User talk:Dmehus/Archives/2020/March

Competency is required

This is a spin-off comment to your ongoing issues involving Yeet (slang). Doug, I'm really not sure how else to put this. Several editors have tried explaining what the issues were with your handling of Yeet (slang) to you but it seems you just don't get it for whatever reason. And speaking in generalities, it's not just this issue but it seems like almost every single day something comes up where you mean well, but your actions just makes the situation worse. Other editors then have to clean up your messes and try to get you to understand where the disconnect is, with varying degrees of success. So instead of improving Wikipedia with what they were planning on doing, they have to deal with you. I truly believe we are at a point where there is a WP:CIR issue with your editing, and I am going to ask you nicely to please take a Wikibreak from the "maintenance" aspect of Wikipedia for an indefinite period of time because I firmly believe you are a net negative in this area at this point. I am really sorry for being this blunt about it and really dislike having do make this post, but I hope that with some time off from this area, you'll be able to "reset" and come back with a different mindset and become a positive contributor. One of the main criticisms I have had of your work is that you do not seem to put in the research required of the topic at hand before you post. Perhaps it may be best to pivot to article creation and development for a little bit, and get some experience with researching topics in an area you are interested in and applying that to an area of the encyclopedia that may be lacking. Even if you have already written articles before, WP:YFA contains a lot of information to get you off on the right foot. I wish you the best of luck with whatever you decide to do. Best, -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

In the case of Yeet (slang), not to relitigate the issue, but I would just note that I pinged another editor to see if this was the correct action to take; if it had not been, they would've been free to revert my redirection. Nevertheless, while I disagree with some of the conclusions, I think it would nonetheless be best for me to take an English Wikipedia break of at least two to three months. While I have a sound knowledge of our notability guidelines, there are other guidelines with which I'm not familiar (though, in fairness, many of our guidelines do conflict with each other). So, it would be helpful to more fulsomely digest some of the nuances of certain policies. Doug Mehus T·C 19:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• I sort of resonate Tavix's advice here. I think you need a break, or at the minimum, restrict yourself to venues where its main purpose is to have your work checked before it is submitted, at least for a little while. But yeah, I seem to be spending more time in these discussions lately coaching you (in discussion which you participate) rather than providing constructive discussion in nominations, so yes ... let's just say I'm getting a bit exhausted to a point where I myself have not been editing at full capacity lately.

...But, on a good note, I totally agree with the following you state above: "(though, in fairness, many of our guidelines do conflict with each other)": I had to deal with such a problem recently, and in fact, it's still what I would consider one of our most controversial hypocrisies in policies today, and the discussion I had with another editor regarding it can be found on my talk page at User_talk:Steel1943/Archive_17#Black_Swan_(BTS_song). In cases like this, I have learned to either choose the policy that is more precise in such situations, or just not get involved altogether in order to avoid the controversy.

Oh ... and also, if anyone knows the value of a break, it's probably me: I hate to admit this, but I've attempted retirement at least three times now, and ... well, none of them were successful, obviously. Anyways, hope whatever option you decide to pursue works out for everyone ... but ultimately, you primarily because one of the most important things in the world is one's health. Take care. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• I see that the first two nominations at RfD that you have made since my last comment were hastily done without fully doing the research necessary in order to see the full picture, and you had to backtrack and withdraw. Can you at least see what I'm talking about? I have a challenge for you that I think will help with this chronic issue you're having. Category:All articles lacking sources is one of Wikipedia's worst backlogs, with 183,000 articles, some of which have been tagged since 2006. It would be really beneficial to have a few more eyes working on that, trying to find sources for articles that don't have any. This might be an easy and low key way to hone this skill, and might be a way for you to be useful contributor. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Doug, just in case the subtext of Tavix's message wasn't clear, saying there is a WP:CIR problem is code for someone who needs to be blocked despite good faith intent. I am guessing this is not the bucket you'd put yourself in. And I would find it a little dismaying if I had a sysop show up and make such a comment to me (and then have it endorsed by another editor). I don't know how you're taking it all in but I'm hoping you take the feedback in what appears to be the tough but caring spirit it's being offered. As a cataloger (which takes a special kind of person) there are any number of content related places that could benefit from your skills. There is, for instance, always Special:UncategorizedPages. Alternatively finding a sysop you trust to give you feedback and who you can turn to about policies and guidelines - you're not wrong when you note that there can be contradictions - could be a middle path. But whatever path you take, please heed the message that the current one is not going well for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tavix and Steel1943: I feel like I'm obligated to reply here because I was the editor that Dmehus reached out to in their edit summary. (This would have been a good instance to notify me.) I think that the problem is that Dmehus seems to be using my act of hitting the "thanks" button as the approval for them to dePROD and redirect. This should not have been the case, as it should have been Dmehus's own responsibility to make the correct judgement. I will concede that I should have investigated the disambiguation page before thanking Dmehus; in all fairness though, I was currently working on my own undertaking elsewhere on Wikipedia, and was under no obligation to look after Dmehus's edits. Therefore, I simply assumed that Dmehus did the legwork to verify that there were multiple entries for slang forms of "yeet", so I left them a thanks and continued on with my tasks. With that being said, I do regret leaving the thanks, as it gave Dmehus the verification to keep the redirect as it was.

With this being said, I do not think it is a good decision to ask Dmehus to refrain from editing the maintenance portion of Wikipedia, and especially not indefinitely. I do think that they need to tone down their use of general, unopinionated comments, and only leave comments on discussions that they have personally investigated. With that being said, everybody is allowed to make mistakes, and I made one myself through my dismissive conduct concerning the dePRODing of Yeet (slang). From my perspective, it is far too early to call for this good faith editor to be asked to indefinitely stop editing a large aspect of Wikipedia, even if you have good intentions for the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utopes (talk • contribs) 00:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Utopes: Thank you for your reply, and for clarifying the intent behind the ping. Please accept my apologies as well for incorrectly interpreting it as concurrence for my decision. I would still like to endeavour to discover the reason for which a blank and redirect wasn't appropriate in this case, and I'd still like to contribute to RfD discussions, but until I've completed the NPP School program later in the spring, I will refrain from reviewing redirects which have been nominated for deletion. I will still review the some redirects, time permitting, which are most definitely plausible misspellings or alternate forms of name, adding applicable rcats as appropriate. I do think Barkeep49's advice is particularly helpful as well, and I think that further research into CfD policies could be an avenue in which to direct my attention and expertise. While I think I bring a lot to the table, I think, fundamentally, I'm probably spreading myself to thin, trying to be knowledgeable in too many areas. For "easy cases," this is fine, but in discussions which are require more expertise and knowledge of more obscure policies, one cannot simply defer to trusted editors. Even in the language-related redirects, there is divergent opinions among even long-time experienced editors, with some editors !voting to keep per WP:RFFL and others !voting to delete per WP:RFFL. So instead of just "jumping in" and trying to offer an opinion on a divided discussion, Tavix has a good point that I need to have done more research first. In many cases, I do do my own research and, when I do, the results are positive (i.e., grammatically incorrect redirects). Where I jump in and simply say "keep per Narky" or "delete per Tavix," or what have you, without having fully researched it, it's problematic. So, while not going to take a full wikibreak from maintenance-related activities, I am going to take somewhat of a backseat, participating in a few discussions as I have time, but only where I have complete confidence in my position being the correct position. Doug Mehus T·C 00:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

First off, thank you for your response here. I feel like your reply shows that you are truly trying to improve, and that you have taken the time to personally reflect over everything that the editors above me have said. I do wish to see you again in RfD discussions and others around Wikipedia. The critique that I believe that Tavix and Steel1943 are trying to get at is that you shouldn't need to defer to a trusted editor to make a decision. If you make a mistake, it's best to own up to it and move forward. _{As a tangent to the case at hand, the reason that Yeet (slang) could not be a redirect to Yeet (the disambiguation page) is because "Yeet (slang)" is not a topic covered on Wikipedia, and is not listed on the disambiguation page. Because there is nothing for the "(slang)" qualifier to disambiguate at the disambiguation page, there is no reason for "Yeet (slang)" to redirect there. With that in mind, the PROD tag should have been left on the article, because redirecting was not an alternative.} Because of this mistake, Steel asked that you would revert your deletion of the PROD. In my opinion, the events that followed were brought about by your deflection of responsibility to me. While I made a mistake by assuming that redirection was fine, hence my thanks, I was not the one who dePRODed the article. I am no more fallible than anyone else, and my actions should never be taken as the 100% correct course of action. I made an incorrect judgement with a request for a technical move that you yourself commented on. While I am against admonishment and would like to hear from you in discussions, in the future when somebody lets you know that you have made a mistake, your first reaction should be to reflect your own actions and see whether you had indeed made a mistake. If you don't believe that you have, yet somebody else still insists that you did make a mistake, this would be the opportunity to reach out to a trusted editor to ask for a third opinion. Chances are, both parties believe that they are correct in good faith, and that the opportunity can be used as a lesson for future reference. It can be frustrating for people such as Tavix and Steel1943, who were trying to inform you that you made a mistake, when you continue to deny that you have. At that point, it would be better to bite the bullet and accept that you were incorrect with your judgement. I don't want this to sound like a bad thing, as you wouldn't be the first person to have incorrect judgement. As long as we can progress from this moment and continue with this as a learning experience rather than a road block, then everything is golden. I can tell that your apology is sincere. Cheers, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Praxidicae (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe that this needs to be said, yet again, but please stop pinging me. I started the discussion, it is on my watchlist. Praxidicae (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies; reply-link automatically inserts an editor's username when replying. I don't always think to remove the username upon replying, unless an editor has specifically requested not to. Now that you've requested it, I will be more cognizant of that. Doug Mehus T·C 16:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Highly recommend that you immediately listen to the concerns of those editors & follow up with a change of approach on the Wikipedia, which allays their concerns. Otherwise, it looks like ya might be headed towards a block or ban. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Community block

Per the ANI report, I have blocked you for 4 months. Please learn from this experience —show me you have by not responding to this very comment!— because you were bludgeoning the very discussion where many editors complained about you bludgeoning discussions. All good things in moderation, Doug — and if I'm saying that, that says a lot! Hope you enjoy your break and good luck with all your off- and on-wiki ventures. El_C 00:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

How is defending oneself at an ANI report, being bludgeoning? This is an unfortunate block :( GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Goodbye Doug Mehus. See you after four months. The block is unfortunate. :-( --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Very sad to see this. I've been following Doug since November and while there definitely were issues I for one saw significant improvement in behavior and can cite several examples where they did heed the advice given to them. I don't see any issues with their edits outside of the discussion parts of the project and a less severe restriction could have avoided all concerns raised while hopefully keeping an incredibly enthusiastic editor. Closing a discussion in under a day is also quite bad with many interested parties being unable to respond to the thread due to being busy in real life. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Due to a technicality, El_C should be unblocking you shortly, however the outlook is not good, I suggest you state your intentions constructively at the thread in one, single statement. You might want to accept a voluntary restriction if you feel you might end up being accidentally disruptive in projectspace, fwiw, I'm willing to do a partial-block for six months from both WP/WP-talk-spaces, if you think that will help. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Kulinski Draft Deletion

I saw your comment on Kulinski Draft MfD and understand your view that the page is not merited on notability grounds. That might have been the case earlier, but in the edits yesterday and today, the mentions on CNN, Fox, Vice, Guardian etc are substantial. Please see my 6 March comment at the bottom on MfD. I hope you will reconsider. Viktorpp (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your well-intentioned comment concerning the arguments I expressed in the above-reference MfD discussion and I am extremely reluctant to reply to your comment because I am currently on an enforced wikibreak that the community afforded me following a discussion on some of my problematic editing behaviours.

My reason for replying is two-fold:

1. I wanted to say that I appreciate the comments at User talk:Dmehus#March 2020, have read them all, and that I welcome future comments in the above section, but while I am currently in custody, I will not reply to them and may not see them for potentially weeks, but I will eventually see them and appreciate them; and, secondarily,
2. I wanted to kindly ask you to re-read my arguments in the above discussion as, in fact, I argued the subject was, potentially, on the border of being non-notable/notable and, as such, I argued to retain the draft on that basis.

Finally, as a piece of friendly advice as I noticed you replying to quite a few editors' comments in that thread, while long in length, I would encourage you to read through the ANI thread and consider it accordingly. Doug M. T·C 15:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 102 days for somewhat complicated reasons, see WP:ANI thread linked below. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a result of this ANI thread: [1]. I'll respond to your recent comment on my talk page here, in a few minutes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

(transferred from my talk page since you're blocked) I was in the process of drafting a final statement for my talk page, but I'll keep this brief. I did express support for the proposed close, as written, but what was troubling me—and what kept me awake most of the night—was the proposed Wikipedia:/Wikipedia talk: namespace restriction that would follow the community-sanctioned four-month block. Ivanvector sums up my concern concisely in that it would preclude me from participating in XfD discussions, from closing XfD discussions, from nominating non-notable articles or problematic redirects created while patrolling as part of New Pages Patrol. Since Rosguill had previously encouraged me to be bold later this spring and draft a section on soft redirects to Wikimedia sister projects in the NPP WP:RPATROL guide for patrollers, this would also be precluded, as would WikiGnoming-type edits on the NPP pages (i.e., manually archiving closed WT:RWHITELIST requests after they've been closed for the stipulated timeframe, correction of minor errors, and so forth). Likewise, it would also preclude me from listing at WP:RMTR otherwise potentially controversial bold, but undiscussed page moves that should have had a full discussion, and it would preclude me from listing at WP:PM, and helping to complete, proposed article mergers in the applicable holding cell. So, I'm wondering if we could maybe have a community-mandated mentor that could provide me with the necessary guidance, and observe my general editing and behaviour patterns and briefly report in to WP:AN in 3-4 months following the lifting of the block for a lifting of the restrictions? Doug M. T·C 17:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't mandate a mentor. I note several times that Mazca has tentatively offered to mentor you. if he's still willing in June, I think that will be a great idea. Keeping you away from XFD for a while is a feature, not a bug. That's where a lot of the problems are arising. Non-disruptive edits in other areas for a while will probably ease the mind of the community when you appeal some or all of that restriction, but I think returning to that area right away would be a bad idea. If you get a mentor, just follow their advice on when and what to appeal. If you don't get a mentor, I can provide some limited advice on when and what to appeal, but I might not be around so I'm not offering to mentor. But except for the "community-mandated" part, what you're proposing is basically what I already said in the close. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• One final thing; I'm leaving talk page access for now, because I do not believe the "only use to request unblock" thing. However:

1. if you want talk page access removed too, to help enforce the Wikibreak, let me know and I can remove it. That part is up to you.
2. Don't ping other people, except you can ping Mazca once if you want to ask about mentorship, and you can ping me a reasonable number of times if you have questions about the block.
3. My free advice is to ask for talk page access to be removed, and walk away for the 3 months until June 15th. Make a clean break. Ping Mazca when you get back. But that's your call. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

   Thank you for the reply. Based on the discussion in the ANI thread, I'm optimistic that the community will be amenable to early lifting of the Wikipedia:/Wikipedia talk: namespace ban, at least in part, particularly since that's area in which I can add a lot of value to the project. As others have noted on this talk page and elsewhere, when I take the time to do my research related to a given redirect, I bring a lot to the table. So, I'm hopeful that Mazca, or any other willing editor from the thread or who is currently following this talk page (there are currently ~40 such editors), can provide the mentorship and guidance that would be in order to at least partially lift the namespace ban. We can discuss this more on my talk page as we approach closer to the conclusion of the block portion of the sanction. So, in short, as with El C's block, I do endorse this close. Doug M. T·C 17:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

   But isn't the whole reason you're now blocked down to the fact the community disagrees with you and thinks you don't add a lot of value to the project when you're editing in the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces ? I have to confess my immediate and utmost concern, a block that is, from what I can see, 40 minutes old and you're already fighting the outcome of the discussion which led to that block. Not good. Nick (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

   Nick, "I do endorse this close" doesn't reconcile with "fighting the outcome of the discussion". You know, if the problem is that Doug is writing too much, then stop fucking talking to him. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

   @Levivich: I don't think I've actually spoken with Doug before, I threw in a bit of an idea to stop him being blocked and I thought I'd make a little comment here to point out he's digging a hole he doesn't need to be digging right now. I don't see that "stop fucking talking to him" is an attitude that's particularly useful here either. Nick (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Let's stop sending Doug talk page notifications when he is trying to take a Wikibreak (I know, this comment is doing that too, but this is the only place to add this). The block and edit restriction address the concerns for now, and there will be an AN discussion before they're removed. Having one experienced mentor advise him in the mean time, rather than multiple people, would be best I think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict x 3) As mentioned, I'm very happy in principle to mentor you after the block expires if you do want to return to editing in projectspace. I'm happy to discuss any details as we approach the block being lifted in June, or later if you decide you'd prefer to delay your return or just stick to article editing. I'd really encourage you to take a complete break for the duration once you've dealt with any minor loose ends here - you're clearly an immensely well-intentioned editor but, as I think you know, you've got so tied up in the perceived importance of some ultimately fairly minor aspects of Wikipedia that you're not really helping anyone, least of all yourself. Hopefully in a few months you'll regain a healthy perspective, and the annoyance of the people who've been annoyed by excessive enthusiasm will also fade. Good luck with your enforced break! ~ mazca ^talk 18:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• FWIW while I'm not up for committing to some sort of formal mentorship arrangement (especially not one that starts some months from now :) ), just leaving a note to say that my talk page is always open if you have questions about whatever. It's a shame things got to where they are, but I don't doubt that things will go well in the future. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• While I'm not going to consider mentoring you, I will give you this: You don't have an ounce of bad faith in your edits. That's a rather redeeming quality that few editors have. Hopefully, when the 102 days are done, you can be refreshed from the break and give this another shot. You obviously have the drive, and if you can take the effort to fine tune your knowledge, as well as absorb what you will be taught or learn, I have zero doubt you'll be fine. Take care Dmehus. Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• I remember you from MFD about a template I created where you basically voted WP:ILIKEIT, if I remember. I had no idea that this was a general issue and it's unfortunate. While I abstain from making mentorship offers, you're welcome to ask questions on my user page once back. —PaleoNeonate – 20:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• I disagree with the blocking of you. But, it's out of my hands. Your best bet (it appears) is to stay away from Wikipedia, for the entirety of the block. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• I'm sorry to see you got blocked Doug, as you clearly have good intentions and are a nice and friendly person, but it cannot be said that you didn't have numerous subtle hints through to warnings about modifying how you participate here. If you do come back, please take up one of the offers of mentorship, and start writing some of those articles you told me you had planned. In the meantime, I suggest you avoid Wikipedia altogether - except as a logged out reader if you really must - and do not under any circumstances attempt to edit. I hope you enjoy your time off. --kingboyk (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"I see, said the blind man" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect I see, said the blind man. Since you had some involvement with the I see, said the blind man redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Since you had some involvement with the If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)