Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

IP SW Edit[edit]

I just shifted data to make it look more normal like other such profiles.

Concern regarding Draft:Mimetic Capital[edit]

Hello, Mhawk10. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mimetic Capital, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dubious?[edit]

Template:Dubious? has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Turkhackteam[edit]

Hi Mhawk10, I've edited the Draft:TurkHackTeam article with reliable sources, can you take a look again? ×Elvorix^talk 17:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2022[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

		The Closer's Barnstar
		For your more than thorough and accurate analysis of a complex and bloated RfC! Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Russian bounties wording[edit]

Why are you restoring this dead and dubious thread? Most editors simply ignored it because it relitigated something that had been recently decided. Please restore the archive and let it rest in peace. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a request at RFCLOSE for formal closure. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also I've already restored the archive to the talk for closure. What do you mean by please restore the archive? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mhawk10 -- Responding to your request for clarification above -- I mean please undo your reopening this dead thread and restore the thread in the archive and off the talk page as it was, dead and unclosed. Just because one over-aggressive editor is still trying to push a view that was clearly rejected on talk in multiple threads. Do you really want to go through all the talk archives to see the background that editor is trying to overturn with virtually no support compared to all the previous participation? Not every request for closure needs to be obeyed. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Greetings, Mhawk10. I don't understand what you did exactly with the RfC on Russian bounties wording. (Mind you, this is often due to my inability to understand something obvious. ) You responded with the word "Doing" to the relevant Request for Closure, which I take it to mean "I'm on it". But you closed down the discussion by repeating the word "Doing" and nothing else, not even "closed due to lack of consensus," for example. Could you please explain what was the purpose of your closing? It seems quite unclear as things stand. Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page watcher) Hi The Gnome! Template:doing indicates that Mhawk10 is in the midst of closing the discussion. Placing the template and locking the discussion ensures that other editors won't add comments and closers won't accidentally duplicate efforts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This was a "I meant to do that soon after I left {{doing}} on the page, got distracted, and just got to closing it now." My apologies for the inconvenience. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Firefangledfeathers and hawk10. Evidently, I caught the issue during the time between announcement and actual closing. So, we have a closing as no consensus, which, another two cents being dropped by me here, it'd be perhaps better to have it highlighted. À la prochaine, then. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The close a bit more complicated (no consensus on specific wording, but editors generally agree that the contextualization should include that Trump expressed some doubts about the Russian Bounty thingamajig). Making modifications to the existing article in order get to some wording can be achieved through ordinary editing/BRD. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Mhawk. If it's convenient, it might be helpful if you added the consensus you found in the RfC to the "consensus items" at Talk:Donald Trump as a reminder of the consensus for other editors. An item is usually added after the conclusion of an RfC. I would do it myself, it's just I've been involved in the dispute and don't want to push anyones buttons or misinterpret your analysis. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You are meatpuppeting the agenda of a non-consensus POV. Nothing changed in the aborted RfC that you chose to resuscitate and bring to a vacuous "close". From your close, it's not clear how much of the history of this issue you researched in the archives or how much you filtered out non-policy and non-source based !votes in the RfC. It died because most longtime well-informed editors of this article considered it pointless and repetitive. You chose to do the bidding of a single obstinate objection to that fact. The consensus list you've now amended twice is not for vague results like what you've added. Moreover, you violated the Discretionary Sanctions page restriction by reinstating your "consensus" without discussing it on the talk page and waiting 24 hours. Please undo your reinstatement of the consensus list entry I reverted and restore the status quo. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  With due respect, the discretionary sanction of the 24-hour BRD cycle has been placed on the article for Donald Trump, not the page that lists what the consensus are. Is there specific guidance that says that an RfC should only be placed on that page if there are quotes on exact wording? I can't find any such guidance.

  On top of that, no, a single obstinate objection by one editor is in no way reflective of an RfC that had that level of participation. And the close doesn't even find a consensus for Iamreallygoodatcheckers's preferred wording: there was no consensus on particular wording. The consensus in that discussion was that the context should include mention of Trump's doubts, but there was no consensus with respect the verbatim phrase—hence the big "it's complicated" at the top of it. I think my reading of the discussion is both fair and done in a manner that ascertained the consensus based on arguments made in that discussion viewed in the light of policies and guidelines. I am more than happy to expand the close to incorporate in more detail if you would like, but the notion that I am meatpuppeting is patently incorrect and a borderline personal attack. Please strike that accusation. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You are repeatedly following the instructions of an editor who is pushing a POV that died w/o meaningful support, then tried to reinstate exactly the words that got no support. You're free to come up with your own wording if "meatpuppet" offends you, but I find your actions and your violation of Arbcom DS are unacceptable. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is tje Discretionary Sanction you violated -- cut and paste from the Trump talk page:

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Donald Trump is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBAPDS). An administrator has applied the following restrictions to this article: 24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. These restrictions have been imposed pursuant to an arbitration decision which authorized discretionary sanctions for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial alert. Please edit carefully.

Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of discretionary sanctions in this topic area and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Discretionary sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

With respect to the discretionary sanction that you are accusing me of violating, I would ask you to reread the first sentence thereof. The scope is clear—the WP:BRD sanction applies to the article Donald Trump. This isn't a broad sanction applied to the topic of Donald Trump, nor a sanction applied to the talk page, nor a sanction applied to all templates that transclude onto the article, nor a sanction that applies to all templates that transclude onto the talk page. If you plan to take this to WP:AE, I cannot stop you, but it will be a waste of both our time.

You still have not taken back your accusation that I am engaging in meatpuppetry. There is a very specific meaning of this term at WP:MEAT: that a user is a like-minded editor to someone (in this case Iamreallygoodatcheckers) whose participation was specifically elicited to sway the outcome of the dispute in the requester's favor. Let me be clear—I have ascertained consensus on this independently by faithfully reading the discussion and summarizing it. Nobody asked me personally to close that discussion; like I do in many cases, I responded to a request on WP:RFCLOSE. If you believe that my close was erroneous, feel free to make a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE at WP:AN, but I (once again) think that this would be an incredible waste of time for everybody involved given that the close accurately reflects the discussion.

After I closed the RfC, the user reasonably reached out and asked me to list it on the page for current consensuses. If you want me to be frank, the reason I did not put it there shortly after I made the close was an oversight on my end—it should have been placed on that page regardless. If you don't think that the one-sentence summary of the close that I placed on the "current consensus" page is faithful to the closing summary of the RfC, I'm more than amenable to tweaking it, but it's a bit hard to do that when I'm not getting any constructive feedback on what you find to be the specific error in that summary. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @SPECIFICO: it's beyond ridicules to accuse Mhawk10 of meatpuppetting with me. You have no reason or evidence to believe that, and I can assure you it did not happen. He just saw my request for closure I added like weeks ago and did the work to close the RfC. This kind of behavior must stop SPECIFICO. You can not go around accusing editors of misconduct like this. The only person you are hurting by doing this is yourself. If you continue to do this I will open a WP:ANI about your conduct. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weighing in on "most editors appear to be in agreement". Seven editors voiced an opinion on the proposed sentence. Four supported it, three didn't, an eighth editor wanted the sentence removed entirely, and a ninth asked whether the matter hadn't been settled in the original RfC. Is four out of seven or possibly eight or nine "most"? (I'm not even sure whether "Support, it's a relatively minor issue and I don't think that more context is needed in this article" is pro or con.) GoodAtCheckers: the original RfC's closure said to keep the sentence but add context. The important part is the not discussing, the context is the why not. Your sentence turns that around. And what's the context? He/his adminstration gave at least two reasons: doubts about the intelligence, not briefed on the intelligence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Space4Time3Continuum2x: Again, there was no consensus with respect to the proposed sentence. The proposed alternatives Multiple proposals were put forward for specific wording, though none achieved a rough affirmative consensus. However, most editors appear to be in agreement that Trump's doubts regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity. Implementation of this general agreement can be implemented through editing along the lines of the bold-revert-discussion cycle, keeping in mind that this discussion did not achieve a consensus on a specific way to characterize these doubts (bold added). The sentence proposed by Iamreallygoodatcheckers, as well as the two proposals (both by you and by Valjean) include something regarding the doubts expressed by Trump. The point of the last sentence in the quoted portion above is to say that discussion is needed about how to characterize these doubts when the article is contextualizing the Russian bounty shebang. I don't think the text of the close endorses the view that there's some consensus that the doubts were the only relevant context needed; if it does, that was not my intent when writing it and I would be happy to make edits to make that more explicit. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would sure be nice if someone added a hatnote link to the issue at hand right at the top of this thread. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How much clearer can it be said to you. Mhawk10? Your close endorsed and codified Checkers' apparent view that Trump had genuine doubts, whereas the consensus of editors and the sourced references cited by SpaceX among others, indicate that such a conclusion is unverified and not NPOV. You need to take stock of all the feedback and do the right thing instead of following the wishes of the single editor who's been pushing this text over and over and over and over. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Vito Trause[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vito Trause you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 2A02:2788:6B4:326:7CD2:1039:CA0D:86F8 -- 2A02:2788:6B4:326:7CD2:1039:CA0D:86F8 (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]