I see you are becoming active in closing AFDs. If a discussion just has a deletion nomination and one editor arguing for Deletion, our regular closers close these discussions as "Soft Deletions" per WP:NOQUORUM. This is due to the low participation in the discussion and this closure allows for restoration of the article at a later time should an editor wish to work on the article and improve it. This doesn't happen with a straight Deletion closure. Our biggest problem in AFDLand these days is low participation in most discussions and a Soft Deletion acknowledges that fact.
If you use XFDcloser, which I hope you do, you'll notice that you can check a box to make the deletion a Soft Delete. Please consider doing this in the future if you agree with the policy I linked to. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!23:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this article isn't eligible for Soft Deletion as it either was PROD'd in 2019. Soft Deletions are like PRODs, articles are only eligible for a Soft Deletion if a) they haven't been PROD'd or to AFD before and b) there are no Keep votes. It's important to review the article page history. So, I think this AFD will have to be closed as a straight Delete. I hope my earlier message wasn't confusing.
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikipediocracy-related conduct and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Just wanted to say that I agree with you after seeing your comment, I was focused on the words themselves and not the message itself. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I sometimes watch the request/case pages etc, and I have a comment. When you add to your original statement like this [1] without signing, it introduces some mild confusion, making it look like all of it was the original statement, and that is not how the other commentators are doing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
I was pleasantly surprised to see you slash through red tape and lift that ancient block, which was a refreshing change of pace after your stonewalling of a similar request some time ago; HOWEVER, I believe in doing so you might've overlooked a relevant bit of information.
It is, of course, entirely possible that the connection was made in error (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alexcas11/Archive doesn't even mention "RoyalRumble24" as far as I can tell), but I think we can both agree that this isn't something to just ignore. If you disagree, please make a statement to that effect for the record.
This is what I get for trying to AGF and look for a simple solution. I think I'm still inclined to just wait and see given the amount of time involved. The unblock doesn't really change anything as they apparently can't access that account, so if they don't immediately go back to creating hoaxes there's no issue, and if they do... banhammer. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today17:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the instigator of that thread I kind of feel the same way. +1 for them trying to be transparent though, when they could have just not mentioned all the extra socks. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that effectively allowing a banned LTA back on the site isn't a call that a single admin can make. By simply unblocking, we're setting the editor up for failure.
Think about it: the best case scenario is that the user becomes a productive contributor, at some point gets into a dispute with someone over something (which is quite literally unavoidable), that someone decides to use the fact that the user is still technically banned to get the upper hand, and all hell breaks loose (with you at the center of it probably).
Instead of leaving the siteban situation effectively unresolved, we should follow the normal procedure: start with a CU check on TheAmazingCoffeeMan (I'm sure @NinjaRobotPirate: wouldn't mind lending a hand) to make sure the banned LTA doesn't have twenty other accounts operating already (AGF but verify), ask them about those other accounts they didn't mention, and then have a proper AN discussion.
Personally, I too would support letting them return based on the length of time that has passed since their vandalizing rampage alone, but it's in everyone's best interest to do it the proper way. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Bishzilla is often herself tempted to refer to little 'shonen as "dummy". Sticks the little Just Step Sideways in her pocket. Approvingly:] Good little user! Stay! bishzillaROARR!!pocket09:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Hi, Just Step Sideways. I am thrilled to share that I successfully completed my NPP School Training and Assessment yesterday, guided by DreamRimmer’s mentorship. I wanted to share this update with you specifically, as it was your encouragement back in June 2024, when you granted me Autopatroller rights and suggested I pursue NPP, that led me to consider taking this step. I hope to see you around, and please don’t hesitate to reach out if you feel I am deviating from Wikipedia's editing guidelines or committing any sort of mistakes. Charlie (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
If you ever see any of my actions you find questionable don't hesitate to point them out. Civil queries about admin actions between admins should be completely normal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a portion of that DFO. I've seen some questionable blocks but not so questionable or so often that I felt a need to stick my nose in. A more open culture among admins, challenging the decisions without challenging the admins, would go a long way to fending off any unnecessary escalation. To those who have felt able to tactfully step in to situations such as this before they have blown up, more power to you. Cabayi (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have not received any response for 11 days on this page. Is this normal? How can this be explained, and what should I do? Kind regards JMGuyon (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello, Just Step Sideways. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
