User talk:Retro/2019

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, Retro. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Also worthwhile acquainting yourself with the functions of global user pages. Happy editing!

Question

Why are you playing in old Meta rights pages? Is it truly necessary?  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I'm unsure why you call this "playing". I systematically added {{Closed request top}} and {{Closed request bottom}} to all the requests pages that were missing them. We use these templates to discourage editors from voting on old requests after they're closed and to discourage candidates from reopening failed requests at the same page. All I've done is consistently applied this.

The only potential issue I can see with my actions is that it would have been better to request a temporary bot flag before doing so, but I did not realize the extensiveness of the task before I started. E to the Pi times i (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Also, unless you think all my recent edits are harmful (they're all relatively similar), could you undo your revert to my edit?

If you do believe my recent edits were harmful, then you should seek wider consensus to get them all reversed.

I will note I do not believe they were harmful, and in fact view them as beneficial. E to the Pi times i (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It is completely unnecessary to go and add these templates to really old requests. There is no evidence of additions to these old pages, and they should just be left alone. That a more recent practice came into place that some added the encapsulation template(s) is something that is peculiar to a time and place, not a requirement to be retrospectively applied. Such pages should just be left. Old pages that are of archival status should just be left. PS. As an administrator here for many years, please don't throw at me that I should get a consensus to get them reversed, nor try and tell me the culture of this place. Truly?  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I agree with Billinghurst, adding the template doesn't make much sense, though I am sure it was well-intentioned. I actually don't understand why people add this template to newer requests which have a subpage at all, as a closed request can already be easily recognized by some kind of closing {{done}} on it. --MF-W 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@MF-W: My aim is specifically for the uninitiated, those who haven't really looked at that many (or any) requests. But I actually don't care that much about the "request closed" templates as I do about having them much as a convenient mechanism to add the appropriate categories. I will note I have made them entirely consistent aside from the one currently reverted.

Billinghurst said above That a more recent practice came into place that some added the encapsulation template(s) is something that is peculiar to a time and place, not a requirement to be retrospectively applied. It is true the template is not required, but from looking at many different requests pages I think this statement is largely factually mistaken: the closed request templates aren't peculiar to a time and place, but have always been used in one form or another, and thus any pages not using them are inconsistencies, not different paradigms. I am currently trying to collect objective data to support this (hopefully I will be back later with this data).

Regarding my request to undo the revert, my point was that I made ~30-40 such edits (edit: 31 edits to 23 different pages) similar to the one billinghurst reverted, and if that one is deemed worth reverting, then they all are worth reverting. Of course, it was a bit early to bring up that point since that's kind of the whole basis of this discussion; any necessary reverts (or undoing of reverts) can be done after this discussion has been resolved.

But finally, even if the edits were minimally helpful, they weren't harmful. I think it's counterproductive to revert them all; while the task may seem like it was not worth the time or number of edits it took to do, it is now done; there are no compelling reasons to do even more edits in the name of discouraging edits that are only somewhat beneficial. E to the Pi times i (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst and MF-W: Alright, here's what the statistics, as promised:

Requests for permission by year (source)

Creation year	Closed template		Categorized by me
	Added by others	Added by me
2007	12	0	0
2008	165	0	0
2009	32	0	0
2010	49	0	0
2011	61	0	0
2012	45	3	2
2013	52	1	0
2014	55	4	1
2015	42	1	0
2016	42	1	2
2017	34	0	2
2018	35	7	7
2019	16	1	0

Requests for permission by page prefix (source)

Request page prefix	Closed template		Categorized by me
	Added by others	Added by me
Requests_for_CentralNotice_adminship	40	2	1
Requests_for_adminship	356	0	2
Requests_for_bot_status	64	4	1
Requests_for_bureaucratship	30	0	0
Requests_for_checkuser	20	0	0
Requests_for_interface_adminship	4	4	4
Requests_for_oversight	14	0	0
Requests_for_temporary_adminship	8	0	0
Requests_for_translation_adminship	104	8	6

In general, my edits don't make up any significant portion of closed template additions, even going by individual years or page prefixes. The only exception to this is requests for interface adminship, where I categorized and added a closed request template to 50% of the pages. However, iadmins are something of an outlier, being added in the last year and having only 8 total requests; every other type of request has at least twice the number of the requests.

All of the edits in the above tables happen to be after 2011. I did make one edit for a pre-2012 page that fixed a closed request template (not included in the above table because it didn't add a closed requests templates or add a category).

If you have any questions about my methodology or questions in general, feel free to ask them. E to the Pi times i (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You are not listening. I couldn't give two hoots about statistics, your percentage or when. These are closed administration discussion pages (CLOSED) that are effectively archived, and have no valued reason (that is NO reason) to be edited. The basic advice is to just leave archived/closed pages alone. *If* you think that something may need doing, then ask.

Now also, you are talking to two experienced editors, and experienced local administrators, not just here, but elsewhere, who have been around the traps. You seem to be telling us that our opinions are not relevant, and that you should be able to do as you please, and "just because". Does our experience and knowledge count for nothing and is just dismissible? How does that look?  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I heard exactly what you said. Unfortunately it seems like I've landed myself into a  Support fait accompli here. But I just don't see the point of reverting what's now been done.

I will also note a good portion of my edits were category additions, which have been done by others, even long after the fact.

And can you please stop pulling the authority card? I understand you are an administrator, and I am considering your opinion in light of your experience, but that doesn't mean it just shuts down the discussion. E to the Pi times i (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: Fix ping. E to the Pi times i (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)