User talk:Scarpy/Archive 13

Speedy deletion nomination of Moderation Management


A tag has been placed on Moderation Management, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the.  DGG ( talk ) 09:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Am discussing this here if you'd like to chime in there. I re-read the article and none of it strikes me as unambiguous advertising or promotion. - Scarpy (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 3/4 of the articles consist sof the rules for participation. Suc material is of interest only to present or prospective members, not the general reader. The entire article, furthermore, is slated to wards advocating this approachinsteadof that of AA,even tho it does ot say so explicitly.If you want to try again, use Draft space.  DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is not an argument for "unambigious promotion" it's an argument for why parts of it may or many not be interesting to a general reader. when you say "slated to wards advocating this approachinsteadof that of AA,even tho it does ot say so explicitly." Yes, if it was explicitly doing that, that would be unambigious promotion, and you would have a point. But it wasn't (not even implicitly). You misused g11 speedy deletion here. - Scarpy (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Promotionalism is a very broad concept, including all forms of advocacy. I have been giving that as one of the definitions of promotionalism/advocacy for some time now. I consider the entire intent of such writing promotional, and I think it's the general view, not my idiosyncratic position. Of course, I may be wrong in judging this particular instance.  The best way for you to proceed, the way that would be most likely to result in an article, would be to try a more appropriate version in Draft space. Someone else will judge it, and if they think it adequate and accept it, I  or anyone can then decide if we want to send it to afd , where the community will judge. (The alternate way is to take it to Deletion Review, but the likely conclusion of such a review would just be to try again in draft space.)


 * In any case, I remind you that I just nominated the article for deletion. is the admin who deleted it. it is he whom you would have to ask to restore it, not me. I never delete an article by G11 just by myself. Either someone else nominates it and I judge, or I nominate and someone else judges.    DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote a long response here, and deleted it. I'll only say, I can't reconcile your behavior in the last 24 hours and the person that wrote How I work. Mark Twain once said, "Give a man a reputation as an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon." I hope that's not what's going on here. - Scarpy (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

To bring in a third viewpoint, I support the deletion of Moderation Management (MM). While it was not 100% correctly done, I do not miss the article. I do not think MM meets the notability guidelines for an organization; it has always been a small organization, and more noted for its failures (attacking people who reported the murder of a five-year-old girl; having its founder kill two people in a drunk driving accident) than its successes (which, as per a 2001 paper, are dubious: Most members drank 4+ times a week and over half had 5+ drinks per drinking day, which is not moderate drinking by any reasonable stretch of the imagination) Defendingaa (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally agree that Moderation Management is garbage and has almost certainly done more harm than good. But it's a "museum of mistakes" (to borrow a phrase from Daniel Dennett), meaning that I see the value of having it in Wikipedia and in the context of the addiction and recovery project more in that capacity. - Scarpy (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * At the time the article was deleted, it was endorsing MM. Indeed, until recently, the article did not even mention the slight technical detail that Audrey Kishline was drunk when she had that accident which killed two innocent people. Defendingaa (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe previous versions of it did. I'm also not certain how one would quantify if it was "endorsing" MM, but any "endorsement" language could have been altered without deleting the article. If User:DGG had instead, say, pointed that out on the talk page he thought that, we would be having a different conversation right now. I'll point out that DGG himself advocates doing this On a page totally new to me, I'll ask before I edit to any radical extent--if nobody responds, then I will go ahead. I generally wait a week. If the editors there do not like what I do, I sometimes go elsewhere. - Scarpy (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (striking that last bit, it was unfair). - Scarpy (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I always appreciate your perspective. It may have been that I lost track of that article and had I paid more attention I could have helped make it more useful, but I only have so much time in a day that I can/should devote to Wikipedia. I don't believe a G11 was the correct way to handle this. Even though I personally disapprove of MM, in my opinion what would be worse if for other organizations to repeat the same failures MM made. I believe that's only more likely now as there's less encyclopedic content on it. I also believe it met WP:ORG as to many other smaller organizations that have articles (e.g. GA, DA, etc). You're free to disagree, but not leaving a hint of what to avoid, we're setting future groups up for failure. - Scarpy (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking at it again, you are probably right, and I was too hasty. It's the side effect of working primarily with promotional articles, that one tends to see everything in the same light. (that detailed description of techniques is in fact often a promotional technique that I've seen in lots of pseudo-medicine advocacy, tho apparently not so intended here.)  the more work one does here, the easier it is to fall away from good intentions--especially when those good intentions were written 12 years ago, when I was new here and feeling excited and optimistic that I could reform the place by example. And It's true that my priorities have changed. Before WP, I did not have a reputation as a particularly calm person, but entirely the opposite. My WP self is very much a deliberate construction. As I grow older, I may be in danger of reverting to my real self, so I appreciate when people let me know about it. ,   Since restoring thearticle would mean asking the deleting admin, I'm going to myself restore a modified version to draft space. See Draft:Moderation Management.   DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I do truly appreciate it. I can empathize with the position you're in. You've probably seen that User:RHaworth did the restore and AfD nomination. - Scarpy (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that the article has been restored, I think DGG makes an excellent point here when they state that “that detailed description of techniques is in fact often a promotional technique that I've seen in lots of pseudo-medicine advocacy”; that in mind, if we keep the Moderation Management (MM) article, let’s not waste the reader describing its ineffective technique/process. That in mind, I have wiped out a good portion of this article.  MM is notable for 1) Its founder killing two people in a drunk driving accident 2) Having one of its members confess to killing his five-year-old daughter.  It is not notable for getting alcoholics to control their drinking again; the one scientific survey done on that matter showed that its members were still drinking heavily. Defendingaa (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings about it. If anything something like trepanation seems less likely to work the more you know about it, which is basically how I felt about MM. But I do see your point, the bullet point list may have been a bit too "glossy" from that perspective, but a summary is still valid. - Scarpy (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I hate to do it, but I do have to take exception with these two diffs. and . The criticism of MM is still valid, but that's a lot of cited material where it was covered in peer-reviewed literature. - Scarpy (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * We will have to make it clear, in any section about its techniques, that these techniques do not work. Unfortunately, MM does not have enough notability for it to have a significant number of papers written about its efficacy; what little has been written shows that it appears to not work, but we can’t make a strong conclusion about that without some level of interpreting the science ourselves, which I prefer not to do here.  I think DGG had the right idea to just delete the entire article, and we need to make it clear that the MM techniques do not work if restoring that content.  Defendingaa (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Let’s take the discussion about how much we describe MM’s technique to Talk:Moderation Management Defendingaa (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Now see Articles for deletion/Moderation Management, brought by RHaworth. I've commented there to the effect that moving a draft to mainspace only to try to delete it by AfD is an illegitimate use of process, and an contradiction to the purpose of Draft space. I aplogize to everyone concerned for starting this chaotic assemblage of WP processes.  DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019
 News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * From the editors: Getting serious about humor
 * News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
 * In the media: Women's history month
 * Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
 * Featured content: Out of this world
 * Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
 * Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
 * Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
 * News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
 * Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
 * From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
 * Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
 * Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?
 * In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
 * Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
 * Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

The Signpost: 30 April 2019
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Trail River (47686371672).jpg misidentified
I believe this image is mis-identified. Trail river is also known as Trail creek for a reason, it's a very short, very fast river. It has no broad areas like the one depicted in this image, which is actually Kenai Lake according to the coordinates provided for the camera location. I hope to to get over that way this summer myself, if I do I'll be sure get an image that is actually of Trail Creek. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * was worried about that. Have another photo from nearer to the highway posting for the creek. - Scarpy (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since it appears you are over there right now, we could really use more images of the Alaska Sea Life Center. It's a great way to spend an hour or two and our current selection of images is ...not great... none of the dive tanks or touch tanks are pictured, and they are kind of the main draw. It costs a few bucks to get in but it's worth it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As it happens I was there yesterday, and it was fantastic! Got to meet an octopus and everything. I didn't take photos or videos for Wikipedia specifically, but I did take several of them. I'd be happy to upload them the good ones to be used as desired. Seward was gorgeous. The scenery in Anchorage is also much better than I expected. - Scarpy (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I would be remiss if I didn't advise you to visit Homer as well. It's gorgeous here right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a small chance I'll make it out there tomorrow. Anything around Anchorage you'd recommend? - Scarpy (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)