Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/CASSIOPEIA

Neutral tally

Does anyone know why the bots have set the neutral tally to 1, even though there are no neutrals? It looked like it was triggered by the addition of an entry in the "General comments" section. @Cyberpower678: FYI.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a longstanding known issue, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cullen328#Glitch in the automated tally?. Unfortunately, I would say this is in the "won't fix" bin—last I checked, we were waiting on a total rewrite of the RfA tally bot. A workaround fix is to remove the hash symbol in the "Neutral" section, leaving the section totally blank. Mz7 (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

TonyBallioni's oppose

1. I'm concerned with the Korapaak accept. It was created by the film company (see name of the article) and was obviously not ready for mainspace when accepted at AfC. There's also this publication of a draft deleted previously as promotion by a sock, which was also created by said sockfarm. The account who created this was an obvious SPA. These are both recent examples of an RfA candidate moving content that was intended to be promotional and they had reason to know was intended to be promotional into mainspace without checking context or log entries.
   The issue isn't only with acceptances of spam content, however, they're also dratifying, and then declining, content that is obviously notable. Draft:2020 Tarleton State Texans football team is an example of this: as this appears to be the first year the team is in NCAA division I sports, the article at the time linked to their website, and all it would take to source it would be to click on the link. What's worse, they declined a draft they had previously draftified themselves even after the writer of the article had provided the citation to verify the content.
   A quick look through their move log shows a bunch of moves of easily sourceable lists about years that would have grown in mainspace, but are now stuck in draftspace, probably to be ignored or just have their article creator create them anew. Draft:List of South Korean films of 2020 is probably the most glarring of these, as it's an obviously notable topic that the article creator was building that was properly formatted, and where no additional work was needed to prove the topic was notable. I don't have the time to go through the rest of the draftifications one-by-one, but just a click scan doesn't look promising.
   Sorry, but I don't trust CASSIOPEIA to be an administrator, especially with a focus on NPP and AfC. They welcome stuff that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and turn down stuff that obviously should be in the project. If the area they want to focus in is NPP/AfC, these are major issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   I don't intend to vote but this is from a month ago (and Tony's criteria is "not a jerk, has a clue" for the uninitiated). Does give me pause. --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but I disagree with your analysis pretty firmly. As someone who works at AfC mostly in a sports capacity there's absolutely no way I would accept Draft:2020 Tarleton State Texans football team to mainspace. It's only sourced to a primary reference and is not notable "on its face," and even if it were say for Louisiana State I'd still probably comment instead of declining and require another reference before getting it into mainspace. Korapaak obviously had issues, but even with the COI wasn't among the worst promotional articles I've seen, and it also had enough sources demonstrating its notability. Draft:List of South Korean films of 2020 was sourced only to IMDB when it was moved to draftspace, which is about as good as being unsourced given our IMDB guidelines. If we're lowering the bar this low for accepting new articles, with all due respect I might as well hand in my NPP and AfC privileges now. SportingFlyer T·C 01:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

   The purpose of draft space is not for an article to be perfect. The point is for it to establish notability. A D1 NCAA football season is prima facia evidence of notability, and sending it to draft space when all that you really need is something verifying the schedule, of which a primary source is certainly reliable in context, is a bad move because it’s much less likely to actually be developed there.

   As for the South Korea one: yes, the sourcing sucked. That’s not the problem. The problem is that it 100% is a list that should exist and the only way it’s going to grow is by having it in main space where people will see it and will actually improve it. Instead, we got what amounts to a slow PROD of a clearly notable list. The solution here has always been to improve the articles or let them be improved. Tag them with tags if need be. Not to give them 6 months to deletion after a bunch of declines. These were not harmful articles that required being put into draft. These were articles on notable topics that needed to be developed, most likely by fans. Fans aren’t going to find a draft. They’ll find the main space article. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

   As someone who is active in the Season article realm, I note that the argument that Cassiopeia was woefully negligent for not promoting an unsourced article on a future season for Tarleton State is simply baseless. Only two season article have ever been created for Tarleton State, which is a second-tier football program in the Division I "FCS" (not "FBS") division. While it might ultimately get approved, I see no negligence (let alone gross negligence) in the failure to promote. Cbl62 (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

   It’s not that it wasn’t promoted. It was sent to draft space once already in mainspace and then they self-reviewed. Of course there haven’t been many previous articles, because it’s newly Division I. The problem is that by needlessly consigning it to draft space it prevented it getting attention from the people who actually know about the topic, which is the issue here. There’s a difference between declining something that you’re unsure of and taking something that’s already in mainspace and then de facto reviewing your own actions by declining to move it back. The larger point is that it’s part of a trend of needless draftifications if harmless articles that are at least probably notable. That stunts growth in pop culture areas where the only real way it’s going to ever be developed is by people seeing it in mainspace. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

   There's no rule that I'm aware of which prohibits someone from declining a draft space article at AfC that they themselves moved to draft space. Furthermore, the decline was a proper. Per WP:NSEASONS, that article is not prima facie notable and needs to pass WP:GNG. We also have WP:NOTSTATS concerns with season articles that don't contain prose, especially for a season which would need to establish WP:GNG like Tarleton State. Per the Korean movies list, it's not improper to move an undersourced article to draft space for improvement. It happens a lot at NPP and while I'm not sure I would have moved that one had I came across it, I understand why it happened and I don't think it's an issue. Finally, the Korapaak article wasn't prima facie promotional and a quick look shows the sources may have been okay. Per the instructions at AfC, specifically the flow chart, you would not have known the user's name until the "Accept" button had been clicked unless you checked the article's history, which is not a requirement. The proper move and possibly only "miss" at that point would have been to tag the article as a COI. Almost everything I see here has been done within procedure, which is what I want from an admin. I understand you disagree with the procedure and I don't expect to change your mind, but you're effectively opposing an RfA candidate for working within the rules (i.e., "having a clue") because you don't like the current rules. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

   These are examples of the disagreements that there will always be about specific articles-- there are examples of similar disagreements about thousands of drafts and new articles. AfC is a matter of predicting what AfD will do, and AfD is so erratic that no matter how correctly the reviewing is done, it will not always predict what happens. The reviewer at NPP or AfC is guessing as a single person, what an unknown group of participants at a later discussion may correctly or incorrectly decide. Most of us at AfC try to be quite conservative and not accept unless the article is thoroughly sound, if only to avoid embarrassment when an article we accept end up being rejected--and it the process we rather frequently reject articles that would in fact probably pass. This is not an area of work where the best possible judgment will always predict what turns out to happen. What we should expect of a reviewer is that they do not try to inflict their own conceptions of whatWP ought to accept, but at least try to apply in an objective fashion the current practice. I see no evidence that the candidate does not do this fairly. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

edit request

prepend {{pp-protected}}. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 20:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)