@njsg @pete @JorgeStolfi @a @wikimediafoundation I'll add to that another one, apparently it's fair game in ptwiki to consider it wrongdoing (or somehow a harmful enough action) if one starts a discussion in the village pump or files an entry for an incident in the noticeboard.

That's... discouraging people from seeking a consensus or the opinion of the community and discouraging people from even thinking about requesting administrative analysis of possible incidents?

I guess the next step would be to file a request for administrative action overview (given this seems to be another excessive/abusive action in itself), but what guarantees do I have that they will not just block me or worse as retribution for doing so...

There seems to be some new procedure for reporting stuff to Wikimedia, but their "non-urgent" workflow relies on local action, which is being the problem here.

#Wikipedia #Wikimedia #PTWiki

@pete @JorgeStolfi @a

So what's going on here? The templates used to generate these responses are outdated? I could go read the rules and project pages more in-depth, but experience with #ptwiki tells me I shouldn't rule out the text being incorrect or the rules not being followed...:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#fsn_%28file_manager%29

#enwiki #fsn #wikipedia

@pete @JorgeStolfi @a
This can already be disconcerting if an article is deleted because only people who wanted to delete it participated in the vote. But then there is the next level, that sometimes abused by #ptwiki:

You don't even follow the rules about marking it for deletion and having a debate and vote, you just do speedy deletion against the rules and threaten anyone who tries to point out the flagrant rules violation because it's "wikilawyering".

@wikimediafoundation
#Wikipedia