Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) m →Getting a solution: link |
→Mentoring and removal of permissions needed: statement and proposal |
||
Line 421:
*:It's not specifically about druids, it's about dowsing, which is considered pseudoscience. Sources based on dowsing or making assumptions based on any other pseudoscience are not considered reliable sources. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 00:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
*:"I can get that article (or something very similar) from somewhere that is not a blog, and it is therefore a direct issue with the druids themselves" No, you can't, not from a reliable source like a peer reviewed journal. The source you are discussing with Doug Weller is totally different. Sources about someone measuring the male and female energy, then "measuring" where the stone is aligned to at a random date and time (precise to the minute though) and then deciding that the stone has realigned itself has nothing to do with science or logic (or reality even). That you are still defending that source and pretend that it could just as well come from a peer-reviewed journal just means that you are not fit to judge sources (and thus should stay away from anything that requires this, whether it is deletions, drafts, GA reviews, ...); that you claim that my rejection of that source is some form of religious or cultural discrimination is offensive. A crank site is a crank site, no matter the background of the author. I indeed said "That text would be unreliable pseudoscience no matter where it was published.", and I doubt you will find anyone here disagreeing with that but you. As for "There is, for example: nothing wrong with my articles"; apart from the sourcing and other issues that have been mentioned, I note that three of your 85 creations have been deleted. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 08:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
:::Statement by [[User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver|<span style="color:blue;">''Dysklyver''</span>]].
*When the request for autopatrolled user right was accepted on 16 November, [[Lesquite Quoit]] was the most recent article created by Dysklyver, and the druid reference was the most recent edit there by Dysklyver, on 13 November. DGG's talk page comment was three weeks before the patroller right was restored. It could be that the rights were granted by mistake, or it could be a difference of opinion on when these permissions should be granted, and I can't see any evidence that this has been discussed with the administrators. Recent AFD participation has not been problematic. Speedy deletion has been less accurate, but is often misunderstood even by experienced editors and that includes administrators - at least one page in the log was deleted when it didn't meet the criterion and at least one was mistakenly declined. [[User:Peter James|Peter James]] ([[User talk:Peter James|talk]]) 00:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)▼
:::Much of this is still directly related to the druids, astronomical observations can be measured to the millisecond with a simple telescope but given the tools used a margin of error of a minute is perfectly reasonable. You say: "''the stone is aligned to at a random date and time (precise to the minute though) and then deciding that the stone has realigned itself has nothing to do with science or logic''" yet fail to see that the stones alignment is a precise calculation you can repliacte with either ancient or modern methods, and the realignemnt has obvilusly caused by the stone falling over, which I am sure was mentioned, so your oversight is all the more irritating as a result.
:::Fram's comments have three main points.
:::1. Fram thinks dowsing rods and anyone using them are pseudoscience which itself is reasonable, but missing the point of everything I have said.
:::2. Fram thinks that star alignments themselves are pseudoscience and has convinced Doug Weller of this.
:::3. Fram thinks I am somehow accusing him of being offensive to people he has described as "unreliable pseudoscience", <s>"perverse and illogical"</s>, "crank" and "utterly wacky". Whilst degrading their entire culture and history with every comment and implication.
:::There is no way this is anything other that religious and cultural discrimination, Fram needs to get a grip on the issue, that source is easily discredited (as it is a blog - duh), if he had simply said that at any point I ''would have agreed with him'', but he didn't. Instead Fram chose to go down a different route of attacking me, and attacking my cultural background, there was no need to go wholesale down the road of insulting my cultural roots as you have done, or your rather counterproductive route of expanding the issue to being beyond that of the source itself, to cover the issue of the subject, and the Druids themselves. After Doug Weller noticed your highly public debate with me on ArbCom, he read what you wrote, and then actually claimed a double blind peer reviewed article published in a reliable journal by a known expert with multiple citations was "unusable", If any proof of the effectiveness of your argument is needed.
:::I claim that you are aware of my nationalist tendencies related to Cornwall, and could see from my record that I am in the habit of supporting minority positions, and have deliberately argued this issue to reinforce your otherwise reasonable concerns with my 60% success rate at deletion in order to restrict my editing in areas otherwise unconnected to deletion.
:::The articles I created, which were subsequently deleted, were detailed to the person who granted me autopatrolled, who actually made comments on a possible improvement to the [[lesquite Quiot]] article related to making a new navbar for scheduled monuments, this was a comprehensive review of of my article creation, which I maintain is very good.
:::I don't doubt that it would be sensible if I stopped making deletion requests I should also stop NPR reviewing, and given that my 60% success rate and multiple errors on the criteria for deletion, it does not seem unreasonable to indefinitely topic ban from making deletion requests. However it is manifestly unfair, and a clever manipulation, to imply that my failings in the area of deletion policy extend to my articles, the only one of which was deleted for notability (out of 85) was a request that had major COI issues.
::: The timing of this is undoubtedly connected to my ArbCom candidacy rather than any perceived issue which would otherwise be of significance, the issue with AfD was resolved some time ago and me standing up in a public forum has got Fram flogging the dead horse, although I don't doubt it has had the desired effect, there is not much I can do about that now.
::: so taking all of this into account, and as I am considerate enough to make things easier for you people by stating what I would reasonably accept without arguing to much. I therefore propose the following:
{{divbox|1=amber|2=Sanctions|3=
These bans to apply to [[User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver]] and all his alternative accounts. Any conclusive evidence that Dysklyver has attempted to circumvent these bans will be grounds for an indefinite site block.
* '''Indefinite topic-ban from nominating articles for deletion by PROD, AFD, CSD and Twinkle Notability tags.'''
:For the avoidance of doubt:
:This ban will not prohibit Dysklyver from requesting deletion of his own articles,
:This ban will not apply to MfD, TfD or nominating pages outside the article-space for deletion, including but not limited to templates and project-space pages, except where otherwise prohibited by the terms of this ban.
:This ban will include a prohibition of removal of CSD and PROD tags on articles not connected to the United Kingdom (broadly construed in his favor).
:This ban does not prohibit Dysklyver from adding {{tl|hang on}} tags and commenting against CSD tags not related to the United Kingdom.
:This ban will include a prohibition of deletion of article redirects expect for valid maintenance reasons (narrowly construed).
:This ban will include a prohibition of deletion of user-space pages, except for, his own user-pages, and clear-cut attack pages.
:This ban will include a prohibition of using Notability tags includes {{tl|notability}} and related subject specific versions, or any tag which has the sole purpose to duplicate these tags, whether or not applied using Twinkle. For the avoidance of doubt, Dysklyver may remove these tags from any article at will, subject to normal editing conventions.
:This ban does not prohibit Dysklyver from !voting or commenting at AfD.
:This ban will include a prohibition of making non-admin closures at AfD, and all related forums described as XfD, including MfD, this includes relisting discussions.
:This ban can be appealed after 6 months.
* '''Voluntary promise to not conducting GA reviews'''
:This ban will not prohibit Dysklyver from making a GA nomination, and will not prohibit him commenting on, or working on an article in a GA review
:This will be lifted at the point Dysklyver has successfully brought an article to GA standard, the review of which must be then authenticated by at least two GA reviewers with long term GA history’s.
* '''Removal of New Page Patroller user-right'''
:Which may be requested again provided that Dysklyver successfully appealed his deletion related topic-ban.
:For the avoidance of doubt, Dysklyver is banned from approving AfC drafts
* '''Review of autopatrolled status'''
:[[User:Schwede66]] and [[User:TonyBallioni]] should decide if it is the interests of the NPR team whether Dysklyver should be autopatrolled, the decision on removal of this userright is left to their discretion and may be removed or reinstated at any point without prejudice. Dysklyver is not restricted from asking for its reinstatement and any reasonable point if it is removed.
|radius=1px}}
* '''What this will not affect'''
: Dysklyver will retain all other editing privileges not mentioned here. Including but not limited to Extendedconfirmed status, permission to create articles directly to mainspace.
: Dysklyver will not be ''obligated'' to withdraw from the ArbCom election.
* [[User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver|<span style="color:blue;">''Dysklyver''</span>]] 14:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
▲* When the request for autopatrolled user right was accepted on 16 November, [[Lesquite Quoit]] was the most recent article created by Dysklyver, and the druid reference was the most recent edit there by Dysklyver, on 13 November. DGG's talk page comment was three weeks before the patroller right was restored. It could be that the rights were granted by mistake, or it could be a difference of opinion on when these permissions should be granted, and I can't see any evidence that this has been discussed with the administrators. Recent AFD participation has not been problematic. Speedy deletion has been less accurate, but is often misunderstood even by experienced editors and that includes administrators - at least one page in the log was deleted when it didn't meet the criterion and at least one was mistakenly declined. [[User:Peter James|Peter James]] ([[User talk:Peter James|talk]]) 00:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
===Getting a solution===
| |||