This page 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.

... I read your essay, and I've had wikifriends help me no end, both in what I consider high exposure areas of the project, and from discussion at Talk pages. I had some good advice from one with regard to my really shitty remarks towards yourself last year, and I attempted and made a grudging miserable apology at the time.

Your response to what I did, measured and I think generous toward me, gave me pause to examine my behaviour. It was was nasty and mean and totally unwarranted, and I'm very sorry. - Roxy the dog 20:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to come deliver these words Roxy. With appreciation, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, at the Poland-WW2 case request, you wrote "ArbCom's biggest mistake since FRAM. ". Considering the caps, I know what you mean, but could you perhaps just for the sake of clarity change it to Framban or a link or so? Fram ( talk) 08:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

A link is a good idea and I've done it. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram ( talk) 15:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: fyi, the shortcut you used for the text "Education Noticeboard" points to Wikipedia:Editnotice. I'd fix it, but... I probably shouldn't edit someone else's comments in a case request. isaacl ( talk) 16:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• First Community Consultation: A concise summary of the community consultation on the initial three drafts of the Charter is now available for your review on Meta and on the Diff platform. In addition, you can read about MC Ambassadors are sharing about their experiences:
  • Highlights of the community consultation process, as well as about the Movement Charter Ambassador Program.
  • The Igbo Wikimedia community’s participation in the MC consultation.
  • The experience of Arabic-speaking community members.
• What’s next after the community feedback period? The Committee is currently reviewing the detailed feedback which consists of 59 pages of comments, in March the Committee will share their response to the comments. The detailed version of the feedback, which the Committee is reviewing, is also available on this Meta page.
• MCDC’s Virtual Working Session: The Committee gathered virtually from 3rd to 5th February to work on the drafts of the following new set of chapters of the Movement Charter: Global Council, Hubs, Decision Making, and Roles & Responsibilities. The Committee members worked in their smaller drafting groups first. The full Committee then convened, with representatives of each drafting group presenting the progress made so far, as well as about what type of support is needed for their future sessions.
• Learn about Movement Charter Drafting Committee’s work in January: The update includes details of the meetings held by the Committee in the month of January 2023, stakeholder conversations, completed work as well as about the new drafting groups, creating glossary and independent legal review.

Coming up:

• Community feedback on the ratification methodology proposal of the future Movement Charter. The feedback was postponed until March 2023. The communities will be able to review the ratification methodology and share their early input on the open questions.  
• The MCDC will soon announce a “Call for Advisors”. The call will be an invitation for interested individuals with relevant expertise and knowledge to participate in drafting the Charter. Advisors will be considered non-voting members.
• Responses to the community consultation feedback by the MCDC. The Committee has been carefully reviewing feedback collected in the consultation from November & December 2022, and will publicly share responses to the feedback by March.  

--14:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC).

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

– Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a most interesting comment in light of our previous discussion with North8000 et al.

Also, what happened with this draft? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it an interesting comment? You're the second person to point it out to me so I am guessing there's something there I am missing so I guess I should spend some time looking into Walt. But I am skeptical of commitment mechanisms actually working with JPxGs not yet launched RfA as an example why. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

If we want more, we have to be willing to consider all volunteers. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the discussions fell prey to the same issue as most of these disputes do: if editors are more content with the status quo (which by the nature of English Wikipedia's consensus traditions, includes veto power by relatively small groups of like-minded editors) than not getting exactly what they want, they don't have enough incentive to work towards compromise solutions. This results in discussions ballooning with options. This is handled in the offline world by delegating to a working committee to whittle down choices, but on English Wikipedia, many editors feel they should be able to engage directly, and thus the network of conversations multiply even further. I think it may still be helpful to recommend RfCs in future cases, even if history tells us many contentious RfCs fail, because some succeed in reaching a result, and it's hard to predict ahead of time which way an RfC will go. I think mandating an RfC is only going to work in cases where a very specific question needs to be answered. If it's something that needs discussion to establish scope, the community is going to discuss whatever it wants to discuss during that preparation phase, which can include reaching a decision that it doesn't want to discuss it further.

One thing that disappointed me is that I don't recall anyone saying, "I do a lot of new page patrolling, and this is what would help me." I was hoping that those most affected by rapid creation of articles would lead the discussion. isaacl ( talk) 01:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I think recommended RfCs have a long enough and poor enough track record as arbcom remedies so as to be little more than "Something is needed here, recommending an RfC is something, lets recommend an RfC". As for the broader dynamics I agree with your thinking for the most part. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the track record of recommended RfCs being followed up is poor. For better or worse, when the answer is "the community has the onus to decide since that's the process", then it's reasonable to point this out, even if the community doesn't want / is too discouraged to follow process. isaacl ( talk) 01:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Is an SPA now on at least their third attempt to create a puff bio of a NN individual. Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 11:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey. Moaning here for a sec, I wish you hadn't atoped that discussion between Draco and myself. And I also wish I'd done a copy/paste job of my reply before clicking the "1 new message" button. I was writing a reply to Draco's last message with my thoughts on the closure, where I'd written a three or so paragraph alternate closure that diverged a bit from the original RfC closure, referring to relevant policies. Alas now I have to try and type it out from memory :'(

Not your fault. I shoulda copy/pasted the comment before letting the page re-bubble, and the WMF really should have allowed for a more graceful comment restore in situations like this. Oh well, back to my memory I go! Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Losing a long reply is awful. It's normal the discussion closer that does me in. Having someone admit that they need to stop bludgeoning and then doing it again for the next person to reply felt like it called for a response of some kind and that seemed like a fair one. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Oof. I definitely share your pain with the discussion closer, it sometimes does some really odd things to RfCs for me, like partial closes.

No worries, as I said not your fault. I agree the bludgeoning is bad, though I did find their direct answers to my questioning helpful in assessing something I could have assessed with more time reviewing the article talk page. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

February songs

my daily stories

Today I have a story about two pieces we sang at church, today. - Do you watch Mozart? Perhaps you could tell some new editors a bit about history? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The closest I've come to watching Mozart is Amadeus. I can't imagine composing in a language I did not speak. Wow. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I actually meant our article about the composer where we have an edit war. I explained history at some time but - having been accused in 2023 of having driven editors away (without evidence, - I have no idea why some left, and it was certainly nothing I intended) - want to stay away. The accusations came on Jenny Lind, an opera singer. My story today is a nod to Wagner. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

An infobox edit war. *sigh*. I've left a message on the talk page and also notified people of it being a contentious topic. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, gee, I'm shocked. I left one of the oldest articles I followed (since 2007) when all the usual suspects showed up to join some new infobox warriers in a very uncivil infobox war. The more things change, the more they stay the same. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I see: new editors who never noticed before that there was a war. I have watched Mozart whose Requiem we'll perform later this year. - The 2023 infobox discussions happen where a few editors still try to keep their articles free from an infobox, as if a few lines about life data and occupation ruined the article. I - often a suspect - only comment what I saw in 10 years of wasting time. I only supported an infobox for the James Joyce compromise: a well defined concise collection of data, as I also see in articles that Brian Boulton proposed in 2013, take Percy Grainger. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The point about Joyce is that two editors took InfoBox Nasty back to the same levels as during the original issues, and I simply won't edit around those kinds of editors. And I wasn't the only one who left. When years of work come down to unpleasant people wading in to an article for the first time ever to start an issue about an infobox, I don't care what else happens to the article down the road-- I'm done. Especially when others reward that kind of behavior. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry that I don't understand all of what you wrote. I like to award people who "grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith". What you call "wade in to an article" (and "invasion" comes to mind) looks to me like "reading an article and see that a standard feature is missing". I don't understand "Infobox Nasty". I believe that "unpleasant editors" is pov we can better do without. If the few lines about when and where someone was born and died, and what they did so we have an article on him or her, make you (and others) leave, I think it's out of proportion, and I feel helpless and sorry. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

We're known by the company we keep. If we show up consistently in certain cases, even after others promoting a user preference in that same discussion have behaved less than collegially, it says something about our values and the behaviors we are willing to promote and defend. We used to have some pretty nasty medical editors, and even though our content positions were often aligned, I didn't feel the need to wade in to discussions where they had misbehaved unless I was doing it to address their misbehaviors.

If you don't understand "infobox nasty", perhaps you never read the discussion diff by diff, before some posts were redacted or changed.

Don't twist my words and meaning. As I said, I did not leave over the few lines of content; I said "I simply won't edit around those kinds of editors". I don't edit war. I don't waste my time on futile discussions in unpleasant environments. I build content. In an article or content area where I can't do that, I move on. Johnbod stated it aptly in that discussion; those who showed up for the first time ever to insult others in an infobox discussion are unlikely to put in 15 years of maintenance on a Featured article.

Re the company you keep, might you consider that every once in a while, you could opt to not participate in an infobox discussion when it has been nasty, thereby changing the impression of what kinds of behaviors you support and defend? You really don't have to participate in every infobox discussion. Do you? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I don't think I have avoided a discussion because of the behaviour of other editors. I support the value of accessibility. I step into infobox discussions only if I feel I can help understanding or clarify context. I have not participated in Mozart, in years, but felt now that it's time for intervention by the arbs: how can we move towards peace, or at least find a way to avoid discussions that lead to unhappiness? How many discussions of the kind did we have for Mozart alone? Anybody to make a quick list of just the names of supporters and reverters over the last decade? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "You really don't have to participate in every infobox discussion. Do you?": We had an RfC for Claude Debussy, beginning 3 December 2022. I was determined to stay away, but 10 days later the Beethoven solution was criticised as "a violation of WP's rules". Having invented it (during the 2013 arbcase), I came in only to clarify, and on the way we achieved an improvement for {{ infobox person}}. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The RfC about Joyce - mentioned above - also began on 3 December. I watched but did not take part until the compromise by Wtfiv came on 16 December and principal editor Victoria agreed to it. Then I supported the compromise which is now in the article, and I predict will be stable. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

How can we undo years of ill will and misspent time because the original arbcase didn't stop the behaviors? I don't know. When I encounter misbehavior that can't be dealt with via DR, I go spend my hobby time somewhere else. I have followed up and observed similar problematic behaviors by some of the editors who showed up at Joyce, but there aren't enough hours in a day to deal with all disruption on Wikipedia. Infobox disruption is simply not on my priority list. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The secret to classical music is that they basically copied everyone else and/or older writing like the Bible. :) Izno ( talk) 19:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

today's story is about a book, Alte Liebe, for Valentine -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

... and today the regional festival - DYK of 13 years ago ;) - Regarding the above: I would happily go without terms such as "infobox nasty", "infobox warriors", "infobox disruption", - all simply ambiguous. One user's disruption is the addition of an infobox, but for me, it's rather the removal of a long-standing infobox, often silently in the middle of revamping an article to FA status. Take Laurence Olivier, for example. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

My story on 24 February is about Artemy Vedel, the TFA, written by Amitchell125, and thoughtfully selected for the day by Gog the Mild. More thoughts, about trying for 7 weeks to keep infobox discussions strictly factual, on my talk. What do you think? Prayer for Ukraine -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

today: two women whose birthday we celebrate today, 99 and 90! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Those ages are worth an exclamation mark. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
• Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria ( P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
• A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.

Technical news

• The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

Arbitration

• Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
• The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
• A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
• Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
• The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

---

So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
• Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
• FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
• TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
• Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included LunaEatsTuna, Thebiguglyalien, Sammi Brie, Trainsandotherthings, Lee Vilenski, Juxlos, Unexpectedlydian, SounderBruce, Kosack, BennyOnTheLoose and PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bother, but I have been following along the Holocaust in Poland case and I notice that Klein will probably be added as a party. She's been given a notification on her talk page, but it seems quite plausible that she hasn't seen it yet; I feel it's important to make sure she's aware of the discussion. Has an arbitrator sent her an email or otherwise made contact with her? (I'm only reaching out to you specifically because you seem the most active arbitrator in this case, and I wasn't sure of the proper place to ask this question.) Shells-shells ( talk) 21:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your question @ Shells-shells. From my perspective it's not Klein who is a party it's Chapmansh, if that makes sense. That is she is a party whose actions as a Wikipedia editor are being scrutinized and as such there has been no discussion about some kind of special contact; instead I expect we will contac her the same way we contact any other party. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I understand, yes. Chapmansh isn't publishing any papers, and Shira Klein isn't editing Wikipedia. Nevertheless, Chapmansh is incommunicado right now and Klein is in touch with her—you (meaning 'ArbCom') wouldn't be talking to Klein, you'd be using her as a conduit to reach Chapmansh. Would you consider using Special:EmailUser?

In any case, while I know that your goal is not explicitly to sanction Chapmansh, she is one of the central figures in this case; I would be shocked if some serious accusations were not levied at her. It just seems like good form to make sure she knows about the dispute so she can defend herself. (On the other hand, I would not like to see an ArbCom case become a proxy for an academic dispute.) Regardless, I won't press this matter any further. If I, as a volunteer, were to send an email or otherwise contact Klein/Chapmansh, would that be considered improper? (I don't think I will, but I'd like to know just in case.)

Best of luck to everyone, especially arbitrators. Shells-shells ( talk) 01:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

If the thinking is that parties to a case should be emailed, in addition to talk page notified, then we should change it for all parties not just Chapmansh and to be honest I'm not sure I'd support such a change to procedures. Additionally they have been doing a Wikied course as this case request has gone on, I'd be surprised if they haven't seen the talk page notifications given to date and see no reason to go out of our way to contact them. It is a fairly frequent occurrence that a central figure to a case does not participate so we're hardly in uncharted ground here. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You asked me a question at deletion review, and I'm not answering there because Sandstein has closed the discussion so I shouldn't edit the page. Hence my reply here.

If the disputed content were userfied to me, I would have a list of the contributors. I could copy/paste that list to a special attribution page, which would look a lot like this one. Then I could perform the proposed merge with an edit summary like Xeno's here. This enables a content merge that's compliant with the terms of use, without the need to perform a history merge.

All the best— S Marshall  T/ C 19:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@ S Marshall User:S Marshall/List of largest towns in England without a railway station. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I recommend converting the article to a redirect – at the same title or renaming per WP:Merge and delete#Rename to another title and redirect – making it a normal merge. The talk subpage methods Move to subpage of talk page and Paste history to talk subpage include discouragements. As far as I can tell, they haven't been used recently: see WT:Merge and delete#Talk subpage methods. Flatscan ( talk) 05:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I know exactly why you're suggesting that, Flatscan, and I can see the advantages of doing it that way. In this particular case the userfied content was deleted by consensus, and that deletion was endorsed at DRV; and I personally endorsed the AfD close, so I'm looking for the method that disturbs that outcome by the very smallest amount possible. If the community agrees with the smerge I propose, then I would enact it and then WP:U1 the disputed page, so as to ensure that the content we've agreed to delete is deleted to the maximal extent the terms of use allow. Many might think this is bureaucratic past the point of silliness! But I don't.— S Marshall  T/ C 08:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"We don't do it this way anymore" doesn't strike me as a particularly compelling reason given that maintaining attribution history is the important thing and why Merge and Deleting is inappropriate. That said if the merge proposal goes through, moving them back to mainspace and making it a redirect always struck me as a reasonable outcome as well. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

While making a copy of the history is not challenging or error-prone, it must be executed competently. Since it is page content, a vandal can modify the record, while history is append-only. Flatscan ( talk) 05:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your meticulous respect for the AfD and DRV consensus outcomes. Your construction of Talk:Rail transport in Great Britain/Attribution looks perfect. The link to List of largest towns in England without a railway station in an edit summary is a nice touch that enables tracking the original via move logs. Flatscan ( talk) 05:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Flatscan! On this topic, you're the most expert Wikipedian I know of, so I see your remarks there as high praise. I've enacted a merge and tagged the userspace version of the article with {{ db-u1}}.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It only took 11 years. I'm so happy :D Maybe in three more years, we'll start granting administrative privileges based on reaching a consensus on the pros and cons of the candidate. isaacl ( talk) 03:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Well in fairness, it was really Wugapodes who advocated for that with Primefac also heavily supporting it which is why they're 2 of the 3 drafters on the case. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't really think my proposal was actually read or remembered by anyone involved in making this choice... I just was surprised that something resembling it has actually come to pass. I think this type of approach can help make cases more concise to follow and thus demand less time from those interested in participating, which should also de-escalate contentiousness. But it does place a high demand on time on those summarizing, which is an obstacle. isaacl ( talk) 17:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi I’ve just moved this work in progress to draft but I’m concerned about the “Research” section, which is clearly cut and pasted from somewhere. I wanted to request a revdel of the edit that added the material as it’s pretty clearly a copyvio. Trouble is I can’t find a source for it so the curation tool won’t let me log that request. I wanted an admin to take a look and decide what to do. Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 02:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Just passing by and saw this, Mccapra. I found the first bit at the website for the labin which she works. The rest is probably interviews in various magazines, as I saw bits and pieces elsewhere. Does this help? Risker ( talk) 04:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

thanks. Based on the fields I couldn't fill in the curation tool it ma6 not be eligible for a copyvio revdel but in any case just dumping bits of text from elsewhere and them working them into an article really isn’t acceptable. Mccapra ( talk) 12:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I have RD'ed that paragraph. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm working on my first GA Review here and I was wondering if you could look over it to make sure I've done things alright.

Also, what's he best way to check for plagiarism? Just copy and paste the page somewhere? -- Zoo ( talk) 17:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@ ZooBlazer normally I would love to do something like this. But pretty much all my onwiki energy is going towards the Arbitration Committee and so I would urge you to go to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for someone to take a quick look and for advice on copyvio - there are several different strategies and by going there you could learn more than one. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Barkeep. I have a concern about contentious topics. Per this, I-bans can be imposed as contentious topics restrictions by a single uninvolved administrator. But how does that work with the alerts the users have been getting? Is it enough that they've received the {{ Contentious topics/alert/first}} template about some topic, or have otherwise shown awareness of the contentious topics system? And would it only apply to topics in the ct system altogether? Several topics are involved in the case I'm thinking of: I don't want the users to interact anywhere on Wikipedia. The I-bans wouldn't be much use, and very easy to game, if they only applied to certain topics. Can I do that, and how should it be worded? And here you thought the new system would be less bureaucratic than the old discretionary sanctions! Bishonen | tålk 14:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC).

@ Bishonen standard disclaimer that you're only asking me, so I am only offering my individual opinion and that if you wanted a formal opinion ARCA is that a way. In order to have a sanction placed against them they definitely needed to have gotten the /first template about some topic and some notice that there's CT about whatever topic they're being sanctioned for, perhaps with the /alert template. Of note, you can issue logged warnings without an editor previously having been aware of CT but not an actual editing restriction. And crucially - here's where the less bureaucracy comes in - once an editor is made aware they are presumed to stay aware, no re-notification necessary. If the editor is appropriately aware and there is an IBAN imposed, the interaction ban is a standard WP:IBAN, it's not limited to the sanction area. Does that answer all your questions? Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on the discussion at the ping it seems like maybe both parties are agreeing so you could just log it as voluntary? Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. It's good that they're both agreeing, but "voluntary" is a slippery word that I'd rather not use. It would be bound to leave them feeling that they can renounce it when they like. Anyway, I'm good; I think I know what to do. Bishonen | tålk 18:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC).

Just noting that there are some questions here. Perhaps this is not the talk page to post them? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have had very little time for Wikipedia Tue - Thur and it put me behind. I did a sweep of talk pages today but missed the FAQ talk page. Will answer that soon. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure about why ER is posting evidence about Aryan Valley, etc. which is squarely outside of the purview of the arbitration case. Do note that they fail to ping the "two other editors" who were apparently colluding with me in that article. I will request that arbitrators enforce some minimum standards. TrangaBellam ( talk) 05:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@ TrangaBellam when you make that request please do so at either the evidence talk page or the main case talk page so it can be seen by all arbitrators. Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I should note that going through their evidence #1 on my to do list when I next have a large chunk of time to spend summarizing evidence. Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Now at the evidence t/p. TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@ TrangaBellam I am not sure why what you emailed was emailed to me. Was it perhaps to avoid violating the interaction ban (for more on that please see the message I left to Elinruby below)? If so, I get it but that's not going to really work. Outside of very limited exceptions for OUTing type material, participation in this case needs to be done publicly. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes; I am unsure of interacting outside ArbCom venue. TrangaBellam ( talk) 14:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

They are not parties. The link is out of scope but there for the pattern. It will probably be removed as unnecessary from what I am seeing. Plenty of pattern in Poland. Aryan Valley is the AFDed article referred in the intro. But yeah.. go and delete if you see fit, Barkeep. I have plenty of examples. Note that @ TrangaBellam: did not ping me to this discussion. Elinruby ( talk) 06:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Elinruby and a good thing that TB did not ping you because such a ping would be a violation of the topic ban Bishonen has imposed on you two. Frankly what's going on at the case could itself be over the lien. Some participation in an ArbCom case falls in the Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution exception but I think you two might have pushed beyond those boundaries. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Well she never did before anyway... just lurked on my talk page threateningly. I looked it up after that and that's why I didn't ping her. But I just realized we're talking about different things. At *this* point I hadn't registered the part about the ping, right. I have now though. what I am talking about below is on the Evidence talk page. Sorry to give you headaches; it just pissed me off that she made stuff up about me, so naturally in demanded that my nose be cut off to spite my face. But just let me know what you want me to do.

As to the interaction ban, how about she doesn't post a screed about me on the talk page at ArbCom hmm? I tried to at least not address her directly, but what am I supposed to do about that? I'm actually trying here but what I have here is a stalker who claims that *I* stalk *her*. I'm new at this level of craycray but meanwhile she's singlehandedly caused a huge amount of harm. Obviously right now I am collecting diffs but I assure you, my goal here is to put her on someone else's radar and live happily ever after without her coming around to beg me to take her to some Noticeboard. Elinruby ( talk) 14:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I might have been a bit clumsy here. If I understand the way the material is organised, I should have left just a short line with diffs in the "Evidence" page and placed my analysis/comments in the "Analysis" page. Is this correct? If so, should I remedy now by moving the analysis to the "Analysis" page? Thanks, Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 15:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for asking @ Gitz6666. Leave it for now. Having some context for what people are trying to prove with diffs is important. If necessary it can be copied over to the Analysis when it's summarized. If you have future questions about the case along these lines, please use the Evidence or case talk pages. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I saw your response at the reviewers talk page. Since your are one of the admins formerly or currently involved in Autopatrolled, I am interested in your opinion in a specific case.

I came across Pvmoutside, who is a prolific stub creator since over 10 years. At the beginning of his wikipedia career he also created some start class articles. Pvmoutsid was given the autopatrolled rights by an editor who is no longer editing since 2012. I have also requested advice of another admin involved in autopatrolled but as to the 1 March 2023, he didn't respond. I wonder what your conclusion is here, but I would remove autopatrolled rights from Pvmoutside, but explain to them that it is beneficial to their articles to get a review. Then the reviewers could tag their articles for too technical, no image, lead to short etc. if deemed necessary. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 05:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The admin gave me autopatrol rights because I also maintain articles which use the move and swap functions. I'd like to continue using those functions.... Pvmoutside ( talk) 14:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Pvmoutside autopatrol doesn't do anything around moving and swap - that sounds more like WP:Page mover to me. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

As long as I can continue to move and swap, I'm OK with anything you guys decide to do, although I do see a backlog at new article review, and I try to be careful with not making errors, but there are a couple of editors that watch me in case zI do..if it ain't broke..... Pvmoutside ( talk) 16:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest to remove autopatrolled from them and see how the reviewers deal with their articles for some while, so they can see where we see deficiencies in their articles or where they can improve themselves. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 14:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Will you have any final say @ Barkeep49? You mentioned stub creators are not ideal for autopatrolled, you also noticed they were seemingly granted the right not knowing for what it is...Just to say, they keep on creating stubs like before, lots of technical info with no use for the average reader, practically no prose, and no image. Or they create an article without a source like this one. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 00:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Paradise Chronicle truth be told, I have not been able to give this tons of time. The established procedure is to post at ANI to request removal and that is likely what is needed at this point because I'm pour nearly all of my wiki focus into the open ArbCom case. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This is probably the most convoluted Arb Case I've ever seen. Initial arguments for the case have been removed from the case's proposal within the final case (including the initial posting by GeneralNotability). My name in particular is listed in Arb responses to remarks I made, but were not included.

Second, I would argue that the FAQ isn't clearly linked as a requirement (it isn't mentioned beyond the header nor is it linked as part of the directions) nor is the paper clearly listed as evidence already in submission. If it is, the FAQ should clearly say so.

Third, it isn't clear that the paper is being considered. If it is, then I have no issue and look forward to the ruling. If it is not, then people should be allowed to submit it as evidence and then make arguments in reference to it. ArbCom can accept, reject, or address such arguments as they see fit.

Lastly, it sounds very much like what you are looking for is arguments, not evidence (which is putting the cart before the horse). If you are looking for someone to rehash the paper and re-make the arguments regarding editor behavior that were already made, but in some sort of wiki format...that seems incredibly redundant and unnecessary. Is that what you're looking for? Buffs ( talk) 21:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You're correct that the FAQ should be linked on the evidence page itself and not just the header @ Buffs and so I have done that.

The decision to move preliminary statements to a subpage was made last year, not for this case. You're right it does create some awkward situations. We could probably do better with that. I wasn't involved in the reasoning for why that change got made, but I will ping @ GeneralNotability, @ L235, and @ Dreamy Jazz as the three who I believe did work around that for thought and consideration.

The intent with the paper is to not just have a person dump the entire thing into evidence. Instead the idea is that a person will use specific part(s) tied back to policies and guidelines. The paper clearly spurred the case in the first place so we're not oblivious to it - and indeed it has two seperate questions in the FAQ - but just saying "here consider everything in this paper" isn't useful to anyone (there's a reason we put limits on the size of evidence submissions, for instance) and particularly unfair to the parties named who I know have rebuttals to large sections of it. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I can confirm that the moving of preliminary statements to a subpage is something that was done a little while ago and before this case. This hasn't been applied retroactively to older cases from my understanding.

The rationale for this change was the the preliminary statements were not seen as important enough to be at the top of the main case page. These reasons, in my opinion, include:

• While preliminary statements, by being on the main case page, are therefore more prominent than the evidence, workshop and proposed decision which often can include more detail and evidence than was initially posted before the case was opened.
• Because these were above the final decision this means that (especially for cases that had a lot of discussion before opening) scrolling down to the final decision takes a bit of time. Referencing the final decision after a case is closed, including for contentious topic designations, is the main reason to continue to link to a case. As such having the preliminary statements at the top is in most cases less helpful (unless the section is linked to specifically).

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that a collapsable box might have been better and I offer it as a suggestion for clarity. Thanks for the feedback @ Dreamy Jazz:

For the FAQ, thank you. Buffs ( talk) 22:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ Barkeep49. I realize you have more than enough work already with the ArbCom Holocaust in Poland case and I am by no means trying to add more to your plate. However, I recently noticed that one of the editors submitted evidence related to TrangaBellam's conduct using a diff of TB's response made to my post. Specifically, this response was used to support an accusation of TrangaBellam acting in bad faith. I've been cautious so as not to get directly involved in the case for a variety of reasons, although I don't believe it is fair to frame TB's response to me in such terms and I wanted to express this to one of the arbitrators. If this is not the correct route to take, kindly let me know. Thank you dearly! Ppt91 ^talk 17:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Ppt91 the place to note this is on the analysis page after that evidence has been summarized. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Call for Advisors! Individuals interested to support the Drafting Groups or the Subcommittees of the MCDC in the role of an advisor can fill out the advisory application form by May, 2023. The MCDC will be contacting interested individuals on a rolling basis. Do you want to know more about it? Please read here for more information. The information is also available in Arabic, Spanish, French, Brazilian Portuguese, Russian and Chinese languages respectively.
• Movement Charter Ambassadors from the Latin America and the Caribbean region share their experiences of organizing community conversations on the Movement Charter. Please read the Diff blog in Brazilian Portuguese and in Spanish languages.
• Casual updates: The MCDC publishes regular casual updates after bi-weekly full Committee meetings, as well as after other drafting group and subcommittee meetings. If you are interested, please read casual updates here on Meta and on Movement Strategy Forum.
• Learn about Movement Charter Drafting Committee’s work in February: As usual, the update includes information about the meetings held by the Committee in this month, as well as about the work that was completed and the ongoing work & discussions. The MCDC’s monthly updates are also shared on the multilingual Movement Strategy forum.

Coming up

• MCDC Responses to the community feedback: The MCDC published responses to the community feedback on the first set of drafts (collected during a consultation in November - December 2022). The response includes a Summary, as well as some specific responses to the full community feedback (highlighted in orange).
• Revised Movement Charter drafts: The MCDC will share in the coming month the revised versions of the first two chapters: Preamble and Values & Principles (including a newly-added glossary), and the revised Roles & Responsibilities intentions statement.
• Ratification methodology consultation: The MCDC is working on a new proposal (not available yet) for a ratification methodology. The proposal will be discussed through a community consultation process, including live meetings to provide feedback.

Subscribe to this newsletter on Meta wiki

--11:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC).

Hi, Sorry to be dense, but where do I submit evidence in response to Summarized evidence? Thanks. Zero ^talk 06:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Zero0000 if it is truly evidence - in other words stating something with a diff to back it up or to provide context for something - then it should go on the evidence page. For an example of how this could work see the FAQ example. If it's analysis of that - which is what I would characterize a lot of what I've seen you do up until now - it should go on the analysis page. Does that help? Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Zero ^talk 00:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, would it be possible to modify the protection level of Murder of Don Banfield up to ECP? I see you previously introduced the protection requiring autoconfirmed access and noted that you could upgrade it to ECP if required [1]. There is a disruptive user [2] who keeps reinstating disputed content [3], [4]. I had removed the content they had added for a number of reasons, including the fact that other editors had surmised that this user had a possible conflict of interest issue [5] (seemingly confirmed in their edit summaries [6]). However, the user kept reinstating, despite my attempt to open a talk page discussion, explaining that the the onus was on them to seek consensus to include disputed content [7]. The user ignored this and hasn't responded, and instead began to edit war without consensus: [8]. I can see there has previosuly been some sockpuppetry to do with this page and that this may still be continuing: [9], and the user in question in this case appears to largely be a single-purpose account [10]. Therefore, would it be possible for you to increase the protection level? Many thanks. ErraticDrumlin ( talk) 07:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I already responded to you on your talk page, it's untrue to say otherwise, I'm sorry if you didn't see it. "if there is a problem with an article about yourself, a family member, a friend or a colleague, please read Biographies of living persons/Help. If you spot a problem with an article, you can fix it directly, by clicking on the "Edit" link at the top of that page. See the "edit an article" section of this page for more information. "

All additional information is verifiable sources. It is not spin. That is hurtful and untrue. Other editors included in the development of this article clearly were happy for the edits to remain. They are not meant to be disruptive, they add additional information about the judges findings. The edit to the other article was because I thought that it read better. I came across it when trying to figure out where you were at. That's all. Regarding your initial edit, you deleted everything. There is relevant information about the judges decision. It is now balanced by the addition of other sources. I took nothing away, how can more information be bad?.. The sockpuppet added information that doesn't relate to the sources cited, and a lot of suppositions. I left that. I thought if others are happy, I'll just add for balancing, from verifiable sources. That is NOT spin. No-one else had a problem with my additions for a month. You deleted everything, I feel that that is disruptive. I was not paid for editing, and may have previously misunderstood the guidelines, but apparently one can fix a problem with an article, if it's declared, when I understood I did explain why. Please see my reply. Everything is verifiable, so there is no reason or justification for deleting everything. If you read through you'll see that there was insufficiency in the original artical, with omission, and incomplete information, and inaccurate quotes. I don't understand why you don't think that a reader can understand both sides with the benefit of all the information to hand. I don't want an argument. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia, but I'm actually trying to make good additions. It's a shame you just felt the need to delete it all without leaving the up to date information. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 07:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It ought to be noted that this user above @ Beautiful Rosie:, is now [11] editing as many random pages as possible, all very small and minor edits. It appears the user is attempting to get up to 500 edits so as to qualify for extended confirmed status and get around any increase in page protection. ErraticDrumlin ( talk) 15:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I have responded to these points. My additions are valid, and I have not intended to be disruptive but to add information regarding this case. erraticDrumlin seems to have an attempt to promote a particular interest, the judges actual comments and reasoning, and I included the defence arguments because prior to this only one side was shown. It also misquoted cites, and if you've read the entire case it was more complex. Some people are interested in the legality, and interpretation of the case, not just the salacious tabloid details, as entered by a sockpuppet. It stood for weeks, and other editors seemed happy. I have declared an interest in the case, but am not being paid for this. I feel that my contributions balanced the exclusively prosecution arguments and gave an insight into the judges findings and reasoning. I think that it is helpful. Thank you for your trouble with this. Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 07:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

it's a Linux command and a geeky pun as the title of that section on my Commons page. Feel free to omit it if you summarize that section. It won't hurt my feelings if you don't summarize it, btw, but given further sanctions for an inability to play nice with others were being discussed when I arrived at Bishonen's page, I felt it needed to be pointed out. However if you don't like whoami, I'd prefer that you or I replace it with a different header, because who am I sounds...I don't know, kind of jejeune to me. Thanks for your consideration, and perhaps Arbcom is not the place for geeky puns. <g> Elinruby ( talk) 07:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to replace it with a different header. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

k thanks Elinruby ( talk) 20:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Would it be possible to submit evidence anonymously to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence?

The Polish group has made their intention of payback very clear: [12] [13], driving away at least one editor: [14] [15]

In my case, I'm not involved in the topic at all outside of perhaps a noticeboard post. However, I am concerned like Horse Eye's Back that opening up with evidence against the Polish group will lead to coordinated voting against my position in other topics.

I am aware that e-mailing Arbcom is a possibility, however the Polish group has at least one sympathetic Arb on the committee who will forward that kind of correspondence. 172.58.60.97 ( talk) 13:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

however the Polish group has at least one sympathetic Arb on the committee who will forward that kind of correspondence. is a really serious accusation. If there is an arb forwarding correspondence to/from the committee we need to address that. But in my 3 years of being on the committee I have seen no evidence of this. If you have evidence of this please find a way to get it either to the committee or to an individual arb.

As to the request itself I will discuss with the other drafters. The entire topic area is under extended confirmed restrictions for a reason and owing to the serious and severe harassment that many editors in this topic area - and here it's the Polish editors to a greater extent - have experienced, allowing IP evidence could set an uncomfortable precedent. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to clutter up the ARC page with another useless statement, so I figured I'd drop a note here since you submitted the motion in this case request. If it does pass and go to a suspended case, it would be a better idea to name it Dbachmann 2, since Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann already existed as a case (before being renamed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ancient Egyptian race controversy) and it could cause confusion or problems with links/redirects. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 16:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@ The Wordsmith thanks that's a good point. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no objections to the current case request title being renamed either. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@ AncientWalrus I don't have capacity to handle this myself at the moment but I am making sure that someone else qualified will examine the issue. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! AncientWalrus ( talk) 15:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

March songs

my story today

Thank you for watching over Mozart. Did you see this? I linked to my arbcom sentence in a later response, imagine, but no response. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I've just been keeping an eye on the info box situation. I did not see your WikiProject notification (which obviously makes sense). Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You didn't look. - Sense is what I'm missing. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh I did see your thematic battleground invocation if that's what you're referring to :) Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You didn't look. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It was collapsed. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Gerda Arendt I'm sorry about what happened here. I did look. Twice. You're right the first time that I missed it wasn't you who made the notice. But I saw the battleground invocation both times. What I didn't see was the conversation that followed because I just read your diff. For that I'm sorry. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I "meant" the diff, for which I had no words. (But Floq had.) I listened to my own edit notice which helped. After the ongoing Mozart RfC, I want to talk to the arbs about how this can end, and perhaps you can help then, - I don't speak arbish as the infoboxes case showed. - Were you around when I noticed the problem that shouldn't be one, on Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, 2012 and still on the talk, some still the same players? I voted against an infobox then, DYK? Was "converted" for Samuel Barber ( discussion). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Marek Kopelent died, and it's Saint Patrick's Day -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

As I think I have mentioned before I don't know much about music so thanks for sharing that biography. I would be happy to try to translate into arb speak but what is your idea for ending things? Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait for Mozart to end. Do you feel tempted to close? - I have some ideas on my talk, about strictly no personal remarks, the other further up about WP:BRD enforced, we could also revive the 2 comments per discussion limit that I invented and then the arbs turned it against me (and I have come to love it). I could imagine a group of arbs to volunteer to listen to complaints. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Mixed thoughts: I'd like everybody repeating the aspersion of my battle ground behaviour to provide evidence. Because the infoboxes cases doesn't offer it. I came for the introduction of {{ infobox opera}} which first was hated by some, but made it into 1,5k+ operas (and you probably didn't know we have so many). I have not edit-warred in my whole career, - the closest I came was when I installed the consensus for Sparrow Mass, weeks after the edit war. In the arb case (my one and only, - they didn't manage to drag me into the later civility case, as much as they tried), we had a productive workshop, - at least I thought. Good wording for dealing with the conflict by Voceditenore, 2019. Why do we still argue about 5 extra lines that don't take anything away? I don't know. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no intention of closing Mozart. I will keep watching it, but almost all my wiki time is occupied with the current case. Those are some interesting ideas worthy of discussion around infoboxes. As you point out some of it just boils down to have a couple admins who are willing to just do real enforcement. At another time I could be one of those admin, just not at the moment. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

No, please no enforcement! Just some who see the cruelty of the Wehrmacht comment (for example), and talk to the user with authority. He doesn't listen to me. The language of war needs to stop - among colleagues. That seems like a minimum step. Especially as there is no war. We have many readers who are just surprised of the heat in some discussions because they don't know there ever was one. Whenever you ask the community, beginning with Beethoven in 2016, they basically say that an infobox is the normal thing to have. Perhaps we can create something like a protected area for the few articles where a few editors (with strong voices) say (in many variations): " Please let's not add another eyesore to another beautifully crafted article."? - Today we remember the 150th birthday of Max Reger, who saw the horrors of a world war right when it began in 1914, while others were still in high patriotic moods. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

sharing impressions from vacation on Madeira 20-30 March, pics now at 24 Mar from the peaks - the RfC with the non-neutral invitation to fight was closed, and went rather peacefully - what can we learn from it, or from my peaks of ten years? ... perhaps that women come first ;) - just compare Imogen Holst to her father -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it goes back to what I said during ACE. Our processes are largely working and this shows they can work even after some attempted disruption. What do you think? Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I just wrote what I think. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You have attacked me on the Evidence page. I am topic banned. Xx236 ( talk) 09:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Xx236 I intentionally did not name you in the official summary because you are topic banned and didn't want you to feel like you might need to respond. I obviously did name you on the talk page saying two true things - you didn't think Fear was reliable and you were topic banned - and saying it would be troubling if Piotr tried to bolster you while also saying the opposite. I am guessing it's this last piece you want to answer me about. That was about Piotr not you. But if you feel it needs an answer you can reply here with it. If it's reasonable I will copy it over for you. Barkeep49 ( talk) 09:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

So please write * the next time. Bashing me because I am helpless is bullying. Xx236 ( talk) 10:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not bash you and while there is a power differential between us, my naming you is not bullying but rather performing the duties I've been elected to do. My need to name you will likely continue to be limited. As I noted I did go to effort to not name you in the official evidence summary. However, I am not going to avoid naming you completely. We are examining conduct in the topic area and if your name comes up it comes up. Will it need to come up a lot? No. You are not a party to the case and the scope of the case is Conduct of named parties in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed. Given how much pain this brings you, I wonder why you're watching the pages (and the talk pages at that). I can assure you that I will not be pinging you so that you're forced to see your name involuntarily. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Morning @ Barkeep49: How are you? I notice that on the [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Analysis] that the name Icewhiz is mentioned a full 56 times on that page. It is almost like that old NLP thing from the late 90's. I'm sure that Icewhiz must be drawning succour from their name printed so many times. Is there anyway the name could be disguised perhaps using an alias or a cover name, or is that even a thing, to perhaps lessen their impact, or would even doing that be more grist for their mill. It just seems excessive being mentioned so many times, since its been almost a year since their latest incarnation left. I don't know if there precedents in history for this sort of thing. I wonder if anybody else has noticed it or is worth noticing? scope_creep ^Talk 09:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this a bit far off field? scope_creep ^Talk 10:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I have been paying very careful attention to the mentions of Icewhiz. I have at times worked to avoid naming him directly myself but am hardly be surprised that he has come up a lot in discussion. You can see a big difference in the amount of times parties have named Icewhiz compared to how often he's been named by the arbs (including on the evidence summary page). I think it important to let parties make the case they want to make, with-in scope, however and so I would be opposed to any sort of code of restriction. The code would be self-defeating: Icewhiz would know it's him anyway and the restriction would get in the way of people saying what they think should be said. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

13:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Arb case, Francois Robere evidence summary, February timeline:

"The content remains unchanged until April 15 2:52 - 5:50 when Piotrus makes a 7 edits all under 250 bytes"

• I think you need to remove "a" from this sentence the next time you are in the neighborhood. Elinruby ( talk) 04:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I threatened to turn Gitz into a frog if he didn't stop saying that I argue with him. I'm thinking he probably won't even see it, since he as announced he doesn't read my posts. (Although AGF maybe he's a reformed soul now) But it's not a threat unless he reads it, right? Elinruby ( talk) 11:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Elinruby don't make threats whether or not someone is going to see it or not. This is why @ Callanecc placed the restriction in the first place. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

oh all right. What would you like me to do the next time he does this? He will you know. I told Callanecc he would go after VM. Just saying. If you give them an interaction ban I predict he will go after someone else. Probably MVBW.

I do take your point and promise not to introduce Cinderella into evidence.

You are mixing up the various restrictions btw. Not mad about that but please don't check me off as violating a restriction I don't have. Gitz is *topic banned*. This has nothing to do with frogs and doesn't violate the topic ban in this context because the because the topic restriction is suspended. Meanwhile, Gitz is not Trangabellam. I have an interaction restriction with TrangaBellam because supposedly I am stalking her. And can't shut up about her, or something. I would like to submit an interaction analyser report in this respect, btw.

But more to the point if Gitz is going to keep mentioning me, I would like him to be accurate about it. If he has a big old ignore button for me I think that's wonderful, but be has to quit doing stuff that makes me need to reach them.

Also, VM is probably correct when he says he never had a big argument with Gitz about Russian prisoners shot in the leg. I think Gitz is remembering Mala Rohan and yes he failed about five times to provide verification of the article claims about prisoners shot in the leg. Would you like some diffs about that? Elinruby ( talk) 01:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Elinruby your fairy tale metaphors are making it hard for me to follow what you're saying so I'm not sure how to answer your question. And yes you're right it was just a warning Callanecc (and El C) gave you, but that doesn't change my underlying message: most editors find it easy to never threaten another editor and so you need to cut out doing that. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I realized after my last answer that really you would probably like some specifics if you are having trouble making out what I am on about, and I apologize for not doing so immediately. I am burning out on this case a little, and can only imagine how you feel.

Getting the specifics has made clear to me that both statements that I argue with him were written before I saw either one. However, he has said, twice, something about me that I consider really misleading. If he does it again I will refrain from threatening to turn him into a frog and will instead formally complain to you that he is in my opinion misrepresenting the evidence VM gave you about me at your request.

Ok? Specifics follow.

15:03 March 26 Gitz says about VM he shared no less than 19 diffs (!) of Elinruby arguing with me in the RU area

20:36, 26 March 26 I notice the mention and say: @Gitz6666: cough, small point but: I read those diffs as *you* arguing with *me*, while, given that you weren't listening anyway, I tried to disengage from trying to explain the French conditional tense to you. Small as this point may be, and not in evidence, other people are reading the page who are not necessarily going to go read the diffs. So as somebody who just put into evidence a positive contribution from you, I suggest you take a deep breath, consider the ways that you may come across that you possibly do not intend, and measure your words. If you feel the need to explain to me that you did not say what you clearly did say here, I hereby unban you from my talk page in the interest of protecting Barkeep's sanity.

In the comments under the analysis section titled "Elinruby's evidence re Support adding Gitz6666 as party"

14:48, 26 March 2023 Gitz says:Finally, he shared no less than 19 diffs (!) of Elinruby arguing with me in the RU area. and also, a little further down in the same post: My purpose would not be to relitigate my topic ban, as VM says, but to be consistent with what I have been saying for months, e.g. on 15 December 2022, From my point of view, the EE controversy stems from the fact that there are 3 or 4 users who cause disruption by engaging in nationalist editing ... I may be right, I may be wrong, but from my point of view this is the "global" issue of the EE area, and it affects the war in Ukraine only indirectly. From my point of view, the EE controversy stems from the fact that there are 3 or 4 users who cause disruption by engaging in nationalist editing ... I may be right, I may be wrong, but from my point of view this is the "global" issue of the EE area, and it affects the war in Ukraine only indirectly.

This belief of his about "nationalists" is a particular trigger since, after my own adventure with outing (completely off-topic except to explain my caution) I do my very best not to discuss my current location, ethnicity, citizenship or even gender on Wikipedia. But I will assure you that they are not remotely linked to either Poland or Russia.

09:50 March 28 I replied Why do we keep having to have this conversation? I really wish Gitz would stop saying that, it's really annoying

11:08, 2 April 2023 I noticed the repeated claim that I argue with him and said For the sake of everyone else's sanity, I told you at the evidence talk page to take it up with me on my talk page if you weren't able to stop claiming that I argue with you. Dude. I avoid *talking* to you, let alone arguing. I will have to turn you into a frog or something if you don't stop saying that. Please acknowledge that you have read and understood this. At my talk page. Elinruby ( talk) 19:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I will refrain from threatening to turn Gitz into a frog. That's not a metaphor, btw, I did do exactly what I reported myself as having done here.

As for Callanecc, I am not mad at him but I think he conflated some things, easily done in the walls of text that Gitz puts up, and have been meaning to appeal that, but it hasn't seemed urgent since *my* concern, distortion of fact in the Ukraine war, had been addressed.

Meanwhile Gitz keeps, to my eye, misrepresenting my participation in it, however. I grant you that this is not getting summarized, but it's affecting people's perception of me, apparently, since you thought had sanctions that I don't. And of other people as well, although I haven't traced all that out and probably don't have the bandwidth to do so. But VM doesn't need to have any fresh reason to be paranoid, for example, and probably interpreted the attribution to him of something *I* did --- demand sources for prisoners of war being shot in the leg -- as gaslighting.

So if you guys are trying to understand why those two keep arguing, there's part of it, there. And thus my offer of diffs.

Or maybe it would be easier to answer a broader question. Do I correctly understand that the scope now includes interactions between the parties?

Thanks. And if I gave you a headache again I am sorry about that. I'm actually trying to stick close to the facts in my evidence. It's pretty muxed, but then so are the facts. Elinruby ( talk) 16:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

show not ahow. What about "contributions not contriburions"? :-) -- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That whole edit showed the perils of mobile posting. Thanks. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hehe, I don't even own a mobile phone, makes Wikipedia and RL soooo much better.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23, you are so old fashioned. Cullen328 ( talk) 17:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually I'm not, Cullen. I do have an old mobile phone, but it's not usable because Verizon Wireless no longer supports the networks it can access. And as far as the more modern (hardly new, though) smartphones, I don't own one, but my spouse does, so I must confess to using it when I feel like it. But I never edit Wikipedia with it. Frankly, I don't see how people do edit with smartphones - the screens are so small. I have enough trouble editing occasionally on a tablet (without a real keyboard). If I have to type much, I just skip it and wait until I get back to my trusty desktop. There: more than you - and certainly Barkeep - wanted to know about me and my hardware (sounds like a song).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

As one of my uncles used to say, "That's why they make chocolate and vanilla." Cullen328 ( talk) 17:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Technical news

• Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. ( T178356)
• The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
• A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

Arbitration

• The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
• A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.

---

I objected to this edit. The FAQ is clear that evidence, even if not summarized, cannot be removed once replied to. But ER appears to clarify that they won't tamper with this evidence but merely add more diffs? I think that is allowed. TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, also, someone else tightened up my refs, and someone else deleted part of my contributions, and I thought fair enough, but erraticDrumlin, I think for unclear reasoning behind it deleted everything. Not considering that there may be some value. Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 07:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

also, a lot in the article was not completely accurate regarding the the sources cited, and sometimes things are stated as fact, but are contradicted by equally important verifiable sources. Such as the allegations regarding assault, and the reaction to the verdict in the original trial. The judges findings were also previously excluded. The most notable thing about this is arguably the successful appeals, and the judges findings and reasoning and the decision-making from them, yet this is ignored. This is the reason I have the defence arguments, and used other sources. I think it is a shame, and against the ethos of Wikipedia to close down all sides of the story, and to silence any contradictory verifiable sources. I am new to Wikipedia's community. I did come for this, but was finding my way, and wanted to continue to contribute. Thanks for looking at this again. Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 08:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, sorry but I keep thinking, is errantDrumlin to be the sole voice, and arbitrarily decide the truth about this article, a consensus was naturally reached when the addition of the procedure, defence arguments and reasoning of the judges was largely left, some was deleted, and some references were checked and tightened, and that's a natural consensus surely. As opposed to one person deleting everything that offers both sides. The whole article needs to be checked, bc It doesn't reflect the sources. The quote from the doctor is inaccurate, and used part of a different witness to make it more sensationalist, and errant Drumlin went a step further to create a scenario that is suggested nowhere by adding a "so" before saying he was untied, nowhere is it suggested even by the prosecution that that is what happened. There is much supporting evidence to everything I added, and errantDrumlin seems to want a dictatorship approach. I took on board redtailed hawk and responded, they didn't arbitrarily decide to delete all my contributions. No-one else did that is involved in this, and to suggest it was "spin" was calculated, unpleasant and upsetting and untrue. It is all verifiable. Someone deleted it partially, and that was fair, but this seems like a campaign. The sockpuppet had edited enough to get access if you up the protection, it doesn't show that it will be fair. I feel that a consensus was naturally reached, and would presumably organically develop, I didn't delete anyone's contribution as I think if it is verifiable it all adds to the complete story. Thank you for looking at this. I didn't think that I was disruptive, I was trying to add information. Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 09:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

so this individual, who appears to have come from nowhere can decide to delete all my contributions, which no-one else deleted and were happy to keep, and to shape the story to their version.It seems ethically unfair, and they are posting this online when it is not accurate. As soon as you give them coverage, which obviously they know will happen, they'll delete everything that has not been an issue. It seems against the whole ethos of Wikipedia. Please could you look at this again, I haven't changed anything in nearly a month before this individual starting deleting everything, incidentally also an amendment to the judges findings by another editor was deleted by them. They are completely unfamiliar with the case, but also appear to want to have the final word on it. Please consider that my contributions all are verifiable, so why should they all be deleted by one person. It seems like contributions will be silenced soon, and deleted, and disregarded. The sources are cited incorrectly in the article, but are left. So they've used the rules cleverly to cut me out, even though it says you can edit if you see something g seriously unfair, inaccurate, imbalanced and wrong about yourself, a friend, or colleague. My edits are not disruptive. This is a clever person using the system to get their way. Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 13:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm just contributing, I'm feeling harassed by errantDrumlin, why are they harassing me? I'm just editing the random suggestions offered by my user page, and these are by nature small edits. I'm new to Wikipedia, and am just participating. This is odd. Why is ErraticDrumlin so interested in me, this feels personal. I don't think their interest in the Don banfield article is random. They're too interested and determined. It's odd. I'm just editing the suggestions offered, they come up automatically on my user page. Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 20:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll stop editing the suggestions offered if it's somehow managed to upset him. I was enjoying it, it has been raining here. I have a pretty good idea, and I don't think the spamming to the Nicola Bulley page is random.This is very odd Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 20:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

incidentally my edits are not random, I am really pleased with y work on Karakalpaks uprising in Khiva (1827), some just needed little changes, or I felt overwhelmed by them. The suggestions were made to me. I think that it is odd that errantDrumlin is watching Mrs I closely. This is supposedly a random person, that just happened upon this article It's very odd, and suspicious. I was enjoying editing, and liked it and lost track of time! I'll stop now then. Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 21:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Please @ ErraticDrumlin and @ Beautiful Rosie stop doing this on BK49's page now. Go to WP:Teahouse for advice, both of you. Valereee ( talk) 21:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Beautiful Rosie and @ ErraticDrumlin right now you both need to be discussing this content conflict at Talk:Murder of Don Banfield, which I will note Erratic has attempted to do. From my look I'm not seeing any BLP violations at the moment. If either of you think there is a BLP violation please point it out to me. Comments to each of you to follow.

Beautiful: Erratic started a discussion there and pinged you. You have some obligation to engage with them in good faith. Further, Beautiful following Erratic to another article and reverting them is not OK. If that happens again I will block you. You are suggesting it is unreasonable that ErraticDrumlin has been editing Murder of Don Banfield. I don't see any reason that it's unreasonable. Further, Beautiful you mention reading WP:Biographies of living persons/Help. The very first line of the section you quote says Editing a Wikipedia article on yourself is, in most cases, strongly discouraged. It then talks about what is and isn't OK. Please re-read that page. If necessary I will make it so you can only comment on the talk page. I don't wish to do that but you need to engage in discussion and in discussion on the article talk page.

Erratic: I agree that Beautiful is trying to get up to extended confirmed. Just trying to do that is not against the rules. From a quick glance I don't see anything that suggests that they are gaming the system, which would be against the rules. They are not, for instance, making an edit and reverting themselves in a loop. They are instead making a whole bunch of copy-editing edits suggested by the newcomer interface which is an appropriate way for an editor to accumulate edits. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@ User:Barkeep49, thank you for that and for clarifying that for me in regards to the accumulation of edits. I wasn't suggesting that this in itself was wrong, just observing that it seemed to me notable that as soon as I suggested the article be protected to extended confirmed status level that they suddenly wanted to reach extended confirmed status. But in any case that wouldn't be an issue if Beautiful engaged with me on the discussion on the talk page over the content, although as you say they so far have not done so. I have removed their content again in the hope that they will now attempt to seek consensus to include the disputed content with the onus on them, although I obviously won't revert again as I don't want to go over the 3RR. I must say it seems a bit harsh on me to say that I should stop trying to discuss this content conflict here... in fairness, I only added one comment after my original post about the protection status, on the other users' edit accumulation. Beautiful added nine separate comments across three talk page sections during the course of yesterday, two sections of which they created, all after (again) apparently following me here ( WP:WIKIHOUNDING?) from my edit list like with following me to the other article and reverting me [23]. I wasn't intending to have a discussion about the content here. In fact, it seems Beautiful wants to discuss [24] the content everywhere except the talk page for the article. From looking at the article and its talk page further, I can see that particular editors (editor?) have been attempting to add more or less the same content over a period of months. This IP [25], which had previously been blocked for disruptive editing [26], notably also stopped editing one day before Beautiful began editing. It perhaps should be observed that similar edits on this page can be traced back to another IP [27]. That IP stopped editing after they were blocked for making legal threats: [28]. Soon after this three-month block expired, the other IP sprung up and started editing: [29]. ErraticDrumlin ( talk) 04:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not hounding erraticDrumlin. I was checking this page. Sorry for all my comments in bk49, I was unsure where to talk. I created an account.I didn't realise how to do so before. I wasn't blocked then. there was no block evasion going on. There is a declaration of interest, and I stated that my edits were regarding requests in the talk page. I feel harassed here. It's very much. ErraticDrumlin was monitoring my contributions page, and the content of my edits.they seem to be determinedly interested in. that feels hounding . I also didn't think you were supposed to refer to people who you may think are users by their real name? . but I don't really understand it all, sorry. I replied in "Don banfield" talk prior to seeing this. All my contributions were in good faith, and verifiable, and added. I was avoiding no block. and I haven't meant to cause problems. I was unsure where to talk, until valaree said. I'm just getting used to Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I got anything wrong. Thanks for your trouble with this barkeep49, I don't know why this is still going on. I haven't intended it to do so. I don't think there are any blp issues with the article, everything is verifiable,the article as a whole is rounded. but I do take on your comments. Thanks for looking at this again.Sorry for all your trouble with this Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 05:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

would it be ok to restore the article including the judges findings, and all sides relected, esp as there was no blp violation that you could find, and no-one had any issue for a month and even deleted, amended etc?I'm not trying to be disruptive, just facts, and fairness.I have attempted to engage erratic in the talk page, but now they've got their oppression of all the facts, and attacked me, and speculated as to who I am they're happy and have disengaged. They've deleted everything again. No discussion Beautiful Rosie ( talk) 07:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Beautiful Rosie this last commment would be better on the article talk page than here. That is the right place for interested editors to come to agreement on content issues. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it productive that the IP has registered their account, @ ErraticDrumlin. And obviously (including in my very last message) I am encouraging people to discuss this on the talk page. Also, I know you ended up reverting yourself on this but do be careful with identifying editors. The edit you had made originally qualified for oversight. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed, apologies about the the identifying, I don't know what I was thinking. I've spent too long on this anyway so will wait until other editors to add their feelings. Thank you. ErraticDrumlin ( talk) 15:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

at some point I would like to discuss this with you: However, the inability of these two editors to get along at even a basic level is why Bishonen imposed a topic ban on them yesterday. Both editors have simply moved their issues with each other to this case as participation at ArbCom does qualify for an exception to the iBAN. 15:04, 18 March 2023 Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC) as I think that summary is pretty unfair, to at least me, and though I don't speak for the other editor, probably to her too. Yet it isn't an edit summary, so it isn't clear whether I should formally appeal on the talk page or just point out to you here that she and I have been quite free to get into a confrontation for days and days and days now. That isn't why either one of us is here imho. Don't want to beat you over the head, so I guess -- just let me know if I should bring this up at the talk page. Thanks. Not asking for a particular administrative action, just an acknowledgement that I said what I just said Elinruby ( talk) 21:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Why do you find it unfair @ Elinruby? Is it because she and I have been quite free to get into a confrontation for days and days and days now. That isn't why either one of us is here imho. or is there more? Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright: the "it" in the sentence is the specific part here: "Both editors have simply moved their issues with each other to this case as participation at ArbCom does qualify for an exception to the iBAN." There is of course more that I find to be somewhat unfair in the Trangabellam episode, but I for one am in this, as far as I can tell, because I had a lot to say and somebody decided to do some scrutiny. Which is completely fair. TrangaBellam is here because I requested that and that request is another reason I get 1000 words. Which is also fair. But I'm spending a lot of time talking about Gitz and Gizzy, aren't I, for someone supposedly obsessed with stalking TB? I do think it's a little unfair also that we're this far into it and nobody has checked an editor interaction report on that whole stalking thing. But I gotta go meet a deadline and I guess you have acknowledged that I said what I said, so thank you for that.

Let me know if you have questions I guess. I am going to collapse all the quotes in my evidence to diffs, but one of them is almost word for word what the first sentence was of the Jewish collaboration section when I took it to RSN.(already submitted) I will be saying this in an analysis, no need to more this there, but that is why the full quote. Do editor conduct issues need to be brought up in phase 1? Cause I do have some I want to bring up. Elinruby ( talk) 22:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I get that you're not laser focused on TB. However, I stand by the idea that the inability of these two editors to get along at even a basic level is why Bishonen imposed a topic ban on them. Hopefully you two will be able to move on from each other and co-exist and the TB can be lifted. But the fact that there hasn't been more conflict while you're both parties to a case at arbcom is how things are supposed to work. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

well yeah. Of course. I am just saying that if I wanted to relitigate whatever at all costs I've had the chance to do that. In fact...there is something I want to say about that, but it's too specific, I will send an email, ok? For the sake of transparency maybe I should mention that it will deal with (only) a concern about stalking and outing. Nothing dangerous, just kind of uncomfortable Elinruby ( talk) 22:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

alright well, the time difference got me and the sign said the evidence phase was closed when I got there with my conduct of parties complaint. Trangabellam is going to complain if the original evidence isn't submitted, and I guess that will be up to you, but I'm just as happy to call that a ban appeal if she'll quit following me around asking me to take her to the drama boards. I mean, that's weird. But there's still a pattern of editing that's a problem, no? I realize she can't be sanctioned if there's no evidence against her, but I don't actually think that anyone should be sanctioned in this case. Most especially not the people with old bad behaviour if the people with new issues are sliding. Elinruby ( talk) 01:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

If I wanted to ask a general question / have a general discussion about how ArbCom handles something (and WP:ARCA isn't appropriate because it isn't about an existing case), what is the latest best mechanism for that? Open a thread at WT:ACN? At WT:RFAR? Surely not WT:AC? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

What's the question @ Floquenbeam? Most likely the answer will either be WT:ACN or WT:AC. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Something I said here]; I wanted to make sure what I said was true, and if so, see what others think. Although I suppose I might as well see what you think first...

While the ANI discussion about desysopping Dbachmann seems (if I assume just a tiny bit of bad faith. just a tiny bit!) to have accelerated ArbCom's own desysop decision, I think it's true that there's really no way to inform ArbCom that someone has lost the community's trust. They almost always have to infer that from messy AN/ANI discussions. Such comments are surely not what Arbs want during the case request; and that doesn't seem like anything they'd welcome at the evidence phase either. My thought is that Wordsmith has stumbled onto an idea that is actually useful, in that it would be a way to clearly inform ArbCom if someone has lost the community's trust, even if there is no smoking gun action that ArbCom would normally need. Also, I'm curious to get feedback from Arbs whether "lost the community's trust" would be sufficient for ArbCom to desysop. The more I think about it, I don't think we need a community desysop method for ArbCom-able actions; we need it when everyone is just fed up, and it is clear that someone would never come close to passing an RFA now. Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

oops, there's a Wordsmith and a User:The Wordsmith. repinging. also, adding missing link. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Well as the person whose vote seems to have spurred a couple of others, I wasn't aware of a renewed ANI discussion about deysopping so it didn't accelerate my part of that decision. This seems like a WT:ACN discussion (WT:AC works better for more procedural questions) topic and so I would start it there (maybe as a sub-section after the motion passes and it's announced there?).

Since you asked for my thoughts, in the bigger picture, I continue to desire a way for there to be a community desysop procedures. In fact I know of someone who has crafted a proposal that I think stands a good chance of passing as a first step towards that. But until that happens I'm going to question efforts to backdoor that by making ArbCom more into something like ArbCom expects crats to be - people who carry out the decision reached elsewhere. I think the community definitely does weigh in on whether or not someone has lost faith, it just happens through comments at the case request. But yes this is definitely worth discussion with the committee and community. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Not Barkeep of course, but I'll put my two cents in. The community has tried, repeatedly, to come with a desysop method independent of ArbCom. But of course we've yet to find consensus. If what you're suggesting is to create a new community mechanism, I'm not sure that ArbCom has the power to enable that. I think it would require ArbCom and the community to work hand in hand, which sounds like an uphill battle given that the community has never been able to agree on desysop. But isn't ARC an already extant venue for the community to express if an admin has lost the community's trust? While our desysops have generally been for those smoking gun incidents, nothing prevents us from desysopping for a pattern of low level problems. Beyond that, I agree with Barkeep that I am hesitant to backdoor in a desysop method. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 19:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't personally see it as doing an end-run around policy. Arbcom's own motion in the current case includes the wording for losing the trust or confidence of the community. What I'm trying to do is have the community come to a consensus that "yes, this admin has lost our trust and confidence so please proceed". I only suggested it because there seems to be nearly unanimous consensus that this user shouldn't be an administrator, as opposed to many previous incidents that were much more complex and a full case or Arbcom investigation was definitely needed. Once this is over I plan on seeing if I can tease out a draft of something more formal, but it would only work in unambiguous cases like this one. Maybe something built on the bones of the old WP:RFC/U, but heavily restricted to prevent the flaws inherent to that process. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly; what The Wordsmith has proposed is pretty much the exact opposite of a backdoor - I'm surprised to see it described that way. I'm not sure I see any legitimate complaint about posting a thread that acts as an advisory to ArbCom. @ The Wordsmith:, I don't want to step on your toes, so I probably won't unilaterally post to WT:ACN after all, but I'd like to chat with you about it a little bit if you decide to formalize this somehow. Please ping me if you decide to. Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'll let you know once the dust on this current issue settles and I'm ready to look into drafting something. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 19:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the draft as it seems I've perhaps misunderstood what's being contemplated. That said I will say again, that I am quite excited by a novel proposal that I think could be the equivalent of the initial RfC to remove sysop for inactivity. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The best mechanism used to be User talk:Iridescent (and I'm only half joking), but he's not around so much these days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Coming up with a really whacky idea which will never get consensus or pass an RfC ... what if requesting adminship was done in the same way as removing it? In other words, editors ask either themselves or another editor for admin privs, everybody is allowed their opinion on the candidate, but the final decision rests with the administrators arbs. Removing that decision from the community will be completely unpalatable, but would it actually be worse than RfA is now? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel like just about every idea has been made around RfA in some form or fashion and instead what's needed is to build consensus for one (or more) of them. This appointment board idea has been very unpopular when discussed in the past. Instead, I think what's needed is for someone to take elections across the finish line as it was very close to having consensus when it was last proposed and RfA hasn't gotten any better since then. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It's coming up to a year since I co-nomed on an RfA, and I haven't dug out a willing candidate myself since Less Unless almost two years ago. I have had a bunch of "not now thanks" or "not interested", like we all have, and I think I've heard "no thanks" so many times, it's got to the point that I'm half thinking we've got all the admins we're ever going to get. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I emailed someone the other day just to make sure they'd already been asked and declined, and yep. Already been asked, and their answer to me was 'not right now, maybe in future'. Valereee ( talk) 13:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I should also point out that I was a supporter of WP:XRV. However, it has failed to get traction, to the extent that I started the current ANI thread which caused this whole kerfuffle over Dbachmann, while Moneytrees would have preferred XRV - and I would have too, if I'd not forgotten about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

We need a way for phab:T301180 to be given higher priority and resources allocated to resolve it. What levers do we have that can be pulled? isaacl ( talk) 21:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the lever of "the community has established consensus and would use this as soon as it's ready" is vital to pulling other levers. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's a catch-22. Other prominent community members like Xaosflux have counselled not bringing it up for RfC until SecurePoll is ready—see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 264 § Thoughts about admin elections on SecurePoll, and recall the pushback that occurred during the RfA review RfC on this point. isaacl ( talk) 21:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It is and isn't a catch-22. I think @ Xaosflux and I are getting at different things. Xaos is speaking in practicalities as just because there's consensus is no guarantee that it will get developed (true). Where as the question you asked was what levers do we have to pull. And there are levers that I know of to pull but those levers only work for me if I can point to consensus behind it. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi (since I was pinged), IIRC I was a supporter of secret ballot elections being an option for RFA's here; and we are certainly not the first people to try to get better SecurePoll out there - broader support was already demonstrated at meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Larger suggestions/Make SecurePoll accessible through local wikis - where the dev team decided "nope". As far as "what does it take to make this happen" - much of it is the same as "what does it take to get a FA written" about a subject you like -- you need to recruit volunteers who will put in all the work, but in this case programmers not article writers. I advised against wasting community time on a RFC that won't be able to work because I've seen this sort of headache before, but if you want to do it go for it - it runs the risk of passing, then getting stalled indefinitely. If much times goes by between it getting unblocked you'll get a new fight of people saying your RFC is stale and doesn't reflect the "current community", do it again.

In short: I'm fine with secret elections if they have local support; I still think such a RFC is a waste of time if it is not possible to implement; if you have devs waiting to see that people actually want this functionality - point them to last year's wishlist. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I think with the Phabricator ticket open describing specific work items that need to be done, there is a potential path for getting consensus approval for elections being an option, contingent on the ticket being resolved, assuming the test-first contingent doesn't grow in size. isaacl ( talk) 23:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear: I wouldn't "oppose" in such a RFC on technical grounds. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• How curious. I decided during this last case to create a desysop process along these lines. It's not ready yet- but I expect I'll be proposing something like it after the easter break! Worm^TT( talk) 10:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  @ Worm That Turned: Reading that, is there a reason that the desysop criteria is only checked on the first of the month? It seems inconsistent, in that some admins could be desysoped for a 29 day block, while others could remain an admin despite a 55 day block.

  On the general topic, my personal opinion is that all that is required is for the community to produce a consensus to desysop someone, per WP:CCC and per there being no policy forbidding the community from desysoping someone through consensus. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  @ BilledMammal I think your idea that a local consensus can, at any time, decide to desysop someone is radically against policy in ways I explained at Dbachmann so I won't repeat them here. As for your substantive question, I can answer that as I know WTT is likely not to see it for a bit. The idea there is to make it fit nicely into the procedural desysops that already happen. Some admins who haven't taken any actions or edits loss the bit after 12 months and others despite it being 12 months and 26 days to use the same timeframe you do. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  @ BilledMammal I am curious about your thoughts around the first of the month part. Given the explanation do you still have issues with it? It doesn't seem worth being a major point of opposition. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  I wouldn't oppose the proposal over it but I still don't like that aspect; while I understand the desire to fit it neatly into our current practices the short time span (over a year an absolute variance of a month produces a relative variance of less than 10%; over 28 days it produces a relative variance of over 100%) and the lack of control the admin has over the length and timing of the ban makes me believe that it cannot neatly fit alongside procedures that operate over a longer time frame and that give the admin considerable control over whether the conditions of them are met.

  For blocks of between 28 days and 58 days it would end up being random chance whether the admin remains an admin or not; an admin blocked for 30 days on the second of January is desysoped, while an admin blocked for 45 days on the fifth of January is not - I can see this causing considerable controversy down the line.

  I've been trying to find your comments about a consensus to desysop, but I haven't been able to. Could you link them? BilledMammal ( talk) 17:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for that feedback @ BilledMammal. To me having someone show up to the crats noticeboard going "it's been 30 days you should desysop Barkeep49 now" feels far more likely to create drama than if a crat just notes it with the other desysops done under policy. But it's clearly a place where reasonable people can come to different conclusions which is why I'd hope to suss out which way most people would go. My comments about existing policy around deysopping, and the inability of a local consensus to just decide otherwise, are here. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  That is a fair point; perhaps if a bot made the request it could address that issue?

  If a discussion is going to be opened on this topic, I wonder if it would be useful to take the opportunity to further review our inactivity guidelines? For example, if an admin has made less than 10 admin actions in the past 60 months (or 12 months) they should no longer be considered an active admin? BilledMammal ( talk) 03:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Given that past history suggests this isn't going to happen very often, personally I don't think that processing the removal of administrative privileges on the first day of each month is a deal breaker. Some editors may get up to a month longer to try to successfully appeal, and they will be able to see deleted edits during this time. I think editors with valid reasons to appeal would be the most affected by the inequity, but since they can appeal and get reinstated at any time most convenient for them, they can mitigate the effect. isaacl ( talk) 17:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding proposal 1, I think it would remove overhead for the most serious cases (if an editor isn't trusted enough to make any edits, it's hard to make a case that they're trusted enough to enforce Wikipedia policy), but not address presumably more common cases where an editor is better acting as an advocate for their viewpoints without holding administrative privileges. Nonetheless, it would probably still be helpful for those situations where it applies. I feel it should be limited though to situations where the block has been enacted by community consensus. If the committee has performed an emergency block, for example, I think it is better to leave the timing of any additional actions in their hands.

  Regarding proposal 2, it glosses over the key part with the word "procedurally": what procedure is used? isaacl ( talk) 17:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have serious reservations about proposal 2. For proposal 1, I see the virtue being that it doesn't necessarily need community consensus. Everyone will know when placing that kind of block that the clock has started. The minimum of 30 days ensures that if someone wants to challenge it that there is adequate time at which point there would be community consensus for the block (or at least community consenus not to remove it). That is let's save the community consensus for the appeal reflecting the community's ultimate oversight of the issue. The predictable date for removal means that unusual situations like the ArbCom block you suggest, could be appropriately handled; the straight forward rule is for me a big benefit to this proposal and legislating edge cases at the outset doesn't seem great, just as we created a straight forward rule for admin activity and then legislated edge cases as was necessary. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  I was thinking some kind of out clause for the committee could be helpful, if it had to execute a block while knowing through private information that the admin in question would not be able to respond for approximately two months (that is, past the second occurrence of the first of the month). That being said, I agree that simplicity is easier to describe and remember, and in any case, a removal of privileges can be reversed later if deemed warranted.

  I was only thinking of community-imposed indefinite blocks, not admin-imposed ones, since those can only be placed for flagrant violations of policy. Though in theory proposal 1 might make admins more wary of placing indefinite blocks, I don't think that will happen in practice, since indefinite blocks are already a lot less likely to be placed than some kind of editing restriction, so the behaviour has to be pretty undesirable for it to happen. isaacl ( talk) 17:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing and Talk:LGBT rights in Norway on "Society, sports, and culture" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You (and the rest of the current arbitration committee) have made the big time: featured in a Half as Interesting video! [30] Its description of the dispute resolution process is reasonably good for a general audience. It does skip over the fact that the arbitration process doesn't specifically address content issues. isaacl ( talk) 16:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I had never heard of Half as Interesting before so I wouldn't have likely come across it otherwise. Look forward to watching it. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The creator makes long-form explainers, and in some of those videos he'd go over quirky things he found in Wikipedia, prompting him to create the Half as Interesting channel as a spinoff to cover those as brief individual items (it's progressed beyond just using Wikipedia as source material). After banding together with other YouTubers to make their own subscription website, Nebula, to have a bit of revenue independent of YouTube's suggestion algorithm, he started creating other types of long-form content. Of note, Jet Lag is a travel/race game of sorts, something like the Amazing Race. It's fun to watch (it's released on YouTube after premiereing on Nebula). isaacl ( talk) 16:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm a little bit confused about where to respond to ya'll's questions [31]. It says respond on Evidence page but evidenc page is closed, no? Or "above as a section under #Analysis of evidence as appropriate." Mmmm, I'm probably being dense here but where is "above"? Thanks. Volunteer Marek 19:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Volunteer Marek when the second phase of evidence opens you can add stuff in response to arb questions but which otherwise might be out of scope of a rebuttal. Or if evidence is already in that you can analyze for an answer that's the "Above". Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Starting conversations on how to ratify the Movement Charter: The Committee invites the Wikimedia movement to express opinions on the proposed Movement Charter ratification methodology from April 10 to April 28. Everyone is invited to share feedback on the Meta talk page or the Movement Strategy forum. Two community conversation hours are planned to take place: on April 18 at 10.00 UTC and April 24 at 17.00 UTC. Please read the details here.
• MCDC’s responses to the community feedback are now on Meta: The Committee has shared a summary of their responses and next steps based on the feedback from the first round of community consultation which took place late 2022.
• What to read on Diff?
  • Learn more about the Movement Charter Ambassadors work: Movement Charter Ambassadors from the French-speaking community share their experience.
  • MCDC member Manavpreet Kaur has written a blog post titled “ An excerpt from my life, movement, strategy and MCDC”.
• Learn about Movement Charter Drafting Committee’s work in March: the monthly Committee’s updates include information about the coordination efforts with Wikimedia Germany, update on membership, submission to Wikimania 2023, participation at the Wikimedia Foundations Board of Trustees’ strategic retreat in New York in March 2023.

Coming up:

• Revised chapters: The Committee is preparing to publish the revised draft chapters of The Preamble, Values & Principles, and Roles & Responsibilities intentions statement, based on the community feedback received in November and December 2022.
• Inviting advisors and experts: The Committee is preparing to welcome a number of advisors from outside the Committee. All interested Wikimedians were invited to apply earlier (you can still apply here!). Additionally, the Committee is planning and scheduling meetings with individuals with specific sets of expertise in various topics, including stewards, movement committees, Wikimedia Foundation and affiliate staff, and others.

Subscribe to this newsletter on Meta wiki

--19:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC).

Since you removed some edit summaries of KittyCat68, would appreciate if you also could revdel the edits between these (inclusive). — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 18:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion at WP:BLP/Noticeboard#Flyer22_Frozen that concerns an action you made. Thank you. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion at WP:AN#Revision_deletion_review_-_WT:Deceased which concerns an action you made. (Sorry, I would have posted here initially if I had realized.) Kolya Butternut ( talk) 23:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, a huge surprise to me was the total ban for @ GizzyCatBella. I consider them to be one of the more restrained editors on Wikipedia, and they have helped moderate several heated discussions in which I have participated. Could you point to where I can find the discussion and justification for this block?

I would also like to draw your attention to the actions of Special:Contributions/212.129.83.68, who deletes GizzyCatBella's comments on various t/p by describing them as "anti-Lithuanian" or "anti-Ukrainian". Is that ok? Marcelus ( talk) 07:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Arbcom blocks are voted on in private and generally not justified onwiki. They are also rare. In this case we actually explained more than we normally do by placing the sock tag. I am not sure I have a lot more to say other than I found the evidence of the socking compelling. As Jacurek is banned by the community under WP:3X there is some ability to revert under the banning policy. I suspect there might be issues with the way that IP is doing it but that can be handled under normal procedures. Barkeep49 ( talk) 07:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for information. Just to be clear, striking off the comments of a person banned for sockpuppetry is an acceptable procedure? Marcelus ( talk) 08:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Marcelus: To be clear, yes: see our policy, WP:BANREVERT, which states Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule (although personally I think a reference to common sense should be made at that point). ( talk page watcher) SN54129 12:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Color me surprised as well. It's not the first time for me to surprised by a long-time sock. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Same here, Liz, and again I am just very disappointed. And there is an SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella/Archive, that Icewhiz commented on; perhaps that could be merged into Jacurek's--but I don't know how to do that. Thanks so much, and thank you to you and your colleagues. Drmies ( talk) 20:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

So it's your own fault you got a pile of words. Now I need to regain that hour and a half I lost .... from productive work on horse research... Ealdgyth ( talk) 18:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciated the words you spent @ Ealdgyth, and hoped my thanks expressed that. Considering the issue from all sides helps me to make better decisions, I find. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

April songs

my story today

My story today is about the Alchymic Quartet, - I went away from DYK but it's the last one from last year. - The songs are about vacation, continued. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I made an exception from my DYK abstinence for Good Friday, - see my story today. Interesting to compare a hook 2023 style to one in 2012 (see my story today). - I sang, including chorales from Bach's greatest Passion. I recently listened to one by Homilius: a discovery! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I liked learning that NBA can refer to something other than the National Basketball Association. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek taught me that, in 2010 I believe ;) - After Easter I'd like to return to my wish to see the ice age of the infobox "wars" end. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I loved to see Marian Anderson and her story of protest against discrimination by singing on Easter Sunday 9 April 1939 on the Main page yesterday. Impressions of Easter here and music here. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Having listened to some of the recordings of Anderson over the years she was a remarkable talent whose civil rights work mattered. I'm also always glad to see her get attention. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

agree! - my story today, Messiah (Handel), was my first dip into the FA ocean, thanks to great colleagues. - a few pics added, one day missing -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I added, finally ;) - today's stories are about Johanna Geisler and Huub Oosterhuis, a singer and a songwriter. More here if you have time. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Today is the 80th birthday of John Eliot Gardiner. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday's story was around Messiaen, and no protests. I mentioned Mozart in the edit summary. Perhaps the ice age is going to end? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey there. This redirect is protected, but the target should be changed, it was targeted to Ride (TV series), but that article was moved to Ride (Canadian TV series), to allow the creation of the new American TV series. I can't fix the target due to the page protection. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Onel5969 fixed. I also dropped the protection level. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks as always. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Re [32] - my apologies, I failed to notice that this was just stuff being moved and for some reason thought it was new material. Volunteer Marek 17:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries @ Volunteer Marek. When I looked at the revision history and saw Primefac had moved something there post deadline I had figured that was likely the case. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

To your question here (I don't know where to post the reply, feel free to copy it wherever you think is best).

I guess the decision is based on consideration on whether privacy is needed, for example to reduce the chance of harassment, both to myself and to the other parties. Some emails could contain discussion of harassment, including how I am affected by it, and similar stuff I don't necessarily feel to make a part of public record. An email could also, for example, contain a friendly warning to behave better, without leaving that warning in one's public record, per my thoughts here. Over the years I have become increasingly concerned not only about how people may use what I say against me, but also, how they can use what I say against others. We are responsible not only for protecting ourselves, but protecting others, and the community in general. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Piotrus: I have created an analysis section and pasted this there. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Hi wanna Chat? JMart6634 ( talk) 15:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Barkeep49 are you doing good or bad or busy? JMart6634 ( talk) 15:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Love jihad on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I was editing Good Christian Fun and cited a source by Vox that refers to the author by their deadname. I'm not very familiar with the guidelines surrounding this and it looks like you were the only admin involved in the discussion on Talk:Emily St. James. I was curious whether I should change the name in both the prose as well as the cited source even though the deadname is used in the source itself. I started a section here Talk:Good_Christian_Fun, but I doubt I'll get any responses so I figured I would ask someone involved. TipsyElephant ( talk) 20:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ TipsyElephant. So first let me note that being an admin just means I have some extra buttons I have been trusted to use. It doesn't mean that other editors won't have good knowledge about policies and guidelines around this area. With that preamble out of the way, yeah this is a tricky one. Vox has renamed St. James' work in general (e.g. this from the same time-period as the ref on Good Christian Fun). In this case it was embedded into the article itself so it didn't get updated. Personally I think you should change it, especially because we can link to her article, but that's really a preference. There is an argument under verifibility to keep the deadname in this particular instance. I just think our general BLP/MOS guidelines and policies suggest the rename. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:

• Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
• Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
• Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
• BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
• FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie, Thebiguglyalien, MyCatIsAChonk, PCN02WPS, and AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration

• The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous

• The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

---

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Two-nation theory on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the recently posted proposed decision: my watchlist hasn't been so flooded on a single topic since the WMF undertook a certain controversial office action... At least this time there's just one busy page. The problem with the earlier situation is that related conversation dominated the history of so many pages I watch, making my watchlist useless. I tried the feature where you can monitor changes to pages linked from a given page, but once you take a page off your watchlist, you can no longer see what revisions you have already viewed, so it didn't help me view just the new changes. In any case, I imagine conversation will diminish much more quickly this time. isaacl ( talk) 22:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

That's what one finds when looking for the meaning of "FoF" - nothing in the WP:Glossary, no [[WP:FoF]] on this project, and if one uses the search box, one gets to the conclusion that you and others are worried about the Future of Forestry. Please let me know what FoF means and I'll update the Glossary. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 19:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Gitz6666: Finding of Fact, one of the sections of an Arbitration Decision. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I hope this is not a nuisance: take it as an opportunity to update the WP:glossary [33] for the benefit of newbies like me. "Arbwiki": what the hell is it? Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 19:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a private wiki that the arbs use for coordination. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For hearing the most difficult case that the ArbCom has had in years and posting the proposed decision on time. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. I'm pretty proud of my track record as a drafter at having on time decisions. I think it's fair and respectful to the parties and the community. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I should add that I appreciate the work done by my fellow drafters and also want to shout-out Money and Eek who helped out but especially Izno who spent a lot of time doing work on this case. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

(Not at all as much as the drafters who had to carry the summaries on their back.) Izno ( talk) 21:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Came here to give you an Admin's barnstar for your tirelessness and thoughtfulness in responding to the current Arb case. But I see Robert McClenon beat me to it, so please accept handwritten congrats instead. Can't say I agree with all the proposed findings but no one can fault your commitment to hearing the evidence and making it accessible. -- Euryalus ( talk) 05:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

"this white paper goes into PII about editors". What is PII? May I suggest de-abbreviating this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Excellent point. Fortunately, it got de-abbrevated with the suggestion incorporating it. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, in the "Reliable sourcing restriction (clarification)" section "a peer-reviewed scholarly journals" should be "a peer-reviewed scholarly journal". Cheers, Zero ^talk 03:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not really certain that I am not. If I am, I should probably strike that part of my remarks before it confuses anyone else.

As always, I have other questions, but this is the one that seems urgent at the moment. Asking here because my section of the talk page is already kind of ADD and I don't want to make it any harder to read. I will however move the question there if you tell me that that's the thing to do. Elinruby ( talk) 19:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

EEML = Easter European Mailing List. A previous ArbCom case. This is different than EE which stands for Eastern Europe and is a topic are designated as a contentious topic. Are you getting these two things confused? Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Yes I am, actually. I will re-read but I guess he is talking about the decision in that case then? Doing the paperwork so this decision overrides that one? Or is he talking about those parties as a scope? I ask this as a party in the case who has unquestionably edited in Eastern Europe in the past ten years, you understand. It sounds like I am not opposed to it and should strike, but please confirm exactly what he is talking about doing when you get the time. Appreciate the answer, thanks. Elinruby ( talk) 21:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I found it. I also have realized that I didn't give you enough information to do so; sorry about that. He was talking about procedures for referral, and while it might affect me at some point I do not object to it. thank again Elinruby ( talk) 00:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

That "None of the named players in this area area new and only Levivich doesn't have a long history at ArbCom in this topic area so we don't need to start from scratch as we normally do with enforcement." (from this diff) isn't meant to include myself in the "long history at ArbCom"? (I think most folks have forgotten that I'm actually a named party to this case.. heh). Ealdgyth ( talk) 22:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Ealdgyth this isn't referring to parties, it's referring to people in the decision. The only people named in the case are Piotrus, Volunteer Marek, Francois Robere, My very best wishes, and Levivich (and perhaps Buidhe, depending on how arbcom would interpet that FoF). Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Updates:

• Charter Ratification Methodology proposal conversations: The Movement Charter Drafting Committee recently held the first conversations regarding the ratification methodology for the Movement Charter. The MCDC has received valuable feedback from different communities and the Committees during the community input period. The report of the community input will be shared in May, while the updated version of the ratification methodology will be presented between September and November 2023.
• Communication evaluation: The Communications sub-committee of the MCDC together with the support staff conducted an evaluation of the communications. The Communications sub-committee appreciates the time and input of the community members who shared their opinions during the interviews. Several recommendations are going to be implemented in the upcoming period based on the valuable input.
• Learn about the MCDC’s work in April: The MCDC continues to draft additional chapters: The Global Council, Hubs, Decision-making and Roles & Responsibilities. Alongside the drafting work, the MCDC is planning their in-person meeting scheduled for 2-4 June in Utrecht, Netherlands with the aim of advancing the charter's content.

What’s coming up?

• Participants of the WikiNusantara 2023 in Banjarmasin, Indonesia are invited to join a session on the topics around Wikimedia Movement Strategy and community collaboration on May 20. Ramzy Muliawan will provide updates, share about the Movement Charter Ambassadors Program and answer the questions.

Subscribe to this newsletter on Meta wiki

Hi Barkeep. I understand why you removed the cent notification for the airlines destination lists bundled AFD and agree that for just a single AFD these don't belong on CENT, but this is the result of a long-running dispute that over the years has been at VPP, AN, and multiple times at AFD and really could do with some fresh eyes on it (though obviously all the relevant projects are notified). Very happy to keep it off CENT if that's your call but just thought I'd make my case just in case. FOARP ( talk) 17:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I am unaware of any AfD (even the ones that turn into monsters with 100+ participants) ever reaching CENT before and my quick search of the archives didn't reveal any. So I think keeping that practice is probably for the best without some kind of consensus to change. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Huh, I thought I remembered some of Carlossuarez46's Iranian village AFDs getting there but searching I don't see them either? Welp, that's me out... FOARP ( talk) 18:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse on a "WikiProjects and collaborations" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to close that close review. Valereee ( talk) 15:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I am semi-seriously waiting for someone to challenge my close of that close. But I feel confident about my uninvolved determination of consensus here and there was no point in letting that review sit longer. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I actually wrote then deleted that exact semi-serious joke. :D Valereee ( talk) 15:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand what the ibans in the recent decision were about, I think, even if I think that they are an argument for adopting the principle of legality. But. I had been talking to several of those people separately and would like to continue to do so post-decision. Do I need to establish a convention that I will talk to them on their user pages instead of on mine? I am assuming that these ibans apply to my user page, even if they are talking about different things in different sections? I am assuming the answer is yes, in which please consider this a mild complaint. If I am wrong though, please do tell. Elinruby ( talk) 23:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

If you were playing "middle man" between them that could get tricky, but separate discussions, especially about separate topics, on someone's userpage are not iban violations. Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

ok, that's good to know. Not going play to middleman, no. Trying to respect the intent here, which I believe was to address the perception (currently erroneous, imho) that these people are joined at the hip. Not going to be talking to any of them about each other either; just seeking some clarity. It's not so much VM, who never posts to my talk page anyway, or FR, who has only ever talked to me about Poland and now presumably won't, as it is Piotrus, who has said he'll help with Poland, and MVBW, who was advising on Russia. I do not want to trigger off any new dramas. I am already losing MVBW on the collaboration article, not because of the ibans, but because he quite understandably feels that any discussion of World War 2 would be a minefield. But he isn't banned from EE, right? So Russian disinformation, where I most value his input, should be ok, right? Or the war in Ukraine? Just trying to figure out how to work with this. Our interactions (apart from the music and epistemology discussions) mostly consist of me asking him stuff about Russia as a subject matter expert, thus his request to not be pinged at the collaboration article anymore. Elinruby ( talk) 01:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

MVBW can weigh in on Russian disinformation and the War in Ukraine without violating any restriction, correct. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

thanks for clarity Elinruby ( talk) 08:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I may have some questions regarding what just transpired on ARC. Should I post them here, or elsewhere? François Robere ( talk) 14:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@ François Robere go ahead and post them here. I might direct you to a better place after I know what questions we're talking about (partially because I am currently attempting to take a break from ArbCom activities). Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey,I saw that you are an administrator and I have a request for you. Recently an article that I heavily contributed to sadly got deleted,the problem is that I really need all the sources and edits that was in the article for personal purposes as i puted valuable informatios that i didn't manage to put in a proper file, if you could pass me all that hard work into a userspace draft that would be really helpful and thank you. Scorpio1998 ( talk) 10:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Scorpio1998 what's the article? Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The article itself was called: Kingdom of Algiers (1710-1830) Scorpio1998 ( talk) 16:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Scorpio1998 I am guessing you are also Tayeb188 because Scorpio1998 has never edited anything except my user talk. Kingdom of Algiers (1710-1830) was deleted as a fork. So it should definitely not be made again. But it's possible that you could incorporate some of the writing into the existing article Ottoman Algeria. I'm going to ping @ Sandstein as the admin who closed that discussion but I would be OK restoring the deleted article for this reason if he is. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Barkeep49, thanks for asking. I am indifferent to that. Sandstein 18:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

sorry for the confusion,this is my mobile account as i regularly scroll through Wikipedia via mobile, and yes Tayeb188 is my main account and the one that i edited with.however,when i said that i wanted my edits back,i didnt mean to restore the draft or the article i just want all that edit into a proper userspace draft that would be great,and if appropriate i will incorporate some edits to the Ottoman Algeria page. Scorpio1998 ( talk) 19:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

For attribution purposes it was easier to just recreate the whole page which is now at User:Tayeb188/Kingdom of Algiers (1710-1830). Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey,thanks a lot i really appreciate it! Tayeb188 ( talk) 20:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Arvind Kejriwal on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Libreboot on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

15:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

While I'm commenting something that has struck me and caused me to think quite a bit, as an uninvolved editor, is a theory around repeated conversations that I was first introduced to regarding requested moves. The theory is that if there are repeated proposals to do a move, and which all are close but are closed with no move, the issue doesn't go away until finally a discussion closes with moving the page. At which point there doesn't seem to be nearly the same effort (and often no effort) to move it back suggesting we should have probably done the page move far earlier and something in our processes was broken. This theory has largely held true in my experience around RMs.

I saw this comment you made on Roy's page and was interested in the underlying theory but didn't want to reply there as to focus on it seemed off topic; I hope you don't mind me opening a conversation here.

My interpretation of this would be different; I see three possible reasons for this that don't align with our processes being broken in that manner:

1. The world has changed and the name which is best supported by policy has changed with it; an example of this would be Kyiv.
2. Our policies have changed and this has changed which name is best supported by policy.
3. One side is more tendentious and invested in the dispute; while those opposing are willing to join a discussion to prevent a move they are not willing to put in the extra effort to open a discussion to revert the move - or they are wishing to avoid the drama that opening such a move would cause.

Because of this third reason I don't read much into the lack of effort in the opposite direction. While it's possible our processes are broken and the move should have been done much earlier, it's also possible that our processes are broken in that they reward tendentious editors and the move should not have been done at all. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@ BilledMammal I think we do have processes that are susceptible to tendentious editors. No question. But in the moves I'm talking about it's not the same editor repeatedly starting the move discussion. And unlike infoboxes, where you see a similar dynamic of "repeat discussion until a certain consensus is found" it's not the same group of editors that show up repeatedly to the discussions. Frequently the editors spurring the discussions are IP or low count editors who are genuinely puzzled about why we've named something a certain way. Puzzled enough to overcome the barrier to editing to discuss or note it. And I would actually suggest that we lagged, even more than our policies and guidelines say we should have, with Kyiv. So I'd have Kyiv as a clear example of the kind of discussion I'm talking about. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Kyiv is the definitive example of this issue, as there were countless complaints about the name (mainly from drive-by editors, a.k.a. readers) until it was moved, and admins even had to impose so-called move moratoriums in order to deal with them. Amazingly, the disruption died down as soon as the article was at the right name.

Around the time of the most recent RM (the successful one) I commented: "All those discussion attempts should have been taken as a clue that the article is at the wrong title." and later "The impression I have of move moratoriums is that their existence is evidence that the article is at the wrong title." Perhaps one of my profound comments will be quoted in the eventual essay written about this phenomenon. – bradv 18:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Barkeep is on to something here. But I'd also caution that just because something has been repeatedly asked for often points to just the opposite outcome. If say people were repeatedly asking for moving Pizzagate conspiracy theory to Pizzagate scandal, that would probably be an indication that we were under assault by alt-right trolls, not that there was some legitimate reason for moving it. I'm hesitant to reward or even recognize persistent attempts at moving, because that only encourages people to bend the rules. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 19:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Great counter example Eek. A talk page watcher emailed me User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle which gets at a lot of what I was trying to get at (though not the point bradv made above about the signs from our readers) while also taking it in an interesting different direction that deserves some consideration. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting; I thought your original post was referring to that page. I don't like the idea that "if people keep asking for it, there must be something to the request" as a broad principle, because it just takes a vanishingly small portion of the user community to request something periodically. It incentivizes never-ending disputes, since willingness to compromise will be interpreted as conceding rejection of the points being made. It takes advantage of the goodwill of conciliatory editors, and thus contributes to an environment selecting for more combative editors. isaacl ( talk) 21:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I think a crucial difference between what you're discussing @ Isaacl and what I'm saying is what I was getting at with the Infobox comparison: there's a large difference between repeat players and people genuinely motivated to comment on that but not generally participate. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Even for cases where it's a random new user dropping a note on a page, it's a very small percentage of users, and is a self-selected sampling. To take a slightly different example, there are periodic new users who complain about the lack of coverage of athletes X who all meet standard Y. There are still many other editors who have advocated for the current standard, and so just the existence of periodic requests isn't enough by itself to indicate that there should be a change. isaacl ( talk) 22:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but if the complaints stop once the change is made doesn't that prove that the change was needed? Perhaps this principle can only be proven in retrospect, but that doesn't make it invalid. – bradv 00:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it necessarily follows. There is incentive to outlast other editors and drive them away, and this does happen in discussions. In particular, moderate middle ground editors get tired of constantly rehashing the same arguments and leave. isaacl ( talk) 00:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this and would add that it requires more commitment to open a move request than it does to contribute to one. For editors who are not invested in a topic they might be willing to take the time to contribute to an existing move request, but not willing to take the time to open a new one. Adam's Bridge is an example of a topic where policy favors the current name, but where I suspect that if the article ever was moved there would be no attempt to move it back because editors opposing the move aren't invested in the topic. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

But in the moves I'm talking about it's not the same editor repeatedly starting the move discussion. I would suggest the third reason can also apply when the requests come from multiple like-minded editors; the "side" that is more invested in the dispute. This is also where our processes start to break down; the same editor making repeated requests can be addressed as a conduct issue, but that rarely applies when it is a group of editors.

When the repeated requests are from non-established users this is less true, but I would agree with CaptainEek that while in some cases those users might have a good point they are just as likely to either not understand the policies that resulted in the current title or be engaged in POV pushing. For example, Adam's Bridge has been proposed to be moved to Ram Setu several times but the current title is favored by our policies.

For when they do have a good point I think the most significant issue is that most non-established editors aren't able to make a good, policy-based argument for that point and that results in the proposal being rejected. Partially, that is on us; we have 90 different naming conventions, usually verbose and often providing duplicated or conflicting guidance. I doubt any editor fully understands them and a new editor has no chance - I've been working for a while now on a three-phase proposal to clean them up, but it is a significant amount of work and I suspect even the earlier phases, which would be limited to removing duplication and grouping similar guidance together without changing policy such as by addressing conflicting guidance, would be controversial. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Another example of the colonial/foreigner's language being used rather than the local name, and just like the cases above the career Wikipedians are ignoring the readers' complaints. The arguments that finally got Kiev moved to Kyiv probably apply to this one too. – bradv 02:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The argument that finally got Kyiv moved was that the common name had shifted. That doesn't apply to Adam's Bridge although if you believe Ram Setu would better comply with policy then I would encourage you, as an experienced editor, to open a new move request. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations on a "WikiProjects and collaborations" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I've updated that essay to capture motions in lieu of a full case. Surprisingly, unless I've missed a bunch somehow, motions seem to have started to make sort of a comeback since 2022. I'm posting here instead of case request as I'm not sure how much it would fall under "helping decide if a case is necessary". At any rate, I'd rather kibbitz here rather than there. :-) Maxim ( talk) 13:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

That's definitely a good addition @ Maxim as more cases are not actually reaching the case stage. In does add a new wrinkle to the story. One could argue, for instance, that last year's committee was unlikely to remove Admin if the person actually was around and participated in a case (Athenera block, Stephen). And I'm always happy for you to come kibbitz on my talk page. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
• As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

• Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

• Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.

---

Hello! I know that you said at WP:CR that you had endeavored to close part of the MOS:GENDERID RFC (I assume topic 1). I wanted to give you a heads up that another editor had closed topic 1.

I also wanted to apologize if your efforts proved to be a considerable time drain, as that would chiefly be my fault. On the one hand, I feel somewhat proud of the RFC set up—an RFCBEFORE at VPI got fairly messy fairly quickly, and I wanted to split off aspects of that discussion to facilitate discussion, while still crafting options that represented what had been proposed. On the other hand, I realize that my decision to segment the RFC as I did made it considerably harder on any closer. It, unfortunately, does not surprise me that you started on closing the RFC but weren't able to finish before you had to attend to other matters. Regardless, while I realize it has to be frustrating to have nothing to show for your effort, I wanted to thank you for it, and I wanted to apologize for any needless burden I may have caused.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Truthfully I was going to close the whole thing. I almost closed Topic 1 but wanted to make sure nothing from the rest of the discussion would impact the closing statement there. So while I appreciate the heads-up nothing has really changed from my POV. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

When I saw that you weren't sure of your capacity, I figured I could step in and take that off your plate. Sorry if that led to you wasting time reviewing the discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@ ScottishFinnishRadish as I noted privately, rather than just making that presumption you could have asked which would have meant I wouldn't have spent several hours yesterday working on this (or you wouldn't have). And as I noted privately while I agree with your overall findings, I think your actual close will make it very difficult, and perhaps impossible, to implement that consensus by requiring another RfC before the consensus can be noted in the guideline. I think the net result is to have squandered the time, thought, and care of all of those who helped form the consensus in that RfC as the consensus reached by a huge number of people may or may not be implemented depending on whether a new consensus can be reached with wording that doesn't yet exist and may take months to develop, if it ever does. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, I apologize for grabbing the close out from under you. I read However, I've been sucked back to ArbCom because of the particulars of a case request so while I have opened this up and begun to read it, I'm not sure what my actual capacity for closing will be. and the lack of a {{ doing}} template as an invitation for someone to close it if they had they time and motivation. I'm sorry for misreading that, and that's on me.

I think I owe Eggishorn an apology for this, where I said And that's the biggest problem with the close as it stands, it's just passing the buck and setting up yet another one of those clusterfuck discussions with diminishing returns, as uninvolved editors don't really seem to give a shit. We got the most participation we're going to see on the topic in that RFC, and it was summarily ignored in the close, and any further discussions are going to be back to the same group of editors with the same opinions divided down the middle. It's a bit similar to what you've said, although I was more worked up, but it still comes down to a close which doesn't necessarily move us forward. I did what I complained about in that close review, and now I feel like an ass for spouting off like I did because I made the best close I could based on my reading of this discussion and consensus and ended with the same kind of result.

I agree that it will likely be difficult to craft the wording, but I crafted much of my closing statements to try and make it a bit easier, and highlight where there was a strong consensus. If I could have said There is consensus for option 2.8, figure it out, or if I was in a position to create the necessary language, I would have. My reading simply didn't support a consensus for using any of the proposed language. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this is half my fault for asking Izno and Primefac to recuse from the whole Scottywong / ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ thing (which I notice no one else seems to have thought was a concern).

Barkeep49, did you have a WIP close? Any language you can share? User:Sideswipe9th has opened a post-discussion discussion, and any alternative reading of the consensus of the RFC that you might be able to share may go far in helping ameliorate further time expenditure by participants. Folly Mox ( talk) 19:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

As a offtopic note, I think it was a fair ask. I had been considering it even before your request, and another remark made in the request (by another arb, incidentally, and it wasn't the one that everyone else bristled at) ultimately convinced me that I didn't want to balance the responsibility. (I don't think it would have been an issue, since my personal opinion of ScottyWong's behavior in the context of the bot discussions was that he was unnecessarily stubborn but did ultimately use the dispute resolution process as intended.) Izno ( talk) 19:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Folly Mox There's a reason the method for asking for recusals is spelled out in ARBPOL, and you're entitled to make the asks that you think are right.

As for my WIP close, no close of mine is done until everything is posted. I had a completely written draft I was happy with but there was a problem (noted in a moment) which stopped me from hitting submit on the edit. The way I was going to handle the near, but not quite reached, consensus for option 3 (what SFR is calling 2.8) was by saying that 3 had consensus, but by footnote or other mitigating language the not completely absolute nature of that consensus should be noted. The reason this didn't go up yesterday is because closing in that way meant "what about RfDs" also needed a close and figuring out what the consenus was for that discussion was giving me large problems. I decided starting a new the next day might help. It's possible that in closing that I would have changed my wording of the main issue. By closing it that way it immediately implements the consensus SFR and I both agree was reached - in other words it reflects the will and thinking of participants - and seemed more likely to setup further discussions that would also reach consensus on the remaining issue that everyone felt good about. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. I hadn't fully read WP:ARBPOL. Folly Mox ( talk) 20:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Daniel Wayne Smith. Could you do the same with Dannielynn Birkhead? The same person has been trying to undo the redirect there too. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Balph Eubank Done. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Real life yuk is preventing me from keeping up anywhere, and I am reduced to the most mundane tasks recently, so I've been unable to contribute here with more advice about how to better handle copyright issues. I remain concerned that the thread has been removed for the second time, before I could add some advice for BoyTheKingCanDance; if copyvio is not caught early (and that editor created over a dozen articles in one day), it can become an entrenched problem. I am wondering why BTKCD does not archive many talk threads, but moved these two off their page so quickly. Some practical advice about how to watch for and detect copyvio is in order. But I am too busy to engage right now and must back out. Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'm concerned about that too. Rosguill got some tips in there before the second archive. I have a plan to circle back to them in a week or so and see if there have been further problems. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

My friends, please give me any further advice and I will take it. I want to excel. Please help me to do so. Very best regards, BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk) 16:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the part of this that worried me the most was your quick archiving of the threads following relatively superficial responses. It gives the impression that you're trying to dodge accountability or criticism, which is an attitude that's not compatible with editing writ large, let alone advanced permissions. While I can understand that having a thread of criticism on your user talk page can feel like a mark of Cain at times, from my perspective as someone who manages NPP permissions, I would much rather see lots of criticism with thoughtful responses attached than a habit of quickly dismissing and removing concerns.

Separate from that, your response regarding copyvio suggests that you are not using the built in copyvio detector in the NPP curation tool, and may not even be aware of its existence. It's one of our best lines of defense against copyvio, and proper NPP procedure is to use it to screen every article you come across. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

A big +1 to everything Rosguill says above BTKCD. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

In addition to all of that, I'm worried that many other (seemingly newish?) editors have come to BTKCD's talk page for editing advice, and it would really be helpful for those editors to see the importance of detecting copyvio at NPP.

It is not at all uncommon for new editors to not understand copyright (almost to a point of needing to assume that new editors may not), and if we don't catch them early, at the NPP stage, by the time we do find them, we can end up with a WP:CCI and the need to evaluate hundreds or thousands of articles, and a lot of wasted time for something that could have been caught earlier. BTKCD, this is a very important function of NPP, and even if you begin to use the automated means of detecting copyright violations, there are other tipoffs that you should be aware of. If you see a very new editor with a sketchy command of writing, and then a sudden burst of very professional prose within the same article, you should investigate even if the tools turn up nothing. The minimum you should be doing is using the curation tool; you should be aware of the typical tipoffs to copyvio, like a sudden change in tone or writing quality.

I'm also concerned that you are new page patrolling with limited awareness of what constitutes a reliable source. Answering that you will take greater care to review WP:RSP will not do the job, as most sources are not covered there-- that page only covers sources for which a discussion has occurred at WP:RSN. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

June songs

my story today

For the first time, you can listen to a concert with me in the (four) choirs on YouTube, - on my talk, look for "listen" if interested. - Today's story is taken from a 2011 DYK, talking about brotherhood (which includes sisters), - the piece in question, beginning with a psalm quotation, was first performed 300 years ago OTD. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Gerda Arendt Are all the listen links your choir? I see 4 or so such links. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No, but the first, third and fourth, - all the same. (I said it was the first time, no? So there can be only one.) - My choir - in that concert - is Chor St. Martin, no link because that's a church choir with usually one concert per year, so not notable itself. The church is St. Martin, Idstein, and that the article handling it. That church also has the Martinis, originally a youth choir but now a chamber choir. Those two are Catholic. The organiser was Idsteiner Kantorei, Protestant, - their church is less convenient (to put it mildly) to house so many singers. They are sort of my choir also, but only for larger concerts, such as Beethoven's Ninth and Orff's Carmina Burana. Fourth choir is the Kantorij from the sister city Zwijndrecht, Belgium. We - all - have performed together before, for Haydn's Die Schöpfung. We stand mixed, for more ecumenism and internationality ;) - The concert had been planned for 2020, when the city partnership turned 50, but came the Pandemic. The other concert planned for 2020, St Matthew Passion, is scheduled for next spring now, hopefully again with me. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

11 June or: Music not only by Bach - What do you think about the Ravel discussion? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Jörg Widmann is 50 today, and I began Stockholm pics. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Today: a woman caught by the iron curtain (improved with SusunW and GRuban), yesterday: the Mass in B minor, heard in concert then, three musical videos are out, and the rest of the vacation pics is now there. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

Novem Linguae

• Deckiller
• Electionworld
• MBisanz
• Penwhale
• Raul654
• Roadrunner
• Viridae
• Yannismarou

Bureaucrat changes

MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

• Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news

• Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

Arbitration

• Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

---

The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,
• Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
• Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell on a "WikiProjects and collaborations" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• User talk:SilkTork#former

I was reading your comments at WT:AN, and I thought you might be interested in this discussion. I would value your thoughts on this. There, here, wherever : ) - jc37 12:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I have moved the discussions under Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022 § Topics to review for 2023 to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023. Please feel free to continue discussion on the 2023 talk page! isaacl ( talk) 21:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I have never reviewed a good article before and have some questions and would like a second pair of eyes on my first attempt: /info/en/?search=Talk:Fanya_Baron/GA1 Bart Terpstra ( talk) 15:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@ Bart Terpstra, my apologies but your timing was off by just a little. Unfortunately before I could take a real look at this, I was drawn back into active status on ArbCom and for the moment all my wiki energies are pointed in that direction. I hope you can find someone else who can help you through the GA process - it's a good one but can be intimidating the first time you serve as a reviewer as I remember well. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

alright, thank you for your time. Bart Terpstra ( talk) 10:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, sorry but I don't understand something you said to me at BHG case request, and I don't want to clutter up the case request page, so I thought I'd ask for some clarification here. You wrote: @Paul August: I could wikilawyer why I think you could have undone your own block, but unlike a community ban or some other community sanction, which an individual, even the one implementing, can't undo without consensus, this was still a grant to individual admin and I don't think the community had any desire to impose a kafkaesque one way imposition on that grant to individual admins. This is based, in no small part, on my re-read of the discussion about sanctions that led to this editing restriction a few days ago. I can't quite parse this ;-) but I think you are saying the community who proposed and adopted that editing restriction did not intend to prevent the blocking admin from unblocking. Is that correct? Thanks. Paul August ☎ 13:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@ Paul August Correct that is what I'm saying. I think I could also wikilawyer that the community couldn't have done that even if it had intended to but why bother given that there was no intention to make it impossible for an admin to reverse themselves. Barkeep49 ( talk) 13:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) I also had problems parsing that statement :-) RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. While I understand your hypothetical wikilawyer argument (and possibly agree, although I probably wouldn't make such an argument, just as I'd probably never invoke WP:IAR), I don't read the communities intent the way you do. For example see this snippet from that discussion:

As has been pointed out, this proposal prevents even the blocking admin from unblocking, and it's doubtful that any admin will want to make a block that they would be prohibited from undoing, and thus this proposal will make BHG more difficult to block, which seems to be the opposite of the intended effect. Levivich 13:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The idea that even the blocking admin can't unblock is nonsensical. Black Kite (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: That's a fair comment. That said, do you really foresee a problem here? Is it at all likely someone will block, citing this discussion, and then turn around and say "eh, I was wrong" before the community has overturned the block? I have a hard time seeing how someone could make such a big mistake. If the blocking admin quickly *does* conclude they were in the wrong, their voice at the discussion would probably settle it quickly. However, allowing for a self-overturn would potentially put a ton of pressure on that one admin during the discussion. I think this is the right way to go. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Switched to oppose - It is ridiculous, per Black Kite, for there not to be an exception for the blocking admin to reverse their own block. --WaltCip-(talk) 16:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Paul August ☎ 14:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

As an addendum to the above, given Seraphimblade's statement, it now seems I was wrong about what that sentence was intended to mean. Paul August ☎ 16:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I should have responded to your last message noting that it doesn't change my read of the conversation but it's really helpful in explaining why you felt restrained. So let me belatedly do that now. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, it didn't even cross my mind to mention that; it's pretty much always been the default that an admin can reverse themself. It seems to be such an unusual circumstance if they couldn't do that, that such an odd edge case would be the time to actually spell that out. (Are there even any such instances? I can't think of any off the top of my head). But regardless, I'll note that in the future, just for avoidance of any doubt. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

To me the only instance of it is when an admin is placing a block to implement a CBAN, since it's the community not the factotum implementing the block who is responsible. Though even there an admin could reverse themselves if they were later convinced that there wasn't consensus for the ban after all. In other words they couldn't reverse the ban or accept an appeal (absent community consensus) but they could decide that there wasn't an appropriate basis to place the block in the first place. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I can see that, or if someone points out that they made a mistake (e.g., the discussion hadn't run for the required time span). In that case, if they say "Yeah, I screwed up" and reopen the discussion, it would certainly make sense that they would also reverse the block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Every other instance I can think of would require an intervening rights change. Someone placing a CU or OS block that subsequently resigns the CU/OS flag could be unable to undo those actions at that point, at least by the letter of the law. (Same thing for a former arbitrator undoing a block they made as an ArbComBlock, but those aren't undoable by a single arbitrator unilaterally anyhow.) Courcelles ( talk) 17:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel a bit chagrined, about all this. In my defense, as a mathematician, I'm all about "edge cases" ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You might be famous. See the first two paragraphs of this New York Times article Wikipedia’s Moment of Truth. There might be more mentions of you, but I don't know because I just started reading it. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 15:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @ Steve Quinn though I doubt I am headed for any fame. I sincerely doubt this will make me anything more than a minor celebrity within the world of Wikipedia. FWIW I am mentioned (indirectly) one other time in the article. I hope you enjoy reading it; while I've thought a lot about this topic I am really happy to see it get some mainstream attention. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

That is an excellent article. Cullen328 ( talk) 18:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Ironically, a couple of hours ago I'm looking at the NYT and I see this article "Wikipedia’s Moment of Truth Can the online encyclopedia help teach A.I. chatbots to get their facts right — without destroying itself in the process?" and I start to read it (how could I not?) and low and behold I find that the editor that I've just been interacting with over the course of the previous several hours (see above discussion) is featured prominently in the opening paragraphs ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Press Barnstar
		The Press Barnstar may be awarded to any editor whose contributions to Wikipedia were cited by one or more news services off Wikipedia. Given to User:Barkeep49 for his mentions in Wikipedia’s Moment of Truth. - jc37 00:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Well earned : ) - jc37 00:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You probably deserve Template:The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar as well, but I gave up on trying to figure out the syntax on a double-imaged barnstar ( this was so much easier lol.) - jc37 00:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep

I emailed about about 4 hours ago re Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

I realise that my email may not be easy to reply to quickly, but the only acknowledgement I have had so far is an automated note abut my email awaiitng moderation. (And yes, i did check my spam folder!)

Please can you confirm that my email made it through? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@ BrownHairedGirl yes it has been seen. I want to warn you that it's possible no action will be reached on the request prior to the case itself being opened up. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation.

But a lack of action would be very disappointing, for the reasons I set out. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Only some of the email is about the case request. A good portion of it is about the structure of the case itself and I know, for instance, that trying to get that right is where my energy currently is going. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This newsletter combines content from both June and July, due to a delay in sharing out the previous newsletter.

Updates:

• New Movement Charter content published: The Committee published new draft chapters on the Global Council, Hubs and the Glossary. You are invited to share your feedback or ask any questions you may have to the Committee before September 1, 2023 on the following talk pages:
  • Share your feedback on The Global Council draft
  • Share your feedback on Hubs draft
• Revised draft chapters published on Meta: The Committee has shared the revised draft chapters: Preamble, Values & Principles, and Roles & Responsibilities intentions statement. These revisions are based on the community feedback received in November-December 2022.
• Ratification Methodology community feedback: The summary of community feedback on the proposed methodology for the ratification of the Charter is on Diff.

• Listen to the WikiAfrica Hour #46: Africa and Movement Charter, where MCDC members Anass Sedrati and Georges Foudoup  talk about Movement Charter, its aims and objectives, and the relevance to the African community.
• MCDC member’s are busy participating in various community events to discuss Movement Charter. Manavpreet Kaur, a member of the Global Council and Roles and Responsibilities Drafting Groups joined the EduWikiConference 2023.  The MCDC support staff Ramzy Muliawan shared updates about the charter at WikiNustantara 2023 in Banjarmasin, Indonesia ( @wikimediaid on Twitter). The Wikimedia communities in Indonesia were engaged by Movement Charter Ambassador Arcuscloud in the last round of community conversations.

• Learn about MCDC’s work in May & June: as usual, the update includes information about the meetings held by the Committee in this month, as well as about the work that was completed and the ongoing work & discussions.

What’s coming up?

• Join the live launch party: The Drafting Committee is hosting a launch party on July 30th at 14.00 UTC to celebrate the new drafts, introduce them to the community and give space for sharing thoughts and feedback. Register here to receive a Zoom link to the launch party.
• Movement Charter Community Conversation grants are open for individuals or groups who want to organize conversations about the Charter content. Talk to us if you need any support on the MS Forum! Apply for a grant before Jul 30, 2023.
• Wikimania 2023: Wikimania 2023: Members of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee are excited to be attending Wikimania Singapore in August, to speak to and hear from you in person (and hybrid) about the four drafts and the Charter in general.
• Community events: MCDC members will be present in the CEE Meeting in September in Georgia to discuss the Charter content with the CEE and CA communities. In addition, the MCDC prioritizes participation in the conferences planned for 2023 to continue conversations on the content of the Charter with the communities: WikiConvention Francophone, WikiWomen Camp,  WikiIndaba Morocco, WikiConference North America, GLAM Wiki Conference, among others.

Subscribe to this newsletter on Meta wiki

--12:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC).

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Together for Catalonia (2020) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

July songs

my story today

Interesting, the press above, - only I can't see that article. - While today's DYK highlights Santiago on his day, I did my modest share with my story today, describing what I just experienced, pictured. I began the article of the woman in green. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Bummer that the New York Times doesn't allow any foreign access. Thanks for sharing about Tenebrae. I imagine I'd quite like them if I ever got the chance to hear them perform in person (I find I enjoy choral works a great deal more in person than digitally). Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Come in person then on 26 November for Mozart's Requiem ;) - How do you like our digital (live) production? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Listening to Siegfried from the 2023 Bayreuth Festival, third act, Andreas Schager as Siegfried waking up Brünnhilde, reminded me of this discussion. Was there anything in it demanding arbitration? - A few weeks later, three participants were admonished, - for what still remains a mystery to me? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't know. 2013 is way before my knowledge of ArbCom starts. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

But would you see anything now? It was mercifully short. Götterdämmerung will be tomorrow, and that discussion was slightly longer. - My guess is that the arbs back then simply didn't look there. Where they looked I don't know, really. Did you see the Wagner discussion? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

When I read it (and I just did again) I couldn't make heads or tails of what was going on. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you know Bach's Goldberg Variations, with its dedication? The two opponents did ;) - I thought it was a playful educated exchange, not a battle. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Today Jahrhundertring, and I'm listening to Götterdämmerung from the Bayreuth Festival, close to the scene pictured, - the image (of a woman who can't believe what she has to see) features also on the article talk. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

12:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you were the one to suggest the wording to be included for the 2021 SNG RfC, a wording that still is present to this day. However there is one part of the paragraph that I find confusing: "Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to independence." More specifically, the part that reads "relating to independence". Since I received no replies at Wikipedia talk:Notability § Confusing passage, I wanted to ask for clarification from the person who wrote the paragraph in the first place. Thank you! Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Replied at WT:N. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

• AlisonW
• Amberrock
• Closedmouth
• Scottywong

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

• The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. ( T334338)
• Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. ( T337431)

Arbitration

• The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
• The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

---

Regarding this comment: perhaps you meant to link to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 264 § Acknowledge that discretion range is actually crat chat range? isaacl ( talk) 21:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Updates

• Community consultation: The community consultation on the Global Council, Hubs, and the Glossary drafts is ongoing. We value your input, if you have not already, please take a moment to review the draft chapters and share your thoughts with the MCDC. We’ve posed open questions we would like your opinion on. Feel free to engage in a way that is most comfortable for you and your community. Learn more on our Diff blogs about the Global Council and Hubs.
• Launch Party: On July 30 we hosted a Launch Party to share the Global Council and Hubs draft chapters. It was an inspiring event where we had the opportunity to listen to your feedback and address some of your questions. If you missed it, you can catch the recording on YouTube.
• Community Conversations: We want to hear from as many people as possible. On July 16, the SWAN meeting opened its doors and offered an opportunity to interact with the MCDC members regarding the new drafts of the charter. Notes are available here. On July 28, a regional conversation with the Francophone community was held. Here comes a short summary here in English and French. Additionally, on August 2 we had a fruitful conversation with the LATAM region.
• MCDC’s Work in July: As usual, the update includes information about the meetings held by the Committee in this month, as well as about the work that was completed and the ongoing work & discussions.

Upcoming

• Join the MCDC at Wikimania: Whether you’ll be at Wikimania 2023 in person or joining virtually, there are a few events that we would like to invite you to. Please drop by for a casual conversation. We would love to connect to workshop any ideas together. Drop in, get a sweet treat, and share your thoughts with us! Register and see below for an overview of our time together:
  • Tuesday, August 15
    • 02:00 UTC: Movement Strategy & Governance Connection track - Welcome and opening (Room 325)
    • 05:45 UTC: Movement Charter Drafting Committee: Open office hour (Room 326)
  • Wednesday, August 16
    • 03:15 UTC: Role Play the Future Roles and Responsibilities in the Movement (Room 326)
  • Thursday, 17 August
    • 03:15 UTC: Movement Charter Content Discussions (Room 310)
• A regional call tailored for the MENA region will be conducted in Arabic on September 2 at 17.00 UTC. Kindly indicate your interest to attend this meeting.

Subscribe to this newsletter on Meta-wiki

MCDC Support Team, 23:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding ...I think it's better that any conditions of an unblock are worked out between the committee which would be unblocking her and BHG, I suggest inserting commas after "committee" and "her". (I spent some time trying to figure out why the committee is unblocking both "her" and "BHG".) Or perhaps to avoid the pronoun coming before its referent, rewording to "Given that the siteban of BHG is passing, I think it's better that any conditions of an unblock are worked out between the committee and her." isaacl ( talk) 22:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

While LL's comments regarding Jewish categories sound odd without context I am sure he meant no harm. Having a long history with LL I am convinced he means that as a Christian he'd better stay out of discussions about Judaism because it is outside his expertise area. (Not sure if it is wise to post this comment at the arbcom talk page though.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Why comment at all then? Like for the one where he'd already voted I could maybe good faith my way to your answer but given an unprompted comment at the second I can't get there. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear Barkeep49, thank you and the rest of the Arbcom again for all the work you've done on the recent difficult case. Given WP:POLEMIC and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Evidence sub-pages in user space, may I request User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft evidence in SmallCat case to be courtesy blanked? Evidently the user in question will not be able to perform this action herself, and as an involved party to the case, I didn't think it would be appropriate for me to personally nominate it for deletion. So I thought I'd present the question to you, given that we've talked about it before during the case, but those talk pages are now closed. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 08:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I have done so per precedent. Thanks. Primefac ( talk) 13:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@ Primefac Thank you. Should the edit history also be made invisible or not? I have no experience with this, and the stipulation not maintain in public view negative information is a bit ambiguous. The text cannot be directly accessed anymore, but two clicks away the text can still be found by anyone, i.e. "the public". WP:CBLANK suggests When either courtesy blanking or xfd-blanking is used, the actual content remains accessible via the edit history. In more serious cases, the entire history of the page may be deleted. I can't judge for others how "serious" they have found this case, but the text does claim things like A's extreme misconduct has been repeatedly endorsed by other editors: most notably B, but also C, D, and E. I am one of those named people. Although the baseless allegations of the misconduct in question have never been proven, they did call our reputation into question, and damaged it for no good reason. Although I haven't been very upset about it personally, it did seriously upset at least one of the other named people. Would it be proportional to make the history invisible? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

My very short response is no; a "public view" is "I click on the link and see content". Otherwise we would hide every page that has been blanked instead of just putting a {{ courtesy blank}} on it or deleting it outright. Primefac ( talk) 14:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. I can't speak for the other person, and I suppose it's alright with me. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 18:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You could go to WP:MFD and use that process to ask for deletion. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, MarioProtIV ( ^talk/ _contribs) 19:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

August songs

my story today

My story today - a first - isn't about an article by me, but one I reviewed for DYK, see here. I like all: topic, "hook", connected article (a GA on its way towards FA), image and the music "in the background". I just returned from a weekend with two weddings, so also like the spirit ;) - Pics to come, I promise one cake, the other was too large! Good music, and better even in the concert ending the second day, - Goldberg Variations theme (mentioned in July, remember?) for an encore, after Dohnányi Serenade. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Again not by me: today's story - with the triumph of music over military - is uplifting! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I see I have to write more to connect the image to the header ;) - Today is the anniversary of the premiere of Götterdämmerung. Berit Lindholm sang its final scene in concert at the Royal Festival Hall in London, only four years after her stage debut in a Mozart opera in Stockholm. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Today I heard a delightful concert, "Himmlische Freuden", remembered having heard Vilde Frang ( Bruch concerto, in Zürich, with my brother's orchestra) , and succeeded in preparing Renata Scotto's article enough for the Main page (which took two days). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Today is Debussy's birthday. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The rare artist who you mention whose works I can actually hear in my head. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Now isn't that something ;) - Yesterday I worked practically all day on a composer whose name I heard for the first time when she appeared in the Recent deaths, Gloria Coates, and I had still no time to listen to her music. The article came with practically no biography and three tags on top. - DYK that for the last years, I always had a DYK for a Debussy composition on his birthday, - that was my sinister way of infobox war ;) - This year, I had no time, too many Recent deaths, and I struggle with the current DYK team, finding everything in classical music not interesting. See the nom for Berit Lindholm and compare what Floq had to say ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This too shall pass. - Ten years ago on 28 August, I heard a symphony, with a heavy heart because of the pending decision in WP:ARBINFOBOX, and not worried about my future here but Andy's. - It passed, and I could write the DYK about calling to dance, not battle, and Andy could write the DYK mentioning about peace and reconciliation, - look. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
• A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

• Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. ( T324166)

Arbitration

• The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

---

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
• Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
• Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk), and Cwmhiraeth ( talk)

Hello Barkeep49, I have seen your Contributions and profile on Wikipedia and i though you are right person to helping out me for editing. actually im new editer on Wikipedia, I created two or three articles on Wikipedia for movie and contributed for other but that time im working on biography article Draft:Sangramsingh_Thakur befor this time the draft rejected by Wikipedian 2 or more times due to lack of sources but this time im added proper sources as per Wikipedia guidelines, so please check this Draft:Sangramsingh_Thakur once and Review it.Thank You Rajmama ( talk) 09:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ Rajmama. The reviewers have left you feedback about what you need to improve for your article. If you have questions about it I would recommend the WP:TEAHOUSE where volunteers will be around to answer them. Barkeep49 ( talk) 12:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia ( u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 18:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe if there was more than one non-admin who 1. wanted to be an arbitrator and 2. actually has a chance of getting more than 50% support, I'd change my mind. casualdejekyll 01:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Both Smcandlish and Robert McClennon have run multiple times and gotten above 50% in each. So there's at least 2. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

See User:Thryduulf/Non-admin arbitration committee candidates for details of all the non-admin candidates since 2014. In that time period 7 non-admin candidates have finished with more than 50% support, last year Robert McClenon achieved more than 60% support. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

To clarify my position on this: I was referring to McClenon. All other non-admin candidates who ran previously are unlikely to perform well today for various reasons, mostly related to disputes and controversies that have arisen in the intervening years. casualdejekyll 21:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you are confusing me with User:A. B. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 16:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: did you intend to leave the first change in place, which adds additional context on treating two users as closely connected? isaacl ( talk) 22:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I see Tony has already reverted so I need not think about it but I appreciate your highlighting it. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I recently asked GeneralNotability a question in his user talk related to what's necessary for me to make a topic ban appeal, and how to request a finding of fact from ArbCom. However, I noticed he has a box on his user page saying that he's taking a wikibreak, so I think I should mention my question to you also. Do you know the answer to what I asked there? 2600:1004:B11D:E9D:C4AF:7F57:214C:519C ( talk) 15:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you please point me to where your topic ban was placed? Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It was enacted here. The specific comment for which I was topic banned is this one. 2600:1004:B11D:E9D:C4AF:7F57:214C:519C ( talk) 16:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

What private evidence do you think there is? If it were truly private it wouldn't be appropriate to have linked it on GN's talk page (and frankly it might not have been as it stands - I'm pressed for time at the moment and so am not making an assessment). Like ArbCom has certainly engaged in private conversations about this topic area but I'm not sure what is germane to your possible community appeal. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The private evidence concerns private correspondence that I (and apparently also other users) had with Deleet that indicates he's done what I accused him of doing. In my case this correspondence occurred in his "Quantitative HBD workspace" Slack server, and I contacted ArbCom about that by email in November 2020. One of the comments I linked to in GN's user talk was from someone saying they corresponded with Deleet about the same thing by email, and that they also forwarded that correspondence to ArbCom. They also said that Ferahgo submitted some private evidence about it to ArbCom, and DGG might have as well, but it wasn't clear from that comment what either of their evidence contained.

There's also Deleet's posts on RationalWiki and Substack that I linked to in GN's user talk, in which he gloated about evading his ban here, and in the Substack post he named the specific account he's used. But I don't consider that "private" evidence, because both of those posts are publicly readable on the web.

At the moment, it's very unclear what ArbCom believes about all this. If they believe that something like what I've alleged has been happening, having them acknowledge it in public would indicate that I was topic banned for a false reason, so if they could do that I would want to subsequently bring it up in an appeal.

Is making a public statement about this matter something that you think ArbCom would be open to doing, and if so, how should I request that? If you could take an hour or two to look over my summaries, and the email evidence I and others have submitted, and then make a recommendation to me, I'm prepared to trust your judgment. 2600:1004:B11D:E9D:C4AF:7F57:214C:519C ( talk) 17:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand better. I'm not sure ArbCom is going to do what you want. But the place to ask and make your pitch is WP:ARCA. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. If I follow it, this would be my first time making a new arbitration request, so I have a few further questions:

1. When you say "the place to ask and make your pitch is WP:ARCA", does that mean I am permitted to make such a request? And does the rest of ArbCom share that view? Over the past three years I violated my topic ban several times in attempts to get someone to address this issue, but this time it's important to me that I handle it through channels that ArbCom regards as legitimate.

2. Could I request such a finding of fact from ArbCom in a request for clarification, instead of a request for amendment? In an amendment request I would have to propose a specific amendment to adopt. But the purpose of my request would be for ArbCom to pass a finding of fact stating what they understand about this issue, so I think it would be best if I don't put words in their mouth by suggesting what they should say.

3. In an arbitration request would it be necessary for me to rehash this whole situation, or can I trust ArbCom to be familiar with the evidence that I and other editors have submitted about it previously? Trying to present a detailed case about this to ArbCom is very similar to what I was originally topic banned for, so I'd rather not have to do that again if it can be avoided. 2600:1004:B169:332E:25C7:B875:517B:7C3E ( talk) 04:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If you want broader ArbCom opinions I would recommend writing to the committee as I can't speak for anyone but myself. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on your advice, I sent ArbCom an email on Monday morning asking my questions above, but I haven't yet received any answer or response from them. When should I expect to hear back from ArbCom about this? 2600:1004:B15D:CAC9:E5F2:D24E:D07E:5FE0 ( talk) 00:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

We haven't been very good about sending acknowledgements lately. Sorry. Focus has been on a couple of other issues so I don't know when you might hear something. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

My post in GN's user talk has been moved into the talk page archives now, so the link to that post in my email is no longer valid. Here's an updated link: [44]

I've been awaiting a response from ArbCom for over a week. If ArbCom still intends to answer these questions eventually, could I please have an update about when I might expect to hear back from them? Also, now that my post where I summarized the recent evidence has been archived, should I do anything to ensure ArbCom has the current link to it? 2600:1004:B1C0:7C00:3D0A:F4F3:F707:8EDE ( talk) 20:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom is discussing it and I think mostly come to an agreement about this. The delay is writing it out. I can't give you a timeframe, unfortunately. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It's now been three weeks that I've been waiting for a reply. Is ArbCom still discussing my email? And do you have any estimate yet of when I might hear back from them? 2600:1004:B185:EDA1:4DA2:1040:C739:79ED ( talk) 21:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. I have revived the conversation - we are close to resolution but agreeing on the communication piece can take some effort/time. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Re:I've only used rollback once - to remove deletion stuff as part of moving something across wikis - and have the button hidden via css. I've accidentally used it before, and I'm pretty sure any time I'd be using it, it would be in error, and I'd prefer to just have it disappear. Is there a script or something you recommend? The only one I've found has apparently no users, which makes me a little leery lol...Thanks for any advice! Valereee ( talk) 17:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is ... let me poke around and find it for you. Accidental rollback happens so frequently that it escapes me why the developers haven't done something about repositioning that blasted button. I'll be back. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Valereee, if you look in my monobook.css, I have a few lines to suppress showing the [rollback] link in contributions pages and for my watchlist. If you want to completely suppress any sort of rollback, then I think you don't specify the pages, pretty much a line ".mw-rollback-link { display: none; }" Maxim ( talk) 17:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

So I use ".mw-rollback-link { display: none; }" as part of my common.css so I can change skins and still have it hidden. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I use User:117Avenue/RemoveRollback.js at User:SandyGeorgia/common.js (HATE that rollback defect). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• There is also a few listed at Wikipedia:Rollback#User scripts. -- Dolotta ( talk) 22:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I started what has become a sprawling discussion about paid advising. There's been a variety of feedback. The actionable piece that I see is around requiring disclosure of their clients, by admins, if they solicit clients for paid Wikipedia advising or consulting services. The discussion is so sprawling I feel like it would be a mistake to try and workshop RfC language to codify that consensus. So I'm going to do it here instead. Here's my draft language, for which I would appreciate any/all feedback:

All comments are welcome but I am going to ping @ Valereee, @ Thryduulf, and @ RoySmith as three people in that conversation who've had differing perspectives but who might have useful feedback. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that the draft wording has been updated based on comments below from when it was first proposed.

I'm fine with that wording. RoySmith (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd add the word "paid" in there (probably "paid Wikipedia-related consulting") but otherwise I don't have any objections to that. I don't think it will be of any use to anybody, but that's a different issue. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Good suggestion. FWIW it's worth, it makes a difference in the scenario that sparked this discussion in the first place. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

On a copy-editing note, I think "other paid-contribution rules" would be better and align with the terms of use requirements. Although I don't think I would oppose this proposal (with a clarification that it covers paid contributions), I don't like having a special rule just for administrators. I would prefer a general rule to cover all editors. I also think it should be clarified that editors must not agree to terms of employment that would limit their ability to uphold their ethical responsibility to the Wikipedia community, and ought to make this clear to their employers. I know this would not impede bad faith paid editors at all, but it would lay out the community's expectations, and is equivalent to what all professionals with a duty of care to the public are expected to do. (Licensed professionals typically can have their license suspended for not fulfilling their ethical responsibilities.) isaacl ( talk) 21:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Edited. It's not clear to me in that conversation if there's support for this as a general rule or only for admin and I'm trying to get something passed. For me I'm not opposed to it for everyone, but consider it vital in the case of admin. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I would oppose this for everyone. I am willing to consider it for sysops. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What about for any "user holding advanced rights" or similar? The important thing is that we want to know if people are using an 'office' (for lack of a better word) on Wikipedia for financial gain, rather than what the office is. –  Joe ( talk) 05:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I am one of the people who dislike the focus on admins, especially given that an experienced black-hat new page patroller / AfC reviewer can probably do more damage than a naive admin when giving advice how to navigate our systems. — Kusma ( talk) 09:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

While that's certainty true my read of the conversation remains that support drops when including editors other than admins. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 12:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

User:isaacl, editors must not agree to terms of employment that would limit their ability to uphold their ethical responsibility to the Wikipedia community sounds nice, but well beyond the bargaining capacity of most employees. The realistically ideal behaviour probably approaches self-reporting after obeying the boss. There's rent and bills and everything. Folly Mox ( talk) 08:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it also feels rather dangerously close to trying to police what people can and cannot do with their lives outside Wikipedia. We cannot and should not try to control people's personal lives. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure; if someone has to make a living doing something that breaks English Wikipedia policies, there's nothing that can be done to stop it. But since this poses a conflict of interest with Wikipedia's goals, it's not unreasonable for that person to withdraw from the Wikipedia community while that conflict exists. isaacl ( talk) 16:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd support a discussion of that. I do think disclosure of solicited paid advising should be required. I don't object to requiring it for all editors, not just admins, just for the sake of not singling out admins, even though I really feel like it's a bigger concern that someone is advertising their adminship (rather than simply their expertise) as a reason to hire them. Discussion of admins in the media almost always misstates what powers admins have (or should be considered to have, even if admins do have in practice some social credit they shouldn't be considered to have) and I really do hate seeing any admin taking advantage of those misunderstandings in order to make money. I'm not in agreement that this represents policing people's lives outside of Wikipedia any more than the current requirement to disclose paid editing does.

I wouldn't want us to prevent people from doing things like presenting a generalized workshop even as part of their regular unrelated employment, or having a conversation with someone about how to productively contribute, even if at the time they're having that convo they're being paid to do something unrelated. I wouldn't want to quash explaining policy, even to one's regular employer. I guess for me the two related issues are admins soliciting paid work without disclosing, and using their adminship to help with that.

I feel like there's a gradation here between giving your regular employer advice, which we probably ought to allow for all editors even if people don't want to disclose that regular employer for privacy reasons, and soliciting gig work.

Sorry to ramble. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. I kind of expected nearly all admins to think this definitely wasn't okay, and I'm surprised that's not what's happening. Valereee ( talk) 17:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

A couple things:
What work is "solicit" doing here? If a corporation came up to you and said "hey I saw you talk about Wikipedia and know you're an admin. I'll give you a lucrative consulting job if you want it", that wasn't solicited but how is it actually different?
It may also be worth proposing separate changes to WP:ADMIN. e.g. Administrator actions in conjunction with paid editing → "Administrator actions in conjunction with paid editing or paid consulting", or a line effectively communicating "don't use your adminship to solicit money for edits or consulting".
I guess I should disclose that regardless of the above, I'll be opposing all of this. In addition to adding yet another requirement to make adminship more unappealing, it's fundamentally based on an assumption of bad faith -- that they will not simply provide good advice on how to follow Wikipedia's rules, which is something we all want, but either provide advice on how to circumvent the rules or that they will become corrupted and start editing with a COI. This assumption of bad faith is being applied not to brand new users but specifically to the people in our community who have earned so much trust and demonstrated such good judgment and dedication to the project that they agreed to run the gauntlet and made it through. Along those lines, I was kind of hoping the person whose advising kicked this off (AFAIK) would out themselves in the VP thread. I certainly don't blame them for not doing so, but I think knowing who it was might've changed the tenor of the conversation there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree it might have made a difference if that person disclosed, though I can't blame them either. This admin has certainly been careful about their actions so for me it's not about who they are but about what I think the right policy is for the project. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding avoiding an assumption bad faith, that's part of why I think it's important to highlight the ethical responsibility of editors to both consultants and employers. I agree with those who say the community can't compel anyone to follow a specific ethical guideline, but I think using an on-wiki guidance page would make it easier for consultants to share this info with clients, to clear up any misunderstandings they may have on what editors can ethically do. isaacl ( talk) 21:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Re: hey I saw you talk about Wikipedia and know you're an admin, for me is the opportunity to educate them that admins don't have special powers over content. Obviously there's no way to legislate that line, but, yeah. That's what ideally would happen. Valereee ( talk) 22:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree; the community can't force anyone to do anything, but it can set expectations. isaacl ( talk) 00:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Re: In addition to adding yet another requirement to make adminship more unappealing, if anyone runs for admin because they want to make money off it, I would rather they didn't run for admin. I disagree that it's any more of an assumption of bad faith than any requirement for disclosure of a COI represents. Valereee ( talk) 19:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

if anyone runs for admin because they want to make money off it This is again the most assume-bad-faithiest possible interpretation of what I just said. Give me a break with this speculative fiction of admins becoming admins to make money. The reason it makes adminship less appealing is simple: because it adds an ill-defined requirement that applies only to admins and could apply to a range of activities. On one hand, admins with no interest in advising but are engaged with Wikipedia off-wiki will have to navigate a minefield of possible interpretations of the new rule (while there are some "no, no, it wouldn't include x, y, z" comments in the RfC, the language that people are actually !voting on, and which would go into the policy, is ambiguous) . On the other hand, assuming it's at least fathomable that having good faith users provide good advice is a Good Thing given the reality of financial interest in Wikipedia, the people who become admins (regardless of whether they're actually admins) are the people perhaps best equipped to do that job.
If I had to reduce the problem, as I see it, to a single thing, it's the intersection of (a) the rhetoric of nothing to hide and disclosure being no big deal, and (b) A culture where disclosure is a huge deal because even a whiff of a COI means transforming your existence on Wikipedia from upstanding volunteer to someone whose edits are fair game for intense scrutiny, hounding, your off-wiki connections analyzed, and whose COI (or, in this case, potential-for-future-COI) can be wielded as a weapon in unrelated disputes. It's a scarlet letter. To have any sort of appearance of COI is to throw yourselves to the wolves and have people assume the worst of you. So of course nobody would want to do that. What admin is going to want to do that? What experienced user is going to want to do that? Disclosure is what gives the impression of a COI, even when that COI doesn't exist (except to the extent we all have jobs, family, associates, etc.).
I disagree that it's any more of an assumption of bad faith than any requirement for disclosure of a COI represents - Except that with those, there's actually a COI. I'm feeling like I've taken up more than my share of space on this topic at this point, though, so will leave it at that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Rhodo, I didn't mean to assume bad faith. You'd said In addition to adding yet another requirement to make adminship more unappealing, which I took to mean that not being able to offer paid services would make adminship less appealing. I apologize for whatever misinterpretation I made. Valereee ( talk) 23:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a solid effort. It might be good to add the date of payment/work to indicate when the period of paid consultancy will end or ended. I also agree that this should be limited to admins -- who are supposed to set an example, and who should be willing to disclose that they are using their status for profit. nb: I have fixed the immediately preceding indentation to make clear this is a response to the initial post. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

September songs

my story today

Our festival's last concert was most moving and inspiring, - also the story of Walter Arlen, - today I'm proud that I survived the decision in WP:ARBINFOBOX for 10 years, standing and singing -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Today's story is about a great pianist with an unusual career, taking off when he was 50. It's the wedding anniversary of Clara and Robert Schumann, but I was too late with our gift. Just for fun: when do you think did Mrs. and Mr. Schumann get their infoboxes, and by whom? (The answers can be found here, but please think first.) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Today I remember Raymond Arritt, who still helps me, five years after he died, per what he said in my darkest time on Wikipedia (placed in my edit-notice as a reminder), and by teh rulez. - Latest pics from a weekend in Berlin (one more day to come). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

My story today is The Company of Heaven ("company" with a double meaning, but angelic company in the end). - The one more day got pictures but no other new pictures yet, it's a week with concert or opera every night! In case you don't want to look at the Schumanns, how about Georges Feydeau? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

... or Rossini. Did you see who wrote The Company of Heaven? Company = army, or good company, that is the question. - October to come, but here for context. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Foreskin on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

• Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. ( T272294)

Arbitration

• Remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case has been rescinded.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.

---

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistani politics on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi BK49 - I sent Arbcom and email a few days ago concerning a user who has asked me to consider unblocking their account. I don't want to hassle anyone, I just wanted to make sure that it had been received (I remember a previous time I attempted to email Arbcom it ended up in the wrong inbox...), and whether I should expect a response (even if it's along the lines of 'we can't disclose that'). Hope you're keeping well? Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 17:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Girth Summit yes it's been received. Thanks for checking. You should expect a response so if you haven't gotten one in a few more days please nudge us again. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Trizek_(WMF) Talk 23:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

October songs

my story today

Congratulations! - Today's story features an opera singer and opera. (That is a revolution, DYK, because DYK told me that opera is not interesting to the broad audience, and you better say that a manager called a soprano that damn teacher, or that a mezzo performed Carmen 300 times which is just quantity.) - I was pointed (on my talk) to a discussion about a motion regarding arbinfoboxes 2, where you asked for community input. You may want to tell your colleagues about Mozart: no civility problem that I see. - I don't know what input you'd expect from the community, - I had no idea that page even exists. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

More pics, and today's story is on a birthday, and the real DYK was already on that birthday -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A Romanian woman composer is today's topic. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Today's is about a woman whose life focused on her husband as she said in the title of her autobiography (which was the DYK hook in 2016). Around then, I had to defend an infobox for a composer the last time; the discussion is still on the talk. In 2019, project opera officially discarded the recommendation not to use infoboxes for biographies. Sometimes I feel that users who still believe that the topic is battleground missed some developments, and educating them would be better than blocking them for incivility. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw your comment on the arb board only after I wrote this, and I think that whatever announcement there will probably raise attention. I clicked thank but meant the whole thing, as you may have guessed ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

One more for that discussion: OTD listed Jacques Arcadelt, and I gave him an infobox without problem. All is calm as long as you don't step on the feet of a handful of editors watching over a few FAs, not more than 100 I guess. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

That seems about right. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 09:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Smiling: today in that corner of the Main page Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji. That's how composers' FAs came to look. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, specifically regarding infoboxes2: I gave some feedback now. What I saw was too general for my taste. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw that feedback. I do wonder if what's needed is just a sort of mini-case to examine the actions of the "regulars" in the dispute and figure out if any of them need a topic ban. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I am opposed to that. I have nothing against individual editors, would never take any of them to AE, nor say a word against them, even in a mini-case. I wonder how we can give them their playgrounds, or walled gardens, for "their" specific articles ( Debussy), but have peace for the rest of Wikipedia. - I would like to see edit warring over hidden messages go, for example. Vivaldi. - Next step: remove these hidden messages altogether. Telling editors that they have to seek consensus before making an edit seems not 2023 Wikipedia spirit. I think it was even strange in 2010 when they were added, but I met the whole problem only in 2012, shaking heads, I must say. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Gerda Arendt So if you don't want individual editors sanctioned why do you want to keep the probation restriction around? Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't care. I don't think it makes any difference, I don't think that anybody behaves differently because of it, I don't believe many editors even know it exists, so it can of course keep existing, good for nothing. - As the great Raymund Arritt said "we are all grown ups here". The concept of blocks and sanctions seems so kindergarten. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The motion was closed and hatted, just when I thought the conversation was getting interesting. Which other forum could be used? I have a simple idea to solve the civility problem in infoboxes: no more reverts. When a user adds an infobox in 2023, they are not a vandal, nor a warrior, but making a good-faith effort to improve Wikipedia. For example the one who added to Feydeau. These users should not be reverted, but gently being told that there is an old problem. A revert - for my taste - suggests that there was vandalism. Could someone explain that to the very few editors who still revert? SchroCat for Feydeau, and Nikkimaria in most cases I've seen, Cosima Wagner for example, and both with admonishments from previous arbcases that were not rescinded (while I am free of restrictions since 2015). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose such a "if you add an infobox, you can't be reverted" idea. That goes against the whole ethos of bold-revert-discuss. Being bold is fine, but reverting is also fine. Enshrining one specific "can't revert an addition of an infobox" exception is just as bad as the "certain composer articles should never have an infobox" rule that used to exist. Frankly, the idea that a bold addition of an infobox can't be reverted just strikes me as an attempt to "win" a battle - which just shows that the topic area is just contentious as in the past ... there are still two sides battling it out. Ealdgyth ( talk) 12:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry but you misunderstood me completely, probably because I was unclear. I wasn't talking about a law not to revert, but trying to make certain editors - the few who still revert - understand that their reverts are seen as treating the edit they revert as if it was vandalism. For example, no revert for Feydeau but discussing if certain parameters could be more precise, or should be dropped, would have saved us from that whole discussion. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Or in other worlds: I think a project in which editors would voluntarily not revert the additions of good-faith newcomers might be more peaceful. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This would effectively enshrine infoboxes as the default. Establishing that consensus first feels like it would be necessary before this kind of revert expectation. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

What do you expect that consensus would be, after Mozart ;) - Seriously, you said you thought about actioning something in the Feydeau discussion. What? (not that I want you to do it, just curious about what you found not civil) - As for an edit summary giving no better reason for a revert than that the FA version was different ignores that every FA talk template says "Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This talk page has a number of watchers and I'd rather not talk behind someone's back/ping the editors involved, but I found the actions of two editors crossed the line with their aggressive behavior - edit warring and/or skirting, if not violating, behavioral expectations around discussions. I was prepared to give each a logged warning about this conduct. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Pardon, what is skirting? (I may have language problems more than I am aware of.) - What do you think of entering the discussion and simply talk to them, before anything formal and logged (which would be for posterity)? I can't do that, I am not welcome. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

My decision not to do anything was driven by the fact that I didn't have the time and energy to do it right. That included answering questions after the fact, such as these. Wiktionary defines skirting as The act of one who skirts around something, or avoids it. though in this case one of the definitions Google gave me feels more appropriate be situated along or around the edge of. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Do it right ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Gerda Arendt#Music keeps track of "my" music and memories - in case of interest in the more pleasant aspects of life, and just today I have a juxtaposition of music performed by the two church choirs in town, one I sang in and one where I listened, Music about love, evening and night. Take care. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Today, it's a place that inspired me, musings if you have time. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Reverts

The topic came up above, and perhaps we should look into it more. Today I met a user who has on their user page: "Please ask if you have concerns or questions before reversing my work". I feel that it is a question of respect of a fellow editor to not simply undo their good-faith-work. With millions of infoboxes on Wikipedia, and new editors joining, no old "infobox-warrior" should expect a user with a new name to even know there ever was some conflict. We who know don't add an infobox to a TFA, for respect of authors' preferences, but if a newcomer does it, I suggest to grant them a bit of friendly explanation instead of a revert citing FA status and nothing else. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Compromise

I thought of Brian Bouldton today, and his ways to compromise. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Continued in November. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-

• BeanieFan11 with 2582 points
• Thebiguglyalien with 1615 points
• Epicgenius with 1518 points
• MyCatIsAChonk with 1012 points
• BennyOnTheLoose with 974 points
• AirshipJungleman29 with 673 points
• Sammi Brie with 520 points
• Unlimitedlead with 5 points

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
• Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
• BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
• Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
• LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
• Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
• Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep, Just a quick note about the Wikipedia delayed revert on the AN discussion. Sorry to have reverted you, but I think that if thread had been set up like that in the beginning it may have been OK, but it was already quite involved by the time of your split.

I'm never convinced about such splits (similar to those at ArbCom): being pigeon-holed as being from "position" will taint responses away from what is said to who has said it, which isn't the best way. If you want to change it back to the split, feel free: I won't complain about it! Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 23:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@ SchroCat thanks for this message. Given the discussion that has now subsequently happened I don't think it's possible to reinstate. While we're here, I do feel a need to tell you that if I'd had more time to defend the action I would have logged a warning against you and another editor in that discussion for disrupting the RfC a couple weeks ago. Seeing you and a different editor post a huge string of replies at the start of this appeal thread was a major reason for my attempted restructuring. I'd ask that you really think about the impact your contributions are having on infobox discussions and to self-moderate. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I do try and self moderate, but when multiple editors breach any known of form personal attack (c.f. “pathological", "your obsessiveness here is pathological and disruptive" and "SchroCat is acting obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive"), I seriously wonder why I fucking bother. If I’d have come out with just one of those, I’d have been blocked in a heartbeat. But two editors are responsible for those comments (they are the two who have commented as much as me on the RFC), and yet no-one struck those comments as being personal attacks and no-one warned those two editors about their behaviour and they carry on regardless. It’s like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions never happened - and makes being brought to ANI for not insulting someone even more bizarre. The current IB pushers are more aggressive and more disruptive than at any time in the past, and there is no administrator protection against their aggressive baiting, lies and disruptive behaviour. WP is going to lose good editors again because of a vocal and activist group, and the pot stirring will weaken the encyclopaedia more than it has done before. - SchroCat ( talk) 00:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Re if thread had been set up like that in the beginning it may have been OK, the thread was set up like that from the beginning, but it was lost in what I assume was an edit conflict. Levivich ( talk) 23:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Huh. Look at that. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If moving my entire Queries section into its own section below the Close-or-not discussion will help, please feel free to refactor on my behalf ... I'm reluctant to mess with it myself, but won't care if someone else wants to. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Levivich, Apologies - I didn't get any edit conflict notification when I saved my comment, so apologies for over-writing it. - SchroCat ( talk) 18:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

Tamzin

Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

• Ragesoss
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
• There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
• Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
• Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
• Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
• Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
• Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
• An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

• The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

---