User talk:Extraordinary Writ

This is Extraordinary Writ's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12: 30 days

By far the funniest and most clever Wikipedia page I randomly stumbled on. Kudos. The fish genuinely made me laugh out loud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumtimz I B Learnin (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and a query

First, thank you very much for the support in my RfA - I've always appreciated your work and insights a great deal; having you as an early supporter meant a lot.

Second, I'm interested in strengthening "professional" (cough) practice and looking at ways to support collegial learning over closures at AfD. It's not that I think there's any particular problems to address, but there doesn't seem to be much which analyses how we interpret the policies and guidelines with reference to our actual practice. There's a handful of closers right now who are very experienced, but how would we transfer knowledge should the proverbial happen? We run a monastic system of learning when it comes to closing AfDs ... or a kind of Grey's Inn lite without apprentices. Awhile ago I created a list of AfD discussions which were personally interesting to me: User:Goldsztajn/AfDs. As a starting point, I'm thinking to ask various admins who've participated regularly at AfD as closers to nominate 3-4 closures (or discussions) that they found particularly noteworthy - for whatever reason - shifting in the understanding of a particular policy or guideline, new thinking, unusual application of IAR etc complex OR/SYNTH debates. I'd be interested in putting together a list of 20-30 discussions that could form a sort of benchbook which could include commentary from those involved. I think building a set of comparisons over how we interpret key aspects of debates at AfD could act as a useful resource for those that come in the future (grouping could come under key thematics NPOL, SIGCOV, NLIST, GNG etc). I see this as operating in conjunction with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, but whereas that is more focussed at the general community as a results summary, this would be more focussed at elaborating the methods of closure.

Another aspect could be deletion reviews - but I tend to think of that as a separate project.

Let me know your thoughts when you have time. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Goldsztajn—and congratulations! (An RfA with a single-digit number of questions...it doesn't get much smoother than that.)

Ah, closures: the one topic guaranteed to send me off on an unsolicited wikiphilosophical tangent. Sometimes I like to think about the admin's role in terms of the old formalist-versus-realist debate. When I first got here I was a formalist, always thinking scrupulously about WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS and the policy/guideline distinction and the particular wording of P&Gs. (My !vote in the first discussion here comes to mind...the only time I've ever seen a DRV closer have to suggest, thoughtfully and politely, that we were all being a bunch of idiots.) With time, of course, I came to understand and even appreciate the more-or-less indeterminate nature of most of our guidelines, and sometimes that leaves me tempted by the realist devil on my shoulder, who says "most ambiguous AfDs have several defensible closures, so you can choose your own adventure as long as you couch it in the right kind of legitimating rhetoric".

I'm not sure I've ever fully made my peace with that divide. I don't do a ton of interesting closures, and when I do close against the numbers, it's often just for uncontroversial things like protecting the integrity of the process (two examples). Beyond that, it's really just the same familiar trade-offs again and again: global consensus vs. individualized exceptions; the letter vs. the (perceived) spirit; how freely to relist; how to treat late-arriving sources; different levels of aggressiveness in weighting !votes; and countless more specific issues. Neither the P&Gs nor the community as a whole give us many clear answers, so each closer draws the lines differently, and we're all usually upheld at DRV as long as long as our closures are carefully worded and not too far "outside the box". Sometimes I still find the freedom a little frightening. (At least I can always step back and do speedy deletions, where it's okay to be by-the-book...)

Anyways, returning to your original question: I can think of some areas where what you describe could be really useful, like WP:ATDs, where there are some unspoken rules not obvious in the policy itself. In general, though, it would probably just depend on the particular discussions that were selected. I think you'd be right to focus on closures that are "noteworthy" rather than ideal: it'd be good to just give people a sense of the various (analytical and rhetorical) tools in the closer's toolbox. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking an unspoken rule here to necro this thread, but the idea of a "closer benchbook" is pretty interesting. I can see the immediate issue of "people then act like it's a guideline" and also I foresee some degree of "people who have no business closing discussions making edits to the page in ways that defy the point of it", but I think it would be interesting all the same. Perhaps the way to do it is to have a smallish central wp-space essay that introduces a series of user-space essays or a nav template. -- asilvering (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also that really is a great close from S Marshall. I should use "no consensus" more often. -- asilvering (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2025).

Administrator changes

Rusalkii

NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.

Miscellaneous

A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 68

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 68, March–April 2025

In this issue we highlight two resource renewals, #EveryBookItsReader, a note about Phabricator, and, as always, a roundup of news and community items related to libraries and digital knowledge.

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block query

I see you got Special:Redirect/logid/169819047. I hesitate to start a cascade of "you're blocked because you're blocked", given that @Bbb23's original block was for "probable" block evasion rather than something more definitive, but I'm pretty sure we're looking at the same person in Special:Contributions/205.155.225.248 and Special:Contributions/205.155.225.249. Thoughts, both? They've said at User talk:Tarlby#Teahouse host that they prefer to remain as an IP editor, which, fair enough, but. -- asilvering (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asilvering. Yeah, I rounded that one down to block evasion, but it was really the first part of Bbb23's block rationale ("disruptive editing; trolling") that resonated with me, especially after all of the WT:RFA nonsense. Probably trolling; could be CIR, but I guess it's all the same. I'd be minded to block the 205 IPs (who have been causing problems in projectspace for almost two years now and were already blocked once in 2023) as well, but happy to hear your thoughts. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can narrow the range to 205.155.225.248/29, if we're going to rangeblock them. I'm typically not terribly in favour of blocking people for being only mildly to moderately annoying, and I rarely think it's fair to call "leaving unimportant talk page messages" trolling. But at the same time I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to find that this particular editor was an LTA, so if either of you can recognize who they are from the additional evidence on this /29... -- asilvering (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, figured it out: see my report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicleBooks885. I've now blocked the range. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was expecting that I would rather edit Wikipedia as an anonymous IP was "because my previous accounts got blocked", but I was definitely not expecting that many accounts. -- asilvering (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So much for narrowing the range. I'll get the /28 after all. -- asilvering (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks. I see Izno has found a couple dozen more to boot. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello Extraordinary Writ:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Sergey Brin Family Foundation

Hello! I would like to see what Sergey Brin Family Foundation said before it was deleted. Would you please restore it to my userspace? Cramulator (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cramulator. The Brin Foundation page was just a redirect to Bayshore Global Management (with nothing else in the history). If you want I can restore the deleted version of the Bayshore article, although it's not too different from the current recreated version. Just let me know. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I wonder whether you agree that redirect should be replaced? And linked to from the articles mentioning it? Cramulator (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, feel free. I guess another option would be to redirect to Sergey Brin#Personal life. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. It doesn't feel like Brin's Personal life section is best here for readers, to me. It's a pretty autonomous foundation with a board of directors calling the shots. I'm sure Brin has overwhelming influence over their decisions, but readers probably want to know about the organization, not just its inception, I suppose. Cramulator (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Mija

You certainly have the authority as administrator, but I consider your reverting my last edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artur_Mija&diff=1293532997&oldid=1293523112 violates WP:NPOL

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. --Aviapassion (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aviapassion, as a former member of parliament, Mija would fall under the first prong of NPOL (members of legislative bodies at the national level). It's not entirely obvious from the way the guideline is written, but in practice, national-level legislators are always considered notable, and it's extremely unlikely that the article will be deleted. If you want, though, you can start a full deletion discussion by following the instructions here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rules seem clear to me. Reference to

adds clarity in addition to rules stipulated in WP:NPOL and there is no contradiction. This article is perfectly fit for speedy deletion and reverting my edit is violation of Wikipedia rules. There are plenty temporary members of parliaments in different jurisdictions and this does not mean that they all merit an article. To start with, there is even no article in native language on this person - now we wonder what is the notability of this person to have an article in English? Your argument referring to “general elected status” could work at least in case of personal election. However, the members of Moldovan parliament are elected on party lists (people vote not for a person, but for the entire party list with whoever is registered in the list) Aviapassion (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position and honestly sympathize with it to some extent, but the broader community has very consistently agreed that people in this situation are notable, even when the sourcing is doubtful. If you disagree with that, you're welcome to test it out by starting a deletion discussion. But I can't delete an article on my own unless it meets one of the narrow speedy deletion criteria, and none of those are met here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply. Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events) is the criteria for speedy deletion here. Consequently, in accordance with existing Wikipedia rules, the respective speedy deletion tag can be changed in the one explicitly referring to violation of A7 rule, but the deletion tag cannot be erased all together from the article. Otherwise, everybody and every admin may simply create her or is own rules and do whatever they want not respecting any rule whatsoever. Aviapassion (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A7 requires only a "credible claim of significance," which is considered an even lower threshold than notability. Being a member of parliament easily meets that standard, so I can't use A7. I'm sorry if that's frustrating, but there's really nothing I can do for you: please start a deletion discussion if you think the article should be deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I think you did not read the article. This person is not currently member of parliament and, as per article, was member of parliament only for 7 months about two years ago. And even if the person was member of parliament today, what is exactly such significance claim as per A7 (please read explanations) and NPOL? I certainly do not intend to play this debate forever since I start doubting your good faith by interpreting as you desire clear Wikipedia rules. Please indicate exactly 1) where I can appeal of your edits/decision and 2) how to insert the correct speedy deletion tag and which one is it exactly? Aviapassion (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently we're not communicating well with one another. I suggest you ask about this at the Teahouse, where someone else can give you a fresh opinion. I'm going to sleep now and will not be able to respond for a while. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

u==Notice of noticeboard discussion==

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed.Aviapassion (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviapassion: I've already said as much in the AARV you opened, but I'll also say here directly to you: this speedy request was entirely correctly declined, and every administrator would have similarly declined it. If you're determined to pursue deletion, take your case to AfD, but don't expect it to return any other verdict than 'keep'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering here. I read the “endorsements”, could you please repeat here which criterion exactly was not respected? Other users referred to a mysterious criterion, without clearly referring to it. Which one is it exactly? I also read your post here - I would have expected clear reference to the exact respected or violated Wikipedia rules - but didn’t see it here either. It is certainly thrilling to see you predict future decisions to be taken without any reference to Wikipedia rules, but I thought Wikipedia works otherwise. I noted your suggestion to AfD. Aviapassion (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Draft: Tulsi Bhagat

@Extraordinary Writ How to reach you regarding this particular person Tulsi Bhagat? I’ve very much of evidence against him. Please let me know. 2405:9800:B651:54BB:A99F:D4A1:45C6:2BCA (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you just sent an email to [email protected], we received it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2025).

Administrator changes

Interface administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

CheckUser changes

L235

Oversight changes

L235

Guideline and policy news

An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

Technical news

A new feature called Multiblocks will be deployed on English Wikipedia on the week of June 2. See the relevant announcement on the administrators' noticeboard.
History merges performed using the mergehistory special page are now logged at both the source and destination, rather than just the source as previously, after this RFC and the resolution of T118132.

Arbitration

An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

Miscellaneous

Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 17 June 2025. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in June 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]