This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz,
Maybe I wasn't able to prove the relevance of this writer but please let me try again saying that there's no person with such relevance on Protestant community in Spain than Jose de Segovia Barron. He is probably the Spanish alternative of CS Lewis on United Kingdom or Francis Schaeffer on United States and it's also relevant for English speaking community because he studied and he is even teaching in Welwyn, UK. Why if Lewis and Shaeffer has a Wikipedia page, this Spanish writer can't start its page?
What about a more structure page like this?:
José de Segovia Barrón ( Madrid, 1964) is a Spanish teacher, journalist & theologian. He studied Journalism on Universidad Complutense, ( Madrid), Theology on University of Kampen ( Netherlands) and Bible on The School of Biblical Studies Welwyn ( England). He is currently leading active students groups as Grupos Bíblicos Universitarios and Unión Bíblica. He was also President of the Theology Department on Alianza Evangélica Española between 2001 and 2015.
He is teaching on the following schools
Books
Digital Publications
Personal Life
He is pastor at Iglesia Evangélica Reformada on Madrid, is married with Anna and is father of four kids called Lluvia, Natán, Noé & Edén.
Best, Pablo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmarkez-ca ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand, thank you!
Best, Pablo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmarkez-ca ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Following your suggestion, I created a new edition of the page including references and sources, as a DRAFT - so it can be leverage before it's pushed online.
Please let me know if it's ok for you: /info/en/?search=User:Webmarkez-ca/Jose_de_Segovia_Barron
Thank you, Pablo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmarkez-ca ( talk • contribs) 07:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I'll add some additional prose including a quote from historian Gabino Fernández Campos, and also a quote from writer Cesar Vidal Manzanares, who already has a Wiki page. Hope it helps. You mean there is a easier way to ask for approval than (AfC)? Could I post it to you? for instance? If it's ok for you it's also ok for me, of course. Thank you, Pablo Webmarkez-ca ( talk) 15:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok Liz, thank you very much. I did the reference hard work, thank you very much for your effort and offer to complete it. I am not totally new on Wikipedia but obviously there was a evolution since then and it is more "demanding" now, right? I will try to publish through "New Pages Patrol" if you don't mind since I would like to start working on a new page in my life if it's possible :)
Thank you, Pablo Webmarkez-ca ( talk) 17:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
It's your Independence Day, right?
I already posted the page as /info/en/?search=Jose_de_Segovia ...
Thank you very much again and have a great holiday today!
Best, Pablo
Webmarkez-ca ( talk) 18:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not able to discover much about the "Criticism" section in the Manual of Style. I cannot recall ever seeing such a section in a WP article. I thought I would attach a YouTube link to a practitioner who explains their personal experience. The only contribution under the "Criticism" section is a blog. How can a text blog be more solid in terms of reliability than a video blog? Is the Criticism section a consensus matter of WP editors? What is its purpose? The sole contribution under the section is negative. After your edit the section gives undue weight methinks. Church of the Rain ( talk) 03:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you again!
Webmarkez-ca (
talk)
08:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
hey. LIz , thanks for your guidance, my article Public School Hyderabad was deleted kindly help to make it again with sufficient data.-- Jogi don ( talk) 06:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)-- Jogi don ( talk) 06:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear Liz it is good, that you took a moment to write a comment on my talk page in your own words! I appreciate that! You got a response. -- Miraclexix ( talk) 10:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
... so you said to an editor who can't even edit the talk page? - Happy editing, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It is a little twisted to notify an editor that their page is going to be deleted and ending that notice with "Happy editing". Most editors will not view those notices with any favorable feelings so it is inappropriate to be jolly.
LOL. You never ran civility patrol on him? He made a habit of denying protected edit requests, and then signing with "Happy editing". Looks like you'll be the subject of the 3rd high-profile crat-chat in recent memory. Good luck.
Wbm1058 (
talk)
03:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Please exercise more caution in the future as the page above is a Test case used for verifying that the proposed changes to a template aren't going to break anything if they are promoted to mainspace. I'll post a very generic reminder to WT:AFC about these exceptions. Hasteur ( talk) 11:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Just between ourselves, Liz, I wrote the Simple diff and link guide; it was freaking me out that there was no reasonable info for newbies. They kept being told to give diffs, but not how. HELP:DIFF is just a nightmare. And then I was forced to also create the Complete diff and link guide, just to have somewhere to move all the extra stuff that the nerds rushed to add. ("Or even better, you can do <incomprehensible incomprehensible incomprehensible>" which has the advantage of <insert baffling technical term here>".) It works quite well to have both levels, because naturally the nerds wouldn't like to be simply reverted. There's a "simplest guide", too. I wrote that for my mother. :-) Bishonen | talk 17:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC).
Dear Liz, I feel the need for help and guidance. It results from certain edit related matters I became involved in, the last days. This does not mean that I would need help in getting a certain agenda through, be it far from me, but rather would like to have an adoptee (does one say so? a tutor?) or some equivalent help, or simply a person who helps in a more agreed upon relationship for help. I recognized, that your help on the teahouse for me was in deed the work of a 'guardian angel', because I detected that you in fact do a lot of edits in Wikipedia: (WP:). All fine in that regard. I also assume that you, very likely, have a lot to do. If you do not have the time to help me out, please direct me to a helpful person you know could help me. -- Miraclexix ( talk) 12:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Liz, don't you think having released records on a major record label and being included in a recently-released, genre-specific bound history of music book about music released 70 years ago would be enough assertion of importance to have avoided a speedy deletion nomination? We're not talking about some no-name drum-n-bass bozo living in his mother's basement releasing music on a self published pseudo-label between X cycles pumped up by his high-school fanbois. The Dissident Aggressor 05:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Please don't revert changes to articles simply because they are in a non-English language. Google Translate is available. It suffices in instances in which you wish to investigate a claim/source. Willhesucceed ( talk) 08:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Please provide some information about this source on the article talk pagewhich was really a question about the reliability of the source. I did use Google Translate to look at the text of the source but I thought it didn't strongly support the statement made. Torchiest identified it as being the website of a mainstream Finnish newspaper, Ilta-Sanomat which is really the information I was looking for. Liz Read! Talk! 08:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Liz - I have prepared an ARBCOM case but it contains some sensitive material, and is longer than 500 words (closer to 1400). I think some of the information may require a private hearing. What should I do? Atsme 📞 📧 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Please check the native language wiki where one exists. Take a look at ko:변희재, including the references and let me know whether you'd still consider nominating the article after that. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry if I came across as being a bit unkind, and your response is a good one (that is, that you had had interactions with the account and were trying to understand the situation). There is a RL name linked to the "sockmaster" (I have no opinion as to whether or not that RL name is correct), but given the nature of the last few edits (the nature of which I always take as being sincere) I thought it the better part of valour not to link them to an account which could quickly lead to the purported RL name. In fact, another admin and I were going to split the blocks to further dilute the linkage, but it looks like the other admin didn't block the other account, and I'll probably have to do it. Technically it's not *quite* a block evasion, but the user was under sanctions to operate only one account with no (apparently intentional) logged out editing, and wasn't following that, plus the other stuff. Risker ( talk) 23:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Who all should be listed in involved - I'm a bit confused on that part. Atsme 📞 📧 01:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Just for your interest, GingerBreadHarlot came back both with IP addresses and a sock account. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GingerBreadHarlot/Archive. An obscene racist comment was removed from the sock's talk page. Doug Weller ( talk) 11:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs),
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs)
The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
My comment at 01:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC), directed at Guy, was a quite civil comment, directly related to the topic, and unrelated to the exchange between me and The Rambling Man. I think your "hab" is placed one message too low in this edit. — Kww( talk) 01:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Liz
You've just had an article deleted about a sportsman who played at the highest level for his country. That the admin deleted it is surprising, since A7 "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance"; and it had a proper reference and everything. It is one of a series of articles that is linked from the List of international rugby union players killed in World War I.
I'm going to have it recreated and I'll be turning it into a full article, as I have for Albert Downing and Henry Dewar; Billy Geen and Frank Tarr were Start class but they've just been classified as Good articles. In the meantime, you might come across some other stubs linked from that list. Please don't go CSDing them!
With kind regards
FunkyCanute ( talk) 21:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Must have been a screw up from AWB. I listed it for AFD so I don't know why I'd remove it. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
No space on Talk page to leave message---stumbled on this space by accident? Should you have said on your New Section Editing User Talk page ? Having difficulty comprehending Wikipedia systems 68.3.147.32 ( talk) 17:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Liz, in an RfAr, uninvolved admin's comments area I had provided some diffs. I would like to know what the protocol/requirement is for notifying the makers of those edits and/or the the editors whose talk pages those edits are on. I'd asked Doug Weller, but he wasn't sure and given the more recent notes on that request he held that the question was moot anyway, but I'd like to know for any future events (a light browsing did not seem to shed any light). cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 18:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the workshop hasn't been closed yet? The same was true of the evidence phase, so much so that other evidence was added after its closure time. Is this normal? The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Liz. Since Joshua Jonathan actually asked for somebody to fix the link, I've put a permanent link into his statement (without going via a diff, as you did, but of course both ways work fine). I understand that you had a scruple about editing somebody else's statement, but I'm sure he won't mind, and I thought it was better that the link just worked. The page is heavy enough going as it is... Bishonen | talk 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC).
OK, so there's this page that has been deleted since it's a hoax. It's called "Pīchi no Shiro de Rokkuman to Pātī". From the "Rokkuman" in the title and the fact that it was a hoax, I assume it's Mega Man fanon. Do you think I can copy the source over to the Mega Man Fanon Wiki? You can paste the source onto my talk page and I'll do all further actions. Thanks in advance. 67.82.89.253 ( talk) 23:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz. If I'll ever need a second account at Wikipedia, "Joshua Jackson" would be a great name! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The Workshop phase has closed. When can I make a general comment on the talk page of the proposed decision? -- NeilN talk to me 22:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
On Template:Infobox film it does say under the parameters for starring "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release". To be honest I was surprised that both Charlie Sheen and Jennifer Grey weren't on the poster but I guess their names weren't as big as they were a couple of years later. Quentin X ( talk) 18:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add any new votes to the Wikipedia:Five-million pool. It has been closed for voting for almost seven years. Pools still open include the Wikipedia:Seven-million pool and all higher number pools. JIP | Talk 20:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Sunday August 2, 1-7pm: WikNYC Picnic | |
---|---|
You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Brooklyn's Prospect Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.
We hope to see you there! -- Pharos ( talk) 03:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC) (Bonus event: WikiWednesday Salon @ Babycastles - Wednedsay, August 19) |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Hey Liz,
When I set up the Ten Year Society, it was with the intention that eventually other people would start handing out invites - it was only just me doing it before because the idea hadn't taken off yet. Best, — Scott • talk 17:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz! Does ArbCom keep a succinct list of Admins that have been desysopped "for cause" over the years? (I'm really only interested in numbers vs. time...) I'm asking in reference to this discussion that I am currently having. Thanks in advance! -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Just wait until it's finished. Seriously, you're like a kid who sneaks downstairs at 3AM to sneak a peek at his Christmas presents. :-) Serendi pod ous 20:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I saw your comment at Bbb23's. Are you saying that sending Yahoo->Yahoo works on WP?— Bagumba ( talk) 20:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
See you on the far side. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 20:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
About time. Just wanted to let you know that I will indeed vote for you, but I don't want to be first, as there are editors here who would come out in favor of Hitler if I said I opposed him. BMK ( talk) 21:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
You are one of the nicest Wikipedia editors I've met! You keep your cool and treat me like a real person! Thank you, thank you, thank you! I hope you will continue to stand up for me and support me in the future! YoSoyUnHamster ( talk) 00:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, yes! Thanks again! YoSoyUnHamster ( talk) 16:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm ready to remove my question and vote. However I would request a voluntary interaction ban between you and me, though that's not a precondition or anything. (I also think I deserve an apology, but I can live without one.) Best, Manul ~ talk 02:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Liz, thank you for acknowledging that your defense of Tumbleman at the SPI was misguided. That means a lot, and it eases my mind a bit. Until at least March of last year, you had applauded the defamation campaign against me which posited that Tumbleman was innocent and that I had been falsely accusing editors of being Tumbleman sockpuppets in order to get them banned because of their point of view. [2] It was wrong of you to do so -- regardless of how you felt about the SPI -- and I considered your behavior to be harassment. Manul ~ talk 19:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for putting yourself on the firing line, and for your willingness to serve this wonderful project. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your input. What changes have I made to these "descent" pages that you find contentious or problematic? Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 01:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment. I wasn't really expecting the MFD last long, although I confess that I had hoped maybe one or two additional editors would have a chance to weigh in. Also, it should have occurred to me what you meant when you said "involved", but I missed that until just now. Would you mind terribly if I ask you a question related to your RFA here on your talk page? TomStar81 ( Talk) 11:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
Comments on your RfA are starting to make my head hurt and the Gamergate doxxing stuff you had to go through (even if you were "fairly lucky") sounds absolutely horrible. The fact that you've managed to survive the last few days without exploding is amazing. You more than deserve this barnstar. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 13:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you,
Bilorv, this is very kind. Some of the opposes were expected, others less so.
But I need to focus on what I can learn from this experience! I actually thought that Gamergaters might put in an appearance here but I think I've done such limited editing on the main article, that I'm not on their radar any more. For that, I am grateful. I don't think there is much positive about being in an internet spotlight, even if it just lasts a few days. Luckily, most people on social media have a short attention span and move on to the next talked-about person or event. There's probably social research that's being done on this same subject somewhere right now which would be interesting to read.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
15:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
"Things got so heated on Friday", FWIW, Friday was a Full Blue Moon @ 6:43am EST. (Do people undergo extra stress or act wilder then!?) IHTS ( talk) 13:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Liz. I can't blame you for feeling gutted by the RFA altogether, even though you will surely get the mop at the end of it. Also I've come to think my own blunt oppose may have been a bit of a shock for you. While I stand by what I said, it would have been kinder to prepare you better for it, because I don't think you read my original question as quite so serious or so critical as I meant it to be. I'm sorry about that. Bishonen | talk 12:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC).
Hey Liz, I opposed your RFA but also realize that receiving such frank, negative scrutiny no matter if a minority opinion or couched in polite terms is never a pleasant experience. And the off-wiki doxing is unforgivable, and even some comments that question your real-life qualifications are infuriating. No panacea to offer, but hope that you keep in mind that the RFA opposes are just opinions about some of your editing on wikipedia, and not informed comments about you as a person (fwiw, you come across as a sensible and nice person). Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 23:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtlawyer1 ( talk • contribs)
There's absolutely no shame in the "shock" analogy above. I'm sorry this is so difficult. Best of luck. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Liz. Nokuse Plantation, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know . You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot ( talk!) 14:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
Hi! I'm leaving you this note because you recently particpated in a discussion that resulted in a deletion request which you may be interested in. NickCT ( talk) 15:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
My dear Liz,
I have considered the recent opposes, many written by editors I greatly respect. I have considered their points, many of which have some validity, which I am sure that you are also considering in a careful fashion. I have weighed those opposes and believe that the best thing that I can do at this point is to reiterate my support for you and your candidacy, because I remain convinced that you will be a good administrator, whether now, or in the future.
The above is a slight rewrite of what I just posted at the RfA page. In addition, I must add that I feel great compassion for you in what must be a very difficult time for you. I can only imagine the pain you are now feeling, and the only thing I can say right now is that I would be happy to discuss things with you in days to come, as you try to understand this situation. I bid you peace. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz. I'm sorry about the whole RfA - you handled yourself beautifully. If I'd known how much of a tough experience it was going to be, I wouldn't have pushed so hard for you to run. Whatever the outcome, focus on the support, over 200 people turned out to say you're doing a fine job (even if some were later struck). That's a significant number by anyone's standards and you should be proud of what you're doing. There is some useful feedback within the opposition section, I know you've already taken some of it on board - don't be disheartened by the number. If there's anything I can ever do, you know where to find me. WormTT( talk) 12:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
SwisterTwister has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit!
†
|
SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Liz,
I don't think we've interacted much. I was an Arbcom clerk, resign for complicated reasons, and felt guilty about it. We technically overlapped, but you became a clerk about the same time I stopped contributing in that area. Why am I telling you this? To explain that my guilt for dropping out cause me to pay attention to your actions as a clerk, and your fine handling helped assuage my guilt for abruptly dropping out.
Your RFA has been interesting to say the least. I see editors I highly respect on both sides. I'm watching the 'crat chat, which may resolve even as I'm writing this but at the moment they appear to be struggling.
One person opined "that you haven't often "cut the Gordian knot". I'm not here to agree or disagree with that comment, my goal is to try to cut the Gordian knot myself.
You've seen a number of editors concerned about your lack of content creation. (I know you have many mainspace edits and I haven't looked closely, but I assume they are gnomish in character.) I read your explanation of why you spent so little time in serious content creation. It struck a chord with me. I have decades of experience with financial economics, yet I almost never edit in those areas. Why? Because it would feel like work and I didn't come to Wikipedia to extend my workday. So I am very sympathetic with someone who wants to contribute to Wikipedia but doesn't want to feel compelled to work in any particular area.
That said, you are interested in becoming an administrator. While there is no formal rule that one has to have substantial content creation to be an administrator, I think there is substantial value in having that experience. Even if one plans to not do any substantial content work after becoming an administrator, the experience would be quite helpful in dealing with administrative issues. Therefore, I recommend that you consider the following: Inform the 'crats that you are gratified by the substantial support for your candidacy. Very few RFAs in history have garnered 200 supports. That said, the concern that admins ought to have experience with content creation is a valid concern, and while you don't want to do it and don't plan to do it substantially in the future, you agree that spending 3 to 6 months with an increased emphasis on content creation would provide you the insight that so many editors think is valuable. You might even enjoy it but that's not the point. In fact, if you did it and it reinforced your lack of desire to spend much time there because it wasn't fun, it still would provide more insight into the mindset of content creators.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 18:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
On 5 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nokuse Plantation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Nokuse Plantation is the largest privately owned nature preserve in the Southeastern United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nokuse Plantation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Chris Woodrich ( talk) 12:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Can't leave much of a comment because my state is in a maelstrom of fallen trees and lost power, but I'm sorry I didn't catch your RfA in time to support it. You've been solidly aboveboard and fair in all the interactions I've seen and I wish you the best of luck in the upcoming Bcrat coin flip. Protonk ( talk) 15:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to WP:200. That's a rare accomplishment. Sorry to see you sitting the same boat I sat in at my RfA. Funny enough same percentage, resulting in a cratchat you apparently landed perfectly on the tip of the needle. :p It looks like the crats are leaning towards promoting you by a hair. If you do get promoted, let me be the first to congratulate you. If not, then better luck next time.— cyberpower Chat:Online 20:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Per the bureaucrat discussion, I've closed your RfA as successful. Good luck with the new tools. Maxim(talk) 01:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Congrats on the new mop! Well deserved. — Strongjam ( talk) 01:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Very well merited. Congratulations. Kharkiv07 ( T) 01:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Congrats on your RFA! You'll do great.-- Jorm ( talk) 01:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It has become apparent that you
so you are now officially awesome.
I'll have a glass of Kavalan whiskey in celebration, and I owe you at least two for convincing you to put yourself through this. I know you'll do great, and if you ever need another admin for any reason don't hesitate to ping me. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Congrats, Liz! Thanks for your willingness to take on extra responsibilities. I am confident that you will use your new tools judiciously. 209.131.236.219 ( talk) 18:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
They are very sharp tools, and can cut deep and swift. Be wise and considerate.
May your hand be steady, your aim be true and your mind be an oasis of calm.
→
Stani
Stani
01:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
May you use your powers for good! :) Glad to have voted for you! Thereandnot ( talk) 01:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful result as an administrator. I voted support so I wish you the best of luck EurovisionNim (talk to me) (see my edits) 02:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
Congrats on becoming a manager. You were always kind to me when I was new. Thank you Cavalierman ( talk) 02:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
You deserve this for simply getting the bit after all that stress. Congrats again. :D — cyberpower Chat:Limited Access 02:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you for helping us with our admin burdens. Remember that we are servants of the community and not the masters of it. If you have any questions or just want to know which cabals to join just pop by my talk page. Chillum 03:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
For navigating a thorny RfA without losing your cool. Thanks for stepping up to clean out the Augean stables. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 06:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Welcome to the Cabal! I'm sure that RfA was quite tough on you, but tomorrow's a brighter day. Have fun with your new buttons. ceradon ( talk • edits) 06:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
I'm sorry it took so long to close your RfA. Some important issues have arisen during the course of the RfA and I'd like to explore them to see if we can establish consensus on them. Please keep an eye out for the discussion. It'll be advertised at BN, the Cratchat talk and at Talk:RfA. In the meantime, congratulations on a successful RfA, but I hope you don't mind if I wish that the more significant legacy to Wikipedia will be improved RfX. -- Dweller ( talk) 06:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like the struggle session is finally over - welcome to the world of adminship. Yunshui 雲 水 07:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Congrats on your RfA Liz! It was definitely one of the toughest I've seen for a while. If you need any help/advice/guidance please do let me know, I'm happy to help as always. And...I see no one has properly attired you yet, so this is for you. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow! what a stressful experience! I hope this kitten helps.
Guy Macon (
talk)
08:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz. I'm pleased to see the RfA has finally finished and that you are now an administrator. You know as well as I that it was a close call and when it comes down to it, most of the oppose votes were legitimate issues raised. So many editors I respect ended up in that column, I really don't them all to be telling me "I told you so". Don't let me down, Liz, be the excellent admin I know you can be. Also, now that the RfA is over, have you considered being open to recall? My method is available to pinch if you'd like - I wish more admins were open to something like it. WormTT( talk) 09:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Not to be mean, but I opposed your RfA because I am not comfortable with your attraction to the drama boards, especially because I've seen you exercise some bad judgment and snap assumptions. Even my own case, you said I'd continue to be a problem and would be back at ANI...I haven't been. And much to the opposite of your assumption...haven't interacted with the user (Winkelvi) who was a problem.. a problem as evinced by his being brought back to ANI subsequently for like the 6th or 7th time and being blocked (insufficiently, imho) for the same behaviour with others that lead to our dustup. Now, as another negative, the overreaction just kept me from offering what could have been a significant improvement to an article that hasnt improved since the dustup--an action that has essentially stifled content improvement. No one cared about what was really important...the content. So I guess we don't get them right all the time. Your assumptions however left a very bitter taste in my mouth about administrator wannabes. I do however wish you luck. I hope you take something from the opposition comments and learn from it. JackTheVicar ( talk) 14:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Despite promises, the parties usually can't seem to ignore each other. As long as JtV views Winkelvi as the truly guilty party, I predict that there will be future interaction between the two editors.
Also because I've been busy and don't think I've said it yet, congratulations on your RfA Liz :) Kevin Gorman ( talk) 22:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Was your path to admin a difficult one because you were a woman or were you treated with respect according to your actions and edits? Overall would you think the nomination is akin to Affirmative Action? I do not but I am interested in your opinion on your thoughts on the matter. Just in my experience I have not seen anything that would disqualify you or show you needed special treatment to gain adminship, it's your perceptions I was interested in though as the person that experienced it. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Liz, I appreciate that you shared your view. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 18:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Off to the beach ... | |
Right now I would suggest Liz do something fun and celebrate (like going to the beach for a few days!) I see no reason for this person to relive her recent experience to satisfy other people's curiosity about what it was like. Hazing and struggle sessions are unpleasant for everyone, regardless of gender. I'm sure Liz will offer her opinions on the topics under discussion at such time she feels it is appropriate. Djembayz ( talk) 16:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
From what I've seen over this RFA, being female makes it much harder to pass since males (like myself) don't have the MRAtards / redpillers opposing you because you're a woman. Also, the level of scrutiny of Liz's "interactions" with other editors was appalling. I've been significantly more sarcastic significantly more commonly and not one person opposed my RFA for it. (I think one person opposed my checkuser appointment over sarcasm concerns.) It's a well-known fact that men will scrutinize women significantly more on their personality than they will other men. Seeing it in action in this RFA was abhorrent. Good luck with the mop, Liz, and ignore the people whining that you're "too rude". Half of them wouldn't know "rude" if it hit them in the face. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 22:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I have never voted in an admin election, as until two days ago I had never seen a name I recognised among those proposed. So I was disappointed that when I saw a name I did recognise as a very competent conciliator, I had missed the boat. Anyway, the outcome was clearly the correct one! Maproom ( talk) 18:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations on the outcome, Liz, I was especially pleased to see that the bureaucrat discussion directly addressed a spiking rash/fever of opposes midway which seemed clear evidence of some caucusing/campaigning/rabblerousing going on behind the scenes attempting to muck up the process. – Athaenara ✉ 21:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Now that that's over, have a cookie! Oh, and congrats. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 02:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC) |
Num num! I think I need a plateful, Etamni! Thanks for the munchies. Liz Read! Talk! 20:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Well done!
Doug Weller (
talk)
13:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz, congratulations on the RfA. As several others have said, you're due a bit of a respite now and I know you said that you plan to ease into admin activity slowly and cautiously which is a wise decision. So no pressure at all here (seriously), but I thought there might be a chance that you would be interested in trying to mollify those from the lack-of-content-creation oppose camp by creating/improving a few articles, and if so I wanted to offer you a few suggestions:
Again, no pressure. You had my support even with your current level of content creation. But if you are looking for a content creation project those are some good starting places. - Thibbs ( talk) 15:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Liz. With regard to your WP:RfA and you now being a WP:Administrator, I've been thinking about when we first met (at least I think it's when we first met) two years ago. It makes me think of how fast time flies by, and how I never thought that the IP I was talking to about Wikipedia's biography category policy ( WP:BLPCAT) would be a WP:Administrator someday. Since you were editing as an IP at the time, and have removed your IP account from your user page, I won't point to the discussion where we first met...unless you want me to. But, anyway, looking at your contributions from that time, you seemed very much interested in content creation. You were interested in sociology and sexology/sexual topics (including LGBT topics), and other topics, and would commonly post to the article talk pages about improving these articles. You also sometimes edited such articles to improve them. I'm not sure why you moved away from editing/commenting on those topics, but, in my opinion, you don't necessarily lack a content creation mindset. If you ever do dive back into editing such articles, I can point you to some topics that need, or might need, a woman's perspective; for example, Talk:Mons pubis#Which image to use?. I'm currently the only woman commenting there. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
even though I would have opposed .. I congratulate you. Best of luck with the new buttons. — Ched : ? 01:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Even though I did oppose and additionally think your intervention on my talk page was probably not quite appropriate, it would be amiss of me not to wish you a fast recovery from the suspense and a successful, not too steep learning curve now you have the tools. Good luck! -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
My goodness, Liz, congratulations! I don't know how I missed the outcome of the cratchat, because I had been following it blow-by-blow for several hours, but I just went to check RFA and saw you were successful. This is great! As I've said on several emails, it's an honor working with you on the clerk team. You've held me "in check" a few times when I was a bit over-eager to take action, and your ideas and suggestions are always valuable. Goodness, it's going to be weird seeing your name highlighted in blue in discussions and notices now. And darn, that just leaves two non-admin clerks - I'm kind of feeling left out now... Once again, congrats! Have a great day, and get ready for (what I hear are) the horrors of ADMINACCT! L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 13:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you for the barnstar,
L235. They are kind and generous words. Yes, there was a bit of friction when I started as a clerk but I'm glad that time and focusing on the work has smoothed things out and that I have good working relationships with all of my fellow clerks.
I look forward to working on another case with you in the future. And, I'm really glad you had an opportunity to take such an awesome trip this summer. Thanks again!
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
There's an issue at WikiProject Television that I would like your input at. Electric Burst( Electron firings)( Zaps) 17:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I was unaware that you were running otherwise I would have thrown in my vote of support. But you made it without me! Congrats! — Keithbob • Talk • 17:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
I'm glad to see you passed RfA despite some heated opposition, and I know you'll do great things with your new responsibilities. That looked very stressful, so here's a beer to help you chillax. RO (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
If nothing else, you deserve a special barnstar just for sticking with it, that RFA was something to behold. Sometimes I think we've forgotten the purpose of Wikipedia, to expand and enhance an ever-growing tome of knowledge that's free for everyone to see and editable by (mostly) anyone. Sure it has its own crinkles but I had and have no doubt whatsoever that you will be a sterling example of what Wikipedia needs from its admins. Good luck, don't get too embroiled too soon, and remember that every single edit you make and every single admin action you take which improves Wikipedia justifies it all. My best to you. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little late to congratulate you on your RFA, but here I am!! Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received eight long, sordid years ago from the puppy: |
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. All rights released under GFDL. |
Belated congratulations on your successful run for adminship. Thanks for all of your work to improve English Wikipedia. North America 1000 22:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
Wednesday August 19, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
---|---|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! -- Pharos ( talk) 15:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
I am approaching you as the clerk for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Everyone, including its creator Kww, agrees that this page now serves no useful purpose, but since it is referred to in FOF3 there is a view that it should be moved to a subpage of the Arbcom case (and the FOF edited to point to its new location). Do you think that is necessary for the record? If so, I will do it; otherwise, I am minded to close the MfD as delete. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 18:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Belated congrats. I just saw your WP:NAS edits in my WL. Regards. -- Tito Dutta ( talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
Dear Liz, I had pinged you at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_23#Category:Christian_female_saints_from_the_Old_Testament, not sure if you had noticed this. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
This wiki kitten is here to say you should not get discouraged. Better luck next time (at which point you are welcome to notify me on my talk page about your candidacy; I missed it this time). Cheers,
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
10:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter
July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
Would you be willing to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the verified oldest people? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
For your wise words to Glacialfrost. I let the little twerp get to me, I know, but he's got this hall monitor mentality riding on the back of about a week's editing (under this account; I think he's a sock of The Editor of All Things Wikipedia, whose editorial patterns were remarkably similar), and a tendency to play Mommy, as I pointed out on his talk page. He's got no business going near Twinkle, and now he's looking to be a reviewer. He'll hang himself eventually, of course. But in the meantime, he needs some serious reigning in. -- Drmargi ( talk) 21:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I apologize, I did not mean to contribute to stirring up the nonsense from the RFA, and I won't respond regarding that matter anymore. I was genuinely surprised to see things you said described as expressing "open hostility" and I wanted to know if I had the wrong impression about you, but it's obvious now that it was an empty claim. I didn't think that posing the equivalent of "citation needed" would cause someone to get so ridiculously defensive. Gamaliel ( talk) 00:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz, as I mentioned above, I am ready to put this matter behind us. Your response and your subsequent deletion of my reply are an ongoing concern, however. I expected some kind of agreement to move on, but you continued the old pattern by making a baseless aspersion against me. You are free to archive the thread, of course, but I'll no longer permit attacks from you to go unanswered, so I've restored my reply.
Please read WP:Harassment carefully. Earlier I requested an interaction ban, but I think WP:INVOLVED already addresses my concern. Since you are on record as one of my harassers, you are involved with regard to any administrative dealings that relate to me.
In a nutshell, my take is that for whatever reason you were willing to extend an unlimited amount good faith toward these sockpuppeteers, but none toward me. If you wish we can continue this conversation and try to better understand what happened, or we can let it drop. Manul ~ talk 03:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Since you are on record as one of my harassers...what record is that, Manul? It's not a record that I am familiar with.
It is baffling that you don't appear to understand what the issue is, even after Bishonen pointed it out in the RfA. You just archived the thread on your talk page discussing it. Do you really not know? Did I mention I am baffled?
You don't appear to understand the reason I initially requested an interaction ban. An interaction ban prohibits not only direct interactions but also attacks made against the other party in their absence. The latter is the harassment issue at stake here. You don't appear to understand that my above comment "but I think WP:INVOLVED already addresses my concern" negates the original request.
You don't appear to understand that I came here last month as a gesture of good will, removing my RfA question [5] and hoping to resolve the matter. Unfortunately, you proceeded to make an aspersion that was reminiscent of your past behavior -- as if no time had passed -- and then deleted my response to it. You don't appear to understand that that was a bad thing to do. You don't appear to understand the difference between raising concerns about your conduct, backed by evidence, and simply "leaving disparaging comments". Equating those is mutually exclusive with being a competent admin.
There doesn't seem to be much hope here, and as I indicated before I would be well satisfied with leaving it behind. But you continued the same problematic behavior. Liz-the-regular-editor is easily ignored, which is what I had been doing -- we had almost no interactions until last month -- but an admin exhibiting these issues is cause for serious concern. The purpose of my last message was (1) to make clear that continuing such behavior (casting baseless aspersions; deleting the follow-up) is unacceptable, and (2) to make sure you understood what WP:INVOLVED entails. I don't know what to expect from you, considering the behavior I've seen, but at least WP:INVOLVED, if followed, should prevent the worst case scenarios.
To soften this a bit, I will say that the situation which started this off was rather unusual. A user had been caught sockpuppeting yet didn't appear to understand that he had been caught. The explanations he offered didn't make sense, and he didn't appear to understand that they didn't make sense. I can imagine admins shaking their heads while reading them.
Not long after his block, the user created an attack website based in part upon the falsehood that he had been wrongly accused of sockpuppeting. His primary target was me, whom he painted as deviously accusing editors of being his sockpuppets as a means of blocking those who shared his point of view. His friend, who had contributed to the attack site, disseminated the story on Wikipedia, bringing the off-wiki harassment on-wiki.
And good grief, it turned out that the friend had also been sockpuppeting, and that the two had been conspiring since soon after the first got blocked. That last SPI shows outright trolling, and an admin there expressed displeasure about the deceptions involved. The two would later collaborate to disrupt the Deepak Chopra article with more socking, and I would be targeted again.
Such dedicated trolling might be unexpected, and one might be forgiven for not catching on right away. But once the evidence has been laid out, refusing to look at it is inexcusable, and then to actually applaud the harassment, even joining in ... well. If I were your employer, I would ask you to attend a seminar on online bullying. Since you're not (presumably), I can only implore you to carefully read WP:Harassment. This background should bring more clarity to my RfA question and the talk page thread you deleted. Best, Manul ~ talk 03:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Liz, I find the disciplining of Kww very disheartening (reported here [6], and here [7]), since it captures so many of the injustices built into the WP system of adjudicatory decision-making (even with regard to its Administrators). And that it can happen, so quickly and so thoroughly, to an Admin leaves me shaken to the core about this place.
Extended content
|
---|
Before unpacking this a bit, I would note that I have twice been disciplined, regarding the same issue, once on each side of the matter—once, because I fought with an editor who mass reverted an edit because as a part of it, I had moved an unsourced BLP section of text, adding citation needed tags (because they viewed the move as inserting unsourced text into a BLP article), and in the second case, my misstepping based on the precedent of the first, disciplined for removing a block of misplaced, unsourced text in a BLP article (rather than move and tag it), only to be told I should have moved and tagged it (the matter over which I was chastised in the first case). Hence, in the Rambling v Kww case, I have been on both sides, and have been punished both times—yes, for the way I argued about it (but the root editorial issue was the same, though oppositely adjudicated, each time). With regard to the particulars, the overriding conclusion I draw is based on (a) failing to see what I consider clear evidence of impartiality on the part of those adjudicating, and (b) failing to see clearly established standards to include or exclude perspectives based on the uniform application of principles of fairness. With regard to the first, I refer, as an outsider, to the lack of evidence that those voting had no interest or association with the parties involved, e.g., nowhere being asked to state no cause for recusal. That is to say, as WP gets smaller and smaller, the likelihood that those involved at higher levels will have had prior involvement with one another becomes greater. With involvement comes impressions, biases. Apart from such a clear process of query and recusal, the majority of those voting could, for all one might know, be "friend and family" of one or the other involved in the matter at hand. Without people being queried, there is no basis whatsoever for trusting that the proceedings are completely without bias. On this point, I will asked to be better informed: How were members of those deciding Kww's and Rambling's fate chosen (included, and excluded)? Perhaps I simply need to understand this process better than I do. With regard to the second, failing to see standards, I would note the following. In the same vein of any ADD being able to empanel a grand jury to to "indict a ham sandwich" (Hon. Sol Wachtler), it appears, for lack of clearly codified rules of procedure, that it is possible to construct a charge that will result in a predisposition of a seated group of admins to harshly discipline the accused. I say this because the list of charges were a very mixed bag, and seemed to include accusations that should either have either omitted outright, or adjudicated separately. For instance, for one of the overarching conclusions of the proceeding to be that "the community is encouraged to establish a policy or guideline for the use of edit filters" makes clear that—since a formal admission is made that such guidance allowed for latitude, and that latitude contributed to one of the negative findings—by any fair standard one has to acknowledge that the finding that "Kww... misused edit filters" stands on far shakier ground that its vote seems to indicate. The fact that a group can agree how someone should act, absent clear guidelines, does not mean that someone acting otherwise is at fault, because it is the existence of clear guidelines that allows one to clearly find fault (not the opinion of a majority on an unclearly codified matter). Here, it seems that Kww was guilty, mostly, of either bad judgment, or simply not thinking like the pack (rather than guilty of not following a clearly established rule). If this is so, in a real proceeding, having such a matter improperly included might result in the whole of the set of charges being reversed (for the bias it introduces into the proceedings). As troubling is the fact that technical bias appears to have crept into the process at key stages—something that I have seen repeatedly at WP, as a non-technocrat, just a subject matter expert: the fact that individuals add emotion and bias to decisions involving those doing technical things less proficiently than they might have done. (In this case, I am referring to the analysis performed by User:Dragons flight which is littered with "technically deficient design" annotations, regarding Kww's edit tools.) There are reasons why in fair proceedings, counsel for one side can say "I object", leading to evidence being thrown out, and statements being inadmissible. In this "sausage making" people were allowed to say anything and everything, in my book, calling into question the fundamental validity of the fairness of the whole of the process, and so the outcome. As well, the connection (and so importance, and clear admissibility) of a previous infraction "quickly reversed by the community as a bad block" seems to be questionable, and something that was allowed unnecessarily to introduce bias into the matter. Finally, the true foundation of what might have been a tightly proscribed, clear case—that Kww was involved in a content dispute in which he had a longstanding interest, and then misused his Admin powers toward personal editorial ends—this foundation of Kww's interest in the articles in question, is simply not established at all. Perhaps I have missed a segment of the record of the proceedings, but from what I have seen, nowhere in the arguing—and perhaps this is Kww's failure to self-represent—does there appear the crucial question and answer of this matter: Had Kww prior involvement in the articles/lists in question, and if any prior involvement, were those involvements editorial or administrative? If no clear history or histories of involvement were found at the articles (or at least no editorial history, only administrative actions), then Kww's defense that he was acting administratively at the time in question sounds very solid to me. Did he or did he not have a personal editorial interest in the two articles in question? If he did, then perhaps all the rest of his arguments, about period of applicable time after of death of Philip Seymour Hoffman, and other defenses, may amount to so much smoke. But if the evidence supports he had no standing interest, and that he came on purely as an administrator, then in every Admin v Editor action I have observed being decided, one arriving as an Admin is acting as an Admin, from start to finish. I will say, in fact, that there have been situations I have observed of Admins editing at articles, where they have had long histories of interest in the articles, Admins I deeply respect, that have none-the-less been allowed to argue that "In this subset of my series of actions on this day, in this situation, I was acting as an Adminstrator." That is to say, in my experience, the standard to which Kww was held is by no means uniform among administrators, and a standard that is not uniformly applied is both a clear basis for misunderstanding, as well as being a standard that is fundamentally unjust. This apparent overwhelming oversight with regard to fairness—Kww may perhaps be faulted for not having forcibly enough argued the point of his lack of editorial interest, but he did repeatedly make it—further fuels the question of whether the group empaneled to decide was truly impartial. Bottom line, it seems to me as a perpetual WP outsider—not much interested in its how the sausage is made (how the system adjudicates itself)—and as the son of a jurist, an individual that has had to sit on on his fair share of administrative "counsel" actions (in real life), and a widely read and fair-minded individual who always thinks of the rights of the accused (so I have been told), it seems clear to me that this matter was a formal, adjudicatory shambles. The system in force is neither of the English-type (based on uniform application of clearly applicable precedent, impartially determined), nor the French type (based on application of directly applicable codified example, again with impartiality), which brings it much closer to types of systems that are arbitrary, or based in politics (or authoritarian control). I will happily avoid putting myself in any position to have to be judged by such panels, under such ill-formed process. But I would also note that the smaller and smaller we become at WP, and the more invested that remaining individuals are (more than a decade of service by some), the harshness reflected when absolute penalties are imposed, and the personal damage that such penalties do—I do not doubt that at some point someone will be so aggrieved by their mishandling to pursue recourse in other places (where the rules are clear, no biased participants are allowed, and the playing field is certain to be level). In other places, they will have their cases fairly heard, and the damage from being improper handled here will be fairly assessed. |
Meanwhile, I will just be sad over the lost dedication of this Admin, and at way things work, disbelieve in the system more fully, and avoid the whole of it more entirely. It is no wonder that so many flee at any hint of conflict, if this is the sort of thing that can happen so quickly, and thoroughly. My view, as an outsider. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 22:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations on becoming an admin! I just saw! Way to go. —Мандичка YO 😜 12:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC) |
re Special:Diff/677533514, what you describe is not my take on things. Certainly being listed by GWW does not mean you necessarily set that record (perhaps GWW was fooled) or that you hold that record (someone who beat it may be unrecognized by GWW). What it means is that GWW said someone did it, that they set a record according to GWW, to keep in the bounds of WP:V.
I obviously would not include all information on the site, because the vast majority of GWW content is in regard to non-notable individuals who lack Wikipedia articles. I am not creating articles for those people, and thus am not including information about their records.
I am only including information as it pertains to individuals who are already notable, due to having Wikipedia articles.
It is not for you or I to decide on what is or is not important/noteworthy/trivial. Our own personal opinions and values would weigh too heavily on that. If GWW has gone to the bother of honoring it in a book or on a page, then they have established that it is not trivial, they have set it apart. This is why I don't nominate wedding dress of Kate Middleton for deletion. It seems pointless to me, but I recognize it's given prominence by sources.
As for the transitory nature, this is exactly why 'setter' was chosen instead of 'holder'. To aspire to have a 'holder' category builds the problem of having to monitor whether or not the record is broken, which would create too much work. If someone wants to set up a project and subcategory for that, they're welcome to it, but 'setter' is more achievable since then you don't have to remove anyone from the category, you just add them to it as they set records and don't have to worry about if they are surpassed.
Even if a record is surpassed, it is still notable to have been recorded as setting it in the first place, at least if GWW bothers to recognize it and it happened to a noteworthy person. Ranze ( talk) 23:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Liz. You're invited to join
WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a
project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.
Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America 1000 09:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
BluecometFlag ( talk) 19:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz, long time no talk, and congratulations with your tool-set! Chirag J. Roy was unreferenced when Everymorning proposed it for deletion. Since then two sources have been added, both are published by Roy himself on Southeastern Hot Herp Society. [8] [9] Do you really find these are "reliable source(s) that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article"? Best, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this diff. [10] To my knowledge csd tagging things currently at MfD is allowed (or at least admins don't object most of the time). For example most of the pages on my CSD log are things I spotted at MfD and decided to csd tag to speed up the process. Brustopher ( talk) 21:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
mw.wikibase.label
which use a TermLookup instead of loading a full entity to get labels. (
phabricator:T93885)This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz,
Maybe I wasn't able to prove the relevance of this writer but please let me try again saying that there's no person with such relevance on Protestant community in Spain than Jose de Segovia Barron. He is probably the Spanish alternative of CS Lewis on United Kingdom or Francis Schaeffer on United States and it's also relevant for English speaking community because he studied and he is even teaching in Welwyn, UK. Why if Lewis and Shaeffer has a Wikipedia page, this Spanish writer can't start its page?
What about a more structure page like this?:
José de Segovia Barrón ( Madrid, 1964) is a Spanish teacher, journalist & theologian. He studied Journalism on Universidad Complutense, ( Madrid), Theology on University of Kampen ( Netherlands) and Bible on The School of Biblical Studies Welwyn ( England). He is currently leading active students groups as Grupos Bíblicos Universitarios and Unión Bíblica. He was also President of the Theology Department on Alianza Evangélica Española between 2001 and 2015.
He is teaching on the following schools
Books
Digital Publications
Personal Life
He is pastor at Iglesia Evangélica Reformada on Madrid, is married with Anna and is father of four kids called Lluvia, Natán, Noé & Edén.
Best, Pablo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmarkez-ca ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand, thank you!
Best, Pablo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmarkez-ca ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Following your suggestion, I created a new edition of the page including references and sources, as a DRAFT - so it can be leverage before it's pushed online.
Please let me know if it's ok for you: /info/en/?search=User:Webmarkez-ca/Jose_de_Segovia_Barron
Thank you, Pablo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmarkez-ca ( talk • contribs) 07:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I'll add some additional prose including a quote from historian Gabino Fernández Campos, and also a quote from writer Cesar Vidal Manzanares, who already has a Wiki page. Hope it helps. You mean there is a easier way to ask for approval than (AfC)? Could I post it to you? for instance? If it's ok for you it's also ok for me, of course. Thank you, Pablo Webmarkez-ca ( talk) 15:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok Liz, thank you very much. I did the reference hard work, thank you very much for your effort and offer to complete it. I am not totally new on Wikipedia but obviously there was a evolution since then and it is more "demanding" now, right? I will try to publish through "New Pages Patrol" if you don't mind since I would like to start working on a new page in my life if it's possible :)
Thank you, Pablo Webmarkez-ca ( talk) 17:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
It's your Independence Day, right?
I already posted the page as /info/en/?search=Jose_de_Segovia ...
Thank you very much again and have a great holiday today!
Best, Pablo
Webmarkez-ca ( talk) 18:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not able to discover much about the "Criticism" section in the Manual of Style. I cannot recall ever seeing such a section in a WP article. I thought I would attach a YouTube link to a practitioner who explains their personal experience. The only contribution under the "Criticism" section is a blog. How can a text blog be more solid in terms of reliability than a video blog? Is the Criticism section a consensus matter of WP editors? What is its purpose? The sole contribution under the section is negative. After your edit the section gives undue weight methinks. Church of the Rain ( talk) 03:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you again!
Webmarkez-ca (
talk)
08:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
hey. LIz , thanks for your guidance, my article Public School Hyderabad was deleted kindly help to make it again with sufficient data.-- Jogi don ( talk) 06:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)-- Jogi don ( talk) 06:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear Liz it is good, that you took a moment to write a comment on my talk page in your own words! I appreciate that! You got a response. -- Miraclexix ( talk) 10:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
... so you said to an editor who can't even edit the talk page? - Happy editing, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It is a little twisted to notify an editor that their page is going to be deleted and ending that notice with "Happy editing". Most editors will not view those notices with any favorable feelings so it is inappropriate to be jolly.
LOL. You never ran civility patrol on him? He made a habit of denying protected edit requests, and then signing with "Happy editing". Looks like you'll be the subject of the 3rd high-profile crat-chat in recent memory. Good luck.
Wbm1058 (
talk)
03:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Please exercise more caution in the future as the page above is a Test case used for verifying that the proposed changes to a template aren't going to break anything if they are promoted to mainspace. I'll post a very generic reminder to WT:AFC about these exceptions. Hasteur ( talk) 11:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Just between ourselves, Liz, I wrote the Simple diff and link guide; it was freaking me out that there was no reasonable info for newbies. They kept being told to give diffs, but not how. HELP:DIFF is just a nightmare. And then I was forced to also create the Complete diff and link guide, just to have somewhere to move all the extra stuff that the nerds rushed to add. ("Or even better, you can do <incomprehensible incomprehensible incomprehensible>" which has the advantage of <insert baffling technical term here>".) It works quite well to have both levels, because naturally the nerds wouldn't like to be simply reverted. There's a "simplest guide", too. I wrote that for my mother. :-) Bishonen | talk 17:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC).
Dear Liz, I feel the need for help and guidance. It results from certain edit related matters I became involved in, the last days. This does not mean that I would need help in getting a certain agenda through, be it far from me, but rather would like to have an adoptee (does one say so? a tutor?) or some equivalent help, or simply a person who helps in a more agreed upon relationship for help. I recognized, that your help on the teahouse for me was in deed the work of a 'guardian angel', because I detected that you in fact do a lot of edits in Wikipedia: (WP:). All fine in that regard. I also assume that you, very likely, have a lot to do. If you do not have the time to help me out, please direct me to a helpful person you know could help me. -- Miraclexix ( talk) 12:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Liz, don't you think having released records on a major record label and being included in a recently-released, genre-specific bound history of music book about music released 70 years ago would be enough assertion of importance to have avoided a speedy deletion nomination? We're not talking about some no-name drum-n-bass bozo living in his mother's basement releasing music on a self published pseudo-label between X cycles pumped up by his high-school fanbois. The Dissident Aggressor 05:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Please don't revert changes to articles simply because they are in a non-English language. Google Translate is available. It suffices in instances in which you wish to investigate a claim/source. Willhesucceed ( talk) 08:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Please provide some information about this source on the article talk pagewhich was really a question about the reliability of the source. I did use Google Translate to look at the text of the source but I thought it didn't strongly support the statement made. Torchiest identified it as being the website of a mainstream Finnish newspaper, Ilta-Sanomat which is really the information I was looking for. Liz Read! Talk! 08:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Liz - I have prepared an ARBCOM case but it contains some sensitive material, and is longer than 500 words (closer to 1400). I think some of the information may require a private hearing. What should I do? Atsme 📞 📧 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Please check the native language wiki where one exists. Take a look at ko:변희재, including the references and let me know whether you'd still consider nominating the article after that. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry if I came across as being a bit unkind, and your response is a good one (that is, that you had had interactions with the account and were trying to understand the situation). There is a RL name linked to the "sockmaster" (I have no opinion as to whether or not that RL name is correct), but given the nature of the last few edits (the nature of which I always take as being sincere) I thought it the better part of valour not to link them to an account which could quickly lead to the purported RL name. In fact, another admin and I were going to split the blocks to further dilute the linkage, but it looks like the other admin didn't block the other account, and I'll probably have to do it. Technically it's not *quite* a block evasion, but the user was under sanctions to operate only one account with no (apparently intentional) logged out editing, and wasn't following that, plus the other stuff. Risker ( talk) 23:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Who all should be listed in involved - I'm a bit confused on that part. Atsme 📞 📧 01:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Just for your interest, GingerBreadHarlot came back both with IP addresses and a sock account. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GingerBreadHarlot/Archive. An obscene racist comment was removed from the sock's talk page. Doug Weller ( talk) 11:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs),
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs)
The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
My comment at 01:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC), directed at Guy, was a quite civil comment, directly related to the topic, and unrelated to the exchange between me and The Rambling Man. I think your "hab" is placed one message too low in this edit. — Kww( talk) 01:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Liz
You've just had an article deleted about a sportsman who played at the highest level for his country. That the admin deleted it is surprising, since A7 "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance"; and it had a proper reference and everything. It is one of a series of articles that is linked from the List of international rugby union players killed in World War I.
I'm going to have it recreated and I'll be turning it into a full article, as I have for Albert Downing and Henry Dewar; Billy Geen and Frank Tarr were Start class but they've just been classified as Good articles. In the meantime, you might come across some other stubs linked from that list. Please don't go CSDing them!
With kind regards
FunkyCanute ( talk) 21:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Must have been a screw up from AWB. I listed it for AFD so I don't know why I'd remove it. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
No space on Talk page to leave message---stumbled on this space by accident? Should you have said on your New Section Editing User Talk page ? Having difficulty comprehending Wikipedia systems 68.3.147.32 ( talk) 17:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Liz, in an RfAr, uninvolved admin's comments area I had provided some diffs. I would like to know what the protocol/requirement is for notifying the makers of those edits and/or the the editors whose talk pages those edits are on. I'd asked Doug Weller, but he wasn't sure and given the more recent notes on that request he held that the question was moot anyway, but I'd like to know for any future events (a light browsing did not seem to shed any light). cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 18:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the workshop hasn't been closed yet? The same was true of the evidence phase, so much so that other evidence was added after its closure time. Is this normal? The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Liz. Since Joshua Jonathan actually asked for somebody to fix the link, I've put a permanent link into his statement (without going via a diff, as you did, but of course both ways work fine). I understand that you had a scruple about editing somebody else's statement, but I'm sure he won't mind, and I thought it was better that the link just worked. The page is heavy enough going as it is... Bishonen | talk 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC).
OK, so there's this page that has been deleted since it's a hoax. It's called "Pīchi no Shiro de Rokkuman to Pātī". From the "Rokkuman" in the title and the fact that it was a hoax, I assume it's Mega Man fanon. Do you think I can copy the source over to the Mega Man Fanon Wiki? You can paste the source onto my talk page and I'll do all further actions. Thanks in advance. 67.82.89.253 ( talk) 23:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz. If I'll ever need a second account at Wikipedia, "Joshua Jackson" would be a great name! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The Workshop phase has closed. When can I make a general comment on the talk page of the proposed decision? -- NeilN talk to me 22:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
On Template:Infobox film it does say under the parameters for starring "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release". To be honest I was surprised that both Charlie Sheen and Jennifer Grey weren't on the poster but I guess their names weren't as big as they were a couple of years later. Quentin X ( talk) 18:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add any new votes to the Wikipedia:Five-million pool. It has been closed for voting for almost seven years. Pools still open include the Wikipedia:Seven-million pool and all higher number pools. JIP | Talk 20:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Sunday August 2, 1-7pm: WikNYC Picnic | |
---|---|
You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Brooklyn's Prospect Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.
We hope to see you there! -- Pharos ( talk) 03:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC) (Bonus event: WikiWednesday Salon @ Babycastles - Wednedsay, August 19) |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Hey Liz,
When I set up the Ten Year Society, it was with the intention that eventually other people would start handing out invites - it was only just me doing it before because the idea hadn't taken off yet. Best, — Scott • talk 17:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz! Does ArbCom keep a succinct list of Admins that have been desysopped "for cause" over the years? (I'm really only interested in numbers vs. time...) I'm asking in reference to this discussion that I am currently having. Thanks in advance! -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Just wait until it's finished. Seriously, you're like a kid who sneaks downstairs at 3AM to sneak a peek at his Christmas presents. :-) Serendi pod ous 20:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I saw your comment at Bbb23's. Are you saying that sending Yahoo->Yahoo works on WP?— Bagumba ( talk) 20:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
See you on the far side. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 20:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
About time. Just wanted to let you know that I will indeed vote for you, but I don't want to be first, as there are editors here who would come out in favor of Hitler if I said I opposed him. BMK ( talk) 21:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
You are one of the nicest Wikipedia editors I've met! You keep your cool and treat me like a real person! Thank you, thank you, thank you! I hope you will continue to stand up for me and support me in the future! YoSoyUnHamster ( talk) 00:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, yes! Thanks again! YoSoyUnHamster ( talk) 16:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm ready to remove my question and vote. However I would request a voluntary interaction ban between you and me, though that's not a precondition or anything. (I also think I deserve an apology, but I can live without one.) Best, Manul ~ talk 02:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Liz, thank you for acknowledging that your defense of Tumbleman at the SPI was misguided. That means a lot, and it eases my mind a bit. Until at least March of last year, you had applauded the defamation campaign against me which posited that Tumbleman was innocent and that I had been falsely accusing editors of being Tumbleman sockpuppets in order to get them banned because of their point of view. [2] It was wrong of you to do so -- regardless of how you felt about the SPI -- and I considered your behavior to be harassment. Manul ~ talk 19:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for putting yourself on the firing line, and for your willingness to serve this wonderful project. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your input. What changes have I made to these "descent" pages that you find contentious or problematic? Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 01:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment. I wasn't really expecting the MFD last long, although I confess that I had hoped maybe one or two additional editors would have a chance to weigh in. Also, it should have occurred to me what you meant when you said "involved", but I missed that until just now. Would you mind terribly if I ask you a question related to your RFA here on your talk page? TomStar81 ( Talk) 11:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
Comments on your RfA are starting to make my head hurt and the Gamergate doxxing stuff you had to go through (even if you were "fairly lucky") sounds absolutely horrible. The fact that you've managed to survive the last few days without exploding is amazing. You more than deserve this barnstar. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 13:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you,
Bilorv, this is very kind. Some of the opposes were expected, others less so.
But I need to focus on what I can learn from this experience! I actually thought that Gamergaters might put in an appearance here but I think I've done such limited editing on the main article, that I'm not on their radar any more. For that, I am grateful. I don't think there is much positive about being in an internet spotlight, even if it just lasts a few days. Luckily, most people on social media have a short attention span and move on to the next talked-about person or event. There's probably social research that's being done on this same subject somewhere right now which would be interesting to read.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
15:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
"Things got so heated on Friday", FWIW, Friday was a Full Blue Moon @ 6:43am EST. (Do people undergo extra stress or act wilder then!?) IHTS ( talk) 13:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Liz. I can't blame you for feeling gutted by the RFA altogether, even though you will surely get the mop at the end of it. Also I've come to think my own blunt oppose may have been a bit of a shock for you. While I stand by what I said, it would have been kinder to prepare you better for it, because I don't think you read my original question as quite so serious or so critical as I meant it to be. I'm sorry about that. Bishonen | talk 12:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC).
Hey Liz, I opposed your RFA but also realize that receiving such frank, negative scrutiny no matter if a minority opinion or couched in polite terms is never a pleasant experience. And the off-wiki doxing is unforgivable, and even some comments that question your real-life qualifications are infuriating. No panacea to offer, but hope that you keep in mind that the RFA opposes are just opinions about some of your editing on wikipedia, and not informed comments about you as a person (fwiw, you come across as a sensible and nice person). Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 23:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtlawyer1 ( talk • contribs)
There's absolutely no shame in the "shock" analogy above. I'm sorry this is so difficult. Best of luck. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Liz. Nokuse Plantation, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know . You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot ( talk!) 14:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
Hi! I'm leaving you this note because you recently particpated in a discussion that resulted in a deletion request which you may be interested in. NickCT ( talk) 15:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
My dear Liz,
I have considered the recent opposes, many written by editors I greatly respect. I have considered their points, many of which have some validity, which I am sure that you are also considering in a careful fashion. I have weighed those opposes and believe that the best thing that I can do at this point is to reiterate my support for you and your candidacy, because I remain convinced that you will be a good administrator, whether now, or in the future.
The above is a slight rewrite of what I just posted at the RfA page. In addition, I must add that I feel great compassion for you in what must be a very difficult time for you. I can only imagine the pain you are now feeling, and the only thing I can say right now is that I would be happy to discuss things with you in days to come, as you try to understand this situation. I bid you peace. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz. I'm sorry about the whole RfA - you handled yourself beautifully. If I'd known how much of a tough experience it was going to be, I wouldn't have pushed so hard for you to run. Whatever the outcome, focus on the support, over 200 people turned out to say you're doing a fine job (even if some were later struck). That's a significant number by anyone's standards and you should be proud of what you're doing. There is some useful feedback within the opposition section, I know you've already taken some of it on board - don't be disheartened by the number. If there's anything I can ever do, you know where to find me. WormTT( talk) 12:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
SwisterTwister has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit!
†
|
SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Liz,
I don't think we've interacted much. I was an Arbcom clerk, resign for complicated reasons, and felt guilty about it. We technically overlapped, but you became a clerk about the same time I stopped contributing in that area. Why am I telling you this? To explain that my guilt for dropping out cause me to pay attention to your actions as a clerk, and your fine handling helped assuage my guilt for abruptly dropping out.
Your RFA has been interesting to say the least. I see editors I highly respect on both sides. I'm watching the 'crat chat, which may resolve even as I'm writing this but at the moment they appear to be struggling.
One person opined "that you haven't often "cut the Gordian knot". I'm not here to agree or disagree with that comment, my goal is to try to cut the Gordian knot myself.
You've seen a number of editors concerned about your lack of content creation. (I know you have many mainspace edits and I haven't looked closely, but I assume they are gnomish in character.) I read your explanation of why you spent so little time in serious content creation. It struck a chord with me. I have decades of experience with financial economics, yet I almost never edit in those areas. Why? Because it would feel like work and I didn't come to Wikipedia to extend my workday. So I am very sympathetic with someone who wants to contribute to Wikipedia but doesn't want to feel compelled to work in any particular area.
That said, you are interested in becoming an administrator. While there is no formal rule that one has to have substantial content creation to be an administrator, I think there is substantial value in having that experience. Even if one plans to not do any substantial content work after becoming an administrator, the experience would be quite helpful in dealing with administrative issues. Therefore, I recommend that you consider the following: Inform the 'crats that you are gratified by the substantial support for your candidacy. Very few RFAs in history have garnered 200 supports. That said, the concern that admins ought to have experience with content creation is a valid concern, and while you don't want to do it and don't plan to do it substantially in the future, you agree that spending 3 to 6 months with an increased emphasis on content creation would provide you the insight that so many editors think is valuable. You might even enjoy it but that's not the point. In fact, if you did it and it reinforced your lack of desire to spend much time there because it wasn't fun, it still would provide more insight into the mindset of content creators.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 18:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
On 5 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nokuse Plantation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Nokuse Plantation is the largest privately owned nature preserve in the Southeastern United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nokuse Plantation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Chris Woodrich ( talk) 12:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Can't leave much of a comment because my state is in a maelstrom of fallen trees and lost power, but I'm sorry I didn't catch your RfA in time to support it. You've been solidly aboveboard and fair in all the interactions I've seen and I wish you the best of luck in the upcoming Bcrat coin flip. Protonk ( talk) 15:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to WP:200. That's a rare accomplishment. Sorry to see you sitting the same boat I sat in at my RfA. Funny enough same percentage, resulting in a cratchat you apparently landed perfectly on the tip of the needle. :p It looks like the crats are leaning towards promoting you by a hair. If you do get promoted, let me be the first to congratulate you. If not, then better luck next time.— cyberpower Chat:Online 20:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Per the bureaucrat discussion, I've closed your RfA as successful. Good luck with the new tools. Maxim(talk) 01:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Congrats on the new mop! Well deserved. — Strongjam ( talk) 01:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Very well merited. Congratulations. Kharkiv07 ( T) 01:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Congrats on your RFA! You'll do great.-- Jorm ( talk) 01:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It has become apparent that you
so you are now officially awesome.
I'll have a glass of Kavalan whiskey in celebration, and I owe you at least two for convincing you to put yourself through this. I know you'll do great, and if you ever need another admin for any reason don't hesitate to ping me. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Congrats, Liz! Thanks for your willingness to take on extra responsibilities. I am confident that you will use your new tools judiciously. 209.131.236.219 ( talk) 18:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
They are very sharp tools, and can cut deep and swift. Be wise and considerate.
May your hand be steady, your aim be true and your mind be an oasis of calm.
→
Stani
Stani
01:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
May you use your powers for good! :) Glad to have voted for you! Thereandnot ( talk) 01:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful result as an administrator. I voted support so I wish you the best of luck EurovisionNim (talk to me) (see my edits) 02:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
Congrats on becoming a manager. You were always kind to me when I was new. Thank you Cavalierman ( talk) 02:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
You deserve this for simply getting the bit after all that stress. Congrats again. :D — cyberpower Chat:Limited Access 02:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you for helping us with our admin burdens. Remember that we are servants of the community and not the masters of it. If you have any questions or just want to know which cabals to join just pop by my talk page. Chillum 03:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
For navigating a thorny RfA without losing your cool. Thanks for stepping up to clean out the Augean stables. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 06:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Welcome to the Cabal! I'm sure that RfA was quite tough on you, but tomorrow's a brighter day. Have fun with your new buttons. ceradon ( talk • edits) 06:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
I'm sorry it took so long to close your RfA. Some important issues have arisen during the course of the RfA and I'd like to explore them to see if we can establish consensus on them. Please keep an eye out for the discussion. It'll be advertised at BN, the Cratchat talk and at Talk:RfA. In the meantime, congratulations on a successful RfA, but I hope you don't mind if I wish that the more significant legacy to Wikipedia will be improved RfX. -- Dweller ( talk) 06:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like the struggle session is finally over - welcome to the world of adminship. Yunshui 雲 水 07:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Congrats on your RfA Liz! It was definitely one of the toughest I've seen for a while. If you need any help/advice/guidance please do let me know, I'm happy to help as always. And...I see no one has properly attired you yet, so this is for you. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow! what a stressful experience! I hope this kitten helps.
Guy Macon (
talk)
08:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz. I'm pleased to see the RfA has finally finished and that you are now an administrator. You know as well as I that it was a close call and when it comes down to it, most of the oppose votes were legitimate issues raised. So many editors I respect ended up in that column, I really don't them all to be telling me "I told you so". Don't let me down, Liz, be the excellent admin I know you can be. Also, now that the RfA is over, have you considered being open to recall? My method is available to pinch if you'd like - I wish more admins were open to something like it. WormTT( talk) 09:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Not to be mean, but I opposed your RfA because I am not comfortable with your attraction to the drama boards, especially because I've seen you exercise some bad judgment and snap assumptions. Even my own case, you said I'd continue to be a problem and would be back at ANI...I haven't been. And much to the opposite of your assumption...haven't interacted with the user (Winkelvi) who was a problem.. a problem as evinced by his being brought back to ANI subsequently for like the 6th or 7th time and being blocked (insufficiently, imho) for the same behaviour with others that lead to our dustup. Now, as another negative, the overreaction just kept me from offering what could have been a significant improvement to an article that hasnt improved since the dustup--an action that has essentially stifled content improvement. No one cared about what was really important...the content. So I guess we don't get them right all the time. Your assumptions however left a very bitter taste in my mouth about administrator wannabes. I do however wish you luck. I hope you take something from the opposition comments and learn from it. JackTheVicar ( talk) 14:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Despite promises, the parties usually can't seem to ignore each other. As long as JtV views Winkelvi as the truly guilty party, I predict that there will be future interaction between the two editors.
Also because I've been busy and don't think I've said it yet, congratulations on your RfA Liz :) Kevin Gorman ( talk) 22:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Was your path to admin a difficult one because you were a woman or were you treated with respect according to your actions and edits? Overall would you think the nomination is akin to Affirmative Action? I do not but I am interested in your opinion on your thoughts on the matter. Just in my experience I have not seen anything that would disqualify you or show you needed special treatment to gain adminship, it's your perceptions I was interested in though as the person that experienced it. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Liz, I appreciate that you shared your view. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 18:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Off to the beach ... | |
Right now I would suggest Liz do something fun and celebrate (like going to the beach for a few days!) I see no reason for this person to relive her recent experience to satisfy other people's curiosity about what it was like. Hazing and struggle sessions are unpleasant for everyone, regardless of gender. I'm sure Liz will offer her opinions on the topics under discussion at such time she feels it is appropriate. Djembayz ( talk) 16:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
From what I've seen over this RFA, being female makes it much harder to pass since males (like myself) don't have the MRAtards / redpillers opposing you because you're a woman. Also, the level of scrutiny of Liz's "interactions" with other editors was appalling. I've been significantly more sarcastic significantly more commonly and not one person opposed my RFA for it. (I think one person opposed my checkuser appointment over sarcasm concerns.) It's a well-known fact that men will scrutinize women significantly more on their personality than they will other men. Seeing it in action in this RFA was abhorrent. Good luck with the mop, Liz, and ignore the people whining that you're "too rude". Half of them wouldn't know "rude" if it hit them in the face. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 22:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I have never voted in an admin election, as until two days ago I had never seen a name I recognised among those proposed. So I was disappointed that when I saw a name I did recognise as a very competent conciliator, I had missed the boat. Anyway, the outcome was clearly the correct one! Maproom ( talk) 18:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations on the outcome, Liz, I was especially pleased to see that the bureaucrat discussion directly addressed a spiking rash/fever of opposes midway which seemed clear evidence of some caucusing/campaigning/rabblerousing going on behind the scenes attempting to muck up the process. – Athaenara ✉ 21:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Now that that's over, have a cookie! Oh, and congrats. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 02:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC) |
Num num! I think I need a plateful, Etamni! Thanks for the munchies. Liz Read! Talk! 20:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Well done!
Doug Weller (
talk)
13:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz, congratulations on the RfA. As several others have said, you're due a bit of a respite now and I know you said that you plan to ease into admin activity slowly and cautiously which is a wise decision. So no pressure at all here (seriously), but I thought there might be a chance that you would be interested in trying to mollify those from the lack-of-content-creation oppose camp by creating/improving a few articles, and if so I wanted to offer you a few suggestions:
Again, no pressure. You had my support even with your current level of content creation. But if you are looking for a content creation project those are some good starting places. - Thibbs ( talk) 15:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Liz. With regard to your WP:RfA and you now being a WP:Administrator, I've been thinking about when we first met (at least I think it's when we first met) two years ago. It makes me think of how fast time flies by, and how I never thought that the IP I was talking to about Wikipedia's biography category policy ( WP:BLPCAT) would be a WP:Administrator someday. Since you were editing as an IP at the time, and have removed your IP account from your user page, I won't point to the discussion where we first met...unless you want me to. But, anyway, looking at your contributions from that time, you seemed very much interested in content creation. You were interested in sociology and sexology/sexual topics (including LGBT topics), and other topics, and would commonly post to the article talk pages about improving these articles. You also sometimes edited such articles to improve them. I'm not sure why you moved away from editing/commenting on those topics, but, in my opinion, you don't necessarily lack a content creation mindset. If you ever do dive back into editing such articles, I can point you to some topics that need, or might need, a woman's perspective; for example, Talk:Mons pubis#Which image to use?. I'm currently the only woman commenting there. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
even though I would have opposed .. I congratulate you. Best of luck with the new buttons. — Ched : ? 01:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Even though I did oppose and additionally think your intervention on my talk page was probably not quite appropriate, it would be amiss of me not to wish you a fast recovery from the suspense and a successful, not too steep learning curve now you have the tools. Good luck! -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
My goodness, Liz, congratulations! I don't know how I missed the outcome of the cratchat, because I had been following it blow-by-blow for several hours, but I just went to check RFA and saw you were successful. This is great! As I've said on several emails, it's an honor working with you on the clerk team. You've held me "in check" a few times when I was a bit over-eager to take action, and your ideas and suggestions are always valuable. Goodness, it's going to be weird seeing your name highlighted in blue in discussions and notices now. And darn, that just leaves two non-admin clerks - I'm kind of feeling left out now... Once again, congrats! Have a great day, and get ready for (what I hear are) the horrors of ADMINACCT! L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 13:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you for the barnstar,
L235. They are kind and generous words. Yes, there was a bit of friction when I started as a clerk but I'm glad that time and focusing on the work has smoothed things out and that I have good working relationships with all of my fellow clerks.
I look forward to working on another case with you in the future. And, I'm really glad you had an opportunity to take such an awesome trip this summer. Thanks again!
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
There's an issue at WikiProject Television that I would like your input at. Electric Burst( Electron firings)( Zaps) 17:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I was unaware that you were running otherwise I would have thrown in my vote of support. But you made it without me! Congrats! — Keithbob • Talk • 17:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
I'm glad to see you passed RfA despite some heated opposition, and I know you'll do great things with your new responsibilities. That looked very stressful, so here's a beer to help you chillax. RO (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
If nothing else, you deserve a special barnstar just for sticking with it, that RFA was something to behold. Sometimes I think we've forgotten the purpose of Wikipedia, to expand and enhance an ever-growing tome of knowledge that's free for everyone to see and editable by (mostly) anyone. Sure it has its own crinkles but I had and have no doubt whatsoever that you will be a sterling example of what Wikipedia needs from its admins. Good luck, don't get too embroiled too soon, and remember that every single edit you make and every single admin action you take which improves Wikipedia justifies it all. My best to you. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little late to congratulate you on your RFA, but here I am!! Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received eight long, sordid years ago from the puppy: |
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. All rights released under GFDL. |
Belated congratulations on your successful run for adminship. Thanks for all of your work to improve English Wikipedia. North America 1000 22:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
Wednesday August 19, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
---|---|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! -- Pharos ( talk) 15:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
I am approaching you as the clerk for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Everyone, including its creator Kww, agrees that this page now serves no useful purpose, but since it is referred to in FOF3 there is a view that it should be moved to a subpage of the Arbcom case (and the FOF edited to point to its new location). Do you think that is necessary for the record? If so, I will do it; otherwise, I am minded to close the MfD as delete. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 18:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Belated congrats. I just saw your WP:NAS edits in my WL. Regards. -- Tito Dutta ( talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
Dear Liz, I had pinged you at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_23#Category:Christian_female_saints_from_the_Old_Testament, not sure if you had noticed this. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
This wiki kitten is here to say you should not get discouraged. Better luck next time (at which point you are welcome to notify me on my talk page about your candidacy; I missed it this time). Cheers,
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
10:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter
July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
Would you be willing to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the verified oldest people? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
For your wise words to Glacialfrost. I let the little twerp get to me, I know, but he's got this hall monitor mentality riding on the back of about a week's editing (under this account; I think he's a sock of The Editor of All Things Wikipedia, whose editorial patterns were remarkably similar), and a tendency to play Mommy, as I pointed out on his talk page. He's got no business going near Twinkle, and now he's looking to be a reviewer. He'll hang himself eventually, of course. But in the meantime, he needs some serious reigning in. -- Drmargi ( talk) 21:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I apologize, I did not mean to contribute to stirring up the nonsense from the RFA, and I won't respond regarding that matter anymore. I was genuinely surprised to see things you said described as expressing "open hostility" and I wanted to know if I had the wrong impression about you, but it's obvious now that it was an empty claim. I didn't think that posing the equivalent of "citation needed" would cause someone to get so ridiculously defensive. Gamaliel ( talk) 00:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz, as I mentioned above, I am ready to put this matter behind us. Your response and your subsequent deletion of my reply are an ongoing concern, however. I expected some kind of agreement to move on, but you continued the old pattern by making a baseless aspersion against me. You are free to archive the thread, of course, but I'll no longer permit attacks from you to go unanswered, so I've restored my reply.
Please read WP:Harassment carefully. Earlier I requested an interaction ban, but I think WP:INVOLVED already addresses my concern. Since you are on record as one of my harassers, you are involved with regard to any administrative dealings that relate to me.
In a nutshell, my take is that for whatever reason you were willing to extend an unlimited amount good faith toward these sockpuppeteers, but none toward me. If you wish we can continue this conversation and try to better understand what happened, or we can let it drop. Manul ~ talk 03:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Since you are on record as one of my harassers...what record is that, Manul? It's not a record that I am familiar with.
It is baffling that you don't appear to understand what the issue is, even after Bishonen pointed it out in the RfA. You just archived the thread on your talk page discussing it. Do you really not know? Did I mention I am baffled?
You don't appear to understand the reason I initially requested an interaction ban. An interaction ban prohibits not only direct interactions but also attacks made against the other party in their absence. The latter is the harassment issue at stake here. You don't appear to understand that my above comment "but I think WP:INVOLVED already addresses my concern" negates the original request.
You don't appear to understand that I came here last month as a gesture of good will, removing my RfA question [5] and hoping to resolve the matter. Unfortunately, you proceeded to make an aspersion that was reminiscent of your past behavior -- as if no time had passed -- and then deleted my response to it. You don't appear to understand that that was a bad thing to do. You don't appear to understand the difference between raising concerns about your conduct, backed by evidence, and simply "leaving disparaging comments". Equating those is mutually exclusive with being a competent admin.
There doesn't seem to be much hope here, and as I indicated before I would be well satisfied with leaving it behind. But you continued the same problematic behavior. Liz-the-regular-editor is easily ignored, which is what I had been doing -- we had almost no interactions until last month -- but an admin exhibiting these issues is cause for serious concern. The purpose of my last message was (1) to make clear that continuing such behavior (casting baseless aspersions; deleting the follow-up) is unacceptable, and (2) to make sure you understood what WP:INVOLVED entails. I don't know what to expect from you, considering the behavior I've seen, but at least WP:INVOLVED, if followed, should prevent the worst case scenarios.
To soften this a bit, I will say that the situation which started this off was rather unusual. A user had been caught sockpuppeting yet didn't appear to understand that he had been caught. The explanations he offered didn't make sense, and he didn't appear to understand that they didn't make sense. I can imagine admins shaking their heads while reading them.
Not long after his block, the user created an attack website based in part upon the falsehood that he had been wrongly accused of sockpuppeting. His primary target was me, whom he painted as deviously accusing editors of being his sockpuppets as a means of blocking those who shared his point of view. His friend, who had contributed to the attack site, disseminated the story on Wikipedia, bringing the off-wiki harassment on-wiki.
And good grief, it turned out that the friend had also been sockpuppeting, and that the two had been conspiring since soon after the first got blocked. That last SPI shows outright trolling, and an admin there expressed displeasure about the deceptions involved. The two would later collaborate to disrupt the Deepak Chopra article with more socking, and I would be targeted again.
Such dedicated trolling might be unexpected, and one might be forgiven for not catching on right away. But once the evidence has been laid out, refusing to look at it is inexcusable, and then to actually applaud the harassment, even joining in ... well. If I were your employer, I would ask you to attend a seminar on online bullying. Since you're not (presumably), I can only implore you to carefully read WP:Harassment. This background should bring more clarity to my RfA question and the talk page thread you deleted. Best, Manul ~ talk 03:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Liz, I find the disciplining of Kww very disheartening (reported here [6], and here [7]), since it captures so many of the injustices built into the WP system of adjudicatory decision-making (even with regard to its Administrators). And that it can happen, so quickly and so thoroughly, to an Admin leaves me shaken to the core about this place.
Extended content
|
---|
Before unpacking this a bit, I would note that I have twice been disciplined, regarding the same issue, once on each side of the matter—once, because I fought with an editor who mass reverted an edit because as a part of it, I had moved an unsourced BLP section of text, adding citation needed tags (because they viewed the move as inserting unsourced text into a BLP article), and in the second case, my misstepping based on the precedent of the first, disciplined for removing a block of misplaced, unsourced text in a BLP article (rather than move and tag it), only to be told I should have moved and tagged it (the matter over which I was chastised in the first case). Hence, in the Rambling v Kww case, I have been on both sides, and have been punished both times—yes, for the way I argued about it (but the root editorial issue was the same, though oppositely adjudicated, each time). With regard to the particulars, the overriding conclusion I draw is based on (a) failing to see what I consider clear evidence of impartiality on the part of those adjudicating, and (b) failing to see clearly established standards to include or exclude perspectives based on the uniform application of principles of fairness. With regard to the first, I refer, as an outsider, to the lack of evidence that those voting had no interest or association with the parties involved, e.g., nowhere being asked to state no cause for recusal. That is to say, as WP gets smaller and smaller, the likelihood that those involved at higher levels will have had prior involvement with one another becomes greater. With involvement comes impressions, biases. Apart from such a clear process of query and recusal, the majority of those voting could, for all one might know, be "friend and family" of one or the other involved in the matter at hand. Without people being queried, there is no basis whatsoever for trusting that the proceedings are completely without bias. On this point, I will asked to be better informed: How were members of those deciding Kww's and Rambling's fate chosen (included, and excluded)? Perhaps I simply need to understand this process better than I do. With regard to the second, failing to see standards, I would note the following. In the same vein of any ADD being able to empanel a grand jury to to "indict a ham sandwich" (Hon. Sol Wachtler), it appears, for lack of clearly codified rules of procedure, that it is possible to construct a charge that will result in a predisposition of a seated group of admins to harshly discipline the accused. I say this because the list of charges were a very mixed bag, and seemed to include accusations that should either have either omitted outright, or adjudicated separately. For instance, for one of the overarching conclusions of the proceeding to be that "the community is encouraged to establish a policy or guideline for the use of edit filters" makes clear that—since a formal admission is made that such guidance allowed for latitude, and that latitude contributed to one of the negative findings—by any fair standard one has to acknowledge that the finding that "Kww... misused edit filters" stands on far shakier ground that its vote seems to indicate. The fact that a group can agree how someone should act, absent clear guidelines, does not mean that someone acting otherwise is at fault, because it is the existence of clear guidelines that allows one to clearly find fault (not the opinion of a majority on an unclearly codified matter). Here, it seems that Kww was guilty, mostly, of either bad judgment, or simply not thinking like the pack (rather than guilty of not following a clearly established rule). If this is so, in a real proceeding, having such a matter improperly included might result in the whole of the set of charges being reversed (for the bias it introduces into the proceedings). As troubling is the fact that technical bias appears to have crept into the process at key stages—something that I have seen repeatedly at WP, as a non-technocrat, just a subject matter expert: the fact that individuals add emotion and bias to decisions involving those doing technical things less proficiently than they might have done. (In this case, I am referring to the analysis performed by User:Dragons flight which is littered with "technically deficient design" annotations, regarding Kww's edit tools.) There are reasons why in fair proceedings, counsel for one side can say "I object", leading to evidence being thrown out, and statements being inadmissible. In this "sausage making" people were allowed to say anything and everything, in my book, calling into question the fundamental validity of the fairness of the whole of the process, and so the outcome. As well, the connection (and so importance, and clear admissibility) of a previous infraction "quickly reversed by the community as a bad block" seems to be questionable, and something that was allowed unnecessarily to introduce bias into the matter. Finally, the true foundation of what might have been a tightly proscribed, clear case—that Kww was involved in a content dispute in which he had a longstanding interest, and then misused his Admin powers toward personal editorial ends—this foundation of Kww's interest in the articles in question, is simply not established at all. Perhaps I have missed a segment of the record of the proceedings, but from what I have seen, nowhere in the arguing—and perhaps this is Kww's failure to self-represent—does there appear the crucial question and answer of this matter: Had Kww prior involvement in the articles/lists in question, and if any prior involvement, were those involvements editorial or administrative? If no clear history or histories of involvement were found at the articles (or at least no editorial history, only administrative actions), then Kww's defense that he was acting administratively at the time in question sounds very solid to me. Did he or did he not have a personal editorial interest in the two articles in question? If he did, then perhaps all the rest of his arguments, about period of applicable time after of death of Philip Seymour Hoffman, and other defenses, may amount to so much smoke. But if the evidence supports he had no standing interest, and that he came on purely as an administrator, then in every Admin v Editor action I have observed being decided, one arriving as an Admin is acting as an Admin, from start to finish. I will say, in fact, that there have been situations I have observed of Admins editing at articles, where they have had long histories of interest in the articles, Admins I deeply respect, that have none-the-less been allowed to argue that "In this subset of my series of actions on this day, in this situation, I was acting as an Adminstrator." That is to say, in my experience, the standard to which Kww was held is by no means uniform among administrators, and a standard that is not uniformly applied is both a clear basis for misunderstanding, as well as being a standard that is fundamentally unjust. This apparent overwhelming oversight with regard to fairness—Kww may perhaps be faulted for not having forcibly enough argued the point of his lack of editorial interest, but he did repeatedly make it—further fuels the question of whether the group empaneled to decide was truly impartial. Bottom line, it seems to me as a perpetual WP outsider—not much interested in its how the sausage is made (how the system adjudicates itself)—and as the son of a jurist, an individual that has had to sit on on his fair share of administrative "counsel" actions (in real life), and a widely read and fair-minded individual who always thinks of the rights of the accused (so I have been told), it seems clear to me that this matter was a formal, adjudicatory shambles. The system in force is neither of the English-type (based on uniform application of clearly applicable precedent, impartially determined), nor the French type (based on application of directly applicable codified example, again with impartiality), which brings it much closer to types of systems that are arbitrary, or based in politics (or authoritarian control). I will happily avoid putting myself in any position to have to be judged by such panels, under such ill-formed process. But I would also note that the smaller and smaller we become at WP, and the more invested that remaining individuals are (more than a decade of service by some), the harshness reflected when absolute penalties are imposed, and the personal damage that such penalties do—I do not doubt that at some point someone will be so aggrieved by their mishandling to pursue recourse in other places (where the rules are clear, no biased participants are allowed, and the playing field is certain to be level). In other places, they will have their cases fairly heard, and the damage from being improper handled here will be fairly assessed. |
Meanwhile, I will just be sad over the lost dedication of this Admin, and at way things work, disbelieve in the system more fully, and avoid the whole of it more entirely. It is no wonder that so many flee at any hint of conflict, if this is the sort of thing that can happen so quickly, and thoroughly. My view, as an outsider. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 22:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations on becoming an admin! I just saw! Way to go. —Мандичка YO 😜 12:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC) |
re Special:Diff/677533514, what you describe is not my take on things. Certainly being listed by GWW does not mean you necessarily set that record (perhaps GWW was fooled) or that you hold that record (someone who beat it may be unrecognized by GWW). What it means is that GWW said someone did it, that they set a record according to GWW, to keep in the bounds of WP:V.
I obviously would not include all information on the site, because the vast majority of GWW content is in regard to non-notable individuals who lack Wikipedia articles. I am not creating articles for those people, and thus am not including information about their records.
I am only including information as it pertains to individuals who are already notable, due to having Wikipedia articles.
It is not for you or I to decide on what is or is not important/noteworthy/trivial. Our own personal opinions and values would weigh too heavily on that. If GWW has gone to the bother of honoring it in a book or on a page, then they have established that it is not trivial, they have set it apart. This is why I don't nominate wedding dress of Kate Middleton for deletion. It seems pointless to me, but I recognize it's given prominence by sources.
As for the transitory nature, this is exactly why 'setter' was chosen instead of 'holder'. To aspire to have a 'holder' category builds the problem of having to monitor whether or not the record is broken, which would create too much work. If someone wants to set up a project and subcategory for that, they're welcome to it, but 'setter' is more achievable since then you don't have to remove anyone from the category, you just add them to it as they set records and don't have to worry about if they are surpassed.
Even if a record is surpassed, it is still notable to have been recorded as setting it in the first place, at least if GWW bothers to recognize it and it happened to a noteworthy person. Ranze ( talk) 23:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Liz. You're invited to join
WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a
project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.
Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America 1000 09:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
BluecometFlag ( talk) 19:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz, long time no talk, and congratulations with your tool-set! Chirag J. Roy was unreferenced when Everymorning proposed it for deletion. Since then two sources have been added, both are published by Roy himself on Southeastern Hot Herp Society. [8] [9] Do you really find these are "reliable source(s) that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article"? Best, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this diff. [10] To my knowledge csd tagging things currently at MfD is allowed (or at least admins don't object most of the time). For example most of the pages on my CSD log are things I spotted at MfD and decided to csd tag to speed up the process. Brustopher ( talk) 21:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
mw.wikibase.label
which use a TermLookup instead of loading a full entity to get labels. (
phabricator:T93885)