User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 12

This 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Happy New Year, Wbm1058!

Happy New Year!

Wbm1058,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Amakuru (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Amakuru (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Amakuru, happy new year to you too! wbm1058 (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate template parameters

Your edits reverted my fix to remove duplicate parameters and these files will soon be placed in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. I'm not watching them, nor am I watching this page, so I leave it to you to fix the issues. -- Gadget850^talk 22:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gadget850: Right, already taken care of. See Template talk:Non-free use rationale logo#Override fields. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

To do: possible merge of {{Non-free use rationale}} and {{Non-free use rationale 2}}

For that matter, {{Non-free use rationale 2}} and {{Non-free use rationale logo}} are also somewhat redundant, as shown by the usage of both here. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 June 17#Template:Non-free use rationale 2. Nice. Thanks User:Sdkb! It will be nice to finally clear this off my to-do list (talk page). (wow, what a lengthy discussion to form a consensus to do something that seemed obvious to me nine years ago!) wbm1058 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Updating r cats

I like to leave the occasional redirect with an out-of-date r cat so that you aren't left without maintenace categories to sift through. Thanks for the ping, and for limiting your reproach because I am only #29 in content contributed to WP:RMCI. SilverLocust 💬 23:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:OTRS topicon

Template:OTRS topicon has been nominated for merging with Template:Volunteer Response Team topicon. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Is la🏳️‍⚧ 19:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Just an FYI

I pinged you to the discussion at Primefac's page, re: the VRT topicon. Atsme 💬 📧 00:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Was Eric Harris a neo-Nazi?

If you look at Harris's journal entries, they mention him idolizing and praising Hitler and the Nazis. Also in the audiobook series The War on Everyone (a documentary on the history of American fascism), it lays clear that in addition to Harris idolizing Hitler and the Nazis, he also shared a number of ideological similarities to them, such as hatred of free speech & the press and the desire to have less-than-able people executed. Razzamatazz Buckshank (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to Template:Neo-Nazism because, as I said in my edit summary, Eric Harris is not independently notable – he is the subject of a joint biography. Per the target article "Some people, such as Robyn Anderson, who knew the perpetrators, stated that the pair were not obsessed with Nazism nor did they worship or admire Hitler in any way." Template:Neo-Nazism is not a place for dumping the name of every person you believe is or has been a neo-Nazi. It should be reserved for people who are primarily known as neo-Nazis. Harris is primarily known as an infamous school shooter, not as a neo-Nazi. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Single A

Sorry, forgot to do that - never have before, hopefully won't again. BilledMammal (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

V2 rocket edit

Hi wbm1058, refer this discussion at wp:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Undue weight given to Fritz von Opel in various space related articles for an explanation of my edit on the V-2 rocket article Ilenart626 (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"Anglican Church" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Anglican Church has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 16 § Anglican Church until a consensus is reached. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Suno Chanda 2

You are correct about this. Seems to have been part of a larger SOCK history revert and must have assumed it was a newer creation. Thanks for moving back to mainspace. CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Redirect

Regarding your question here, it was almost certainly a mistake on my part. Thanks for fixing. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Re-close of pakeha settlers RM...

Hi, can you please explain how your reclose is not a blatant supervote? Rather than summarizing arguments made in the RM, you are explicitly applying your own opinion and analysis. Your close literally dismisses the opposers' TIES claims, which was the sole rationale offered by almost all the oppose !votes, so from where in that discussion are you drawing the conclusion that the majority of P&G-based arguments were against moving to "European settlers..."? You also ignore major points made by supporters, such as the guidance on TITLES being especially against unfamiliar terminology, the clear analogy made by @LokiTheLiar and others to "crore" explicitly being discouraged even in article prose in favor of universally-understood terms, the numerous examples of CONSISTENCY reported by @Roman Spinner, the overwhelming evidence that NZ academics and news sources in the last five years prefer "European settlers" in the context of NZ colonization, etc., and instead opine on numerous points no one made in the discussion and perform your own research! JoelleJay (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with JoelleJay; as the closer, you are supposed to summarize and verify the arguments and evidence presented. In your close, you instead make novel arguments and present new evidence, but by virtue of it being a close prevent editors responding to and rebutting your arguments.

Further, I am discomforted by the process; going to the previous closer and effectively telling them "If you overturn your close, I'll make the same close" while a move review is proceeding and, in my opinion, was trending towards overturning to move, seems to be at odds with our standard procedures and our consensus model.

Given the issues with it, will you please convert your close into a !vote? BilledMammal (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the above two. This was the WP:SUPERVOTE-y-ist close I've seen in a while: it went on for paragraphs and paragraphs about your opinion on the arguments and barely mentioned the discussion at all. Loki (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear wbm1058, I ask you to reconsider. The consensus of an RM discussion is determined by the arguments made in the discussion, not by arguments newly introduced by the closer. Your approach to determining consensus was thoroughly improper. If I ever found myself feeling the need to preemptively write off "cries of 'supervote'", I would be seriously questioning my own judgment. Please undo your action. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, WP:DTS. You have here an opportunity to informally discuss the title issue on the article's talk page. I suggest ya'll carpe diem! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
PS. Just a gentle reminder that "relisting should not be a substitute for a no consensus closure." P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

While I appreciate you closing in favour of my preferred option I don’t believe you are the right editor to do so; your participation in the discussion, even without !voting, has made you WP:INVOLVED. BilledMammal (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Relisting and participating, a relister may later become a participant or closer in the requested move discussion or survey. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and you became a participant, presenting extensive arguments. I ask that you withdraw your close and permit an uninvolved editor to close. BilledMammal (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wbm1058; are you going to respond to my request? Considering that I'm not the only editor seeing this issue, I believe the only appropriate action is to withdraw your close. BilledMammal (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Come on, the close outcome is clearly the only one possible considering how the discussion went, so does it really matter who did it? I also think summarizing a discussion once for the relisting is effectively preparation for a later close, it didn't make wbm1058 an involved participant who couldn't do the close themselves – if anything, that preparation made them uniquely well prepared to close. Time to move on; this thing is settled and that's a good thing. Gawaon (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Wbm1058 went beyond summarizing in their relist and presented novel arguments (for example, their arguments about naturalness); they became involved.

Further, we shouldn't accept involved closes just because they are right; we should make it clear to all editors, particularly administrators, that they should never close discussions they are involved with. I'm also not convinced that everything Wbm1058 said in their close summary is accurate or appropriate, but the issues there are minor compared to the involved violation. BilledMammal (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This just sounds like more kicking of a dead horse. But I was wrong before when I said that, so I could be wrong again. When I closed as no consensus, I did recognize that it would not take much more support to gain a rough consensus, and the survey and discussion certainly went past that to achieve an unquestionable consensus. Forgive me BilledMammal, but I think your valid concerns still constitute a bureaucratic process that should be countered by WP:IAR. This particular admin is quite knowledgable about the RM process, so we should probably accede to his closure, don't you think? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved.

You're arguing that I was involved in a dispute. Which side do you think I took in that dispute? MAGA or RINO? You're telling me that I'm incapable of making an objective decision. I disagree. You think I have strong feelings about the matter, despite my clear indication that I was content to not move the page. Suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved, yet you seem to think I was making arguments rather than suggestions. I disagree.

OK, there is one matter about which I do have strong feelings. Discussions should not be allowed to go on forever. Editors who are allowed to abuse "consensus can change", and keep arguing and appealing and arguing and appealing and arguing and appealing until they finally get their way are not healthy for the project. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not wish to say all of this explicitly because it has a potential to be misconstrued and personalised, but under the agreement that you will consider this a position on abstract principles rather than an accusation on your person, here's the involved policy applied to this particular case:

You made non-administrative comments in the discussion (the matter of n-grams). That was in addition to your previous close that was deemed a supervote by enough people to convince you to vacate it, and was subsequently added to the discussion and became a part of the discussion that other participants engaged with.
Having first closed as not-moved and been accused of supervoting, you had an incentive to close it the other way to do a "See, I was not biased, I was only reading consensus. What did I tell you?"
If you had a bias toward "not moved", you also had an incentive to make an involved close for "moved" when the consensus started to be clear for it, so that the legitimacy of that consensus can be easily challenged now or in the future.

Again, I don't believe any of these is true. But these are the reasons that make you involved and why you should not have been the one to close. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I hear you. In an ideal world we would have an unlimited supply of fresh administrators willing to invest a couple hours in getting themselves up to speed on all lengthy discussions, and promptly close them, and we would have no need for non-administrative closes. We would not have a backlog of two dozen discussions remaining open after a full month. At the time I closed this, it had already spent a full day in "elapsed listing" status, and had fallen well into the backlog. I did not over-speedily close this without giving anyone else an opportunity to close it before I did. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Saw lots of activity going on here and, upon checking, find that Wbm1058 probably deserves a barnstar for sticking with the topic. I've seen scores of long and well-argued discussions topped off by drive-by closers who do two or more closes or relistings in a minute or two, and these make me wonder for a millisecond why I discuss these things at all if the comments aren't really read and analyzed by the closer (but of course I continue commenting "for the record"). Nice work on this close, and Wbm1058 will probably dream in New Zealandish for a few nights. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think I am more coming from "in an ideal world..." than "this close was wrong...". I guess we'll see. I do appreciate the amount of time and effort you put in to try and resolve it. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

On your recent close

While I'm certainly not going to be appealing your close, I am also quite certain that the arguments I paraphrased as follows are not policy-compliant and should have been discounted:

1. New Zealand English as an ENGVAR incorporating borrow-words from Maori is not a "real" variety of English (and the appraranceexplicitly/belief that it is "real" represents an attempt at "progressive" social engineering).

2. When it comes to article titles and text, WP:TITLEVAR only instructs us to use the spelling, but not the word choice, of the ENGVAR in question.

I don't think it was good practice for you to endorse such arguments by saying I don't see any blatant policy-contradicting opinions to discount, as you did in your close. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any blatant policy-contradicting opinions to discount, from the opinions which were neither too long to read nor incomprehensible. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If that was trying to say that wikt:pākehā was not a "real" word, I disagree with that. It's in the dictionary. wbm1058 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

One active contributor to the discussion did argue that Maori words don't belong in an English encyclopaedia and that Maori flags don't belong on his flagpole. But I digress.

More importantly, based on the nose count used to calculate your percentages, I am morally certain you included !votes without a sound basis in policy, whether incomprehebsible or not. And that kind of nose counting - which is part of a vicious cycle - is what drives me (and some other editors) to cynicism about RfCs. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The ship sailed a long time ago on trying to keep non-English words out of the English Wikipedia. Recently, in my work as a gnome, I've found myself instructed to make spelling corrections, where the only "misspelling" is not actually a letter, but just the wrong diacritic appearing over the letter. I lack the expertise to know whether a diacritic has been correctly used or not, and don't enjoy having to maintain such a high level of "perfection". English itself makes very limited use of diacritics, and I'd prefer the community to just not use them in the English words.

Remember that the titling criteria are goals, not rules. Relatively little about titles goes so far as to violate policies, rather than bend some goals, usually in favor of other, contradictory goals. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Wbm, while I am not going to be appealing either—I am not looking into the the substance of it—you simply should not have closed. By reopening/relisting the last time, when you were asked to on the basis that your close rationale was a supervote, and then putting your close rationale into the discussion, you became very involved. It's not the kind of discussion an involved editor should be closing. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

To editors Usedtobecool and Newimpartial: please see my response to editor BilledMammal [above]. Thank you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)