User talk:Stifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I consider all my AFD closures carefully and I rarely change them based on talk page requests. If you object to any of my AFD closures please refer to Wikipedia:Deletion review. I waive all requirements to discuss with me prior to doing so.

Replies[edit]

  • Please reply to me here if possible.
  • If your message is about an AFD or other discussion that you want me to (re)contribute to, I will generally not reply other than by checking the page and adding a comment.
  • I will normally reply here and use {{talkback}} to notify you that I've done so.
  • Please don't leave your email address. My email address is user.stifle@gmail.com and you can contact me there if you have a request that needs to be answered privately. However, if you email me with a request that is not private, I will respond on your talk page.
    • Exception: if you are requesting the text of a deleted article, then make sure your preferences include a valid, confirmed email address, as I will email the article to you at that address (only).



Administrators' newsletter – January 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PoolGuy[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:PoolGuy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Bank[edit]

Hello, I will ask you this outside of COIN. What was the reason for the self-reporting to COIN? You moved User:Stifle/Charity Bank in 2020 and everything seemed static. --SVTCobra 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My boss randomly asked me how the article was going and I looked back in the email chain from 2020, saw that nothing had happened, refreshed myself on the rules for paid editing to see if I could brief a colleague on how to start the ball rolling again, and then realised I was in breach of the admin rules. Charity Bank has high ethical standards so I felt that it was necessary to own up. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are definitely WP:PE besides the WP:COI. While Alex may be right in COIN, you just said it was an assignment in your job. Nevertheless, Google's AI is thwarting me in searching for news on your bank. How small is it? Is online only? What is the AUM and how many employees? --SVTCobra 15:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charity Bank has assets of approximately a quarter of a billion GBP. It has very limited online operations, mainly operating in person and by telephone. There are 50-60 employees. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I expecting to hear it was all online. BTW, I'd feel better if you let me take it into draftspace before editing. --SVTCobra 16:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to that as a concept, but I don't want to start the 6-month clock running until I know that someone is going to actually start editing it :) Stifle (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I leave it to you. --SVTCobra 16:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad Titans[edit]

Hi @Stifle:, I am pleased to present my views infront of you. I personally requested you to moved back to this article to Ahmedabad IPL Team. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Move protection is not an endorsement of the current page version; it is in place to stop people moving the page back and forth pointlessly. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

how are you doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.153.230.222 (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi Stifle. I opened this CfD[1] some time. Although everyone voiced support, it hasn't been closed/implemented yet. Would you be willing to take a look? Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of practice with CFDs; try WP:ANRFC. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of File talk:Aardakh 1944.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg File talk:Aardakh 1944.jpg, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File talk:Aardakh 1944.jpg and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of File talk:Aardakh 1944.jpg during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Alaexis¿question? 12:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

Hello, Stifle,

You know, my recent experiences at Deletion Review confirm to me what I have suspected about CSD G4, articles tagged and sitting in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as pages previously deleted via deletion discussion can sit there for days before there is an admin who will take action on them. It's one of the most neglected speedy deletion categories. Other CSD categories get regularly cleared out throughout the day but articles sit in this one for hours and days. There are too many potential minefields and being taken to Deletion review over what you thought was a fair decision is not a pleasant experience even when one is honest, open and forthcoming with responses.

I believe in transparency and admin accountability. But I think I'll join the other admins who avoid evaluating pages tagged CSD G4 because our judgment calls will just bring us to Deletion review. None of my other deletions on articles in other CSD categories, PRODs or AFDs have been questioned at DR so I guess I'm a decent admin but not a good judge of what qualifies as a legitimate CSD G4 tagging.

It would be helpful if you worked into your editing schedule a review of articles tagged CSD G4. They could use some attention from an admin who apparently has a keener sense of what qualifies as recreated page and is eligible for deletion and what doesn't. We could use the extra help! Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to go there from time to time. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, Stifle.
And there is a shortage of admins closing AFDs, an admin activity which I had little experience with until January. But every time I check the deletion pages (AFDs, TFDs, RFDs, CFDs), there are plenty of discussions to close. I don't know what happened to the admins who used to do this because I see the same 4 or 5 admins closing all of the discussions. And I think for the project, it would be healthier to see a lot of admins closing a few discussions each rather than a handful closing most of them. But after my experience at Deletion Review, I'm reluctant to close any discussion that might be controversial. I understand about admin accountability but it is no fun to get called to Deletion Review for what you thought was a straight-forward decision and get scrutinized. I guess that possibility just comes with the job. Take care. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we just have insufficient admins nowadays. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Brett Perlmutter[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Brett Perlmutter. 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. Ksoze1 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stifle,

Just letting you know (respectfully) that I am requesting a deletion review of your closure of Brett Perlmutter's deletion nomination. I do believe consensus was reached, as the only account arguing to keep the page was the creator of the account themself, who has made few other edits to wikipedia other than that page. When accounting for that, consensus appeared to be for deletion, with the possible merging of select data into another page.

I requested the review without consulting you first based on you stating in your talk page that this was your preference. Thank you for your continued excellent work as an admin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoze1 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary![edit]

Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Wikipedia Administrator.svg
Wishing Stifle a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia laurier anime.gif

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Flag[edit]

Care you explain how is this a keep given that there was no consensus that the topic is notable, most of the keep arguments simply said "it's notable", and nobody refuted the idea that the article violates NOT and REALWORLD (aside from special pleading)? Avilich (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no possibility that this deletion discussion could reasonably have been closed any other way, based on the number and weight of arguments. Feel free to go to DRV. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no consensus? A substantial number of participants felt that the sourcing was inadequate, or that the NOT policy was not being complied with (which would have invalidated notability concerns), and none of the arguments against that were well addressed (unless you think pure headcounts should be decisive). The only way you can say that it couldn't have been closed any other way is if you pretend these participants don't exist. Avilich (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you would be satisfied with no-consensus I'm open to considering amending to that, but obviously the article will still be kept. Or you could consider merging it, an option I explicitly mentioned as possible in my closure. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can amend it to no consensus, I'll call it a day. I mention this because, despite your explicit mention of the possibility of a merger, one editor in the talk page is already taking notability for granted based on the 'keep' closure, ignoring your subsequent comments, and some people can be stubborn with this. A 'no consensus' would eliminate confusion and, strictly speaking, be more accurate. Avilich (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. Have a good day. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Avilich (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bareezé[edit]

Would you consider a similar move to "no consensus" at this AfD? Your closure says that the references "have been adequately debated" but in reality, not a single argument showing why the references fail was responded to - can't describe that as a debate. On another day its possible this might have been closed with the reason that the "weight" of argument favours Delete. HighKing++ 19:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In this case, I don't think I will. There is only the nominator and one other person supporting deletion, and the comments indicate that people have taken policy into account in making them. It is not for me as closer to determine that contributors have interpreted and applied policy wrongly; I can only discount them if their comments are clearly inconsistent.
    I note you were in favour of a redirect, and my closure doesn't prevent that. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, thanks for considering at least. I don't agree when you say that "comments indicate that people have taken policy into account" in relation to Keep !votes. Only the last Keep !vote references any guidelines. But it was a poor AfD in any case so no probs with your decision, just asked if a No Consensus might be more appropriate. Thanks again. HighKing++ 19:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. - car chasm (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for University of Windsor Students' Alliance[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg An article that you have been involved in editing—University of Windsor Students' Alliance—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. RoyalObserver (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle&oldid=1081487337"