Wikipedia admin discussions analyzed by NLP and Stable Difussions 1

What AIs see at Wikipedia's Administrator's Conflict Noticeboards (ANI), Part 1

Standard offer request of Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel

Though there has not been a lot of participation, this unblock appeal has been open for over ten days without gathering any opposition, and everyone who has commented is willing to give Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel another chance. I also note the previous unblock request at AN from two weeks ago that was archived due to inactivity, but was also unopposed. So I will unblock, while cautioning Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel to carefully avoid repeating the kind of behavior that led to the initial block; as Mathglot notes below, if a second similar block is placed in the future, it will be much harder to successfully appeal. DanCherek (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The following message copied here on behalf of Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk · contribs) per this discussion. -- posted by — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

To whichever admin(s) see this, I am respectfully requesting a standard offer by the suggestion of another admin by the name of Ponyo. I simply put it as a request to be able to edit on Wikipedia again after eight months away. I was genuinely unaware that my actions two months later of suck puppetry was illegal on the site after seeing other users get away with it; but as six months have passed since then, therefore I put forth the request of a standard offer now. I fully recognise my short temper and hatred I felt for others if they made mistakes or fell short of what I believed were the standards of an article, and I did not find my block unjust. Since then, as I stated in my second block review, I have gone through rehabilitation via minor therapy and simply alone time, been relieved of stresses also applied at the time, and now I feel I am ready to start editing Wikipedia again without verbally attacking anyone for reason why; and I shall harass no more. This is the second standard offer I have made after the first a few weeks ago. The first standard offer was not rejected but was timed out. If whatever in that can be used as evidence for a decision made about this request, it can be found here. Thanks, Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel 23:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Support - It appears this user has made an effort to correct their past wrong-doings and understand that their behavior was inappropriate. With 8 months gone by, I think it's time for them to be given another chance. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 00:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC) I'm curious about how you know that they have "made an effort to correct their past wrong-doings"? Do you mean that they have said so? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC) I was referring to their comment saying they've gone through "minor therapy". Sure, they said they did; I don't know for sure. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 02:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) I'm sympathetic to this request. I was involved in trying to steward Mikey's first unblock request (now in Archive 1108, here; parallel UTP discussions here). On the plus side, is my gut feeling from numerous interactions that there is a sincere feeling of contritition, fairly biding his time during the block, and an awareness of what was inadmissible before and a conviction not to go there again. On the flip side, I would have hoped to see more activity at a sister project to provide some evidence of change, which we now lack (other than a sprinkling). Mikey, I'm not an admin, as you know, but imho if your request is successful this time, and at some point later you run into some stressor and blow up and get blocked again, that's liable to be the end of the story; coming back from another block will likely be extremely difficult to impossible. Given that, do you feel confident you can keep things under control, do whatever you need to do (like take a WP:Wikibreak if needed) to avoid any problems going forward? Mathglot (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC) From Special:Diff/1113160513/1113236493: Primefac (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC) As I already said in my first standard offer, I know fully well how to correctly deal with errors of other users or resolve a disagreement over an edit. With minor errors, using the summary box explaining their error would be plausible to use. For a major error, approaching them via their talk page to explain their error would be more plausible; while for an edit conflict, a debate should be carried out on the article's talk page. I have also made consideration that I shall only edit on Wikipedia when I am not in a bad mood as to not provoke myself even more. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Having only read what's here and not what initially led to the block, I am given to support. Many people mellow with age or learn to control themselves better, and when Mikey says that he has reflected and done some kind of "minor therapy" (whatever that means) and can now control himself, I am inclined to accept that. I'm not convinced from what I have read that he will be a paragon of calmness, but we have many temperamental editors here, and I think the fact that he has been blocked and had to learn from that how better to behave will make him better adapted to the project than many who skirt the edge of unacceptable conducts; as long as he is careful to avoid editing when angry, I think he will be fine. Besides, we are all called to be gracious to the penitents seeking forgiveness. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC) In reply: Just a bit of clarity on what I mean by minor therapy. It doesn't mean I was sat one-on-one with a therapist for an hour every week, but a good friend who is a therapist gave me useful advice. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC) Support Deserves another chance. Segaton (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC) UNBLOCKED

temperature=0.15, max_tokens=256, top_p=0.64, best_of=3, frequency_penalty=0.25, presence_penalty=0.36

 Create a timeline of dates and timestamps in the thread:

2022-09-29 21:58 - Message copied on behalf of Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel 2022-09-30 00:39 - Support from Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 2022-09-30 01:17 - Beyond My Ken questions Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk's statement 2022-09-30 02:25 - Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk clarifies statement 2022-09-30 03:05 - Mathglot offers sympathy and advice to Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel 2022-09-30 13:48 - Primefac posts diff of previous standard offer request 2022-09-30 13:29 - Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel responds to Mathglot 2022-09-30 14:52 - Compassionate727 supports 2022-10-01 15:52 - Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel clarifies "minor therapy" 2022-10-01 18:05 - Primefac posts diff of previous standard offer request 2022-10-08 22:22 - Segaton supports

Create a summary of the thread:

The user Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel is requesting a standard offer to be able to edit on Wikipedia again after eight months away. They were unaware that their actions two months later of suck puppetry was illegal on the site after seeing other users get away with it. Since then, they have gone through rehabilitation via minor therapy and are now ready to start editing Wikipedia again without attacking anyone. This is the second standard offer they have made, with the first one being timed out. There is support for this request, with people feeling that the user has made an effort to correct their past wrong-doings and that it is time for them to be given another chance.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List arguments for and against

Arguments for: -The user has made an effort to correct their past wrong-doings and understand that their behavior was inappropriate. -It has been 8 months since the user was last active, and they have made a sincere effort to rehabilitate themselves. Arguments against: -The user has not provided any evidence of change beyond their own word. -The user has a history of disruptive behavior and blowing up when under stress.

Retry:

Arguments for: -It appears this user has made an effort to correct their past wrong-doings and understand that their behavior was inappropriate. -With 8 months gone by, I think it's time for them to be given another chance. -I'm sympathetic to this request. -On the plus side, is my gut feeling from numerous interactions that there is a sincere feeling of contritition, fairly biding his time during the block, and an awareness of what was inadmissible before and a conviction not to go there again. -Many people mellow with age or learn to control themselves better, and when Mikey says that he has reflected and done some kind of "minor therapy" (whatever that means) and can now control himself, I am inclined to accept that. -We are all called to be gracious to the penitents seeking forgiveness. Arguments against:

-I'm not convinced from what I have read that he will be a paragon of calmness, but we have many temperamental editors here, and I think the fact that he has been blocked and had to learn from that how better to behave will make him better adapted to the project than many who skirt the edge of unacceptable conducts; as long as he is careful to avoid editing when angry, I think he will be fine.

Removal of rights

Please remove the pending changes reviewer rights from Knightrises10 as he is banned for repeated socking. 2402:3A80:198B:833D:678:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

An IP with only one edit reporting that a sockmaster from 2019 still has the PCR right? Forgive me if I am failing to assume good faith but I have some reservations about this. Patient Zerotalk 16:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC) @Patient Zero: it's unlikely that knightrises10 will ever get unblocked so he doesn't need the PCR right and many of his socks have had their rights removed so there's no reason for him to have that right. 2402:3A80:198B:833D:678:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC) The IP is right. Plenty of people choose to edit as an IP and these can be dynamic so the "only one edit" might not be true. While we're at it Andrew Base (blocked as a sockpuppet of Knightrises10) should also not have the pending changes reviewer/rollback rights. Clovermoss (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Xeno and Clovermoss while we're at it, UnnamedUser a different sockmaster also has the PCR and rollback rights which should be removed. 223.223.139.51 (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Note that WP:BANNEDRIGHTS says, "In general, rights of editors blocked indefinitely should be left as is", and that also links to an RFC which had no consensus to change that for banned users, either. Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Done –xenotalk 22:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Resolved – Rights removed pending unblocking and re-request. –xenotalk 18:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

List the topics and arguments for and against:

Arguments for: Knightrises10 is banned for repeated socking and is unlikely to ever be unblocked, so there is no reason for him to have the PCR right. Many of Knightrises10's socks have had their rights removed, so there is no reason for him to have the PCR right. Arguments against: WP:BANNEDRIGHTS says that in general, the rights of editors blocked indefinitely should be left as is. There is no consensus to change the policy on rights for banned users, as shown by an RFC.

Summarize the discussion and result:

The discussion above is about removing the pending changes reviewer rights from Knightrises10 as he is banned for repeated socking. The IP is right that Knightrises10 should not have the PCR right, and Clovermoss agrees that Andrew Base should also not have the PCR/rollback rights. Xenotalk has removed the rights pending unblocking and re-request.

WikiWatt Africa Project

#wikiwatt Does anyone know what the hashtag in the heading above refers to? I ran across this misguided edit with a summary containing it, and it led me to think that we might have another African editing contest that needs some oversight. Deor (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC) It's from Meta. The WikiKwatt Project's vision is to "bridge the huge content gap and make visible more knowledge about the neighborhoods in Africa". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Oh, that sounds like an incredibly worthwhile project. It is unfortunate if because of lack of oversight" it would backfire. User:Eugene233, what is the status of this project? Are new editors receiving any kind of guidance? Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Summarize

The discussion is about the WikiKwatt project, which is a project to bridge the content gap and make visible more knowledge about the neighborhoods in Africa. The project has been criticized for lack of oversight, and it is unclear if new editors are receiving any guidance.

Are CSD tags edits for the purposes of WP:G13?

(T·E·H·L·R) Draft:International Treaty for Pandemic Preparedness and Response

• 14 Nov 2021: an editor made the last content-based edit to the text of this draft.
• 14 February 2022‎: Reviewer declined AfC submission
• 27 March 2022‎: User:Citation bot fixes a reference [4] and an editor fixes a unicode apostrophe error using cleaner.js.
• 1 September 2022: I submit for CSD on WP:G13 grounds, thinking the preceding two edits would qualify as "bot edits" and not human ones to the article itself.
• 1 September 2022: Admin User:Explicit declines the CSD tag, stating six months have not lapsed.
• 29 September 2022: I wait until it has been six months and two days since those two edits, and re-tag.
• 29 September 2022: Admin User:Liz declines, saying Please stop tagging this draft for G13. It will not be eligible until 6 months from today (unless some else edits it in the meantime).

Now, I completely understand if I was mistaken about those two edits from Citation Bot and using Cleaner.js, that they are not "bot edits" for the purposes of G13. But what I am really scratching my head about is: Do CSD tags in and of themselves, reset the clock for G13? As far as I can tell, there is no consensus on this. It seems to be a sort of circular reasoning, that this could extend the life of abandoned drafts for years beyond their actual lifespan... I could, in effect, simply wait until 5 months 29 days and tag articles, extending their life for a year. Other admins (e.g. User:CambridgeBayWeather) have deleted drafts I've tagged in similar situations: [5] [6] [7]. I have attempted to inquire about this on the indicated admin's talk page, which is, as yet, unanswered, while User: Bungle agreed they didn't see any consensus on this question. So what does AN think? Should CSD tags (and their declining), reset the clock for G13? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Disagreements about venue @Shibbolethink This discussion really belongs at WT:CSD, which is the proper place to clarify or amend speedy deletion policy. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Fair enough, moving over there — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC) No. I think it should be here. You are asking for consistency among admins and not a change in policy. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC) I agree, AN is the better venue. I'm keeping it here unless there develops a consensus to the contrary. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC) I can't see how tagging it as CSD resets the six month clock. If that was the case then all drafts would require a full Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Of course there is Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions which suggests that a bot should be used to tag for WP:G13. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC) @CambridgeBayWeather {{AFC submission}} automatically tags drafts for speedy deletion if they've not been edited for 6 months and are not currently awaiting review, no need for a bot. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC) This comment is confusing because it is a bot which already does this? How do you think these automatic things happen on wikipedia? Its all bots, all the way down... — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC) @Shibbolethink No it isn't, it's built into the template using the #time parser function. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Oh I see what you mean. Differentiating between things that templates do over time, versus a bot user. So in that case, it would not be an edit. It would be a change in how the template appears, if it were not substituted. I would say this, overall, is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC) This might be more useful as a thread at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Never mind, the hatted comments cover this already. Clovermoss (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC) I'll answer here but we should also hear from Explicit as I think the two of us are responsible for (I'm guessing) about 85% of the CSD G13 page deletions. We are pretty strict literalists about policy. Wait, I'll just speak for myself here! I don't look for the last edit that added content or substantial content to a draft article, we look for the last "human edit" to the page, whatever that may be. The policy says on this criteria that G13 applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months. So, bot edits are the only edits that do not count as human activity. So, for example, I closed an AFD recently and when I made edits to remove the links that were now broken, using XFDCloser, I made an edit to a draft page, removing that link. When I saw the draft which was set to expire a few days later, I skipped it and didn't delete it because of my recent edit to the page removing that broken link. Bots do play an important role in this process. Explicit, I and all of the editors who tag expiring drafts, use User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon as our tool for what drafts are getting stale. The bot lists drafts that are going to be going to reaching that 6 month date and since it produces a list a week ahead of time, every draft or user page gets reviewed again before it is deleted to make sure that no last minute edits have been made to the page in the past 7 days. SDZeroBot started creating these lists for G13s and PROD in September 2020 and it has made our job so much easier as well as editors at AFC who review drafts that are coming up on their expiration date to postpone deletions on promising drafts. It has become an essential tool for us (thank you, SD0001!). There are approximately ~200 drafts that go stale each day although the daily actual number can vary from 150-600 pages. Having a guidelines of "last human edit" makes it pretty straight-forward process. If you want a more subjective measure for when a draft can be deleted as a G13, that would involve proposing a change to CSD policy and it would also require more time and judgment on the part of both editors who tag drafts for deletion and the admins who review those tagged pages. Those drafts which have had human edits but not ones adding content would not appear on the G13 soon lists. Of course, this is possible, policies do change, but I'd question whether editors would feel comfortable having more subjectivity added to determining when this criteria applies instead of a pretty straight-forward policy as it exists now. Liz Read! Talk! 20:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC) As for Draft:International Treaty for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, RoanokeVirginia's edit on March 27th counted as a human edit. They used a script but it is considered a human edit. That is why Explicit declined the original G13 tagging. Then where were now subsequent edits to the page, by you, Shibbolethink, and Explicit and these would mean that a standard G13 deletion was delayed until March 29, 2022 unless the page is edited again or goes to MFD. I also want to apologize for my subsequent edit summary for my declining the second CSD G13 tagging, it was unnecessarily glib. I meant it to be helpful but it reads as sarcastic and irritated. Liz Read! Talk! 20:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC) @Liz: You seem to have gone round the houses a bit but I don't think it really addresses the point that was raised here. In my experience, you seem to be a stickler for doing things "by the book" rather than sometimes considering WP:COMMONSENSE. I am surprised you opted not to engage with Shibbolethink's query on your talk page, even after I gave my 2 pence supporting their very reasonable position. I have disagreed and defended you on occasion and while it may be that there is a policy line that the CSD is declined because a human literally edited the page, I think in this instance, there won't be anyone suggesting it was a "standard" content edit. As I said on your talk page, I think the idea that a stale draft CSD could be declined in these circumstances is ludicrous, even if supported by policy (although, lets not forget that some policies exist for a reason to address that: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."). Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Thank you for the apology Liz, it's totally fine I did not interpret your edit summary as glib! I was more just surprised by it. But to echo Bungle here, yes I would say Liz's comments here really don't address the question of the thread. Are CSD tags in and of themselves, enough to make an article not stale? This seems to be literalist in the extreme, to the point of counteracting the actual point of the CSD criteria. It's intended to get rid of stale drafts which are not being used or made into an article. One would think that an article which has previously been ALMOST CSD-deleted should not be rescued by being CSD tagged and declined. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC) What is the harm in having a draft stay for six months longer that IAR needs to be invoked? Is there an unanticipated or emergency situation? Sdrqaz (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC) To answer your question with a question, what is the harm in deleting these pages that have not been edited in any way other than CSD tagging in 6 months? When they can be REFUNDed at any time? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC) At risk of stating the obvious, deletion makes content more inaccessible for both administrators and non-administrators alike. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC) If someone's going through drafts and sees something they think needs to be deleted right away - say, it's an attack page, or objectionably promotional, or whatever - we want them to bring it to the attention of admins, and the most straightforward way to do that is with a speedy tag. The last thing we want is for them to hesitate to tag because they think an admin might possibly consider it borderline enough to decline, and thus make it hang around for another six full months instead of the perhaps one or two it would've taken to G13 had they left well enough alone. —Cryptic 22:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC) If it's too harmful to leave around for another 6 months, but not harmful enough to speedy delete then take it to MfD. If it's not harmful enough to take it to MfD then it's not harmful enough that leaving it for another 6 months is problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC) A human tagging a draft for deletion as a G13 doesn't disqualify it from being deleted as a G13. Humans doing the tagging used to be the norm, back when the expectation was for admins to look at every page they were deleting instead of racing to speedy entire categories in one click with Twinkle, and sometimes even to decline deletion because the subject had potential rather than only for technicalities. A human removing a G13 tag may or may not do so. It certainly does when the intent is explicitly to disqualify it from deletion for another six months, for instance immediately after a restoration at WP:REFUND or when the edit summary is something similar to "reset G13 clock". If a speedy's declined solely for being tagged too early, though, I can't imagine anyone would've taken issue with it being deleted on the original timeline. And if they did, well, G13s are restorable with little or no questioning at WP:REFUND. —Cryptic 22:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Summarize the discussion and result:

The discussion seems to be that CSD tags in and of themselves, are not enough to make an article not stale. The policy is that a draft which has not been edited by a human in six months is eligible for deletion, and that bots do not count as humans. This means that if a draft has been edited by a bot in the past six months, it is not eligible for deletion.

There is no consensus on whether or not CSD tags reset the clock for eligibility, but it seems that the majority opinion is that they do not. This means that if a draft has been edited by a human in the past six months, it is not eligible for deletion.

Summarize the timeline:

• The timeline is as follows:
• 14 Nov 2021: an editor made the last content-based edit to the text of this draft.
• 14 February 2022‎: Reviewer declined AfC submission
• 27 March 2022‎: User:Citation bot fixes a reference [4] and an editor fixes a unicode apostrophe error using cleaner.js.
• 1 September 2022: I submit for CSD on WP:G13 grounds, thinking the preceding two edits would qualify as "bot edits" and not human ones to the article itself.
• 1 September 2022: Admin User:Explicit declines the CSD tag, stating six months have not lapsed.
• 29 September 2022: I wait until it has been six months and two days since those two edits, and re-tag.
• 29 September 2022: Admin User:Liz declines, saying Please stop tagging this draft for G13. It will not be eligible until 6 months from today (unless some else edits it in the meantime).

Summarize the arguments for and against:

The arguments for this position seem to be that: 1) CSD tags in and of themselves, reset the clock for G13. 2) It is a straight-forward policy as it exists now. 3) If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. The arguments against this position seem to be that: 1) It is a more subjective measure for when a draft can be deleted as a G13. 2) The policy says on this criteria that G13 applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months. So, bot edits are the only edits that do not count as human activity. 3) Deleting makes content more inaccessible for both administrators and non-administrators alike.

temperature=0, max_tokens=418, top_p=0.64, best_of=3, frequency_penalty=0.02, presence_penalty=0

Summarize the arguments for and against:

The arguments for are that CSD tags resets the clock for G13, and that this could extend the life of abandoned drafts for years beyond their actual lifespan. The arguments against are that bots do play an important role in this process, and that having a guidelines of "last human edit" makes it pretty straight-forward process.

List voices

List users who are for and users who are against:

For:

• Shibbolethink
• Bungle

Against:

• Liz
• Cryptic
• Sdrqaz
• Thryduulf
• Explicit

Increase temperature

List users who are for and users who are against and users who do not know:

For:

• Shibbolethink

Against:

• Liz Read! Talk!
• Cryptic

Do not know:

• Sdrqaz
• Thryduulf
• CambridgeBayWeather
• Uqaqtuq
• Huliva
• Explicit
• Bungle
• RoanokeVirginia

Rerun

For:

• Shibbolethink
• Bungle

Against:

• Liz Read
• Sdrqaz
• Cryptic

Do not know: Explicit CambridgeBayWeather Uqaqtuq Huliva RoanokeVirginia

Lower temperature and rerun

For:

• Shibbolethink

Against:

• Liz Read! Talk!
• Cryptic

Do not know:

• Sdrqaz
• Thryduulf