User talk:Snow Rise/Archive 17

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Administrator changes Malcolmxl5 John • TheCoffee • Tim! Creffett → GeneralNotability DeltaQuad → AmandaNP

CheckUser changes Bbb23 Interface administrator changes TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news

• A
  speedy deletion criterion
  .

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the
  banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC
  and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment
  .
• Speedy deletion criterion
  X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion
  .
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

Your feedback is requested at

I want you to know that I made a point of giving all your posts a special read, and I do appreciate your thoughts. They will no doubt give me pause now and then, but I would be less than frank (and as you know I'm nothing if not brutally frank) if I said they're likely to have very much effect. I am as God made me. BTW, did you know you're on my list of WP:Editors who may be confused? EEng 17:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey EEng#s--thanks for stopping by and sharing that sentiment: I'm glad my thoughts were received in the spirit they were intended, as of course that is not always the case at ANI. For what it's worth, I do think that filing was not particularly needed and I think you handled the situation well. And I think by and large you usually do a good job of contextualizing your jokes or more sardonic observations in a manner that soften any offense that might otherwise accompany them. I do of course continue to urge caution in that regard nevertheless (after-all, I am as nature made me ;), but I think you are generally on the right side of the line. As for being on the list of editors who may be confused, who figured it out and why couldn't they have given me a heads up? It explains so much.... Snow ^{let's rap} 12:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and sorry for the delay in response: it's a crazy week and I'm just getting back on. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And well you should apologize. Nineteen hours is NOT AN ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE TIME. No siree. I'll let it pass this time.

I started

WP:CONFUSED when I realized I'd been dealing with editors named Dr. K and Dr. Kay for years, not knowing they were two different people. My brain was already having enough trouble keeping Guy and Guy straight, so I thought I should start writing it all down; then others started contributing and we've got almost a hundred such pairs (or triples, or ...) so far. I tried to remember to ping people as I added them but I wasn't always successful.

Naturally there was one person who was offended by the page title. Now, that's a great example: should the rest of us be denied the fun of Editors who may be confused just because one fuddy-duddy chooses to take offense? I think not. EEng 17:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmmm, my inclination is that it would be very hard for anybody to read that page and not instantly understand that its title is based more in levity than literalness. And I can't really think of a situation in which it could be abused to malign someone (or at least no situation where that didn't immediately blow up in the face of the person trying to abuse the

WP:CONFUSED shortcut). But it certainly does come back around to the same question of "is a joke ever acceptable in a functional context on this project, where it has even the smallest chance to create confusion or momentary issue. After-all, the namespace might as easily be "WP:Editors who may be confused with one-another" or "WP:Editors with confusingly similar names". Personally, I like what you went with: I think the micro joke could only put the smallest, most-momentary kind of confusion until the actual link is followed and then it puts a tiny smile on the face (or did for me anyway). I think the cost-benefit analysis is fine. But it does go against the grain of namespaces not being misleading (obviously and for effect, since the quasi-double entendre is the joke). Again, I think it its fine--or even a good example of that tiny little dose of humour that is desirous on this project for generating good spirits and a sense of joking affection (after-all, to my eye, that list implies two things with regard to anyone listed, when you really (over)think about it: it notes that their contributions are a significant enough part of the fabric of our community that they have been noticed, and that they are generally regarded as good enough folk that they would take the pretty non-offensive joke about their "confusion" in stride. All of that said, it's easy to imagine a situation where we massage the facts just a tiny bit and real problems arise. But despite the forgoing paragraph here, my overall reaction to the the tempest in the teapot is "Meh?" Snow ^{let's rap} 02:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Micro joke, or micro aggression? History will decide! (For a while I considered Editors who are often confused, but I think my final choice has just the right touch. People think being a court jester is easy but it actually requires a lot of careful judgement.) Seriously, there's a pair of editors that absolutely belong on this, but who I've put on the shelf because dollars to doughnuts if I add them there's one of that pair who will claim I'm harassing him. EEng 00:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

I know you have commented on Talk:Balloon boy hoax previously and I found this recent addition rather interesting. I feel like some form of SPI needs to form but I think I'm also working with stale information on how frequent the edits are. Any thoughts? – The Grid (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey The Grid--thank you for bringing this to my attention: the disruption on that page has been so significant and longstanding that I actually have made a habit of checking in on it every so often just to keep a tab on things, but my time on the project has been sparse of late, so I was unaware the issues were ramping up again. Unfortunately, I think at this point we have moved beyond SPI being able to contain the problem--indeed, even as far back as when I took a large group of apparent socks to SPI, the CU revealed they were mostly unrelated from a geolocation perspective (although most were too stale to even check). So while I don't doubt that the initial disruption/coordinated efforts to force Heene's conspiracy theories into the article were related to a sock farm, the problem now is meat puppetry (albeit on a prodigious scale).

And there's no great mystery where it is all coming from either. After the last round of disruption, I took the time to watch the most recent youtube video--I was not keen to validate that nonsense with so much as a single view, but I felt it was important to get as much context as possible for when the disruption resumed. The claims and the "evidence" presented are about what you would expect, but what was more worrisome was the comments section: as you are probably aware, youtube has become fertile ground for conspiracy theories of every possible variety--from anti-vaccine sentiment to the belief that illuminati freemason lizard people are attempting to start the New World Order, and everything inbetween, if there's a fringe lunatic notion of a conspiracy theory out in the world at large, you can find a thousand adherents to it there. In that morass of credulous non-critical thinking, Heene found a small army of people more than willing to lap up his assertions that his indictment, confession, and plea bargain were all just the result of a massive police/prosecutor/media conspiracy--check it out yourself if you have the stomach for being extremely dispirited about where things are today in general. Anyway, more to the point of our concerns here, peppered liberally throughout the comments section were scores of calls to mob Wikipedia to "set the record straight" on Heene's behalf, and other discussion that made it clear that there is an organized meat-puppetry campaign to that purpose on that site, but also 4chan and other spaces amenable to such efforts. And if there's that much going on openly on the surface level, I can only guess how much more is happening in directs messages on those and other platforms.

I didn't act upon those findings at the time because we have already hit the wall on the kinds of protections that are normally applied to an article and those measures have mostly seemed to keep the worst elements out, despite the fact that the discussions attempting to organize disruption had been going on for a long while. But based on those most recent threads on the talk page, I think it is clear that we are entering a new phase in said disruption: the carpet bombing of the talk page with requests which cannot be granted (because they blatantly violate policy and/or prior consensus) and accusations about our editors are one thing--even with the increasingly hostile tone, we can just ignore those and delete the comments when they've truly begun to cross the line into unacceptable conduct. But now it's clear that a subsection of these accounts have begun to figure out Wikipedia policy and process--not to the extent that they have internalized and begun to respect their purposes (these remain very much SPAs in that respect), but rather in the manner where they can begin to camouflage their behaviour a little better and push their POV without immediately giving away their SPA status to editors not familiar with the history there who do not do their due diligence in reviewing the sourcing. This is much more dangerous, and if it goes unchecked, I fear changes to that low-traffic article might eventually slip through which are blatant BLP violations--I'm quite certain that the ultimate goal of these SPAs is to introduce Heene's entire narrative about the police investigators and criminal prosecutors in his case railroading him with fabricated evidence.

Now, as to what to do about all of this...I honestly am not sure. I have at several points over the last couple of years considered taking the matter to the larger community and requesting that the page protection be extended, at least temporarily, to the talk page. This is a very uncommon step that has only very occasionally been permitted in the case of extreme disruption, because it shuts down access to not just the article but to discussion on the talk page itself, to all but established auto-confirmed editors--so for good reason, it is generally avoided. I think we might be approaching the point where it is called for here though. But the request will need to be meticulously formulated, with a strong argument for why it is needed to forestall further disruption and inappropriate content, all supported by a body of evidence presented in a fashion that is comprehensive but non-tedious to work through. In other words, it's going to take some work and will need to be done in a thoughtful, methodical fashion in order to get a community resolution strong enough to convince an admin to go out on a limb here--anything less and even the most conscientious of admins will be wary of invoking protection on the talk page.

I'm going to monitor the situation for the next few days--including perhaps some research as to what is going on with regard to the meat puppet army off-project and reviewing the edit history here to see how much socking may still be involved here. I don't think the situation is so urgent that we need to move on this in a fashion that is going to undermine the effort of halting the disruption. But I do think the time is coming that the current protections will be insufficient to forestall further disruption: these

WP:NOTHERE editors are getting so numerous that they wil begin to overcome those efforts simply be the sheer volume of their efforts, with time. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Welp. That is quite a lot to gather. I'm trying to think of any talk page that has been protected in the past and I can only think of when vandalism is severe. I know this option circumvents Wikipedia's goals as well. – The Grid (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that it circumvents the project's goals, but yes, the community consensus is pretty clear that it does impede the open project principle and the ability to form true consensus on content issues, so it certainly can only be done where a strong need is demonstrated, and even then, typically only for a limited time. Beyond that, the page protection policy is pretty silent as to particulars, but in practice it is extremely rare. I think the sheer volume of SPAs here might justify it, especially if they continue to get bolder and more aggressive in their behaviour. But even if the editors on the talk page decide that threshold has been crossed some time soon, it will take a well-constructed argument and significant evidence to sell the community at RPP or AN on the need. I thin one possible answer would be to apply pending changes protection to the talk page in addition to the article itself: that way not all participating from non-autoconfirmed+500 edit editors will be locked out, but we can filter out the more onerous edits that only insult and make no suggestions about anything that is workable under policy. Although another alternative would be to try to kick it to ArbCom and let them try to sort out what to do about it. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Daveout--sorry for the delay in response, and you're welcome: I'm glad that you understood those comments in the spirit they were intended. It looks likely that you will avoid a sanction on the matter, which (not withstanding my initial comments) may be the best outcome here. Nevertheless, if you will tolerate a bit more unsolicited advice, I would reiterate my recommendation to follow your sown tated inclination to avoid that article for the time being. It can't hurt to take a little time to work inside areas that you have a more ambivalent take on, giving yourself the opportunity to further internalize some of our fundamental content policies in a context that is lower stakes / doesn't force you to choose between being faithful to the policy and following your intuitive take on the actual facts of the matter. Unfortunately, that is just something that in time you will be asked to do time and time again--if you stay on the project long enough, it is simply inevitable. But you might as well make it easier on yourself to begin with, by learning to live with that prioritization in the context of subjects where it won't grate quite so much. And of course, it also couldn't hurt for you and Lazer-kitty to be out of eachother's orbits for a while: I hope in time you two can come to see somewhat eye-to-eye somewhat better when contributing in the same area, but for the present time I think it's better if you don't have to debate any of the content matters that got you into that cycle of mutual criticism. Regardless, I wish you well and a long and productive stay on the project. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Snow, apparently LK is unwilling to collaborate with me despite all my efforts (unfortunately). My last resort is the 3rd opinion project, which can be requested even if one of the disputing parties refuses to participate. But since you offered to mediate the dispute and you're already familiar with it, I was wondering if you could provide the 3rd opinion for us, by crafting yourself, or along with lazer-kitty (and without me), a middle ground version and suggesting it at Stallman’s talk page. I would be very grateful. I have great trust in your neutrality and competence.
In your comment at LK’s talk page, you alluded to “very different versions” that u read at ANI, one of them being incompatible with BLP guidelines. I assume that you were referring to the version that I’d restored without looking deep into it. I must reiterate: I only restored that bc I though LK's reversion was suspicious. I do NOT support that version, it had a bias problem, bad sources, and that infamous hidden note. I wanna ask you to read my “corrected version” which I carefully wrote based on that problematic version and that I’ve been pushing ever since. Hopefully that will change your opinion of me (that I need “to back-off and learn the guidelines first”). I’m confident that It doesn’t violate #BLP, #NPOV, etc. Regards.
I’m putting my “corrected version” in the collapsabe table below for you to read, side by side with LK preferred version. Mine is version “A” —

(talk) 00:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi again Dave. Unfortunately I'm not sure I can be of much use to in the respect you suggest, since I am not entirely certain what Lazer-kitty's biggest objections are to the version you are currently proposing and thus I don't really think that I can channel their interests in such a way as to get you two closer to a stable version you can both agree upon. The help I was suggesting was not based on any personally strong feelings between the two current competing versions (as you say, my earlier observations at ANI and here were mostly geared towards the version you initially restored, which is substantially different from both of the present disputed versions), but rather on the hope that with somebody standing between you two and mediating the exchange of ideas, it might make it possible for a compromise version. Unfortunately, such an approach requires that both parties to be, if not enthusiastically involved, at least invested, and LK is exercising their legitimate discretion to decline that offer, so I must respect that.

For what it is worth, I think there are aspects I can see some value in with respect to both approaches, and though I tend to prefer the older/status quo version rather somewhat on the balance, I will say this about your version: it doesn't seem very much more or less neutral to me. In some respects, it paints Stallman in perhaps a slightly less critical light, but in other respects it actually opens him up to fuller exposure by virtue of the larger direct quotes. So I don't think your version is by any means an effort at whitewashing or hagiography--and I can understand your argument of "at least if we are going to pull back the curtain on his comments and discuss them, we might as well let him sink or swim with the reader on the basis of his own words", if am reading your argument correct. That said, the summarization of the

WP:WEIGHT

of what secondary sources have to say about the matter is also important. I do think there is room for compromise here, but I just don't have a strong take on what a hybrid version would look like, such that I am a good candidate to be supplying such a version.

So, I'm afraid you two are just going to have to muddle through the normal process: for what it's worth,

WP:WRFC if you decide you want to write the prompt yourself. On a side note, I removed your content box because I have already seen the different proposed versions via the article/talk page discussion and your most recent DRN, and this page is not really the place to get into the content issues--at least, not at that granular of a nuts and bolts level: that's something that should be reserved for the article talk page. Best of luck to you--as I said, let me know if you have questions about/require assistance with the RfC process, up to an including writing the prompt for you as a neutral party without skin in the game. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, Snow. Sorry for the late response, I've been quite busy these days and only capable of keeping up with minor issues. Since our last conversation, I received a reply from an admin who was more sympathetic to my cause. They said:

Richard Stallman attracts various kinds of misguided people, mostly in real life (or at least, online off-wiki). People cannot understand the literal meaning of what he writes and they seize on extracts. [...] so their response to your efforts will be framed in terms of wondering why you want to defend a bad person—he must be bad because that's what social media (and the copy-cat mainstream media) says. Since, with rare exceptions, Wikipedia is ruled by majority, your efforts will be frustrated. Also, articles are normally written in the manner your critics want and your efforts to include longer quotes to give context are counter to standard procedure.

Unfortunately, that admin doesn't want to get involved and thinks disputes like this are so difficult that they aren't worth the trouble. I've noticed that a lot of editors think like that, they avoid controversial topics and disputes at all cost, they call them toxic etc. I perfectly understand why they think that and I respect their opinions. But I'm not like that at all. I think that the most difficult disputes are the most exciting ones.

By the way, there's a nice quote by Nietzsche that kinda sums up how I feel about situations like this (in a poetic\methaphorical way of course):

today if one hears anyone commended for living ‘wisely’ or ‘like a philosopher’, it means hardly more than ‘prudently and apart’. Wisdom: that seems to the rabble to be a kind of flight, an artiface and means for getting oneself out of a dangerous game; but the genuine philosopher — as he seems to us, my friends? — lives ‘unphilosophically’ and ‘unwisely’, above all imprudently, and bears the burden and duty of a hundred attempts and temptations of life — he risks himself constantly, he plays the dangerous game

Anyway, I really appreciate your offer to craft the RFC, I believe that is indeed my best last resort. If you could find some spare time to do that I'd be extremely ~EXTREMELY~ grateful (I have zero experience with those and you'll certainly do a better job than me).

I have a reason for not backing off from the article right now: as time passes, the current version is going to be considered, more and more, the "stable version". And it'll be harder and harder to make major changes to it. -

(talk) 06:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Dave: sorry, I missed this message until just now and am out of my (in any event, very limited) on-project time for the day: however, I will give your request vis-a-vis an RfC prompt attention as soon as is possible in the next couple of days. For what it's worth, my experience on the project suggests that your belief that you must tackle this issue now or lose ground is not necessarily an accurate outlook or one that serves you well here: pulling back from an issue for a time is actually often the best way to avoid a cycle of increasing entrenchment between parties disputing a given piece of content.

However, that said, it is clear that neither you nor LK is prepared to disengage at this juncture, whatever arguments are made for the wisdom of doing so--and that is your prerogative, at the end of the day--and equally apparent that the two of you are not going to have a meeting of the minds any time soon. Indeed, it seems pretty clear that any direct discussion is likely to turn sour one way or another. So I do think RfC is the appropriate next step: the community will be able to weigh-in an hopefully resolve the matter with a clear consensus. The problem is, I will warn you, that in order to increase the likelihood of a useful outcome, I would recommend you present a dichotomy between your preferred version and the current version. It would have been better to try to hammer out a compromise version (which to your credit, I observe you did attempt), but in order for the RfC to present a handle for respondents to forge a consensus over, presenting the matter as an !vote on the two competing versions is probably the most viable way forward. So I'll give you some time to consider whether the version you have most recently advocated for is the final draft of what you would like to propose to the community or whether you would like to edit it further for whatever purpose (either moving it closer to the current version or farther away, whatever you prefer). Just let me know: at your convenience, you can post both the current version and your proposed wording here (or better yet, in your sandbox), in the same two-column approach you used previously.

Mind you this means that you could lose the consensus discussion in the entirety, in which case I recommend dropping the matter altogether, at least for a good long while. On the flip side, if you prevail and get to insert your preferred version, it would be a very gregarious and collaborative thing to do to still seek further input from LK about problems they have with that new version. That's just a suggestion, of course, but I would argue that giving credit to their concerns after you could have walked away with everything you wanted in the dispute would be a way of short-circuiting the acrimony that has developed between you and potentially allow you two to restore a collegial element to your interactions. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'll review my proposed version one last time before submitting it. I'll try to incorporate every (or at least most) information that is present in Version B into Version A, so it won't look that I'm trying to hide anything. In any case, this is meant to define a "staring point" version, and other editors (including LK) will be welcome to make changes to it even after the rfc (as long as it's not an attempt to completely deface it). This feels like a coin toss. but winning or losing... at least it was a fun ride i guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. And for me it's a settled issue that I'll no longer edit that article, only sporadically discuss it from now on. -

(talk) 14:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

August

August

MP 24 August has one of "my places" (click on August) pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today:

Le Sacre du printemps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

• News and notes: The high road and the low road

• In the media: Storytelling large and small

• Featured content: Going for the goal

• Special report: Wikipedia's not so little sister is finding its own way

• Op-Ed: The longest-running hoax

• Traffic report: Heart, soul, umbrellas, and politics

• News from the WMF: Fourteen things we’ve learned by moving Polish Wikimedia conference online

• Recent research: Detecting spam, and pages to protect; non-anonymous editors signal their intelligence with high-quality articles

• Arbitration report: A slow couple of months

• From the archives: Wikipedia for promotional purposes?

• Obituaries: Marcus Sherman, Jerome West, and Pauline van Till

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a
  site ban
  discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A
  paid editors must or should use the articles for creation
  process.
• A
  alternative to deletion
  processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Problems at WT:MILHIST

Hi, regarding this removal - it didn't work because you put the {{

hab

}} at the end of a content line - it needs to be on a line of its own.

Regarding your comment once the RfC has run the standard 30 days in that block - this won't happen, because the RfC is still in limbo - Legobot cannot detect the start time of the RfC, hence cannot determine when the 30 days actually started. This in turn is because

WP:RFCST and continues to ignore the questions that I posed at 18:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC) and at 16:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC). To see what I mean, look at either Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, and look for the milhist RfC. It is in both pages, but consists only of a link - there is no statement, and no timestamp (compare the other RfCs listed on those pages). Unless Mztourist addresses the problems that I raised, that is how the RfC will remain - indefinitely, unless the thread becomes inactive for seven days and is consequently archived by lowercase sigmabot III, at which point Legobot will remove the incomplete entries. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for this information,

hab

}} syntax--that was driving me nuts!). As regards the problems with Legobot not being able to see the stamp, shouldn't that issue be resolved if the current thread is closed and the RfC tag removed? Bot functionality is not my strong suit, but I am under the impression that Legobot should very quickly detect the missing tag soon thereafter and remove the discussion from the FRS/RfC listings. Then Mztourist can start a new, better formatted and scaled discussion with a more concise and focused prompt which will not confuse Legobot and allow the full prompt to be displayed on the RfC lists, as well as the reading of the time stamp. Or am I mistaken in some element there?

Of course, at this moment I am not sure that Mztourist knows exactly what they want that new prompt to say. I think, insofar as there have been multiple concerns (running from the technical to the organizational) raised in the current thread, there is some consensus to restart things (provided they also ping everyone back and make reference to the previous discussion in the prompt for the new one, so a any closer can review things holistically). But I'm sure, given you saw the {{

WP:Disruptive

behaviour.

Mind you, I don't know who the editor is that Mztourist alleges is doing this across AfDs, much less the specifics to know whether they are accurately describing what is going on, but certainly no editor should be asserting that any essay should be treated as a policy. In fact, this is precisely the kind of situation (local editors at a WikiProject coming up with their own rules outside the community vetting process and then applying such rules like policy across any article they perceive to be in their purview) that lead to the ARBCOM cases from which

WP:Advice page resulted in the first place. So that behaviour really does need to be nipped in the bud, and Mztourist

is right to be concerned about it. Unfortunately their approach to this situation, good faith thought it may be, has been a bit of a mess from top to bottom.

Of course their options are somewhat limited here: they could open an ANI on this behaviour, but I wouldn't recommend it: I think there is a chance it would be speedy closed as "more about a content dispute than behaviour" and would amp up the tensions. Therefore I think their best option where this is aspect is concerned is to start a discussion about the (purported) habit of citing

WP:VPP

, making sure that the other editor in question is privy to that discussion to present their view. I think they will then very quickly get a broad community consensus that this is not an appropriate way to refer to the essay. Then, if the other editor persists, and Mztourist wants to take that discussion to ANI at that point, they will be able to show that other efforts have been made to resolve the issue and bring the other editor's commentary in line with policy, and it won't be a case of them leaping to a behavioural forum.

Meanwhile, the discussion at MilHist should focus solely on what the essay actually says. Mztourist is convinced that attempting to remove that wording will lead to an entrenched reaction from the regulars there. I do not know that WikiProject well enough to know if that is the case, but I do think it is still the best path forward to correcting the issue with that portion of the essay. The advice page may be only an essay but it is certainly trying to mimic the function of an SNG, so there is every reason to make it consistent with what would be allowed in an SNG (and indeed, it could open the door to allowing the essay to be promoted to an SNG through a

WP:SOLDIER

is attempting to function like an SNG but has not as yet been vetted by the community and made to conform more strictly to the expectations of SNGs). And even is Mztourist is correct and the MilHist regulars will object regardless, I think they are likely to be in the minority of respondents in doing so. Even if that turns out not to be the case and there is no consensus for the change (or it is roundly rejected), at this point, I don't see that there is anything to be lost from the effort to gain clarity/consensus on the core issue of that language.

So that would be my advice to them: break this down into a two-pronged approach, with each element handled separately in the appropriate forum, and involving broad community consensus. Honestly, both issues could be addressed at

WP:VPP, but I think it simplifies matters a bit to keep the discussion about the wording of the essay at MilHist (but with a notice of the discussion posted at VPP in addition to the FRS efforts), and the question of whether it is appropriate to refer to the essay as "essentially an SNG" held at VPP (it clearly isn't, but getting a broad explicit statement as such in a broadly attended community discussion will not hurt, and if a party or parties are not taking the hint as to community consensus in this area thereafter, Mztourist can judge for themselves whether it is important enough to take further steps that might involve administrative input or ANI. Phew, what a mouthful. But I think that's the approach that will best disentangle this cluster of issues. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, if the {{

WP:RFCEND, which I linked in my 16:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC) post), Legobot will clean up the listings within an hour. I wasn't at the MILHIST discussion with the aim of offering an opinion on the notability matter, my primary concern was the effect on the RfC listings that is caused by the malformed RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Snow Rise. I've removed the RFC tag at Milhist so hopefully that addresses the bot issue. I like your suggested two-pronged approach. How do you suggest that I word the discussion at VPP on the question of whether it is appropriate to refer to the essay as "essentially an SNG"? regards Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikiproject Anatomy

newsletter #7

Released September 2020  · Previous newsletter

Hello

WikiProject Anatomy

participant! This is our seventh newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest.

I value feedback, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talk page, or remove your name from the mailing list.

Yours truly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's new

	new T tubule, Ureter and Vagina, with Anatomical terms of location also awaiting review
	A made-up eponymous term is used in our article that eventually makes it in to university anatomy teaching slides and a journal article
	We reach a project goal of 150 B-class articles in July 2020, increasing by about 50% over five years, and are one good article away from our goal of 40 GAs, doubling over the last five years
	In the infoboxes, and there is ongoing discussion about updating TE as well
	A beautiful new barnstar is released ({{subst:The Anatomist Barnstar}})
	portals are deleted (vale Human body and Cranial nerve portals)
	Some things left out from past newsletters - A large amount of redirects are created to help link plural structures, and Cerebellum ([3]) and Hippocampus ([4]) are published in Wikiversity.

Newsletter topic: anatomy and featured articles

I have been asked to write up something introducing the

Featured article (FA) process

to anatomy editors, but I took a more general approach to explaining why one might want to contribute featured content and the benefits to the editor and to Wikipedia. I also tried to address some misconceptions about the FA process, and give you a guide that is somewhat specific to health content should you decide to take the dive.

A vital purpose of Featured articles is to serve as examples for new and aspiring Wikipedia editors. FAs are often uniquely comprehensive for the Internet. They showcase some of our best articles, and can enhance Wikipedia's reputation if they are maintained to

standard

—but in an "anyone can edit" environment, they can easily fall out of standard if not maintained. Benefits to the writer include developing collaborative partnerships and learning new skills, while improving your writing and seeing it exposed to a broader audience—all that Wikipedia is about!

Looking more specifically at WP Anatomy's featured content, the Featured media is impressive and seems to be an Anatomy Project strength. The

WikiProject Medicine and the Anatomy WikiProject. Hippocampus is another dated promotion

that is almost 50% larger than when promoted, having taken on a bit of uncited text and new text that might benefit from a tune-up.

Whether tuning up an older FA at

Featured article candidates, taking the plunge can be rewarding, and I hope the advice in my essay

is helpful.

You can read the essay "Achieving excellence through featured content" here.

SandyGeorgia has been a regular FA reviewer at FAC and FAR since 2006, and has participated in thousands of nominations

How can I contribute?

• Ask questions! Talk with other editors, collaborate - and if you need help, ask at
  our project page
  !
• Continue to add content (and citations) to our articles
• Collaborate and discuss with other editors - many hands make light work!
• Find a space, task or type of article that you enjoy editing - there are lots of untended niches out there

This has been

transcluded to the talk pages of all active WikiProject Anatomy users. To opt-out, remove your name from the mailing list

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

• Special report: Paid editing with political connections

• News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

• In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

• Featured content: Life finds a Way

• Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

• Traffic report: Is there no justice?

• Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

• Special report: Paid editing with political connections

• News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

• In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

• Featured content: Life finds a Way

• Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

• Traffic report: Is there no justice?

• Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A
  draftification
  is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The
  2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process
  has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Administrator changes John M Wolfson Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui Interface administrator changes Ragesoss TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla Yunshui Oversight changes Anarchyte Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• WP:GS/PAGEANT
  .

Technical news

• Sysops will
  interface administrators
  when that group was introduced.
• discretionary sanctions
  block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that
  American Politics 2 Arbitration case
  ).

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

• News and notes: Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking

• In the media: Murder, politics, religion, health and books

• Book review: Review of Wikipedia @ 20

• Op-Ed: Anti-vandalism with masked IPs: the steps forward

• Discussion report: Proposal to change board composition, In The News dumps Trump story

• Featured content: The "Green Terror" is neither green nor sufficiently terrifying. Worst Hallowe'en ever.

• Traffic report: Jump back, what's that sound?

• Interview: Joseph Reagle and Jackie Koerner

• News from the WMF: Meet the 2020 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: OpenSym 2020: Deletions and gender, masses vs. elites, edit filters

• In focus: The many (reported) deaths of Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

• News and notes: Jimmy Wales "shouldn't be kicked out before he's ready"

• Op-Ed: Re-righting Wikipedia

• Opinion: How billionaires re-write Wikipedia

• In the media: Relying on Wikipedia: voters, scientists, and a Canadian border guard

• Featured content: Frontonia sp. is thankful for delicious cyanobacteria

• Traffic report: 007 with Borat, the Queen, and an election

• News from Wiki Education: An assignment that changed a life: Kasey Baker

• GLAM plus: West Coast New Zealand's Wikipedian at Large

• Wikicup report: Lee Vilenski wins the 2020 WikiCup

• Recent research: Wikipedia's Shoah coverage succeeds where libraries fail

• Essay: Writing about women

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a
  speedy deletion criterion
  or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the
  2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page
  .

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Snow Rise,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the

redirect whitelist

.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	talk )	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

• News and notes: Year-end legal surprises cause concern, but Public Domain Day is imminent

• In the media: Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds

• Arbitration report: 2020 election results

• Opinion: How to make your factory's safety and labor issues disappear

• Featured content: Very nearly ringing in the New Year with "Blank Space" – but we got there in time.

• Traffic report: 2020 wraps up

• News from the WMF: What Wikipedia saw during election week in the U.S., and what we’re doing next

• Recent research: Predicting the next move in Wikipedia discussions

• Essay: Subjective importance

• Op-Ed: An unforgettable year we might wish to forget

• Gallery: Angels in the architecture

• Humour: 'Twas the Night Before Wikimas

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]