You make a mistake. You are talking to one of the most influential Wikimedians. Andy is professional in the width and the breath and quality of what he does as a Wikimedian. He is quite capable of understanding policy and he is quite capable of expressing his well founded opinion. The controversy comes to light and does not go away because it is between an important admin who I highly regard for the work that he does and myself.It does not stop because the arguments are clear and obvious and contrary to what you indicate no arguments are given by any of the other admins except for "I do not have to do this". The point with arguments is you cannot deny them but you can ignore them or refute them. Only the ignore bit is present.

As to disregarding policy, let us just look at property 500 and see it for the example it is. Admins on Wikidata are not as relevant on Wikidata as they are on Wikipedia that is easily explained. As a group they do whatever, I have little interaction with them I do what I do and with over two million edits with many many manual edits in there I can safely say that I prefer it that way and, I know my Wikidata quite well.

On 6 August 2016 at 08:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:
Andy Mabbett писал 2016-08-04 22:45:
On 1 August 2016 at 01:05, Vi to <vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:

Finally, just to clarify: undeletions by stewards are completely out of our
mission and policies (I, for one, would rather intervene to delete ^^), same
for the staffers. No chances to overrule a community for such trivial

There is no community action to overrule. The deletion was done by
single, involved admin, with no discussion, and without any backing in

Really? And we, the admin cabal, just massively disregard policies?

May be you should learn to listen at some point. You have been provided with all necessary explanations, multiple times. You may agree or disagree, but repeatedly stating there were no explanations is IDONOTHEARIT.

Stop it.


Wikidata mailing list