User:Davey2010/notes#Websites .26 Tools

{{col-break}}

CONTENT>

{{col-break}}

{{col-break}}

{{col-end}}

{{col-begin}}

{{col-2}}

CONTENT

{{col-2}}

CONTENT

{{col-end}}

{{div col|colwidth=30em}} {{div col end}}

{{Archive top

|result = REASON

|status = resolved}}

{{Archive bottom}}

[https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/ AFD stats]

[https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/summary.py Edit summary search]

[https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/summary.py?name=Davey2010&search=Closing+debate&max=500&server=enwiki&ns=Wikipedia NAC closes]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Frecentlyplayed.uk%2F&title=Special%3ALinkSearch WP External link/website search]

[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/rfastats.html RFA counter]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APendingChanges&namespace=&category=&size= Pending Changes ALL]

{{in lang|en}} → {{in lang|en}}

{{-}}

{{emoji|263A|theme=twitter}}

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Emoji] - Emoji at cmns

{{nobots}}

--

:::To help those who are still confused: revision deletion makes it so that only administrators can see the redacted data applied to, and the logs of who dev del'd what is viewable by anyone via the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete deletion log]. Oversight is exactly the same as revision deletion - the only difference is that they get an extra check-box that allows them to hide the data from admins as well. Only oversighters can see suppressed data and the logs are only viewable by oversighters via the oversight log. If the revision in question was an extreme case of libel, suppression is perfectly acceptable to apply and Courcelles made the right call. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Tool on Labs > [https://tools.wmflabs.org/apersonbot/recently-active/?admins https://tools.wmflabs.org/apersonbot/recently-active/?admins]

::{{reply to|Davey2010}} I appreciate your determination to come to a resolution on this, select a single image, and move on. However I cannot see anything in {{u|1292simon}}'s response that suggested ending up with more than one image or running multiple RFCs, and I believe he has rightly brought up a valid issue about consensus vs voting.

::Using this RFC as an example, say we receive five hypothetical responses A+B, A+C, A+D, A+E, and F+G. No hypothetical responder has indicated a preference for a single image as you desire, but a fairly clear (but not unanimous) consensus would have been established for A. Sometimes it will not always be clear cut, but it is the job of the closer to take neutral account of all contributions (and the quality of their arguments) when determining if a consensus position has been reached, not to simply count votes.

::Even as the RFC requester, you cannot constrain how others respond by saying you only want a straight vote, or discount their input because they have not responded in the way you would like. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

:::Sorry but I already have, I didn't set the RFC up so we can chose between 2/3/4 images - I did it so that we can pick the best image out of a few already selected above this RFC, I'm not prepared to wait half a year to get a consensus on something (RFCs remain open for 30 days). If the closer wants to completely ignore my RFC fine however the status quo will then apply and the current image will remain until such a time where someone wants to waste 3/4/5 months of their life coming back here with 4-5 RFCs. –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

::::Hi {{u|Davey2010}}, as I did not suggest an outcome of multiple images, taking a long time to arrive at a decision, or undertaking several RFC's I assume you believe that all of these things will be the outcome of a consensus approach and that it is for this reason you want everyone to follow a voting approach to decision making in this case.

::::While I certainly believe that you have good intentions in this, I am going to exit this conversation with a polite request to please consider that Wikipedia does have an explicit policy regarding decision making which is to seek consensus. Please give it a chance to work (you may be surprised) and please show respect to those who want to follow that process even when they are not complying with your own desired approach. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

:::::Hi, I see where you're coming from and I'm aware of NOTAVOTE however there really is no best way of doing this other than to essentially have a vote ...., Ofcourse people could've stuck with picking 2/3/4 images but I felt doing it that way would cause more confusion, People have still !voted with a detailed explanation so in that respect it's a consensus=approach but layout-wise yes it's a vote approach,

:::::I was under the assumption people would want to pick 2/3/4 images and then basically I'd have to return time and time again however reading your comment above I wouldn't of needed to come back (I don't think...) but anyway thanks for your comments here. –Davey2010^Talk 07:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/80.42.81.198

Special:Contributions/80.42.80.0/20

*Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:2C74:9800:0:0:0:0/64

:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2019#RfC_about_station_layouts_and_exits

Services and destinations -

:Removed services and destinations per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040#IP_rangeblock

1 threads at ANI