Sergecross73

Serge's 35th iteration of his own personal WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Feel free to report anything you feel may need admin intervention. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Travis Hunter could use semiprotection. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 13:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Another admin beat me to it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

  Administrator changes

 

• Ahecht
• DoubleGrazing
• Dr vulpes
• FOARP
• Peaceray
• Queen of Hearts
• Rsjaffe
• SD0001
• SilverLocust
• Sohom Datta
• ThadeusOfNazereth
• Voorts

 

• Ajpolino
• Fathoms Below
• Pppery
• Tamzin
• Worm That Turned

 

• Aervanath
• Christopher Sundita
• Dank
• Dennis Brown
• Dragons flight
• Fastily
• Graham87
• JaGa
• Kbh3rd
• Marine 69-71
• Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
• Yamamoto Ichiro

  Interface administrator changes

 

• SD0001
• Sohom Datta

  Pppery

  CheckUser changes

 

• Spicy
• TheresNoTime

  Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

  Technical news

• Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

  Arbitration

• The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
• An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

The IP user with nonsensical edit summaries and a particular focus on media franchises is back. See here. Would you prefer if I just post these in your running vandalism discussions? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Blocked. Either works equally fine. Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Same to you!! Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

My apologies if the formatting on how to do this isn't correct, this is my very first time doing anything like this. I'm looking for an admin to chime in to inform editor (PerfectSoundWhatever) that they are engaging in WP:STONEWALLING on this topic and have repeatedly violated WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Specifically they continue to revert the disputed content prior to a consensus on its removal being reached and are now refusing to engage in any further discussion of the disputed content simply because they can't be bothered to engage with it. Their latest reversion comes after I followed the procedures laid out in WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" for how to handle consensus discussions that peter out. They also already reached out for a third opinion, but that editor was unable to articulate a valid argument for the content's removal and has yielded their position. So I'm reaching out to alert an admin to this editor's behavior and see if they can weigh in on the conversation due to what looks to be bad-faith on the part of this editor (who themselves may not hold a neutral point of view on this topic based on their replies thus far). Sxbbetyy (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks like this other editor simply doesn't agree with you. And per WP:NOCONSENSUS, changes aren't implemented when there isn't consensus. This looks like a pretty standard content dispute. I'd focus more on consensus building than trying to claim some sort of wrong-doing on their part. If it's really so important to pursue this, consider neutrally requesting a related WP:WIKIPROJECT come comment, or start up an WP:RFC. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand that they don't agree with me and that a consensus is required before a change is implemented, however if you examine the talk page there isn't yet a consensus that the content should be removed (which the editor in question has admitted). Instead they continue to remove the disputed content instead of tagging it as disputed while this consensus building process is ongoing (which is from my understanding, is not allowed per WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"). This is primarily why I am reaching out to an admin to chime in and restore the content as they either do not understand this or are purposefully doing so to remove the content without a consensus.

And as you can also see by the edit history on the article, they have previously removed the disputed content several times already while this discussion is ongoing (my previous attempts to restore the content were met with reverts, so I'm not going to risk them accusing me of edit warring). Furthermore, as you can see by their comments, they are disinterested in actually further discussing the topic and reaching a consensus, which combined with their decision to revert the disputed content prior to a consensus, is exactly the type of behavior described as WP:STONEWALLING.

Not to mention that their apparent concern with the disputed content is that they think it is a WP:SYNTHESIS violation rather than a disagreement on the content of the contribution, so I didn't think a WP:WIKIPROJECT or WP:RFC were appropriate. This also means an admin simply clearly stating to them that it is not a WP:SYNTHESIS violation would effectively end the discussion although I'm not requesting that of you at this time if you don't wish to actually join that convo (which would be completely understandable).

Thank you for taking the time to look into this by the way, I imagine having to deal with this kind of stuff could get exhausting. Sxbbetyy (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I sympathize, I know its frustrating to get into content disputes like this, but again, I'm not seeing misconduct here. I'm not taking sides or endorsing it, but PSW has presented, if nothing else, a plausible, good-faith interpretation of SYNTH. You may not agree, and that's fine, I'm not saying you have to, but I don't see it in bad-faith. Especially when there was a second editor on the article talk page who also seems to have SYNTH concerns.

Furthermore, WP:DRNC is an essay. That means its commonly held belief among some subset of editors, but not a hard policy/guideline. However, WP:NOCONSENSUS is very much so part of the WP:CONSENSUS policy. That's being upheld here. We have multiple editors who have good-faith concerns with the content, and there has never been a consensus for inclusion (that I'm aware of), so for now, it should not be implemented into the article. I see no problem with that.

One other thing to keep in mind - editors are required to engage in good faith, but they're not required to discuss it indefinitely. It's fine for them to make a policy-based argument, and eventually say "I don't agree, and I can't expand on that any further". This is why I recommended getting more editors involved. If they don't wish to discuss further, that's fine. But then they won't have any grounds to revert further if a new consensus builds after their participation ends. Essentially, you don't need PSW to agree with you if, hypothetically, 4 new editors jumped in and they all agreed with your stance. Conversely, if 4 more editors jumped in and they all sided with PSW, then it looks like you've got your answer there too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from WP Internet Culture and WP YouTube about 2 weeks ago. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for trying. Sadly, those WikiProjects don't seem all that active. I'm not sure if there's any other related ones that could be tried. There's a little bit of overlap with Mr. Beast and the video game world, and while WP:VG is one of the most active WikiProjects out there...I don't think many of their participants are very big on the Youtuber subject area, despite their strong ties to the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

My apology, but if I am understanding you right, you are effectively saying that any potential contribution to any page whatsoever can effectively be immediately removed pending a "consensus" on whether it should be included or not (thus bypassing the need for consensus at all since no matter what those who want the removal of the content can accomplish it immediately). One wouldn't even need to engage in a discussion on the topic in question, they just would need to ensure that more or an equal number of people also say "no" and that's that.

And from my understanding, WP:TALKDONTREVERT is a part of WP:CONSENSUS that clearly prohibits the WP:STONEWALLING behavior that PSW is engaging in (something which you seem to have avoided addressing). Not to mention that the very fact they outright deleted the disputed content instead of rewording it in a way they thought would be better is a massive red flag in itself. As I mentioned in the talk page, it just seems like they using this as a way to remove the content from the page rather than correct any perceived policy violation. That being the case, if you don't want to address this due to not wanting to get involved, please let me know and I will happily take this elsewhere. Even though you are an admin, I don't want to burden you with this if you don't want to engage in it since I know how frustrating it can be to have to put yourself in the middle of this type of situation.

But if you do want to engage with this, I would appreciate if you could shine a light on where they made a "plausible, good faith interpretation of SYNTH" as thus far their responses have either been them: repeating themselves, outright denying to engage in the consensus building process, and/or responses that show WP:NPOV concerns.

I also want to mention that the editor PSW got for a third opinion actually did not further support the SYNTH concern of PSW, he instead voiced a different concern with the reasoning for the disputed content even being present on the page. After providing an explanation and offering a rebuttal to their concerns they did not state any further issues with the content (I even pinged them and waited several days to ensure they weren't just inactive and they never responded, and still haven't). So at the moment (at least from my understanding), there isn't even a consensus on if the content should be removed. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm starting to lose my patience here, and I'm not even involved in this dispute. I'm very bothered to see you write that I haven't addressed your accusation of stonewalling. Either you're not reading STONEWALLING very closely, or you're not reading what I'm saying very closely.

Per its very definition: "Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good-faith discussion.

I very directly addressed both parts - his stance, whether you agree with it or not, is both rooted in policy and in good-faith. Again, I'm not saying he's right, merely that it's plausible.

The consensus-building process is a core-part of the Wikipedia process, and no, in disputes, we don't default to the inclusion of disputed content. We follow WP:BURDEN, and as you are the one who wishes to make the change, the onus is on you to get that consensus to move forward. And you've haven't yet, so it stays out. So yes, in that respect, in disputes, it can be more difficult for the person wishing to change something. Sergecross73 msg me 03:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

At this point I have read WP:STONEWALLING several times over and hope to never need to do so again. And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're still speaking to me in good faith and ignore the last part of that third sentence. (But please feel free to correct me if this is no longer the case. I'll leave, no need to waste our time and evidently your patience).

Regarding your second and third paragraphs, my very point is that his rationale is not substantive or rooted in policy and I very explicitly explain why on the talk page...if you're saying that it is then as I said earlier I would appreciate an explanation as to how since the wording given in said policies does not support this conclusion (at least as I understand it, if I'm wrong I would again appreciate an explanation). And if his point is not substantive, then even by your own logic given here he has no standing to dispute the content. And since he is refusing to engage in the consensus building process to even defend his rationale, I don't see a logical way anyone can claim that he does have one.

And as for your final paragraph, you now are mentioning WP:BURDEN...for some reason. Are you now saying that I haven't provided sufficient proof of something? Of what exactly? That's not even an issue that's at contention here, the entire point of the discussion is a supposed WP:SYNTHESIS concern initiated by PSW (and at the moment only disputed by PSW). Literally nobody in that entire dispute brought up a WP:BURDEN concern.

If you are not willing to involve yourself in this dispute, then I guess thank you for taking time out of your day, even if it wasn't super productive for all involved. Otherwise, thank you for taking the time to weigh in on this. Sxbbetyy (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's no misconduct here. You attempted to add content to an article. It was contested. And now you've simply failed to advance an argument that has garnered any support from anyone, and per WP:NOCONSENSUS, your content isn't implemented unless you do. I can't break it down any simpler for you. There's a common mantra on Wikipedia - focus on content, not editors. You'd do well to follow it. Focus on getting a consensus, not complaining about the person who disagrees with you. Sergecross73 msg me 12:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, if you are just going to again ignore addressing the points I made, the context of the talk article, and then accuse me of what you just did instead of offering a productive response I think we're done here.

Have a good day, thanks for your time. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand why you would go through the trouble of asking for input but be entirely closed off to actually listening to the advice given to you. If you're already certain of the situation, why ask me to weigh in? I think I'm starting to understand PSW's exhaustion in trying to discuss this with you, its starting to feel like you don't hear what people are trying to tell you. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith. Expected more from an admin, but I guess it is what it is. Sxbbetyy (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's is not the job of an Admin to relitigate another editor's stance you don't understand. It's my job to take a read on the situation and say "there's no misconduct here, just a fairly standard content dispute about sourcing and SYNTH application." And it's a shame, if you spent have as much time and effort on consensus-building as you did complaining about others and perceived misconduct, you could probably have this wrapped up by now.

I mean, let's put this in perspective. You, entirely of your accord, chose an admin with no connections to the subject, or either editor on either side of the dispute, and then proceed to accuse that admin of not acting in good-faith. What could my motivation for responding in bad-faith possibly be? It's just mid boggling, it makes no sense. Sergecross73 msg me 23:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, misrepresenting what I was even asking of you and still simultaneously not acknowledging any of the concerns brought up in my prior comments. From this point onwards I will not be responding any further to you on this talk page due to your replies devolving into unproductive "I must have the final word" justifications that are again just you repeating yourself or passive aggressive attempts at insulting me. I'll be the adult and just let you think what you want, you can say you won the conversation, I'm sure that matters a lot. Sxbbetyy (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your exact words were "So I'm reaching out to alert an admin to this editor's behavior and see if they can weigh in on the conversation due to what looks to be bad-faith on the part of this editor". I weighed in. I did not agree with your conclusion. So I didn't take any action, I just gave you some policy-based advice instead. You've hounded me in return.

As my lengthy talk page and archives show, I go to great lengths to help editors who ask for my help. I've volunteered hours, days, years to this website. My only stipulation is that people are respectful if I disagree with them. You've thoroughly failed that condition. Then you've bizarrely attempted to shame me for responding to comments left on my own talk page. If you don't want a response, stop commenting on other people's talk pages, especially ones you don't have an active dispute with. You don't need to announce your departure, simply leave. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply