I'm very surprised to see that you unblocked Rationalobserver. Have you notified {{u|Ddstretch}}? I'm considering requesting a review at AN, so consider this a notification. I've been offline for a few days and only now working my way through diffs but there has been a lot of disruption that began with me a week ago. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Request for your thoughts
Hello! I've noticed your rather prolific work with AfDs lately, and I wonder if you would be willing to look at an article controversy. The Landmark Worldwide article is a mess, and has been for some time. Various attempts at DR have failed (and probably only fueled the fire). Now the article is under Discretionary Sanctions (actually triply so - BLP for the Werner Erhard stuff, Scientology for the assertions that they are somehow involved, and Landmark Worldwide topics themselves are now under DS), yet the editor behaviour is still horrible. I went through the process of AE regarding one editor, and I'd be willing to keep doing that for each of them, but it would make things significantly better if I could get an opinion or two before moving forward.
So, will you please take a look at the editing history at Landmark Worldwide and give an opinion as to whether I am wasting my time trying to get behaviour reigned in (and if not, what path to take)? Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeairn: Sorry, I lied. Lunch turned into lunch followed by a military ceremony followed by a long wait at a pharmacy... But, I will take a look at it. It will have to wait till Monday Tuesday (holiday on Monday) though, since I don't have my personal system with me here at Lackland (long story). My apologies for the wait. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me... No worries, I'm sure there will be plenty to see on Tuesday :). I see someone has started an ANI thread related to the article too, so that might get some attention and eyes as well. Thanks again, have a great weekend. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, there's definitely a lot of potential editing issues against the ArbCom's motions. I'd highly recommend continuing to take editing issues, as you see fit, to WP:AE. Otherwise, the editing of that page will become a headache for uninvolved editors. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking. I'll probably need to keep going to AE, as it's clearly not stopping and the article is just going sideways. I'm starting to feel like a pest :). Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've never once seen that justification used to delete an article. This leads me to wonder how much of the discussion you actually read. Several of the parties involved are confirmed Socks and Sockmasters plus two are avid anti-porn Editors editors at least one of which was recently Topic banned for marking articles for deletion and disruptively adding tags to porn articles. You might want to review this AfD again. --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sage advice: when asking for a favor, don't be rude. (Also, your point is mute as there were SPAs on both sides of the argument, and good points made by uninvolved editors as well. If there was consensus I would have found it.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee, there was no rudeness intended and my apology if you interpreted it that way, I was earnestly making an inquiry. It looks like you spend a considerable amount of time on AfD's, but Porn articles get some undue attention and I was trying to make you aware of that. As for a BLP article, I stand by my statement, I have never seen "it's a BLP, default to delete" as a reason to delete an article. In my experience, an Admin will usually close it as "no action" when there is no clear consensus without any other mitigating factors, but in this case there were plenty; Socks and known anti-porn editors. --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, you know (hopefully) how highly I think of you, and in fact how much I consider you a wiki-friend. But I have to agree with Coffee on these ones. I know that XfD is a !vote, and not a vote. Still, part of determining consensus is indeed factoring in the numbers. Even if Coffee would have agreed with you, had he closed those as "delete" - it would have been a case of "super-voting" himself. On each, there was your request for deletion - followed by at least 3 "keeps", and no "deletes" save your own nom. I'm sorry - but he was right on these. — Ched : ? 20:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JMHamo: It's a measure of being lazy with the script I use to close AFDs (which doesn't have a function to state delete and redirect, even though it has the ability to do that)... but I made sure to delete the article before it was redirected. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Coffee, thank you for helping to clean up Wikipedia. Coincidentally, just a moment before you were deleting the Marcus Charles article, I realized that I had given its creator the wrong advice. Last week, when they didn't reply to my notice on eir user page, I sent mail and got a prompt reply. We had a friendly conversation, in which I wrongly told em that there would be time to study up on the subject before the article might get deleted. I now felt bad about it and just considered whether it would be appropriate to change the timestamp to give em one more week. To be honest, I wouldn't bet on much improvement, but I don't want to mislead people. Also, the person described in the article has some notability; there are some articles in a local newspaper mentioning about him. (I haven't read the links yet, except for the NYT, which is really only a mention.) Would you be OK with me undeleting the article and changing the timestamp? Thanks, — Sebastian04:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, good on you Sebastian. I removed the PROD and removed what appeared to be overly resume-ish. It still is not perfect but maybe a start. The kicker for me was the Business Journal. I'm not completely sold on anything if you want to do more clean up.Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Insertcleverphrasehere topic ban
Hi Coffee. I saw that you formally placed a topic ban on Insertcleverphrase here. Obviously, I have no objection. From a 'paperwork' standpoint, I just want to be clear on exactly what type of ban is involved here. It's best to head off any confusion down the road, should there be appeals or enforcement actions.
I have to admit that the big Community Sanctions template you've used is a new thing to me. It's not entirely transparent whether the topic ban is intended to be a community-imposed restriction as a result of the AN/I discussion, or a formal discretionary sanction as allowed for by the pseudoscience Arbitration case. In particular, the former would tend to be both appealed and enforced through discussions at AN/I, and the latter through WP:AE. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TenOfAllTrades: It's a community topic ban, which is also not blind to the ArbCom decision made in relation to this topic area. If the user wishes to be unbanned they can go through ANI, (as a formal community proposal), or via ArbCom as an accepted alternative per WP:UNBAN. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with the Deletion Review policies [1], I would like to discuss why you felt the article on Option Pool Shuffle [2] should be considered as "non-notable neologism".
Firstly, non-notable: the Option Pool Shuffle impacts any startup or small company that is looking raise money from a VC. The Option Pool Shuffle can swing 10% of the value from one party to another (the VC to the Founders and vice-versa). Given that some $48 billion of VC investment [3] was made in 2013, and this has grown in 2014. The Option Pool shuffle has a c.$5 billion impact every year.
I closed just after you, and then rolled back what I did (you got there first), let me know if I've left anything glitched. Sorry for the trouble! --j⚛e deckertalk16:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of UNIDSR Handbook Good Building Design and Construction
Hi Coffee, I have seen you have deleted the article I am creating regarding UNISDR as I am still editing it for additional citations and text. Besides this book is not for sale so it is not an advertisement as per your reason for deletion. Can you place it back? Schadow1 (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your page protections
I don't know if you've been watching the DRVs about your AFD/BLP deletions, but a concern has been raised in the discussion that what seems to be your routine SALTing of AFD'd or CSD'd pages, on no other apparent basis than the article was about a living person, also isn't consistent with protection policy or BLP policy. I see from your log that you've continued doing this even after the issue was raised there, and I think it would be best if you at least refrained until the community has a chance to discuss the issue (even better would be to undo those protections yourself), which is likely once the DRVs are closed. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I haven't been paying any attention to DRV, there's a lot of backlogs on this site with our low admin numbers... so I think there are more important things for me to be doing than watching a process do its work. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You really should look at the DRV, because it's showing that your understanding of BLPDEL is not one supported by consensus, and should make you rethink how you're applying it to protections as well.
BLPDEL only discusses page protection in the context of summary deletions for problematic material, not routinely for any article about a living person. It certainly doesn't prescribe SALTing speedy deletions of A7 candidates, where there's nothing binding about the deletion to bar against another attempt at trying to post a valid article. Even with AFDs, it's possible the title may be a valid redirect or a shared title for another valid subject, and there's not an ironclad prohibition against an editor thinking he can overcome the reasons for deletion and reposting without going through DRV first.
Along the way, I also noticed your speedy deletion and protection of Austin John Caldwell and I don't think this was even a proper CSD candidate at all, but rather should have gone to AFD. We might ultimately determine that a participant in the Junior Olympics who was also an alternate for the U.S. Olympics team is not notable, but that's hardly lacking "any credible claim of significance or importance". postdlf (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok now, that was from over a year ago... I barely remember why I completed that action anymore than I know what I had for lunch that day. But I do seem to recall researching the name and finding out what was laid out wasn't true about the subject before I completed that action. But that's neither here nor there as, like I said... a year has passed since then. If you have an issue with my administrative actions, try to find something more recent. Otherwise it looks a bit like you're just fishing for something to back up your argument. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Since you deleted the Bangladesh-France relations article, please share what you think are criteria for notability of bilateral relations? --Soman (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the consensus has been wrongly interpreted for this AFD. There was definitely no consensus to delete all the articles. There were many participants who disagreed with the nominator and thought that the articles were notable according to the General notability guidelines which is also a policy-backed argument. Regards Nomian (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Many thanks for your recent deletions of articles listed at WP:CP – anything that helps to reduce the backlog must be good. I have some questions, though: as I had noted on that page, there was (and indeed still is) a viable rewrite of Apples and Snakes at Talk:Apples and Snakes/Temp; did you intend to move that into the place of the deleted version? There's also a rewrite of Michael de Aozaraza at Talk:Michael de Aozaraza/Temp; I don't know what you think, but it looks to me like a close paraphrase of the original (as I remember it); in your view, should that be deleted, or moved into place? I've watchlisted this page, don't need a talkback. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the Apples and Snakes page, although I do have some notability concerns given the lack of independent sourcing. The other I've deleted as it is indeed a close paraphrase and uses some of the same wording in places. Thank you for bringing these to my attention. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
d'oh. That makes sense, how about this? Can you at least shoot me the SOURCE that was the copyvio? URL to the page in question? Or at least the Copyvio report that says "hey, this article appears to be copied from URL foo.? Montanabw(talk)20:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it's bluelinked again. Can you put your eyes on it to see if we are OK in copyvio land? The problem is that there are virtually zilch sources, and they repeat each other. If you want to tweak any close paraphrasing, it is absolutely no skin off my nose! Montanabw(talk)23:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only just discovered it, and I see you left no crumbs for me tonight. That's alright--I need to get to work anyway. Hey, whenever I see your name I remember that you actually put in the work in the ChildofMidnight SPI, and I'm still grateful for that. Later, Drmies (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Durgadas S Kamat
Looks like when you closed the afd Durgadas S Kamat for deletion you didn't get rid of the article as it is still here! Just wanted to point this out really quick! Well thanks for closing the AFD at least though! Wgolf (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like someone did a redirect for the page without having it be kept to the old one, so now we know how come the page is still up with the AFD is closed. Well either way good job! Wgolf (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee - I'm watching the user creation log. Should I let you know if I see this individual again? It seems like you all are on top of it, but figured I should ask. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 17:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you were kind enough to remove something unpleasant from my talk page with lightning speed. I missed whatever it was though. If it's not too much trouble, could you give me the gist of it? Also, your job > my job, and I don't say that very often, haha. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 5 Adar 5775 17:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You accidentally deleted the page prematurely, I was in the middle of editing it, and I have reposted it with some more information. I'm currently expanding New Mexico culture articles, sorry about the sloppy article prior. Please contact me next time I mess up. Smile Lee (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't participate in reviews of my admin actions (other than to give clarification when requested, of course). If you think the editor should be unblocked, then you don't need my ok to do so. —Cryptic17:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Appoligies but I couldnt resist this particular thank you for clearing out those backlogs that were breaking all the templates they were linked to. Amortias (T)(C) 21:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia policy I am to try to resolve any issues directly with you before I request a deletion review as you closed the discussion and decided to keep the article about Alex Kerr (loyalist). My primary concerns are in relation to Wikipedia policies in relation to biographies about living persons not being adhered to. There is a fundamental lack of depth of coverage in any of the sources cited and used within the article (prime example: the categorical statement that Kerr 'co-founded the LVF' is entirely without merit, the source which this is 'supported' by mentions the subject twice and does not categorically make any firm allegations, the article is therefore libellous).
Wikipedia policy: "Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors." I would suggest that none of the editors in favour of keeping the article addressed any of my issues in relation to Wikipedia policy. I provided evidence that this article did not meet Wikipedia policy, I was instead criticised and censored (edits made by me were removed) for 'repeated comments' despite the fact I did not repeat myself and was merely providing factual evidence to support my position. The only arguments for keeping the article were along the lines of 'the subject is notable because of reliable sources.' This again is fundamentally wrong. The sources do not provide an adequate depth of coverage, as per Wikipedia policy (I did mention this in the discussion but it was deleted before you closed it). The grounds for notability have not been satisfied, the premise for notability rests on the subjects membership of a legal organisation (up until 1992) which tens of thousands of other people were also members of. Not all Mayors meet the notability criteria, what is the difference here? No criminal convictions or links to any major event have been attributable to the subject. Zoidberg262 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my position to close AFDs against a clear consensus. The clear policy backed consensus was for the article to be kept, so it was. Feel free to take it to DRV if you wish. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see why you removed the speedy tag from this article and replaced it with a PROD. It's a classic db-corp, created by a SPA who is probably associated with this thoroughly insignificant company. Are you surprised that the PROD was removed without explanation? I thought not. I've replaced the speedy.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do my best, but I'm still mystified. And you left no explanation or note on my talk page. I'd accept a judgement that the article should be taken to AfD, but PRODing an article like this is pointless since a dollar to a donut the page creator will remove it. Or an IP will.TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since this user is blocked, would it be okay if I removed the LONG cut and pasted talk page conversations which they placed on their user page? I'd leave the userboxes and anything that is not a content discussion and, of course, the action can be reverted. I don't often edit user pages so I wanted to check it out with you first. Thanks! LizRead!Talk!18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it wasn't visible at all, that the file had originally been uploaded to en.wikipedia. I thus added the original upload log. --Leyo00:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Caden: I would certainly hope not; quite the dystopian state that would be. And, yes you are, but it just so happens that your opinion doesn't mean jack shit if it's in conflict with our policies. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to sit here and have an absolutely pointless debate with you. You asked for a block review, and you got one. The end. Now quit harassing me, or you'll soon be joining thewolfchild. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Corbett at AE
Hi, I'm not particularly familiar with AE. Was there really consensus for this close? And should an admin who commented in the discussion be permitted to close it also? - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Sitush, given that the entire rationale for ArbCom is "sometimes consensus leads to no useful outcome because you have angry people on both sides", that is entirely the point in AE. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very surprised to see that you unblocked Rationalobserver. Have you notified Ddstretch? I'm considering requesting a review at AN, so consider this a notification. I've been offline for a few days and only now working my way through diffs but there has been a lot of disruption that began with me a week ago. Victoria (tk) 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 1.42.15.25 block review. Thank you.. JodyB talk 15:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
