[17:28:19] O/ DrStrauss [17:28:52] Howdy! [17:29:25] Wyd [17:30:24] Editing a bit whilst watching Wimbledon. [17:30:29] Rooting for Federer. [17:31:15] Any interesting drama on wp? [17:33:52] I try and stay away from the drama boards. Are you inactive? [17:34:34] ?? Ive been away due to a trip out of town [17:41:56] Ah I see. [19:45:00] Ugh [19:45:11] Can you explain to him why [19:45:34] Well, he explicitly told me to never speak to him or get close, so it's not something I think would help. [19:45:48] Ok [20:07:34] ST, I'm all for building bridges and I understand you have a proposal... [20:08:23] DrStrauss, I blocked you here because of how you've treated me recently and it doesn't make me trust you, especially when you've also not listened to DGG's good advice. [20:10:04] Which piece of advice in particular (DGG and I have spoken on multiple occasions)? [20:10:07] DrStrauss, to be honest, I had good expectations for you when you first joined, and you should know that when I said anything to you, it was for the good of the WP project. I could've well asked someone else to join in but I thought you would listen to it. [20:10:31] He told you to carefully examine Drafts and also to not decline on minor reasons such as copyediting, etc. [20:10:59] Ah yes, I've tried to heed that more recently. [20:11:20] For example, he knows some of the last Drafts you reviewed still were advertising. You can believe whatever you want about G11, but it's anyone's responsibility to at least pass and go onto an easier Draft then. [20:11:54] Anyone should know better that if questions were raised about understanding G11, continuing to do it is not any better. [20:12:19] Believe me, I've helped a lot of people like you and, unfortunately, nearly all of them resulted in either severe consequences later or similar. [20:13:04] You should know that even if I had not been the one to start that ANI, someone else would've and the concerns would've been the same. [20:13:36] Even now, I'd be willing to help you but it can't be done if you're automatically lashing out or taking it as "harassment". [20:14:39] As it is, I was especially wary of allowing you in here because I can't be sure what you've said to the people in -helpers about me, or whether I can trust you to be considerate about it. [20:16:43] Except in extreme cases, everything said on IRC by me and to me I consider to be confidential unless otherwise stated. [20:17:20] DrStrauss, take it from the people like you I've helped in the past, and what they say: "I do better in areas that either I can know for sure without mistakes or even easier tasks like AWB". [20:17:48] I would be more than willing to help you understand what can be speedy deleted as G11 instead, and I know other people have similarly learned. [20:18:14] You know that if there's anyone to show you how to work efficiently, it's me and also DGG, and that's why after all we're hard on spam. [20:20:18] As I understand it the issue is essentially a disagreement between us over the scope and application of G11. [20:20:44] Yes, and it's something that I assure you I wouldn't have ever mentioned, if it wasn't something important. [20:20:59] so we all good now? [20:21:44] No, not yet, I still can't be sure whether he agrees or not. I'd still like to explain this too. [20:21:56] Basically, there's a lot of people who mistakenly accept or support advertising and some are simply that unaware of how advertising affects us. [20:22:26] There's people who actually think that either press releases or republished ones are enough for GNG; but, because GNG is clear sources must be independent, it's not a strong argument to say otherwise. [20:22:39] Agreed. [20:22:48] Regardless of whatever my tone was, my concerns were still genuine and, regardless of whatever else, that's what mattered. [20:23:41] Now I'm willing to understand it's simply that you didn't think it through, but it would still help if you're more open to help when it's offered. [20:24:34] For example, at WP, it's quick for people to be misrepresented on reputation, and this also goes for the people who have supported advertising. To be honest, this is our main concern at WP now. [20:26:14] I understand that you may get frustrated at whatever happens, such as if the AfC authors constantly ask questions, it happens to us all. But that's also where, like with speedy tagging, it's not bad to at least leave it for someone else, or at least the relevant processes. [20:27:03] For example, perhaps you've seen, but I always put a detailed summary at reviewed Drafts and it's something I've not only done for a long time because it helps them, but I learned it was the best solution a long time ago. [20:27:35] You're welcome to copy whatever summaries I put there, if you think it would make you feel better about explaining to them. [20:28:38] As I recall, you actually did copy my review summaries in the beginning, and it's something that I took as at least a good sign. [20:29:21] I'm probably going to give longer comments, partially because of all the talk page messages I get. [20:29:23] I understand but there were clear, irreconcilable divisions between different people in the reviewer community over the scope and extent of G11 application. It seems that overall consensus on this particular issue of G11, advertising, and copyright violations in the draftspace agree with neither of us, hence the divisions. That was the reason I asked you not to put anything on my talk page again: because we both have different views [20:29:23] about G11, both of which are supported by different members of the community (and are therefore valid to some extent), there is no point posting every time you come across something I declined because we fundamentally disagree on the policy. That’s what I meant by my “drop the stick” comment. [20:31:43] Now, I know people have called me a deletionist and I actually do call myself that in regards to actually needing to delete. [20:31:57] So my request for you not to post on my talk page was out of mere utility. [20:33:09] Me too: most of my AfD votes are deletes. [20:33:43] Are you not willing to take on any genuine advice I have? [20:34:52] Believe whatever you want on what specifics of advertising, but the G11 CSD was clear and I can still help you understand what needs it and what could be salvageable. [20:36:44] DrStrauss, even if you want, DGG can relay some of this but it will essentially be the main message of G11 is indeed important and it needs to be applied in the serious cases. [20:37:11] DrStrauss basically i think st is saying accept that you may of made a mistake instead of making a comeback when your told you made a mistake [20:38:30] I don't think that DGG repeating what you've already said will achieve anything, no disrespect to either party intended. [20:38:52] Zppix, the issue is that I, and a number of other reviewers, don't think I did make a mistake in the first place. [20:39:54] DrStrauss i wasnt there i dont know for a fact what happened im just saying i think we should move on and put this behind us for now, if the issue comes up again let the proper people take care of it [20:40:01] So you're not acknowleding DGG still posted genuine concerns on your talk still related? That's all. [20:40:35] I'm not involving DGG in this at all. [20:40:40] Basically, believe me when I say that at this rate, not speedying or applying the necessary procedures, another problem later can't be guaranteed to not happen. [20:40:57] I mention him because he too gave genuine concerns and what you needed to do about it. [20:41:21] I think its just time to move on and put it behind us... if it happens again then we can worry about it sounds fair? [20:42:09] Unfortunately, it won't make me comfortable about having DS in here and I would still have to support whatever other people have concerns regarding onwiki. [20:42:28] For example, I don't oppose anything that DGG has said regarding it because it's in line on what I'm saying, [20:42:41] I just need to go AFK for a few moments, be right back. [20:42:53] For example, even my simple suggestion was if you don't take on what our policies about advertising say, there won't be any problems if you simply leave it for others. [20:43:03] I dont think him being here is that big of a deal as long as hes isnt causing issues in here.... if that does happen then it will be taken care of [20:43:43] Well, if he feels that strongly against me, then it's only fair to say we won't agree about anything in here. [20:44:06] Including if I'm offering that DGG relay any relevant advice instead. [20:44:51] let's just agree to disagree and move on, i think instead of worrying about the actual issue its just arguing over the issue thats the real issue [20:44:53] DS, for example, allow me to be candid and say that you saying you weren't going to fight (which I never said myself), and yet proceeding to make personally hostile comments at me repeatedly, that was a big mistake [20:45:26] I'm telling DS this because I'm being honest on what he should expect if these problems continually occur. [20:46:40] I have no hard feelings towards you at all. But it is clear that both from this conversation and previous ones, our take on policy is different and that doesn't look like it's going to change. Personally, I'm taking a break from AFC at the moment anyway to focus on NPP but unfortunately I'm afraid the situation re talk page communication must remain the same as before. [20:47:17] I'm trying to make you understand why your take on policy isn't what is going to prevent future problems. [20:47:50] Believe me when I've said people have been taken to ANI and AN over not fully handling advertising, and if someone sees this as a prime example, it can became worse. [20:48:25] Even now, there's currently a possible case where someone regarding this may be taken there soon as it is, given there's been disagreements between the proposer and the relevant user. [20:49:06] DS, even if you ask DGG personally yourself on wiki what he thinks about advertising (which he's openly stated before), he will not agree you about saving excessively promotional ones. [20:49:59] For example, moving on to NPP but refusing to use or handle our policies against promotionalism is only going to fuel any future problems if someone takes this to a relevant process. [20:50:05] But other reviewers would. And we've had our ANI discussion so there's no point in either of us taking the other back there. [20:50:30] For example, can you not agree that whatever choices other reviewers make about keeping advertising is not in line with our policies? [20:50:43] For example, GNG itself is used to vote keep, and yet that itself has never been a guaranteed policy factor. [20:51:01] Therefore, simply because something is commonly used, it's not a given it should always be used. [20:51:26] AfC is obviously going to have people with different philosophies, but the main message there is "Follow WP policies on articles". [20:52:01] For example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies#CONPOL which is linked in the first "guide on working at AfC". [20:52:02] [WIKIPEDIA] Wikipedia:List of policies#CONPOL | "All policies are listed at Category:Wikipedia policies. A list that also includes guidelines is at List of policies and guidelines. This page is broken into the following categories:Content, which defines the scope of the encyclopedia and the material that is suitable for itConduct, which describes..." [20:52:31] I am 100% in agreement with you when it comes to promotional material in the mainspace. But the whole point of the draftspace is to let substandard stuff be developed into passable content. [20:52:32] DrStrauss, basically you may think I'm WP:STICKING here, but it's you because I'm the one offering to help and offering to move past this. [20:52:48] Believe me when I say used to be more lenient about Draftspace. [20:53:05] But in the last year, we've had a ton more of paid editing and this includes Draftspace, therefore why I've been hard on removing it there too. [20:53:36] Because basically the paid editors are using that a breeding ground or nurturing ground to still add on paid editing, but to hide it from the main processes. [20:53:51] For example, we like to have at least a 3/4 chance of a Draft being improved. [20:54:03] If it's any worse than that, it shows it would indeed have to be fundamentally rewritten. [20:54:11] Which is exactly what our policies about this say. [20:54:41] I indeed have to say that whatever I'm saying, regardless if you disagree, it's because it genuinely is what our policies say, not my own personal aspect. [20:55:20] For example, DGG is aware that you simply citing "WP:PROMO, needs copyediting" is simply not sufficient because it's basically putting a bandaid on something bigger. [20:56:08] For example, you may think that Waggie and Chrissymad agree about allowing promotionalism in Draftspace, but you may not be aware they have abandoned the project as it is, and are openly stating they won't fight this anymore. [20:56:38] Believe me when I say that is not a good sign if you're then citing "Others allow it" if they themselves withdraw their stance about it. [20:57:12] I prefer not to talk about people when they're not in the channel, DGG, Waggie, Chrissymad or any other user. [20:57:19] DS, I understand you may not like what people do or say, but AfC is our main important area about articles, even bigger than NPP, because it allows us to teach the relevant authors what they need to know. [20:57:44] Fine, but I only mentioned them because you're stating about other people as examples to save promotionalism. [20:57:52] Fair enough. [20:58:05] DS, I still do want you to at least take on what I've said here. [20:58:38] I understand if you don't review at AfC anytime soon, and I assure you it will turn out for the better. But do please be careful about NPP too, specifically about potentially promotional things. [20:59:48] For example, if you haven't, DGG's userpage offers some excellent and convincing input on this: See his first section at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG [20:59:48] [WIKIPEDIA] User:DGG | "People matter more than article standardsReviewers need to have high standards. But it is not advisable for a reviewer to use their own high standard to make decisions about articles when the consensus is otherwise. True, the interpretation of "likely to pass AfD" in this context varies. Originally..." [21:00:12] That specific section is how to seriously interpret the GNG and when it should appropriately used. [21:00:39] I'll take a look at that. [21:01:25] But right now, I think that the best we're going to get out of this discussion is that we recognise each other have different philosophies when it comes to draftspace advertising but that when declining on advertising grounds more consideration should be given, whether it concludes with a "decline" or a "speedy" tag. [21:01:52] For example, would you like me to show you some examples of Drafts that should've been handled differently? [21:02:39] FWIW, there was a user I once helped like you and the philosophy was similar. What eventually happened to him was that he was blocked and removed from the project for continued misbehavior. [21:02:39] Sure, only a couple though because I've only got another half-hour before I have to go. [21:03:03] Do you consider me to be "misbehaving"? [21:03:30] For example, on Drafts, if the article is mainly consistent of a "Missions, Visions and Values" section and perhaps along with a "Services", that instantly meets speedy deletion. [21:04:29] And this is exactly what the Draft:Kloeckner Metal Corporation you reviewed was. [21:04:41] In fact, it even spoke about what the products look and work like. [21:05:28] If a Draft is that seriously overbloated, removing it would only be like removing one rotted piece from a terribly damaged wall. [21:05:43] An article that I declined was also AfD'd by DGG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Women%27s_National_Network_Australia). [21:05:43] KeyError: u'extract' (file "/data/project/zppixbot/envs/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sopel/modules/wikipedia.py", line 87, in mw_snippet) [21:06:05] Yes, and it's because he knew it needed AfD once it gets to mainspace. [21:06:13] ignore my bot its being rather weird [21:06:38] There's actually a page that talks about words to look out for in promotional pages. [21:06:46] Would you agree that the reason G11 exists is to fundamentally protect the integrity of Wikipedia and its reputation as a neutral source? [21:07:10] It is of course, and this extends to any part of WP, whether it's mainspace, Draftspace or userspace since they are content areas. [21:07:47] The page about words to watch for is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Words_that_may_introduce_bias [21:07:48] [WIKIPEDIA] Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Words that may introduce bias | "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint.The advice in this guideline is not..." [21:08:07] And this is exactly what I was finding in some of your Drafts. "visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, extraordinary", etc. [21:08:35] Basically as the WP pillars say, we do whatever is in the best interest of the encyclopedia and removing any trace of advertising, wherever it is, is part of that. [21:09:28] I've gone as far to actually work on convincing people who continually started paid editing in attempts to teach them better, and this is why I'm talking to you, to teach you how to better spot this. [21:09:30] That's where I take a different interpretation. Yes, "G" refers to general but the fact that the draftspace isn't indexed is because unsourced, non-neutral content will exist that needs to be refactored and need not be deleted. A user would only ever come across such a draft ''because they were looking for it'' so its presence in the draftspace poses no threat to the integrity of Wikipedia. [21:10:13] Yes, but it still can be if it's still a bypass of getting advertising in, regardless of whether or not it's with other mainspaced articles. [21:10:15] "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform" from G11. [21:10:36] As the policy pages have said, "pages" is explicitly included because it means anything on a page. [21:10:56] This is of course visibly different from A7 which can only apply to articles. [21:11:01] But the draftspace is a sandbox. It is something in which fundamental rewriting is supposed to take place. [21:11:23] Not when excessive though. [21:11:34] Sandbox is basically the place for a page that has hope of eventually being accepted. [21:11:51] Or even something that can inevitably be worked on and accepted. [21:12:11] See the first part of "G" in WP:CSD : "These apply to every type of page with exclusions listed for specific criteria, and so apply to articles, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc." [21:12:22] So even if the Draftspace is a user sandbox, G11 would still apply. [21:13:08] For example, it's happened before that an advertiser started an article at WP:Here's my company , so it's in Wikipedia-space, not Draftspace or mainspace, so because "G" is G11, it can supersede any limits. [21:13:13] Which of course A7 cannot. [21:13:53] For example, take G3 which likewise says "pages" meaning any page at all. Therefore, if there was a User Sandbox Draft with vandalism, it would fundamentally apply anywhere. [21:14:03] I do hope you're at least getting where I'm going. [21:14:15] Because everything I'm saying is literally based on the CSD criteria. [21:14:38] I see what you're getting at but the draft you linked wasn't that bad. I would G11 a draft that was just "visit our website [URL]" but anything with a whiff of meaningful content should be saved and declined. [21:14:42] For example, G5 is the same. It can apply to anything a banned user started, whether it's Draftspace, sandboxes, rediects, etc. [21:14:43] I do, don't worry. [21:14:47] I see. [21:15:10] Well, I hope you can at least move on from this perception that I must be out to get you, because it's not the case at all. [21:15:42] In fact, if you do want to learn from what I know and what I can teach, you can stay in here because I'm here every day. [21:16:15] Going back to "G", G10 is the same thing of course, it can apply to any page: User Draft, mainspace etc. [21:16:23] As is the case of course with G12. [21:17:21] If I seem firm on showing you differently, it's also only because I never got the opportunity to work with the people I used to work with, because they either were eventually banned or otherwise blocked from coming back. [21:17:55] This has been the case with a lot of people who taught others at WP, and each one has had an unsuccessful student. [21:18:41] I've always welcomed an opportunity to show someone different and for the better. [21:19:09] As I said, a lot of the reviewers agree with me, would you consider those people to be failed students? [21:19:30] Surely everyone with my philosophy would be that? [21:19:33] Well, given a few of those have either quit the project, they can't be called successful students. [21:19:48] Chrissymad, primefac, Waggie... [21:20:10] They've never nearly worked as extensive as I have, and all the logs show this. [21:20:41] In fact, I taught Chrissymad and attempted to show her how some of us other people work, but that's of course before she started to turn against me. [21:21:05] But they're not banned or blocked. You make it sound like somebody with my outlook is destined to go that way. [21:21:36] They're not, but because they've shown their hot temper at WP, they can't be guaranteed to eventually get there. [21:22:15] I'm not intending to say that you'll eventually end like that at all ; instead I tell you these things so you can know what they themselves refused to acknowledge. [21:22:52] For example, they've opposed the fact I nominated Draft:Chloe + Isabel for Miscellany for deletion, because it's only a Draft. But it's this exact Draft that has not only been repeatedly declined but speedy deleted too. [21:23:19] That's essentially why I'm hard on applying G11 on Drafts, because it will hopefully get the message to the AfC author that we will not make exceptions on any promotionalism. [21:24:11] Fortunately, in some cases, when a Draft is declined once, they may not actually resubmi at all, if they're knowledgeable enough. [21:24:37] But, we've literally had cases before where a Draft was clear advertising and yet it lived to be declined 10 times or so. [21:25:03] Therefore it not only used resources on that many reviews, but it could've been solved in one easy swift move in the first place. [21:25:39] For example, at WP, there's such a thing that people argue for and that's Marxism, basically "If the company does good work, that's significant for WP". But that's incorrect because Wikipedia is not a charity. [21:26:10] In fact this is something I've repeatedly used in my delete votes, with policies WP:Wikipedia is not advocacy and WP:Wikipedia is not a webhost. [21:27:23] It's not that we are against charitable groups (believe me, I'm actually one of the most generous people compared to people I've known at WP who were certainly not), but it's instead that we would eventually be swamped with "Accept my charitable company too if you accepted that other one!" [21:27:56] Not only does WP:IAR exist, at best, with removing Drafts with G11 but of course, that's exactly why WP:Wikipedia is not advocacy and WP:Not webhost would be used. [21:28:06] As I said earlier, I've got to go now, but when I start reviewing AfCs, if I am in any doubt, can I come here? [21:28:16] Yes. [21:28:35] I assure you I mean well with any advice I've given. [21:29:28] Thank you, I don't know if we will end up agreeing but the thing we can take away from this is that we're both willing to try. [21:29:39] And thanks Zppix for arranging this. [21:29:43] Yes. [21:30:06] I assure you that if you ever adopt my own philosophy of being hard on advertising, it will not be a mistake. [21:32:03] But until our ideologies align I must ask that we maintain the current talk page relationship out of mere utility and the prevention of neverending debates which could result in misunderstandings (and ANIs). Are you okay with that? [21:33:00] Yes. [21:33:15] Okay, thank you!