said, lots of reasons I reverted it, not just one. I think you're a good editor but you're really, really missing the forest for the trees in this one instance. Levivich (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to my talk page. I wish you had come here in the first place so we could have discussed your concerns. To address them:

1. The discussion was re-opened by PhotogenicScientist, who was involved in the original discussion and is not a sock/troll as far as I know. PhotogenicScientist also requested the close.
2. Only one editor in the discussion (IP 197) has been blocked for socking.
3. Both EEng and ForeverStamp were involved in the new discussion. You were the only editor in the original discussion who did not participate in the new one, and your new argument in the post-close thread is essentially ITSFUNNY, which was already addressed in my close regarding the IAR issues.

All of that said, consensus can change, and nothing about my close should preclude further discussion on the talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

To add: at this point, why not just start an RfC? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

With the new Keep comments, including mine, and the block evasions affecting the flow of discussion, yes, this should either be changed to no-consensus and the hatnote kept in some form or, if someone starts an RfC, it should revert back to when the hatnote is present. The discussion wasn't an RfC and, as mentioned and disregarding block evasions, seems to have obtained at least no consensus once it was reopened. Thanks, and Happiest of New Years! Randy Kryn (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

(ec) I didn't come to your talk page because you closed the discussion of your close which means "I don't want to talk about this anymore." I don't approve of it but I respect it.

The discussion you closed, Talk:Self-referential humor#Why the self-referential link should be deleted involves, on one side: me, PhotogenicScientist, and EEng; and on the other side: an editor whose 13th edit is to suggest removing the joke, and two IPs.

You get that this is just one person on the other side, right? The thread immediately prior to the thread you closed was called "Talk:Self-referential humor#IP hopper Multiple IPs removing humorous self-reference." While only some of the IPs have been blocked, they're all the same person. So are all the brand-new accounts. Surely by now you see this?

The reason not to start an RFC is to not feed the troll, as I have been saying repeatedly. The point is to not encourage the trolling by not treating the trolling as serious good-faith editing. See WP:DENY -- I've linked it multiple times, I hope you've actually read it by now.

Because you keep talking about why you were right and not engaging with the obviousness of the trolling that has been happening on that page for years.

Ignoring the trolling worked fine... up until you closed the discussion as if the brand-new account and two IPs were good-faith editors, when they are very obviously not. Because there aren't three people on this planet who are new at Wikipedia and have an opinion on the hatnote joke at the Self-referential humor article. It's just one guy trolling, an WP:LTA, probably WP:BKFIP.

So in my view, it's important that we not encourage this sort of thing by treating it as if it's good-faith editing, or by expanding the disruption, e.g. with an AN, or an RFC, or anything. Wait until some bona-fide editors raise an issue with it, then take it seriously. This has now happened, and the ongoing discussion will achieve some consensus result eventually. In the end, your close won't affect anything one way or another (another reason not to bother with a close review), but it did make it harder for others, it required more effort than would have otherwise been necessary had you not closed the discussion -- and it brought more attention to the troll, encouraging them to keep trolling. Levivich (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich I closed that previous discussion because it was going nowhere. Nobody had raised the issue of socking with me before this unfortunately ended up at the CESSPIT.

As noted, only one editor involved in the discussion that I closed has been blocked as a sock, so I will continue to AGF regarding those editors who have not. Regarding IP editors, I also AGF. Anyone is entitled to edit Wikipedia with an IP if they so desire, and there are many long-standing IP editors on Wikipedia. I will not be skeptical of someone merely because they are an IP.

You might very well be right that everyone in the earlier discussion other than you, EEng, and PhotogenicScientist are socks/LTAs, but only one IP from the original discussion and one account created post-close has been blocked. If you think the others are BKFIP, bring it to the proper forum. Until then, I will not assume people are socks. (I also don't think it's a closer's responsibility to check what edits people involved in the discussion have or have not made before being involved in that discussion, particularly when nobody had raised any issues of trolling or socking during that discussion.)

Finally, the discussion that I closed, while not the most polite, did not and does not read as trolling to me; it reads mostly as reasoned argument with reference to and nuanced discussion of P&Gs. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)