User talk:SSSB
 |
|
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. | |
Before posting a message here please consider if this is the correct venue. If you wish to discuss me (SSSB), my edits (read the second paragragh if you have an issue with an edit request I implemented) or you wish to bring my attention to a certain matter, this is the correct venue (there are other cases where this is the correct venue).
However, this is not the correct venue to make edit requests. These requests should be made on the talk page of the page which you would like to be edited, if you request an edit on a page in which I have an interest it will appear on my watchlist, I will see it. If you have a problem with an edit request I implemented, please consider if it might not be better to respond where the edit request was made (you may use {{ping}} or {{u}} to attract my attention). Thank you,
SSSB (talk)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2025
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
- The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Arbitration
- Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.
Miscellaneous
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!
The Signpost: 15 January 2025
[edit]- From the editors: Looking back, looking forward
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024
- In the media: Will you be targeted?
- Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last
- Opinion: Reflections one score hence
- Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next
- Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics
- Humour: How to make friends on Wikipedia
DEFAULTSORT conflict
[edit]This edit of yours introduced a DEFAULTSORT conflict with the banner shell's |listas=San Marino Grand Prix 2001. The article uses "San Marino Grand Prix" on two of its four categories, so I have no idea how to fix this. Paradoctor (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fixed it. There is no reason for the article to be using a listas parameter different to the article title. So I have changed this for all the San Marino Grand Prix where this is an issue (we don't do it for any other F1 race report, it is a pointless endevour SSSB (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion closures?
[edit]Hello - I'm curious and come in good faith. Could you explain to me how consensus and precedent work on Wikipedia? My understanding was that once the RB-Racing Bulls discussion was closed, it's done, but your and @Tvx1's statements today suggest that you're going to keep fighting until the bitter end. If so, I'd like to learn about two areas:
1) How much does a close stick? Do you have to specifically request an RfC closure review or can you simply open a new discussion on the same topic on the same talk page? If the latter, are there specific policies guiding when that should happen? Does it make a difference that a non-admin closed the RB discussion?
2) Are closes ever precedential? Or do we just have to repeat the same argument on every page until one side gets tired and gives up?
Thanks for your consideration. Namelessposter (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- A discussion is not a fight. Please see WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's not about winning or losing for us. The only thing we care about is to accurately representant facts. What the sources tell us always has precedence. A Wikipedia consensus can never allow to state things that contradict actual facts as supported by reliable sources. Such a close as this one typically sticks as long as no facts develop that make it untenable. That it wasn't closed by an administrator doesn't matter. Consensus can change, so a new discussion always can simply be started on the article's talk page. Closure review is generally only asked for it the closure does not accurately reflect the discussion's consensus. Tvx1 01:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Namelessposter: as you've posted on my talk page, it seems only fair that I respond, although I will be echoing a lot of what Tvx1 has said.
- I am not "fighting" anything "to the bitter end". If I were, I would have raised something at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and/or I would have challeneged the close (that's not too say that anyone doing these things is "fighting to the bitter end". There are plenty of legitimate reasons to use these processes, otherwise they wouldn't exist) and/or I might be doing something else. I was merely pointing out that I did not agree with the consensus that was estalished. And I was only pointing that out because it was directly relevant. It was not an attempt to argue for a reversal, nor reignite the debate.
- A close "sticks" until a new consensus is established (through discussion) or something happens that makes the original discussion obviously invalid. This would usually be because something has come to light that means the consensus established obviously violates one of wikipedia's other policies (WP:V or WP:NPOV, for example). Any uninvolved editor in good standing can close any discussion. I could go to any move discussion where I have not offered an opinion and close it, for example.
- Discussions could be seen as precedential if the outcome is obvious. Either because only one potential outcome follows WP:V or WP:NPOV etc. Or because it is a case of Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Or because a consensus was recently determined and nothing has changed (for example if I reopened the RB -> Racing Bulls discussion) which would be a specific type of Wikipedia:Snowball clause closure (it would obsured to think that the consensus would have changed in such a short time).
- But of course, consensus can change. In eight weeks time (when we are two races into the season) it may be obvious that RB and Racing Bulls are considered seperate organisations by the FIA, in which the consensus could be that RB and Racing Bulls should be covered in two seperate articles. We will probably know before then.
- Simply put, if I tried to argue consistently and continually against a fairly clear consensus I would not only be Wikipedia:Beating a dead horse, I would also be being very WP:DISRUPTIVE and asking for a block. But I wasn't doing that, I was merely re-expressing an opinion where it was directly relevant. And I think it is a perfectly valid opinion as we have no clear informaton either way.
- SSSB (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks to both you and @Tvx1 for your insightful comments. I appreciate your efforts to show me the ropes. This was quite helpful. I should note that "fighting to the bitter end" isn't a pejorative term to me, but I'm guessing it is on Wikipedia? If so, I'll try to be more judicious about using that phrase around here. (I specifically pinged you on talk because I didn't want to start unnecessary drama on the project page, and I certainly apologize if my statement caused any distress.) Namelessposter (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2025
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Technical news
- Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
- A '
Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.
Thank you for participating in the January 2025 GAN backlog drive
[edit]
|
The Minor Barnstar | |
| Your noteworthy contribution (3 points total) helped reduce the backlog by 185 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 7 February 2025
[edit]- Recent research: GPT-4 writes better edit summaries than human Wikipedians
- News and notes: Let's talk!
- Opinion: Fathoms Below, but over the moon
- Community view: 24th Wikipedia Day in New York City
- Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 has closed
- Traffic report: A wild drive