User talk:Malinaccier/2022/June
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Administrators' newsletter – June 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.
Technical news
- Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
- The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
Arbitration
- Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
- An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.
Deletion review for List of people on the postage stamps of Romania
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of people on the postage stamps of Romania. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Avilich (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. Malinaccier (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Your statement that "whether a list of self-replicating machines in fiction is separately notable and encyclopedic is still up for debate" is patently false, because the argument for keeping was that "self-replicating machines" meets GNG, not NLIST. The GNG argument should have been ignored because "self-replicating machines" was not up for deletion, and it does not address the actual reasons for deletion, which are WP:CFORK (something you failed to mention), WP:IINFO and NLIST. Since very few even argued that those are satisfied, the policy-based outcome should have been delete. Avilich (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you disagree with how I closed the AFD, but it is pretty obvious there is no consensus reached in this discussion. As I stated, "Whether a list of self-replicating machines in fiction is separately notable and encyclopedic is still up for debate, and those arguing for keep are fairly convincing on this point; however, there is not clear consensus here either", which is referring to WP:NLIST, which states "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The sources provided in the discussion make it clear that the list as a concept has been discussed by independent reliable sources. Content forks are "acceptable, and often encouraged" so long as they do not provide redundant information or become vehicles for conflicting points of view. Malinaccier (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying. But it's quite clear that most of the keep voters are using the sources to try and demonstrate that "self-replicating machines" meets GNG, not that the current list of "self-replicating machines in fiction" meets NLIST. Nobody argued against the former so it's a moot point. And CFORKs are only valid if they're content splits, but most who discussed this concluded that in this case it was not. Finally, indiscriminate lists violate policy, which must take precedence over promises of future improvement based on meeting notability guidelines. Avilich (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think you raise the same good points that people also raised in the discussion, but I see merits on both sides and no clear consensus emerging, ultimately. Malinaccier (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying. But it's quite clear that most of the keep voters are using the sources to try and demonstrate that "self-replicating machines" meets GNG, not that the current list of "self-replicating machines in fiction" meets NLIST. Nobody argued against the former so it's a moot point. And CFORKs are only valid if they're content splits, but most who discussed this concluded that in this case it was not. Finally, indiscriminate lists violate policy, which must take precedence over promises of future improvement based on meeting notability guidelines. Avilich (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Deletion review for Self-replicating machines in fiction
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Self-replicating machines in fiction. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Malinaccier. Regarding the above close, is WP:GNG the appropriate standard on which to decide whether to keep/delete a BLP article? Surely the judgement should at least be under WP:BASIC since it is a BLP article? And if it is WP:BASIC, where has a WP:BASIC pass been shown? Every single source that was not an interview was all coverage of the same event, that was ultimately reported by von Tell and his friends - where was the independent coverage? FOARP (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi FOARP, yes I think you make great arguments to merge the article with LiveWire (motorcycle), which I noted in the close. Merging the article doesn't require deleting it. I hope this clarifies! Malinaccier (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. The relevant content is already at LiveWire (motorcycle) so there is nothing to merge. If you think a redirect is appropriate, then couldn't you change the close to redirect? It seems pointless and a bit WP:BURO to have a further discussion on this. FOARP (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but I'm hesitant to do that because there was not clear consensus to merge the article. Here's what I will do. I am going to re-open the debate and relist it with a request to discuss redirecting the page. Hopefully this generates additional discussion and consensus emerges. Malinaccier (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Malinaccier, the further discussion may well end up endorsing your close even further which would still be a win for clarity I think, but it's worth a shot in my view as ultimately this smells of WP:PROMO. FOARP (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but I'm hesitant to do that because there was not clear consensus to merge the article. Here's what I will do. I am going to re-open the debate and relist it with a request to discuss redirecting the page. Hopefully this generates additional discussion and consensus emerges. Malinaccier (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. The relevant content is already at LiveWire (motorcycle) so there is nothing to merge. If you think a redirect is appropriate, then couldn't you change the close to redirect? It seems pointless and a bit WP:BURO to have a further discussion on this. FOARP (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
AfD influencing by unneutral interests moved Users (patrol heads)
Hi Maluanccier
I think it's a scandal how a group of patrol heads is making mood here and admins are being influenced. The deletion debate (of this article (Michel von Tell) was over and decided by 2 admins was keep. For GOOD REASON! http://web.archive.org/web/20220616075244/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_June_6#Michel_von_Tell
This although it has been debated for 3 days longer than it would be normal! Now this debate has been won and this group appears again out of nowhere and is privately looking for take influence the involved persons and admins. Scandal!! Also with zero arguments. Simply with an assertion. With 2 claims:
1 The Michel v. Tell would have said anything. Where? Nowhere did he claim anything. He never said anything directly about this case. 50 newspapers saying this is a record is going to be easy construed as if he had claimed anything. What a nuisance! Conspiracy Theories out of nowhere and against all we do here! Use Newspaper sources!!! THEY Claim not he do!
Over 10 newspaper report - there is a new record! OVER! They didnt write. Von Tell say so! Read for example this article. It is in the largest Austrian magazine. There are further details on the record run. Please read translated into English. https://www.motorrad-magazin.at//motorrad-magazin.at/artikel/1/85/4179/Rekordfahrt+mit+LiveWire+24+Stunden+Ritt
Here you get the translation https://www-motorrad--magazin-at.translate.goog//motorrad-magazin.at/artikel/1/85/4179/Rekordfahrt+mit+LiveWire+24+Stunden+Ritt?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp
The ride was accompanied by a team - audience - press and 6 independent observers judges from 3 countries and confirmed! Just 1-2 Users have the conspiracy theorie about this! But this is woth ZERO! WP works with sources and we got 10-20 Newspapers says - HERE is a record! Thats what all is about.
And here are 10 more! None of this mayor newspapers write - Michel CLAIMs it.. They say - THERE IS A RECORD- END!
* Poland Leading Media https://www.motocaina.pl/artykul/mamy-nowy-rekord-dystansu-przejechanego-elektrycznym-motocyklem-44547.html * Germany Leading Media https://web.archive.org/web/20200324111331/https://www.bikeundbusiness.de/e-bike-weltrekord-vier-laender-und-1723-kilometer-a-915844/ * Switzerland Nr 1 Media https://www.blick.ch/auto/news_n_trends/harley-davidson-livewire-schweizer-faehrt-weltrekord-auf-elektrotoeff-id15818340.html * Asia https://naikmotor.com/147660/rekor-harley-davidson-livewire-24jam-capai-1-723-km Latin america Nr1 Media https://www.emol.com/noticias/Autos/2020/03/24/980873/HarleyDavidson-Livewire-record-moto-elctrica.html * Netherlands Leading Media https://www.autowereld.com/artikelen/id/29028/zwitser-rijdt-1723-kilometer-in-24-uur-op-elektrische-harley-davidson * Germany Leading Media https://motorzeitung.de/news.php?newsid=632592 Italia Leading Media https://www.inmoto.it/news/curiosita/2020/03/26-2874582/l_impresa_1720_km_in_24_ore_su_harley-davidson_livewire/ * Liechtenstein Leading Media https://www.lie-zeit.li/2020/06/zu-besuch-beim-weltmeister-in-der-villa-turm/ * USA CNBC https://www.hotcars.com/the-future-is-here-electric-motorcycles-you-can-buy-today/ https://www.greencars.com/post/harley-davidsons-livewire-ev
2 Sufficiently of other newspaper articles and subjects ABOUT OTHER notable topics were supplied to Michel von Tell in the the WP article.
His successes in the media - in poker - at World Championship rally's - his mention in national encyclopedias - his participation in the ECO Grand Prix on a Porsche - his film and collaboration with the well-known filmmaker Peter Scholl Latour. Lots of significant things - different things and lots of significant press.
All of this has been showed and debated. and the delete debate was decided - KEEP. From 2 admins different users and also in more then 10 other Wikipedia! There must not be a consensus - Its normal not ALL are Happy! Sure Patrol heads are not! Its just the question if he is notable or not and he is in many ways. I showed them all and the result was KEEP by 2 Admins.
A)According to point 2 AND 3 WP:NCOLLATH (hall of fame) , performance in amateur sports. Everybody is notable if he has national reporting or is in one of national top Positions! This was even achieved not in one but in 5 different areas. Even in 5! Poker- Rally- Grand Prix - Baseball - Motorcycle. Often even with global instead of the required national reporting. Hall of Fame. He is ranked 70th in his country's Poker Hall of Fame. According to HendonMob and International Poker Database.
Just this would be enough again to gives notability 5 times again.
B) WRC Rally Driver in international races.Place 6 - WP:NMOTORSPORT
C) Part of the E Grand Prix with global coverage. WP:NMOTORSPORT and or WP:NCOLLATH (national press needed - also here it got global - see ref )
D) Made a documentary (film) with a very prominent partner Peter Scholl Latour. Mentioned on Imdb - global press - and
on the official Swiss Filmmakers' website. Swiss Films. WP:NFILM & WP:ANYBIO (3) & (2)
E) Entertainer: A podcast with 10 million views - with international press and featured in the who is who top 100 list at number 30 of 5 countries in Top Magazine. Circulation 400,000, Europe's largest Lifestyle Magazine. WP:ENT WP:ENTERTAINER & WP:ANYBIO (3) & (2)
It has also an entry in numerous standard national biographical dictionarys. For example at Swiss Films (main government dictionary of important swiss film people ) or in Austria. Enycl. run in cooperation from gov. and Tech University Graz.See von tell:0 HERE WP:ANYBIO (3). Created by Professor Dr. Dr. h. c. mult. Hermann Maurer https://austria-forum.org/af/User/Hermann Maurer. As well as in 10 other WP internationally. So 50 other WP Authors and Admins from all over the world checked it.
And now this patrol heads want to try illegally and against all the rules behind the scenes to influence an admin and wants to wipe it all away with a simple claim that is being thrown around and is based on nothing? 50 newspaper articles are to be wiped away with a simple - all worthless conspiracy theory??
Can't be serious.
The world record is more than clear. by significant press.
Against it is 0. Just a "say so of someone".
There is no mention anywhere of michel von tell saying that, nor is there any mention of his friends anywhere! There is just many Newspaper with say there is a record. Journalists
independent Observers Judges and so on.
I have also shown 5-10 other points why an article easily 5-10 even without this record met various notability criteria. Why are you so easily swayed by these petrol heads? It was shown by 100 different sources and interviews and the afd was legitimately won. Backed by 100 Newspapers - 2 Admins - some Users and 10 international Wikipedia's. So 30-50 Other WP Admins had an eye on. And you allow yourself to be privately influenced retrospectively and contrary to the rules with a simple assertion?
Ask yourself how it is about the neutrality of these 2-3 people if they put so much energy? They not just say delete. They also come back 10 days later and try private to influence the admin.Retrospectively! Neutrality?? Sure not!
The rules state. the debate was won and if there are no new arguments its done forever. Also are the rules clear. There is no room for debates. If the article fits one of this points I showed then the article is notable without debate. And I showed 5 or 10 of such points. Also there never was an real argument. Not ever in the beginning. There are just conspiracy theories of some patrol heads again enormously amount of newspaper sources. But there were definitely no NEW arguments!! The AFD was successfully terminated with KEEP and this MUST be the end of it. That's what the WP RULES say! I would ask you not to let some Patrol heads witch don't like new mobility - the Person - or whatever instrumentalize and manipulate you. And follow the WP rules. Decision was made and its over. Also it was a joke from the beginning. There is not 1 Point there are 10-20 witch makes it clear notable. Normaly one simple weak source is enough. See here Xie Qiuping here Susan Montgomery Williams or here Austin Vince. This one here is probably the best sourced record of the entire category. Category:World record holders. Also there was showed many other notable things beside the record! Just some people don't like it. But this is NOT IMPORTANT for notability! Its not interesting what some people say. Just what the source say is important. And 20 Mayor Newspaper say. Here is a record! So please follow the rules of WP and stop this illegal rerun of the afd! It has allready ran 10 days. Nearly double as long as intended and it was closed with KEEP. 2 Admins say so. You and Ipigott and then its over and closed. There is no room do just make a new one just because someone dont like the result! Its not legal to start voting again and again till someone get the result he like. Also the WP Notable rules CLEARLY say it is notable even if 100 people dont like it!
NicitaX (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi NicitaX. I know this is frustrating, but Wikipedia is governed by consensus-building. The additional discussion about the article will help to determine if there is consensus to keep or redirect the article. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Yes it is. Because there are clear rules! 1 of them say. The debate is 7 days and then its over. It was already half a month! Another rule say 2 If an Admin end it with keep its over and out! A 3rd say : No new debate without new arguments. There are no new arguments! Just POV 4th Say. There is no debate for a rule. I showed you 10 of them. For example. WP:Motorsport (9) if there is a world record - you have some source for - done - over - no debate. I gave you 100 Sources. And POV is sure no argument against 10 newspapers!!! Also I showed you not 1 but 10 OTHER points for what he meets another WP notability rule. Beside the world record. You just ignored this!? And last but not least. What you are looking for "consensus" sounds nice. But it is impossible! Watch "What is WP not" - no democracy! A topic don't get notable or not if 3 or 5 WP Users say so. For this we got the rules witch say what spend notability and what does not! One say: there is a record - you got source. Its done. If you are US President or Box-champion. Done. No matter someone say. If there is consensus or not. Or another rules says: is there national or like in this case even global press about a person with 40 article in 10 countries. Its a notable person No room for debate. I showed up 10 of this points. So no room for any debate. The US President is notable. Without any room for any debate! No matter what anyone say. Else 5 WP friends could easy manipulate WP just because they are 5 against 1 -2 or 3. Also you got controversial stuff like this climate change green mobility. Things that got many haters. In this articles many people allays think it should be deleted just because they don't like it. I guess you have good motivation for what u done but its not right! And if you nicely watch my arguments you sure will understand. Consensus is sure no valid point. Just think about the many highly controversial stuff you will never get kind of a consensus. The main question is. Can I show you 1 point in the notable rules. Answer is no. Not 1 but 10. And then its a clear go. MUST BE Read all my arguments and check them and the sources and you will see. There is no room for debate. Thats also a reason why this article is in over 10 other huge global encyclopedias and wikipedias. I translated it from Italian and Netherlands Wikipedia. Its also in Spain Portuguese any many more. I guess this guys are a couple of friends. Just watch how often they come back and how much energy they invest in this. If they would be neutral they would do their point and go. Also there never was a real debate. I made 20 points brought 100 sources and stuff and they just bring NOTHING - write one simple line with ther POV. Conspiracy Theories. You can always do this. Thats no debate and a consensus is impossible from the beginning. NicitaX (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
You dont answer me? I write 10000 bytes and u write one line? and then you ignor me after you restart a ended debate again? Without any arguments or real debates?
Deletion guidelines for administrators
Deciding whether to delete 4 When in doubt, don't delete. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policies and guidelines (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.
If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, that argument is no longer relevant.
These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other
Where are the arguments? I showed 100 sourced and 20 arguments. The other side showed nothing just unsubstantiated personal opinion! Thats HIGHLY against the rules and you dont even talk to me and try to find a solution!? NicitaX (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi again, NicitaX. I think there are good arguments on both sides. The reason I reopened the discussion was to generate further talk about our notability guideline for individuals notable for just one event. This is a convincing argument that I did not think got enough discussion time. So far, it does not seem that there has been much additional debate on this topic, and if I closed it again, the result would be the same. I've read your arguments and I agree that there is a lot of coverage of von Tell, particularly the LiveWire ride. Malinaccier (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
You ignore just everything I wrote this long. I explained very detailed there is not one event. I did many research and posted stuff from over 20 years. He was place 6 in an international world championship rally in the year 2000! He made a movie - documentary with a very famous partner in 2012. He runs one of the most important podcast since 2013 and is listed place 30 in the who is who list. He was also in the national baseball league in the 90s. He was one of the best poker players of his country and is still listed in the top 100 (place 70) he is part of The Eco Grand Prix and even media from the other end of the world doing interviews with him about this. And the list goes on. And I showed source reputable sources for ALL of this from all over the world. I brought over 100 newspaper articles. For more than 10 different things. I showed numerous dictionaries where he is listed in and I have shown you 10-20 different points where the WP notability guidelines are clearly met. You completely ignore all of then. First this patrol head tries to just say there was no world record. then I cover it with 20 sources. Then they try a new way and try to say "just a single event". Then I showed impressively that this is not the case and proves that he even fulfills 10-20 different guidelines same time. Is not enough, although it is clearly stated in the rules that a world record is sufficient. Then I bring 20 other things and they ignore them again! And you just buy this and play there game along. It's a SCANDAL!! You also say that both sides have good arguments. although I haven't heard a single good one yet. but even if that were the case. There are just 4 admin rules in this case and one is in bold. Deciding whether to delete 4 When in doubt, don't delete.
For the last time I appeal to your sincerity - neutrality honor and intimacy! Follow the rules and finish this evil and illegal theater! Dont become a be part of this evil manipulation! It completely against all rules! NicitaX (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Look, I have read your arguments and I think they have merit. I am sure that others will see that in the AFD discussion too. Malinaccier (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Neither you - nor someone else have ever dealt with the argument or have refuted anything. If you actually read it then you should know that I can easily call 5-10 points in the guidelines with sources where are no room for a debate. At these points there are clear requirements in the guidelines and these are clearly met. If only 1 is fulfilled - and there are 5-10 - there cant be a discussion. In general. Except you want to manipulat. And unfortunately it happens to you. When I have to see that I call you 20 arguments. 100 sources and 5-10 points clearly fulfilled and you tell me something about "single event". That is clearly a pretext and you simply show for whatever reason. No Clue. why. you probably not fundamentally. Otherwise you wouldn't have rated it fairly first. I accept because one of these patrol heads is a well -known friend or whatever. As I said. If you want to make your job decent, you know that there are fixed points and there is nothing to debate on them. And in this case, several of them are met and therefore there is basically no room for a debate. When you want to ignore this and just want to take part in this theater, then this is a shame for you and for the Wikipedia itself. Hard against the WP rules - against Fairness Neutrality and many more. Sorry if I have to tell you that but it is just what happens here. And you know that if you are honest with yourself. I wanted to do something good here. Participate. Adhere to all the rules. Do something for the environment and climate. I have more than regarded all the rules. I asked an admin before I translated the article. I let him check also after I set it. He approved it. The AfD approved it. You approved it. And after 100 hours of work I just have to listen to a curd like that. Everything wiped away just because 2-3 friends do their illegal manipulations here and none is interested. Or even cover them while doing it. No words for that if this goes through.
- And I am pretty sure how this ends.. And that's a scandal! More then this. And I am shocked that you let them make yourself part of it. NicitaX (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Look, I have read your arguments and I think they have merit. I am sure that others will see that in the AFD discussion too. Malinaccier (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Malinaccier. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of China as "delete". Would you undelete List of people on the postage stamps of China and:
- either move it to List of people on the postage stamps of China (1878–1949) (the dates are based on this listing) or Draft:List of people on the postage stamps of China and
- redirect the page to List of people on the postage stamps of the People's Republic of China.
I would like to have access to the page history so that I can use it to search for sources and expand List of people on the postage stamps of the People's Republic of China.
As an editor who did work on adding a 652-word "History" section to List of people on the postage stamps of Hong Kong and sourcing all entries on the list, which had previously been completely unsourced. I would not have been able to expand and source the Hong Kong article that well without the help of the unsourced entries in the list, which substantially aided me in searching for more sources about the topic.
I plan to move List of people on the postage stamps of the People's Republic of China to List of people on the postage stamps of China to match WP:COMMONNAME and the China article. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Cunard, it is
Done Malinaccier (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
