This is an archive of past discussions with User:Barkeep49. 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.
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
I just added something to the talk page of Cuba/Israel relations, and followed the link to my IP account. It shows some edits that I didn't make, and the claim that I am blocked by a user called Lourdes. I went to their page to try to ask why this IP was blocked, and what that means, but it said that you blocked them. What on earth is going on? 1.136.104.255 (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
It was revealed that the admin who blocked you was not who they claimed to be. As such they have been blocked and are no longer an admin. This block was placed on your ISP to handle some disruption in September and October. This was recently reviewed and found to be a good block. You could avoid the block by registering an account - which you can do anonymously if you wish. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Ok! I'm with Telstra. It's possibly the biggest ISP in Australia. Is that normally the source of disruption? I'll have a look at registering if I find something I'm blocked from doing. 1.136.106.151 (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
It looks like Telstra rotates IPs fairly frequently which is part of the issue so that the same person can have multiple IPs within a short time. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
(somewhat later, after some clicking) Oh. I think I see. You were elected in 2022 to a two-year term? Feel free to ignore this first-time voter question, unless I am wrong about that. Elinruby (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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.
That section title probably seems more omnious than I intended but I'm not sure what a good alternative would be. You're not obligated to answer anything, I'm just trying to interview as many experienced editors as possible here. If you'd be willing to take a look at it, I'd appreciate your input. :) Clovermoss🍀(talk)20:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear, I'm back for over a week, but uploading is slow, one reason people keep dying whose articles need work (one of them from stub to GAN), the other the continued waste of time of certain "discussions", Feydeau to AN (was I clear enough?), Rossini with the latest weapon: that a link from a composer's bio to his list of works somehow violates policy, - I mean, how kafkaesque can one get? - But today is Sunday, mushrooms found and eaten, pics to come, just slowly. Three of those who died on the Main page this one day (just not all at the same time). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I began another day of vacation pics, with the deepest blue of the sea ;) - we celebrate the birthday of a friend who wrote quite a book about the compositions of a man who will turn 300 soon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@JPxG thanks for the opportunity but I am focused on providing my comments at ACN so as to be transparent and not splinter the conversation. On reading the signpost article, I find it fascinating that Sdkb says most editors were supportive and then only quote things critics said, with Worms quote not noting his second and more recent comment which I'd say was more equivical. But that's more media analysis than a comment. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This first meeting language will be English, but we plan to host conversations in other languages, and about other topics. Please visit the conversation page on-wiki for the details on how to join. You can also watch the page, or suggest ideas for upcoming conversations there.
Impact Module
At the beginning of November 2023, the Growth team deployed the New Impact Module to all Wikipedias. We recently released a follow up improvement to how edit data was displayed based on editor feedback. [1]
Developers can find some initial proof of concept code shared on gitlab.
Mentorship
When a mentor marked themselves as "Away", they were not getting their name assigned to new accounts when they returned. This has been fixed. [5]
We improved the message received by newcomers when their mentor quits, to reduce confusion. [6]
We worked on ensuring that all mentees are assigned to an active mentor. This required reassigning mentees with no mentors to a new mentor. We paused this as the clean-up script confused some editors. We will resume it when the identified blockers are resolved. [7]
It is now possible to create an Abuse Filter to prevent one user from signing up as a mentor. [8]
Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
...at the top of the case talk page I only just noticed... no comment! Sorry for the time loss. In my defence I'm in bed with the flu so not in my best shape. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk18:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm here because of this diff, where you majorly extended the ArbCom decision regarding antisemitism in Poland. Right now, there's an ugly discussion at ANI where several people including me have expressed a desire to extend the contentious topic status from antisemitism in Poland to either antisemitism in Poland and Lithuania or antisemitism in Eastern Europe. I asked, because I don't know, where this conversation is supposed to take place and two supporting editors have responded to admit they don't know, either. Are you able to start this or do you know where this should go? If not, do you know who would? Thank you very much in advance. City of Silver01:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@City of Silver that thread is longer than I have time to read (let alone dig into) but you could go to WP:ARCA to request some changes to either the Eastern European contentious topic or the antisemitism in Poland (APL) contentious topic. The big difference is that APL has an additional sourcing requirement. If you go to ARCA there will be - at least from me - some effort made to examine the conduct of people involved as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Oof, yeah, I definitely wasn't hoping to drag you into that so I'm glad you're not even tempted. So I'm clear, are you saying that to avoid dealing with what might be difficult and possibly unnecessary sourcing concerns, the next step should be to try to get either antisemitism in Lithuania or antisemitism in Eastern Europe as a separate contentious topic from APL? City of Silver20:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@City of Silver I'm saying that WP:ARCA is a reasonable place to go for the concerns expressed in that ANI thread. Going there would allow for a discussion about expanding the sourcing restriction beyond Poland. It would also possibly mean the Arbs would examine the conduct of the editors who were brought up at the ANI discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, you helped me 6 years ago, perhaps you can help again! Psansoldo is changing the first sentence of the article "Learning by teaching":
"I took away the reference to Jean-Pol Martin as a having originally defined the method, as other people, as Andrew Bell and Joseph Lancaster had already worked and used a similarly defined method before, as cited in the article itself."
I think it's not usefull, because I'm the main autor about Learning by teaching since 1980 and everybody quoted my work if writing about "Learning by teaching". What do you mean? Here ChatGPT about LdL: "Learning by Teaching" (or "Lernen durch Lehren" in German), as a formalized educational method, was developed by Jean-Pol Martin in the 1980s. Jean-Pol Martin is a German educator and professor who introduced this approach primarily for language teaching. His method emphasizes the role of students as active participants in the learning process, where they take on the role of teachers to instruct their peers. This approach has since gained popularity and has been adapted in various educational settings beyond language learning, due to its effectiveness in enhancing understanding, engagement, and the development of a range of skills in students." Jeanpol (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. It was great to meet you in Toronto and to hear your insights on the panels! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk
Solstice Celebration for Barkeep49, 2023, DALL·E 3.
Merry Christmas, Barkeep49/Archives! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969TT me16:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello Barkeep49, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Jerium (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Bizarre complaint. It matters not a jot how many times someone has renamed their account if all their contributions are still visible under the same account. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
How much outing should I do ;) - I have an infobox on my user page (of my user, not of me), - it says "singen singen" a few times, with links to groups I sang with, and GD conducted two of those, and commissioned a Missa solemnis from CM, and we sang the premiere with the composer attending, and another performance at the Frankfurt Cathedral, and would have loved to also perform it in the UK once but the composer didn't live to hear it there. "singen singen" means "sing sing" as you will have guessed, and is taken from the Schütz Christmas Story (where it's repeated almost as often as in my box), and we'll sing it for Christmas as I just learned in rehearsal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded more pics, with Christmas trees and related artworks, and I have two women on the Main page (for a sad reason). Our Christmas singing (of my user's infobox music "singen, singen") was pictured! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Lithuania
I am pretty confused about the request for modification. I assume that since I am not seeing an announcement it is plain-vanilla RS I should be enforcing still? I am limiting myself to likely EE-acceptable sources in what I am adding, though. Is that about right? Elinruby (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I'll look those up. So far I'm working off a somewhat strict verifiability. Just had a doubt.
Lithuanian archivists disagreeing with IPN is shaping up as an issue, but I should probably say that at the request. Thanks for the answer Elinruby (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I will make the above comment at the request but I have spent some happy time reading Arbcom decisions, and am still a little confused. Both Eastern Europe and Eastern Europe and the Balkans seem to both be about behaviour not sourcing, which is why we are doing this I guess? If possible, can you confirm that articles about pogroms in Lithuania fall under contentious topics whether or not the talk page says so? There are no particular restrictions on sourcing however? Just against edit warring and canvassing etc? Since I am the only person editing these articles right now (so far anyway) I want to be certain that I don't seem to be taking advantage of that to impose a PoV, not that I have one about Lithuania. If you wpuld prefer I put this in the request also, just let me know and I will do that. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs·email), Epicgenius (talk·contribs·email), and Frostly (talk·contribs·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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Recent RFA
I read through the RFA for Tails Wx with some initial puzzlement. I think I've resolved it in my mind but I'd be interested in your reaction. (I understand the awkward timing and I'm not looking for an immediate response.) I'll start by noting I don't recall any interactions with the nominee. The first oppose came from user:Banks Irk. I read optional question number 15, which started my puzzlement. Banks made an assertion about prior usernames, you responded, in essence saying that the assertion was false and banks doubled down. While I don't know you personally I know you by reputation, and my default assumption was that you must be right, and while I don't know banks and had no default assumption, I thought the assertion made was obviously true. That left me puzzled.
I think the light went on, and embarrassingly revealed that I may have been working under a misunderstanding for years.
Wikipedia has long held that multiple accounts are not per se a violation of policy, but there are limitations on how they can be used, and there is an expectation that anyone standing for RFA will reveal the existence of all accounts. My misunderstanding is that I may have conflated usernames and accounts in my head.
I think Banks was emphasizing that Tails Wx has edited under other usernames and that wasn't disclosed. I think your response effectively was there's nothing to see here as there are no other accounts. If one is interested in reviewing any of the candidate edits in the candidate has edited for more than one account you need to know the names of both accounts, but if they've edited under multiple usernames but those usernames are simply a renaming of their username, searching the current username will reveal all edits including those made when using a different username.
Is it possible that Banks did not catch this distinction? Could it be that Banks thinks the requirement to disclose all prior accounts also includes all prior usernames? If so, it might explain why you and Banks appear to be disagreeing about facts, but it is simply a semantics issue. S Philbrick(Talk)22:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
In the context of WP:APLRS, is "reputable institution" defined somewhere? I'm seeing it applied as a synonym of "academic", while I think most editors would consider a generally reliable news organization to be both "reputable" and an "institution". What is the intent here? VQuakr (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Building off my response to a similar question the restriction doesn't just say a reputable institution. It says "an academically focused book by a reputable publisher". So most news organizations are publishing books and the ones that do are not, to my knowledge, publishing academically focused ones. Beyond that, my talk page is the wrong place - WP:ARCA is the right one - because it's not just my opinion that matters, and I think there are limits to discussing this in the abstract precisely because people are inclined to focus on a part of the phrase rather than looking at the entire phrase. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply! Those are separate clauses separated by an "and/or": When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article..., so if the intent is for the "article published by" noun to also be modified by the phrase "academically focused" then the language should be tweaked or a footnote or similar added. WP:ARCA looks terribly formal and complicated to be honest so I'll probably not do that (is there really no lightweight venue for informal Q&A like this?), but we agree this discussion here is an informal conversation and not "official". What do you mean by the abstract? VQuakr (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
@Dicklyon, replying during a commercial break of the Browns/Texans game so I'm not anti-NFL. But we're not talking a wide enough scope to say it has potentially wide-ranging impacts and therefore require input from the community at large. in my judgement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
It's an example of what can happen when a WikiProject makes a style that's at odds with the main MOS. Examples of other such situations are discussed in the RfC. Maybe we should have gone meta on it, and asked is WikiProjects should be allowed to enforce a style at odds with the MOS. Except that's been decided before, so we're dealing with this specific problem. Maybe it's not the scope you'd want to see there, but we needed to get more people who care about P&G issues to participate, since all sports WikiProjects were invited. Dicklyon (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 05:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
That's not really in an area of my editing expertise. And unfortunately I don't have much time to edit content at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
City of Champaign v. Madigan
Hi! I know you're busy with other on-wiki responsibilities, and it's been a few years since you reviewed my GA nomination for City of Champaign v. Madigan. I just wanted to let you know that I've nominated it for FAC. You probably don't remember the article that well, if at all, but any feedback you have for the review would be greatly appreciated! Edge3 (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Edge3 congrats on getting this to FA nomination status. Well done. I really can't promise anything but if you're at risk of delisting due to lack of input feel free to reach back out and I'll see if I can help at that time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
The 2023 picture (above) is from the Abel Fest in Köthen, celebrating the tercentenary of Carl Friedrich Abel, a viol virtuoso, composer and concert organiser in London (together with Bach's youngest son), born on 22 December 1723 in Köthen, where the new catalogue of his works was introduced, - my story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.
Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:
As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs), Epicgenius (talk·contribs), and Frostly (talk·contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this comment: although I do think there would be more opposes coming from voters with personal agendas, I think there is another category of voters who currently go unheard from. Being critical of another editor is an unpleasant thing to do, so I think there are potential opposing editors who demur from participating in the current RfA process. I also think most editors aren't collecting diffs on everyone they encounter just in case they might have to weigh in on them someday, and they aren't so motivated to participate in an RfA to spend extensive amounts of time hunting down past diffs, so they don't contribute. I appreciate of course that relying on people's unreliable memories makes the system more vulnerable to gatekeeping and unconscious bias. Historically, I haven't been a fan of moving to a voting system, but the community is no closer to agreeing on something like my proposal for a pros-and-cons evaluation, so it might be time to consider voting, the other approach commmonly used by organizations everywhere. isaacl (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the current system discourages opposers and so yes that is a substantial part of the reason why I think opposes would go up if we moved to secret ballot. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Very selectively, - images just updated. - The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
It's always quite disconcerting to find out that one has been discussed somewhere without a courtesy ping to be allowed to speak for themselves, as I did today. That said, I wanted to specifically thank you for what you said, and for initiating a (gentle) rebuke on your own cognizance.[9][10] I was taken aback by that accusation, then puzzled, and then incensed. It took quite a bit of restraint to respond the way I did at the time, when a fairly significant part of me was screaming stuff about hypocrisy and (especially) tone policing hypocrisy and the weaponization of AGF and so on. I greatly appreciate that you made an effort to correct that and to push back against the characterization of my observation, even as you acknowledged not agreeing with it yourself.
Not coincidentally, given your comment at the proposal and above here about secret ballots at RFA, the furor we have in reaction to Oppose votes can contribute just as much to toxicity at RFA as actual bad Opposes. Certainly the accusation leveled against me is the sort of thing that can be used to silence editors, and someone less experienced might come away from that RFA afraid to lodge an Oppose in the future, worried they might be bullied by an admin suggesting they violated AGF. Grandpallama (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
WikiCup 2024 March newsletter
The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.
The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:
Generalissima (submissions), who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.
Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. 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, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Barkeep writes a blog
I have started a new blog. Talk page watchers might be interested in following that. The first entry: Why do arbs often need stuff explained to them clearly and multiple times despite having the evidence right in front of them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the second time in as many weeks that I've seen a member of the committee speaking to an editor on the Administrators' Noticeboard with phrasing like "I think that if it weren't for this, they would be complaining about something else." I've generally found you to be a responsive and respectful editor and committee member, so I hope you'll take on board my suggestion that you (collectively) consider retiring this phrase, as it comes off (to my ears at least) as disrespectful, imperious, and lacking in empathy. I'm sure it's not your intention to talk down to others based on your position on the committee, but phrases like that can give the impression (to me, at least) that you are, intentionally or not. 28bytes (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
I am not sure if you mean you don't want anything to do with RFA review anymore, which would be understandable with everything else that's going on, but I was wondering what your opinion might be on whether a non-admin close of proposal 3 was inappropriate. Best, Usedtobecool☎️13:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I have decided to step away from RfA and so have no opinion of what you're asking about because I haven't been following. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Barkeep49. I was tussling with Laura over on Commons regarding a Ukraine-related Category, and noticed that he has an account here. I then saw that he didn't really have one anymore, but I did see the note you left on his talk page awhile ago.
It is kind of awful what he wrote, and you properly flagged, see this and similarly, this. Might you be able to delete both en situ, i.e. on the Cfd entries where they were written? They are entirely gratuitous, and add nothing to the discussion other than to be unpleasant in the style of Karl Marx and Martin Luther (although I forgot the title of his uh tract).
Wow, you're so fast! I was just doing some fixing up and you answered already! Okay, I understand what you're saying. I'm glad those comments aren't visible to anyone passing by on the live pages, as they are mean. Thank you.--FeralOink (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Hi, I'm sorry if I'm disrupting anything, but some of my edits are being incorrectly marked as vandalism.
I don't know why this is happening, as my edits are all in good faith.
If you could somehow check my contribs and see if I'm doing something wrong, I'd appreciate it- I don't want to get banned anytime soon. Again, sorry if I'm disrupting anything or if this is the wrong place to ask. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 13:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I added a template on Poverty gap index (by a template) and it got marked as vandalism, as well as adding another template for plagiarism/very close paraphrasing on A5114 road that got marked vandalism, and added a reference on Campbellsville, Kentucky that was also marked as vandalism. There are a few more. I tried to upload screenshots but ran into issues while doing so. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 17:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
So from what I can see they're not showing as marked as vandalism. I know you can't do screenshots but where are you seeing that? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@3OpenEyes So a guess of another admin who I shared this discussion with is that you're seeing the vandalism button there and it's not that your edits are marked as vandalism. Both of us independently looked at WP:ORES to see if that was it and it's not. So bottomline: good news your edits aren't being marked as vandalism and you don't need to worry about them at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller the exemption was made specifically so that they could file an arb request (or a request to the community at AN/ANI) so yes this if fitting with the intent. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. My bad, I didn’t look closely enough and thought it was to take part in a current case. Looks like it might be interesting. Doug Wellertalk18:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thanks for helping me with the problem I was having. Enjoy your wikikitten
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
In a primitive Pythagorean triple, if the difference between hypotenuse and longer leg is 1, 2 or 8, such Pythagorean triple accurately represents one particular metallic mean. The cotangent of the quarter of smaller acute angle of such Pythagorean triangle equals the precise value of one particular metallic mean.
Consider a primitive Pythagorean triple (a,b,c) in which a < b < c and c - b ∈ {1, 2, 8}. Such Pythagorean triangle (a,b,c) yields the precise value of a particular metallic mean as follows :
where θ is the smaller acute angle of the Pythagorean triangle
and
For example, the primitive Pythagorean triple 20-21-29 incorporates the 5th metallic mean. Cotangent of the quarter of smaller acute angle of the 20-21-29 Pythagorean triangle yields the precise value of the 5th metallic mean.
Similarly, the Pythagorean triangle 3-4-5 represents the 6th metallic mean.
Likewise, the Pythagorean triple 12-35-37 gives the 12th metallic mean, the Pythagorean triple 52-165-173 yields the 13th metallic mean, and so on.
[1]Wanderer909 (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I saw you warn someone about outing. May I please email you about this issue? It is NOT about the question where I saw you warn them, but an entirely separate matter unrelated to that/those users. It's just that I saw you mention it and have something to ask you, please. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm sure I've come across this before, but for the life of me I can't remember the correct procedure. DXYZ was changed into a dab page, but the editor cut and paste the article's content to DXYZ-AM. I reverted the dab conversion, but the article created by the cut and paste, what to do about that? The dab is the right move. Should I just do a dummy edit on the AM page, and give attribution? Onel5969TT me09:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
@Onel5969 so good to have you around my talk page again. The good new is nothing needs to be done. DXYZ-AM was properly attributed and is back to being a redirect so no further cleanup is needed. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
For me Article transferred to DXYZ-AM to distinguish Iligan-based DXYZ-FM is enough in the context of the diff to provide attribution @Flatscan given that transferred is a close enough synonym of copied. If your concern is that it doesn't say from where and if you want to null edit or talk page message to clear that up don't let me stop you. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
That a copy occurred Savvy editors can identify the creation as a likely copy, but an inexperienced reader may not see it as clearly.
Link to the sourceDXYZ-FM was linked in the creation edit summary, but the source was actually DXYZ (cross-page diff). The redirect edit links DXYZ, but it does not mention the copy.
Mention of "history" and "attribution" Most of WP:CWW's suggested edit summaries include this pointer to guide readers to the correct page's history.
We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.
Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.
I just saw that in the Venezuela discussion you proposed GS applying arbcom-like restrictions to noticeboards. Mind elaborating further on what your idea is and why it would improve things?
@RadioactiveBoulevardier I wonder if the community would want to pass a general sanction to allow uninvolved administrators to impose word limits on involved parties at notice boards and, as a separate but complementary idea, to require involved parties to participate in certain sections. I genuinely don't know - there's a good chance the answer is no - but it's possible there's support for something like that. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this comment: perhaps you might be willing to provide a bigger hint on what rule you feel is being ignored? I understand of course if it involves a private discussion or if you just don't want to go into further detail. isaacl (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The Growth team will now send quarterly reports to keep you in the loop. Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work.
If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.
Community Configuration
Growth features are currently configurable at Special:EditGrowthConfig. This quarter we are working on making Community Configuration accessible for other MediaWiki developers while also moving Growth feature configuration to the new CommunityConfiguration extension.
An early version of Community Configuration can be tested at Spanish Beta Wikipedia. We plan to release the new Community Configuration extension to pilot wikis (Arabic and Spanish Wikipedia) in early May, 2024. The first non-Growth team feature to utilize Community Configuration will be Automoderator.
In parallel with the development, the Growth team will propose Community Configuration usage guidelines, Community Configuration design guidelines, and provide technical documentation.
The Growth team conducted an experiment to assess the impact of the “Add an Image” structured task on the Newcomer Homepage's "Suggested Edits" module. This analysis finds that the Add an Image structured task leads to an increase in newcomer participation on the mobile web platform, particularly by making constructive (non-reverted) article edits:
The likelihood that mobile web newcomers make their first article edit (+17.0% over baseline)
The likelihood that they are retained as newcomers (+24.3% over baseline)
The number of edits they make during their first two weeks on the wiki (+21.8% over baseline)
A lower probability of the newcomers' edits will be reverted (-3.3% over baseline).
This feature was developed for Mentors as part of the Growth team's Positive Reinforcement project. When A/B testing on Spanish Wikipedia, we found no significant impact on retention, but we found a significant positive impact on newcomer productivity. However, we concluded that the results weren’t positive enough to justify the time investment from Mentors. We plan to discuss this feature with our pilot wikis, and consider further improvements before scaling this feature further. Meanwhile, communities willing to test the feature can ask to have it deployed. (T361763)
As in previous years, donors were directed to a Thank you page after donation (example). However, this year we tested a new “Try editing Wikipedia,” call to action on the Thank You page. This call to action linked to a unique account creation page. From this account creation page we were able to track Registrations and Activation (editing for the first time). During the English banner campaign, the Donor Thank you page led to 4,398 new accounts, and 441 of those accounts went on to constructively edit within 24 hours. (T352900)
Future work
Annual Plan
The Growth team and the Editing team will work on the WE1.2 Key Result in the coming fiscal year. We will start initial discussions with communities soon to help finalize our plans. (T361657)
We plan to A/B test adding a new Community Configurable module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We are early in the planning phase of this project that will take place first at our pilot wikis and wikis volunteering. We welcome community feedback on initial designs and plans, in any language at our project talk page.
The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.
The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:
BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.
Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). 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.
Next day, around Porto da Cruz, on Bach's birthday. You may remember that I suggested to give him an infobox in 2013. That one still listed some "prominent" pieces. Later we found the better solution: link to the complete list of compositions, - it's more neutral, avoiding editorial preferences. - On that background: what do you think of Vivaldi? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand that you are busy, and Vivaldi can wait a bit longer, but we have the same situation now at Aaron Copland, with his Appalachian Spring going to by TFA in three days. The question is easy: does a list of compositions belong in the composer's infobox? I think yes (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven), and was reverted twice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
My answer to the question is "whatever a consensus of editors decide is appropriate". This, even more than whether or not to have an infobox, is a content issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
You didn't look. They have an infobox, - that's not the question. The question is: does the list of compositions belong in the composer's infobox, and I rub my eyes how that can even be a question. What else could be more worthwhile to show? - As I write this I have two supporters against the lone reverts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I understood the issue. This, even more than whether or not to have an infobox, is a content issue. where "this" means compositions in the infobox. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I really didn't know understand what "this" meant. Sorry, more sorry, but I don't agree even after understanding. See Vivaldi: it wasn't painted as "lets discuss if we have the works or not" but as "the link violates a guideline" (questioning at the same time all compromise versions, Bach etc.). A longish discussion resulted in "no, they don't". And now? My little brain has no room for any good reason not to point at a composer's works, sorry sorry, and a simple "ce" or "trim" for an edit summary doesn't enlighten me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Today I see Marian Anderson as my top story (by NBC, 1939), and below three people with raised arms, - and the place is the cherry blossom in Frauenstein. - With the ballet, 10k+ readers saw the composer's and didn't complain ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Marian Anderson - finally a musician you're posting about who I'm very familiar with. She was an amazing women and an incredibly talented performer. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes! I saw the news item last year when it was posted on Easter Sunday - as had been in 1939 - but then was too busy to listen to the whole broadcast. I did today, and was quite impressed, especially by the last two spirituals which sound as if sung by different women. - I brought Jessye Norman to GA, a singer where an infobox was never a problem. The short question & answer for Anderson from 2020 is refreshing (still on the talk). Why a few other cases are so problematic I'll never understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
Thanks. I think the most likely outcome is I serve out the remaining time on arbcom but we'll see in a few weeks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Barkeep49 is a candidate in the U4C election
In case there are other lurkers like me who previously had no clue and weren't going to bother voting, Barkeep49 is a candidate in the U4C election. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure there are lurkers on this page who if they vote will vote against me. I hope they do that. I think this first committee is going to have an outsize influence on whether the U4C follows its charter in whether it respects large wikis with established mechanisms or it doesn't. I'm guessing enwiki people have real feelings on that matter (mostly in one direction, I guess, but some in the other) so I hope people find the candidates that are right and vote for them. There are also likely to be some candidates who editors find unappealing for a variety of reasons and I hope that people oppose them - better ot have a too small committee than a full one with bad people. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Re: age of discussions at CR
I don't want to request a word limit extension for this, but I do want to say it: merge requests tend to remain listed at CR for a very long time because merges are complicated and discussions about them often result in very unclear consensi. I understand your general point, but I would not interpret the fact that there are three older outstanding merge requests as evidence that the RMs are not being unusually delayed; I consider them a separate animal. —Compassionate727(T·C)02:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
And there are 3 RfCs which had been unclosed longer than that. I didn't want to be accused of doing an apples to oranges comparison so I didn't mention them but my point is: we don't have enough editor time to support the processes we have and so hard calls (and there's no denying that close was a hard one) face a burden. Especially when they're not one off's as someone else takes one of those hard ones but may not be up for repeatedly taking them. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
I am thinking about submitting an amendment request as outlined here, but I have a few questions. First, do you think I can try it, or given the AE issue, I would better wait another year? Secondly, do I understand correctly that such request only involves myself, and I should not notify other users? The interaction ban was one-sided. Or I should notify VM and Piotrus because they are mentioned in the FoF and decision about me? Finally, I would probably need a help from an arbitration clerk to correctly submit it. Thank you, and sorry for the trouble. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @My very best wishes. I am of course speaking just for myself here. I think if you waited until a year from the AE enforcement, an amendment request would be fine or rather not too much more is gained by waiting an additional year. As for notifications, since you're already going to be asking for help from the clerks with posting (which I would suggest doing at WP:AC/CN) perhaps they could also help you with notifications, which in my opinion do need to happen for any kind of iban amendment request. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Then I will definitely wait until a year from the AE enforcement, unless someone else will submit an amendment for this case, so perhaps it will be easier to consider several participants during one request for amendment. I must admit that I did not expect to receive these bans, I felt terrible after receiving them, and I counted days to apply for the amendment. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Thanks! I mixed up the closing admins from the two deletion reviews, so I notified one but forgot to notify the other. Thanks for correcting my mistake :) Gottagotospace (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
IP block exempt
WP:IPECPROXY told me to contact a CU. I'll be traveling next month and wish to use a VPN on any WiFi network that isn't under my control, which will likely be all of them. I've also requested global IP block exempt but understand that may not be enough. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Done I've studiously avoided doing IPBE requests until now. I have made an exception to grant this for a month but also noting for any other talk page watchers I'll likely be bowing out from any future requests. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
My dad is a teacher and he's pals with the school librarian, who recently mentioned to him that she's a huge fan of Wikipedia's coverage of children's book awards. That's you! I figured I'd pass along the message. Thanks for all your arbitrating and children's literature creating :-) Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words and for taking the time to post them @Crunchydillpickle. One of the things that I love about editing Wikipedia is that it attracts real readers and it's always good to hear about a specific one rather than just ones in the abstract. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, I am writing to you to inform you that I have filled an appeal regarding a sanction which was imposed to me by you (see the appeal HERE). -- Pofka (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: each arbitrator would have their own standard but generally a pattern of disruption where the normal processes are insufficient to counter. This is often some combination of amount of articles/forums being disrupted and the amount difficulty caused by the disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank your for the answer. Last follow-up, I promise: Can this be done by motion or does there need to be a case? And is a request for a case the right thing to file either way? Also, difficulty for whom? Elinruby (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
It can be done by motion but often arbs want a full case. A case request would be the right place to go. I would recommend reading the new Guide to ArbCom before filing any request (in this case probably part 2 is the crucial one for what you need to know to be successful). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
You recently left a warning on my talk page for offering Saqib some money to accept the page. That was my mistake. I did that out of frustration because I worked on it for months and he rejected it twice. Would it be possible for you to review the draft? Draft:Adil Raja
Please check it out and tell me if you think it's ready to be submitted. I believe that it's ready and has enough references. Also, could you ensure that Saqib doesn't edit the draft anymore? He seems biased against Adil, as he immediately rejected the draft twice. When I asked him to help me improve the draft, he told me to wait. I waited a whole month, and even then he said he was busy. Things don't add up. Please assist.
@WarriorYt43 I know how frustrating it can be to wait for a draft to be reviewed. Unfortunately I am not reviewing drafts at this time and cannot help you. My general advise would be to improve the article based on the suggestions left to you before trying again - often the drafts which are clearly notable (the standard Wikipedia uses about who gets an article) are accepted faster than drafts where notability is more borderline. Good luck with your writing, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
WarriorYt43, Normally, I don't edit drafts, but I made changes to this one, like cleanup to remove WP:GUNREL sources and WP:OR hoping to get it approved. If I were biased, I would've not even bothered improving the bio. or have simply stopped you from editing this draft because you declared your COI so accusing me of being bias without evidence is unfounded and unhelpful. Just because I declined the draft doesn't mean I'm biased. The draft is on my watchlist, so naturally, I reviewed it and declined because it was not ready. Fwiw, I declined it, not rejected it. Anyway, I won't review it next time you submit it, but I've the right to edit it as I see fit (and I hope @Barkeep49 is cool with that) because we don't allow POV or poorly sourced BLPs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I understand your point, and I guess that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying your position and the steps you took to improve the draft. @SaqibWarriorYt43 (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I-Ban
If I recall correctly, you imposed a two-way IBan between me and ElinRuby (ER), and I am addressing the correct person:
Now, ER ought to know of the previous RSN discussion on the magazine (the section header goes "Dorchester Review, again", emphasis mine) and my involvement on the narrow locus, but I do not seek any sanction whatsoever and deem this a trivial mistake. Further, Kamloops Indian Residential School has been significantly edited by me and ER before the IBan but now that ER has significantly edited it after the IBan, I perhaps cannot edit it anymore. Once again, I do not claim any wrongdoing of ER; it is unfeasible for them to check the article-history of all articles they plan to edit, articles might exist where I have been guilty of the same, and the text of IBAN generally allows editing the same pages.
However, I would like to know if there is any way to partake in the current RSN discussion and the article since my involvement — on what is arguably a very narrow locus — predates ER's. I am not pinging ER to avoid breaching the IBan. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam I didn't impose it (that was Bishonen) but am now the responsible administrator so the result is the same. I think the answer to whether you can participate in the RSN is no because it's clearly a discussion started by ER and so pretty much any reply is going to violate the IBAN rule of reply to <the other person> in discussions. You have 1 edit to Dorchester review in the last 500 so it's not some great amount of editing. You both edited Kamploops School before the iBan and can after as long as you don't revert each other. Thanks for checking and let me know if you have any follow up questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
That being the case, I am appealing for the IBan to be vacated unless ER wishes for it to stay.
It is quite hilarious that an issue which was first raised by me at the article t/p (and subsequently discussed at RSN) gets raised by ER — of all people — and I do not get to opine. Fwiw, it appears (to me) that I and ER have rather-aligning views on the broader locus though I am unsure about their opinion on the particular RSN question and won't speculate. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Happy for you to appeal. You need to demonstrate that the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. You can do that with me or you can go directly to one of the community forums to make your appeal. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I and ER do not edit a common set of articles and, hence, I do not really see the conflicts resuming. In any case, I plan to not engage with ER and ask for a waiver of the IBan primarily (only-?) to participate in the rare content-dispute threads started by him where I had already partaken earlier. That said, I do not know if ER wishes for the IBan to stay. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam after thinking this over, I think this should get wider feedback, including from ER and I do not want to be singly responsible for policing that interaction, and so I suggest you formally appeal this to a notice board. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I just noticed this thread. Without getting into the merits of the original sanction, which I have previously disputed, there is now and RfC and an ANI thread titled "Riposte97: time sink". I think TB is mistaken about who edited the Kamloops article first but more to the point for the record I have zero, zilch, negative infinity objections to TrangaBellam helping with the denialist disruption that is going on in the residential school articles, and am intelligent enough to accept help that is clearly needed since Riposte97 last I checked was still actively disrupting Canadian Indian residential school gravesitesKamloops Indian Residential School even as this has been grinding through RSN and ANI. I am confident that collaboration can take place without unseemly and counterproductive squabbling. Right TB?
that said I would really appreciate it if you would get my name and gender right. And I dislike ER and would prefer El if you don't want to type All That.
Barkeep, is there such a thing as dropping the i-ban by mutual agreement? TB is right, it did not occur to me to check the history of Dorchester Review at RSN, and I appreciate the graciousness about it. Meanwhile, pending the paperwork (NOTBURO?) if TB wants to chime in on these denialist threads I am starting I absolutely welcome the help. Elinruby (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Elinruby; I agree that there will be no counterproductive discourse. So, given our mutual agreement, Barkeep49, are you willing to vacate the I-Ban? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
The stub created was sourced by ABC, NBC, CNN & the New York Post. It did not contain libel as it was sourced directly from these reliable and prestigious sources. It hadn’t even named the perpetrator in the content of the article yet so you cannot claim that it was targeted - or even claim it was unjustly written given the fact that the case as since swept the media coverage of the Northeastern United States.
You could have nominated it for deletion. The misuse of speedy deletion was inappropriate, uncalled for and in violation of Wikipedia policy. 9t5 (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@9t5 The article when deleted had been nominated by another editor and on my review I found it to meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I see you have re-created the article. In the re-created article you avoided the serious issues that justified the previous deletion, but continued to have violations of the Biographies of Living People policy, specifically WP:BLPCRIME and so I have had to revision delete much of your creation. I suggest you review the policy to avoid other issues. In addition I will be alerting you to our contentious topic procedures. Please let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@Barkeep49 Your revision was absolutely justified. Other editors keep including the name of the suspect. I am going to revert those edits, and I will keep a close eye on it. I apologize. I thought you were the one who tagged it for speedy deletion. 9t5 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Christophervincent01
Hi, I just blocked and tagged Threeseven29 as a sock of Christophervincent01. I didn't tag the master, mainly because I have no idea why he was ArbCom-blocked. Nonetheless, I thought you might like to know.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Another heads up. The new account admitted being a sock and left a diatribe on their Talk page. I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Today I wanted to write a happy song story, on a friend's birthday, but instead we have the word of thunder on top of it, which would have been better on 2 June, this year's first Sunday after Trinity. The new lilypond - thanks to DanCherek - is quite impressive. As my 2 Jun story said: Bach was fired up. - Today's Main page is rich in music, also Franz Liszt and a conductor. I try to avoid the topic infoboxes, really, but compare Liszt and Schumann: which difference do you see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
New pics of food and flowers come with the story of Noye's Fludde (premiered on 18 June), written by Brian Boulton. I nominated Éric Tappy because he died, and it needs support today! I nominated another women for GA in the Women in Green June run, - review welcome, and more noms planned. - The attempt by Wugapodes to get MoS/infoboxes more in line with current usage was closed as no consensus, as you will have seen. It looks like before it could gain consensus, infoboxes would have to stop being regarded as contentious. Until then, we'll live with a MoS that is not in line with current usage, as we have done for the last 10+ years ;) - (I'm writing a bit more to get the image next to the text:) I would prefer if infobox discussions were kept factual. "ignore ignore ignore", helpful advice by a friend who was desysopped for protecting Laurence Olivier because of edit-warring over the hidden text about no infobox although he was of course not neutral - is not so easy when you face comments such as in Talk:Gustav Mahler where I think I made a neutral statement. I mind two things in the responses: being described (which has nothing to do with the question at hand), and (more) the proud statement to have retained the infobox for Robert Schumann while expanding for FA, when (looking closer, and not obvious) it wasn't retained but made almost worthless by removing the link to the list of his compositions. When Brian Boulton came up with a compromise "identity box" for FA Percy Grainger, it had this list, as suggested in {{infobox classical composer}} in 2010, well before I even knew what an infobox is ;) - Laurence Olivier received an infobox per RfC, as you may remember. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Today is a feast day for which Bach composed a chorale cantata in 1724 (and we had a DYK about it in 2012). Can't believe that Jodie Devos had to die, - don't miss her video from the Opéra-Comique at the end, - story to come. The weekend brought plenty of music sung and listened to, and some of it is reflected in the last two stories! + pics of good food with good company --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.
The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.
The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.
Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). 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 for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Thanks for your dedication in serving on the arbitration committee. I appreciate the careful consideration given to resolving difficult conflicts. isaacl (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, Barkeep49, for the time and effort you gave to the Arbitration Committee and to the Checkuser crew. I wish you a stressless transition. LizRead!Talk!05:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
In my many years of acting as an arbitrator, I had many esteemed colleagues. There were some who stood head and shoulders above the others, exemplifying everything you'd want from an Arbitrator. Barkeep, you sat at the top of that pile. I am sure you will go on to lead the U4C and go on making a difference to the project, but I just wanted to say thank you for being someone I could trust on the committee. WormTT(talk) 10:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we appear to disagree more than we actually do, because I never see the point of saying something when I agree with ArbCom. Even when we've disagreed, you're always thoughtful. So I'm sorry to see you leave ArbCom. On the bright side, there's someone I know on this U4C thing; perhaps you'll even be able to explain to not-really-metapedians like me what on God's green earth that actually is, and how it affects en.wiki. At the very least I trust you to guide whatever it is in a rational direction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam thanks. I hope you'll indulge me two reactions. First, I hopeful that the U4C will not affect you. The U4C should be about helping small/medium projects and being a place for the community more easily and to fix it when a project has gone off the rails. Neither of those are true for enwiki. Helping it be successful in those two things without going beyond that mandate is part of the work I want to do. Second, I'd encourage you to maybe rethink I never see the point of saying something when I agree with ArbCom with other arbs you respect. Hearing only negative feedback from editors you like and respect is one of the hardest things about being an arb. It can also impact the actual work done because it becomes harder to figure out when you're genuinely doing something wrong and when complaints should just be ignored as the baseline of upset people that ArbCom encounters. Getting this wrong on either side isn't great ("fixing" things that you needn't fix creates a problem where there was none and not fixing things that should be fixed is obviously bad). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough, and I probably should know better. back in the Dark Ages when I was on ArbCom, I felt the same way. Probably intentionally blocked out the memory of it.
"I'm hopeful that the U4C will not affect you" is exactly what I was hoping to hear. I find it grating when, for example, someone mentions how someone else violated the UCOC at ArbCom or ANI. Well, then they violated an en.wiki policy too. Refering to UCOC makes me nervous that an amorphous "they" are coming for "our" aAbcCm. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
While it doesn't bother me if someone cites the UCoC, I agree that it would be better if they just cited the applicable enwiki policy or guideline because it's there. It's why I really advocated for this principle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your service, BK49. Even when I've disagreed with you, you've always been thoughtful and careful to explain your reasoning, and I've truly appreciated that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I've just said it at the Arb talk page, but I want to say thanks to you here, too. Just the other day, I laughed out loud on hearing about a children's book called The Quacken (about a very large duck) and, knowing of your editing interest in children's books, my mind went to you. Best wishes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I feel like an ex-arb habitually checks this, but just in case
Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Heh. Yeah I pretty regularly checked my email even before arbcoms and am still in the habit. Will get back to you soonish. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a user by Toastyt74 that is a vandal only account I reverted one of their edits and saw their contribs I saw no edit with no vandalism. Felicia(talk)18:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
The Growth team released Community Configuration at all Wikipedias. You can access it at Special:CommunityConfiguration.
This new special page replaces Special:EditGrowthConfig. For now, all Growth features can be configured using Community Configuration. Configuration for AutoModerator (T365046) and other features will be available in the future.
We will add a new Community Configurable module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We have released a simple version available to beta wikis. We will conduct an A/B test at our pilot wikis using the new Metrics Platform. We still welcome community feedback on initial designs and plans, in any language at our project talk page.
As part of the Growth team 2024/2025 Annual Plan, the Growth team will explore various ways to increase the percentage of newcomers who successfully start editing.
Editing a Wikipedia page requires too much context and patience. It means many trial and error for newcomers to contribute, meaning a steeper learning curve and potential discouraging reverts. To support a new generation of volunteers, we will increase the number and availability of smaller, structured, and more task-specific editing workflows (E.g. Edit Check and Structured Tasks). The Growth team will primarily focus on Structured Tasks, while working closely with the Editing team to ensure our work integrates well with Edit Check.
Stay informed
Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work. If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.
The story is today about the first published composition by Arnold Schönberg which I was blessed to hear. Listen, and perhaps read what Alma Mahler (to-be-Mahler at the time, to be precise, who was present at the first performance) said, and yes that was too much for the Main page ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
3 July is the birthday of Leoš Janáček, and I'm happy I had a meaningful DYK in 2021. It's also the birthday of Franz Kafka, and I uploaded pics from his family's album seen in Berlin. Janáček's infobox has a list of his compositions, like Bach's, Mozart's, Beethoven's. Schumann had one for years, until one featured article writer removed it (and I noticed only after it was too late for a BRD revert and discussion). I am not welcome in the FAC, and another user who noticed was dismissed, but I believe that our readers should not miss a valuable link because one person believes it's a "rotten idea". You may remember that this was mentioned in the Mahler discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey Barkeep, sorry about the repeated pings emanating from User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)#Paid editing on American literature articles. I'm trying to get across a point you made on COIN some years ago, which, in my view, applies to a current situation and so pinged more than once (the second time was probably not necessary). Anyway, just thought I'd let you know. Btw- I've never visited your page and really like the pic of the books. In fact I like it enough that I might copy it, if you don't mind. Do you collect books? Victoria (tk) 14:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Welcome. The whole Rachel Helps situation has been one I've chosen to stay away from since it popped back up. But I definitely stand by my COIN comments. As for the books by all means use them. They're on commons for a reason. Although funny story - they were nominated for deletion on commons due to copyright concerns about the covers. But in the end some people knew the magic words to explain why it wasn't a copyright concern so I got kept so I happily get to keep it on my userpage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I would have made my own pic of books in my house. But I'd forgotten about the issue of 3D with books displayed like that. I'll mull it over. Re the BYU issue, ok, thanks. Victoria (tk) 16:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
The good news with taking your own picture is that the saving grace was having a large volume of books on display such that no cover was too distinguishable. I'm guessing that won't be a problem for you :). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I have plenty and even plenty pre-2024 in the public domain. That might fix the copyright issue. For a day when I have nothing else to do :) It's a nifty idea, anyway. Victoria (tk) 19:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Recent AE close
Hi Barkeep,
I am looking at closure, and I am mostly in agreement. However, I am struggling a bit to see how there was a rough consensus that “if there is any disruption at AE within the next 12 months any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban without further consensus”.
In the discussion linked above, I had specifically objected to the imposition of a probation, and Extraordinary Writ appears to have supported lifting the ban with “no probation needed”. You and El_C seemed to favor probation (though El_C also expressed that they were OK to repeal outright). FireFangledFeathers seemed indifferent to the probation requirement, and SFR does not appear to have expressed an opinion one way or the other.
To me, none of the arguments made by participants were obviously stronger on a policy basis, and whether or not to impose probation comes down as a matter of taste and/or discretion. But, in light of the split of admins in the discussion, shouldn’t we say that the discussion resulted in a consensus to accept the appeal and no consensus on imposing probation?
I read you as opposed, FFF as neutral and EW as neutral. This latter piece was clearly in error. I'll amend the close. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Regarding this edit: perhaps you could modify it to say a "general copyediting pass"? At first glance I thought you were suggesting that someone pass some changes to the arbitration procedures, and couldn't off the top of my head remember what GOCE stood for. isaacl (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Zionism
I would appreciate your guidance on one issue. For the past two months, there has been an ongoing dispute concerning the lead paragraph of Zionism. A group of editors is seeking to redefine Zionism as a movement "aimed at the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside of Europe."
Without getting into the specifics of the content dispute itself, those advocating for this revision claim that there is a consensus supporting their change. However, a significant number of editors have voiced opposition on the talk page across multiple threads, and extensive evidence from other encyclopedias supporting the original phrasing has been presented. Despite this, proponents of the new version continue to re-introduce the disputed wording through edit warring. They argue that the burden of starting a formal RFC falls on those wishing to restore the original text. Given that I am currently under 0RR, what additional steps can we take to resolve this matter? ABHammad (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
@ABHammad you can continue discussion to see if you can find consensus, to see why they insist consensus is that way, or you could work with them to formulate an RfC - including what the status quo is should it fail - to decide the issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
A while ago, you soft deleted this page. Someone recently brought it back, but it's clearly been re-done from the beginning. Is it possible to send me a copy of the source code from the revision before it was deleted for the show summaries and such? (Those are a hassle to input manually.) If it has been recreated, I want to get it at least back to how good it was!
Today I have two "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, watch and listen, - I like today's especially because you see him at work, hear him talk about his work and the result of his work - rare! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extrordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi
I was clear, in my opening paragraph or two, that I wasn't expecting any action or even discussion -- that I was merely posting the facts for the record, and giving fair notice to Beland. Your close made it sound like I was some neophyte posting a giant wall of text in the expectation that the community will spend its collective time reading it. My response to you makes it clear that's not the case, and for it to perform that function it needs to be adjacent to your comments. Otherwise people might think I'm off my wikirocker.
BTW, I do expect the community to read my post -- just not now, but rather the next time some drive-bys call for my head based on my block log. Thanks for understanding.
EEng03:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. I thought I'd posted this earlier today but the stupid "new thread" interface sometimes demands you hit ctrl-ENTER for some reason, and I didn't notice.
@EEng I certainly understood your need to reply to my close. And so it's there in the place post close comments go at the end, after the closed discussion where it will be preserved, along with the rest of your comments, for anyone to read before the thread is archived and in the future. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that most people read only the close, and yours gives the incorrect impression that I'd made a foolishly overlong post on which I was expecting action -- which I explicitly said I was not. I also believe that your heat/light comment was inappropriate, in light of Brandolini's law. I therefore ask that you revise your comments to be consistent with the facts. I believe something along the lines of "Closing promptly since EEng has stated his post is not a request for action but rather for the record" would be appropriate. EEng16:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I stand by my close. ANI is a place for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems with an expectation that people who file an issue are brief and include diffs. You made a choice to provide a complete documentation of the issues you saw with the other editor and to do so without asking the community to act on it. I described what you did and why based on those choices it made sense to procedurally close. If you feel that it makes you seem foolish that's your interpretation but not mine. I did not call you foolish or any other name or intend to do anything but describe why I was closing and options you had. It is not an accepted practice for reporters to have an in-line reply right to closers hence why I moved it to the place that post-close replies go. If you feel that you needed something else from the community that this didn't provide it remains open to you to find a way of reporting something more briefly for the community to act on - I think you have several options to meet the challenges Brandolini's law without going as comprehensive as you did. Happy to name what I'm thinking of but you might think of others if thats the route you decide to go down. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
In thinking about this a tad further, I added to the procedural close note the fact that you weren't requesting any action. That point of yours was in keeping with my general intent/approach of describing what happened and since you seem to feel that is an important thing to have in the close. If you don't find that part helpful I'm happy to revert it. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
What you did isn't perfect -- but then, what on WP is? -- but I'm OK with it. BTW, is a tad more or less than a bit? More or less than a scrunch? EEng20:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you; I'd started it using a comment I had posted previously and hadn't really thought about it in a less-argumentative more useful-to-newcomers context. Your edits have made it much better. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk)17:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
@OwenBlacker it's a really good idea for an edit notice. Hopefully it helps lower the temperature in some places (even if we won't know when it did since success will mean nothing happens). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Sometimes people need to know that they're crossing a behavioral line that people will notice and care about. Your notice does that nicely. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
WikiConference North America 2024
Hello @Barkeep49! If you feel comfortable, could you please send me an email at jamie.flood2@gmail.com so I can send you correspondence (Acceptance!) about the session you proposed for WCNA 2024? Thank you for your time! JamieF (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
A question.
Hello @Barkeep49. I had a question and was not sure where to post it so I figured I might as well ask an admin.
I have suspicions of undisclosed COI by a user and have uncovered potential off-wiki evidence. While I know not to post such things directly on wikipedia, I was wondering if I should make my case entirely through the provided email or if I should make a section on WP:COIN presenting the on-wiki evidence and only email the off-wiki evidence. Thanks. Yvan Part (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Yvan Part. Great question - and you're not the first to have it. Because your suspicions include off-wiki evidence you should email it to WP:COIVRT. There is a bit of a backlog there at the moment, but that is the right place to handle it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I'm a little torn here (I also admit to being a little intimidated, having seen your name on things like Arbcom decisions as One Who Speaks Sense). While it's certainly nice to see an admin taking care to consider a speedy nomination instead of just hitting delete, I'm concerned that in this draft you then restored completely unsourced information alleging a named person was responsible for (and convicted of) various heinous offences. I've gone ahead and removed every instance of the name from the draft but remain concerned the surname is still in the title, the offending material is still archived in the history, and also by the question of if simply restoring it unedited was really in compliance with WP:BLPREVERT.
Technically some stuff is cited - there are links in the Infobox to case related materials - including the Oral Argument whcih establishes some of the facts, though you are of course correct nothing is cited in-line. I wasn't going to point that out in the decline because the bigger point remains: this is a US Supreme Court case and so if there are negative facts about a BLP, well that's just the way it goes sometimes and for speedy deletion purposes this was not negative enough to justify deletion. Replacing the person's name with other language until better citation can be done in the draft does seem appropriate to me as well. And thanks for the kind words. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
<nods thoughtfully> Thanks for the quick response. If I were a better writer/researcher I might try and source/expand the draft myself, as it strikes me as a reasonably important question of law. Certainly it seems better than the other drafts I found around the same time (now gone but see my deleted contribs for examples). Unfortunately I don't think I'm competent to do it. Thanks for all you do around here. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:
Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.
Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. 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 for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
Hi, thanks for permission to go over 500 words in responding to my AE report. I'm not familiar with how this plays out really - is it usually the done thing for the reporter to continually amend the complaint? In my statement I replied to points made and incorrect claims which have been removed or edited or changed. I've already edited my statement once to account for the changing request, I don't have time to stay on top of it though. Apologies for asking here if this isn't the done thing either! Void if removed (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Am I allowed to add a reply to my statement? LunaHasArrived has pointed out I've made a mistake I want to apologise for, and also I'd like to respond to the "LGBA Founders" thing because it's been kind of my white whale and I've not covered myself in glory there over the years but I've moved on. Void if removed (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes. If you keep your total replies under 300 words you're fine. If this gets much larger and you need more words ask again. I hope to jump substantively to what's happening soon. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
RE: this comment 22 December Went back here per Radilacs response to my first batch. WP:SPLC notes that they are reliable but their labeling shouldn't automatically be included in the LEAD. I'm curious in what circumstances Void would find it appropriate to include a gender related hate designation in the lead given their reluctance on these two. I'm happy to respond but I'm at my limit now do you still want me to? I've already added links to relevant context to two edits you mentioned I hope that's ok. Void if removed (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
The "singer-songwriter" draft page you just moved is the target of a long harassment campaign similar to Chris Chan. The page is pure trolling and serves no purpose except to continue that harassment. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@Helpful Raccoon I appreciate that background. I'm certainly familiar with the harassment of Chan. My quick googling doesn't reveal quite that same kind of harassment but does reveal a focus on the BLP violations that caused me to revdel the move logs. Can you document (perhaps best done in an email) more of that harassment campaign? Alternatively I agree it's unlikely they'll ever be able to move from being a draft page so perhaps try MFD? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
BK and SFR, I don't want to clutter the AE page with my typical travelogue, but I saw the AE last night after I finished packing, am headed this morning to the airport, will be flying all day, then traveling from the airport to my destination for a family wedding, getting in late. That is, at best, it will take me at least 24 hours to even be able to read the rest of the diffs. I'd like to have more time to view and comment on any real issues, which the most recent was not. And the mobile diffs will make it much harder to work from my (very slow) hotspot at the airport; I did not realize, for example, that WhatamIdoing was the first to use the term "trans kids" because of the mess of trying to view the whole page from a mobile diff with limited time. Is it possible to reinforce that the OP needs to better focus their diffs on any that are truly problematic, hopefully with non-mobile version, so that context can be more easily viewed and discussed? I wasted what little time I had last night commenting on a mobile diff with no context that was better handled by WAID. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
It would be really great if someone could just edit those urls to be standard diffs. Surely that's not contentious? -- Colin°Talk13:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. That seems to work, though I can see the browser fetch the mobile page and then the desktop one after. SFN, your common.js is, em, extremely trusting of a lot of random users! -- Colin°Talk14:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it has to load all your scripts before it knows to open the right version of the page. It's better than nothing though. Also, you reminded me to do a bit of cleanup on my common.js. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I assume that confusion (around who used the term first) is because Colin objected when a different editor used the same language, and I assume that was because it's difficult on long pages to keep track of which comment belongs to which sig, or because he had other things he needed to say about that comment. Mixing up who said what happens all over the wiki. I really don't think anyone was trying to be unfair here.
I do think sometimes that we need the equivalent of amusement park signs on some subjects. Instead of saying "You have to be at least this tall for this ride", we need one that says "If you have this much real-world anxiety about this subject, don't edit this page". It's obvious when you watch the conversations across multiple pages that some people have significant real-world fears about restrictions on gender care. IMO those fears aren't entirely misplaced, but from the Wikipedia POV, real-world anxiety does not make for a dispassionate Wikipedian. Regardless of whether the fear is about COVID vaccines, Trump's re-election prospects, climate change, gender equality, the mess in Gaza, immigration, or any other subject, real-world anxiety consistently produces POV pushers. We have traditionally tried to address this by accepting and moderating the POV pushing. I hope that we will be able to continue doing that for GENSEX topics, but perhaps society has shifted enough over the years that it's no longer a viable model. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Regarding your closure of the AE report about me, I don't understand what happened with the concerns of myself, Levivich and SashiRolls that filer was engaged in disruptive editing and POV pushing? It would appear these concerns were ignored and have not been addressed. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I really don't understand how AE works. One doesn't get the impression that concerns of POV pushing are being taken seriously here. I will not be filing a separate report. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Arbitration Enforcement is designed to be a board with structured discussion about editor behavior in certain (Arbcom approved) places. A problem with many Palestine-Israel reports there is that it attempts to turn it into a wide ranging discussion about many editors' behavior. AE does not do that well. And so with your report there was an attempt to keep the discussion focused - which in this case was on the edit warring presented by the filer. The ask for a separate report is showing it's being taken seriously. Rather than nothing happening because it is buried as a small part of a large discussion of which it is not the focus, its own report means that conduct would be the focus. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Serious allegations were made and they were ignored. That seems rather bureaucratic (in the sense of being "overly concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency or common sense").
I don't intend to be argumentative and I'm just registering my disappointment. I have a lot of respect for the individual admins who respond at AE, but AE itself has something wrong with it. There seem to be inconsistencies with how things are done there, and I'd like to ask if there is somewhere where all the rules etc governing AE are written.
I can understand why as a non-frequent participant you're not seeing it this way, but it is my sincere belief that Vanamonde's suggestion was correct: filing a seperate report was the right answer for efficiency. If someone were to file a report today that was straight forward in the way the report just closed was, there's a great chance that the total time to close both would be less than the time it takes to close the sprawled report about IntrepidContributor. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Could I file a report saying simply "In a previous AE report, I made a statement alleging misconduct by user(s) x. I was told to submit a separate report to address these concerns. Here is my statement and note that there were statements by other editors in the IOHANNVSVERVS report which are relevant to this report."
And should two or three separate reports be filed or can my concerns about the three editors be dealt with in the one report?
The most successful reports have specific diffs with easy to understand explanation of why those diffs present a problem - that was something the report that just closed did well. So "read a whole bunch of other stuff to find what was relevant" won't be successful. Nor would "read the statements by me, Levivich, and SashiRolls" because the one that comes closest is SashiRolls here but that is just a single diff when the 3 of you are arguing a pattern and the rest are assertions without clear evidence to back them up. Someone needs to compile what the pattern of diffs are. An example of that happening for something somewhat like this is this by Levivich which, not for nothing, was too late in a thread that had already spiraled. And yes a person can file two or three concerns in a row about similar concerns for different editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that serious allegations are ignored unless certain hoops are jumped through.
They're not ignored, as much as there have been millions of words written on talk pages and thousands upon thousands of edits. Without a clear demonstration of what exactly the problem is its very difficult to suss out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
They've not been ignored? Three users reported concerns about a user's conduct but these concerns have not been responded to or addressed.
Sorry for missing that question earlier. I wish there was a good tutorial for learning about AE. The rules and procedures are written in the box labeled "Important information". But how to write effective AE reports is something that doesn't exist as far as I know. However, most of the advice on how to write an effective ArbCom statement would also apply to AE. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Very clear evidence was presented that user x was misrepresenting the source you provided and which he and user y repeatedly reverted. His claim that the variant on the wh-cleft structure "What happened in 1948" was vague was shown to be false as it was clearly defined in the source as "massacres and expulsions at gunpoint" "which led to over 80 per cent of the Palestinian population being violently forced to flee". What BK49 seems not to want to say is that it is easier for AE admins to treat AE as though it were WP:AN3 where simple revert-counting is normally addressed. I too was sorry to see that the complaint was not treated seriously, as the evidence presented was very clear and in the context of a larger complaint it will likely be successfully muddied. While someone could reinitiate the same case with exactly the same evidence, mentioning both user x and user y, it would have been much simpler to give a 1RR warning without falsely claiming that you were unilaterally edit-warring when there were three people involved, counting user x (who made claims on the talk page) and user y (who did not).-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥21:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
The reason I haven't said What BK49 seems not to want to say is that it is easier for AE admins to treat AE as though it were WP:AN3 where simple revert-counting is normally addressed is because I don't think it's true. Instead I think The ask for a separate report is showing it's being taken seriously. Rather than nothing happening because it is buried as a small part of a large discussion of which it is not the focus, its own report means that conduct would be the focus.Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
AE
(ping ScottishFinnishRadish) I won't have a chance to write anything substantial till this evening. I've responded the most recent issue (the “trans kids” one) on the talk page it occurred, to try to address how that's been misrepresented. But as you note there are a lot of diffs offered, and I'm quite sure by this evening there will be other posts by other editors with 50 more diffs. I wish it was clearer which are the areas of concern you guys would like me to address, and which you've already dismissed as misinterpreted. You can email me if you think that might be kinder. -- Colin°Talk10:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad FFF was able to reformat the diffs for you (I was going to put them here). Also because this is at a conduct noticeboard I will be keeping my substantive comments there. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Barkeep, ScottishFinnishRadish, Valereee and Vanamonde93 for considering my case as fairly as you can. I can only conclude that all four of you must have been terrible people in a previous life, and brought back to spend your evenings moderating the bickering of folk on the internet. -- Colin°Talk21:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93 Did we? You and I agreed, SFR was ambivalent to negative and Valereee didn't really comment on it. I'm obviously not opposed but I'm not sure it was there. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I am curious why you started a discussion at Village Pump (policy), when editors are still working on finalizing a proposal at WP:Administrator recall. Now, I agree there are some editors who strongly believe the entire proposal needs an up or down !vote, I think your addition to Village Pump (policy) may be premature. - Enos733 (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
My read of that activity is that it is procedural rather than policy. And if there's not consensus to do it, it's a waste of time figuring out procedure that won't be used. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Barkeep49, while I can understand your PoV that it's a waste of time to develop procedures that will never be implemented due to community opposition, I think Enos733 has a point that in reality support for such a policy is likely to depend significantly on the precise procedural details. Especially since we already has a consensus in support of a recall procedure, I don't see any need to rush into another RfC on it. Let those developing it refine it until they feel it is ready. Provided it's clear to those editors that what they're refining might never be implemented and that the amount of time they spent on it is not going to be a compelling reason for the community to implement it, it should IMO be their choice on whether they want to risk wasting their time on such a thing. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to say this, but if the consensus is "sorry this procedure is terrible let's start again" or "sorry having read the procedure I'm not sure why we even though recall would be a good idea, let's abandon the whole thing" then okay fine, we'll stop a waste of time. Likewise if consensus is "yes this procedure is fine, feel free to tweak it without needing another RfC and implement it once you feel it's done without asking us again, then okay again those involved can get down onto the nitty-gritty in full swing. But frankly I feel much more likely is we might get yet another consensus in favour of a recall process but not a consensus on the precise procedure which is after all still being tweaked. So then we would surely need yet another RfC on implementing the actual final procedure. I'm really unconvinced that is beneficial to the community, more likely there will start to be a real degree of fatigue or WTF are we !voting on this yet again? In fact, that will likely already be the case in the current RfC to a greater degree than IMO it needs to be precisely because anyone considering taking part is going to look at it and realise "wait so you're asking is to !vote yet again on some possible procedure which isn't even finalised yet and so we'll need to come back again to !vote on the final procedure or take part in writing the procedure when we really don't want to or just let others do it and hope they do a good job since it's going to be implemented without any further feedback from us"? Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
And if there's not consensus to do it, it's a waste of time figuring out procedure that won't be used. No matter what, there was going to be at least one more RFC, either something akin to what you started or a straight up/down vote. It's best to do the tweaking first to maximize the chance of success. In the case of an RFC like yours, it reduces the risk of needing yet another RFC; the ~ten editors who are keeping track of the discussion spending maybe 15 minutes each can reduce the amount of community time spent by dozens of hours. Everyone editing WP:ADREC is a volunteer and aware it may not pass, but I expect that's a risk of time all of us are willing to take. Sincerely, DilettanteSincerely, Dilettante15:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
Not sure Michael is notable as a footballer but since that's not why the page was protected I've removed the protection and you're free to accept the draft. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this comment: I confess to be a bit confused. I understand the view that English Wikipedia doesn't necessarily benefit from having a surfeit of oversighters beyond what is needed at the moment. However if you're influenced (presumably favourably) by those you respect that oversight is a type of good admin badge, I feel the analogy breaks down, because I don't think there's a capacity concern with how many good admins are identified. isaacl (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
We will add a new module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We have released a simple version on beta wikis and we will soon start an A/B test on our pilot wikis. This module will only display on the Newcomer Homepage if communities decide to utilize it, so learn how to configure the Community Updates module, or share your thoughts on the project's talk page.
One design concept aimed to increase constructive activation
After showcasing early design ideas at Wikimania, we conducted user testing of design prototypes. We now aim to engage communities in further discussions and plan to run a targeted experiment, presenting a structured task within the reading view to logged-in new account holders with zero edits.
This Community Configuration extension was developed to help communities customize wiki features to meet their unique needs. The Growth team is now helping other Wikimedia Foundation teams make their products configurable:
The Moderation Tools team now provides Community Configuration for Automoderator. (T365046)
Certain Babel extension settings will be configurable soon. (T328171)
Future work
As part of the Growth team annual plan, we will continue to investigate ways to increase constructive activation on mobile, while also working with Data Products to move forward A/B testing functionality via the Metrics Platform.
Community events
Growth team members presented Community Configuration: Shaping On-Wiki Functionality Together at Wikimania (slides). The session recording is available to watch on YouTube. This session provided an update on the Community Configuration project and introduced details about the upcoming features that communities will soon be able to configure. Representatives from the Moderator Tools, Editing, Web, and Campaigns teams shared their plans for utilizing Community Configuration in the future. Following these presentations, the WMF Growth team's Benoît Evellin and Martin Urbanec answered audience questions.
Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work.
If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.
Hey Bk, I see you removed Nishidani’s bizarre and offensive comment. I’m not sure removing it helps, as I feel it should be addressed. The offensiveness of an editor citing some joke as evidence that there is a Jewish tendency to gratuitously and abusively accuse non-Jews of antisemitism is pretty bad, but it is secondary to the derailing irrelevance of this particular line of “Everyone knows it exists! Stop asking for secondary sources!” argumentation that’s been popping up repeatedly at that Talk. ꧁Zanahary꧂17:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)If anyone's serious about stamping out toxic conduct in ARBPIA, apparently Nishidani thinks it's acceptable to make condescending antisemitic jokes (~"Jews are so lazy and greedy, bumming our toothbrushes and razors") about antisemitism (~"and they're so oversensitive about antisemitism") to win arguments. Hate is disruptive. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC) Nishidani didn't make the joke, so that part was incorrect. And they've said they weren't intending to communicate anything hateful. See below for clarification. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for finding that. I had not thought to search JSTOR. However, I read Katz and Katz's interpretation of the joke far differently than you (even if we ignore the difference in context between two Yiddish speaking people telling jokes to each other and a person - Jewish, a Yiddish speaker, or not - telling it on the Internet to win a point). Specifically, Katz and Kate write, In this story it is not the inanimate machine that is accused of anti-Semitism but a man, who presumably belongs to the majority culture and who has behaved toward the Jews with uncommon courtesy and-be it noted-toleration. The Jew, on the other hand, is at best an outrageous and at worst a repulsive figure. We may in fact be initially amused at his impudence...Here the Jew soon appalls the hearer by his total lack of standards in such elementary matters as hygiene and privacy, not to speak of more subtle areas. as delicacy and good manners. He has already been indulged far beyond the patience any hearer would show and, when the line is finally drawn, his cry of "antiSemitism" is the culmination of a process that has taken him progressively out of the realm of our sympathy. So at best this source says that it was a known joke in early 20ththe 1960's century Eastern European Jewry but by 1973 was being criticized. It is now 51 years later. I stand by my sanction for the way Nishdani's comment was, to quote the previous warning, unnecessarily inflammatory language. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Prior to the quote, Katz and Katz write (my bolding added): It is quite well known that jokes form a prominent part of the Jewish folklore tradition. Jewish folklore itself attributes to Jews a kind of expertise as raconteurs and connoisseurs of jokes… The point of the story [an equivalent story being contrasted against said joke] is familiar. A negative reaction to behavior that is inadequate or inappropriate is interpreted by the Jew as reflecting ethnic prejudice… Dorson's story [i.e. the joke Nishidani quoted] also involves a charge of anti-Semitism…
Nishidani was making the exact point that they make. Please could you explain what you consider to have been inflammatory about Nishidani’s comment?
For ease of reference, Nishidani’s entire comment, without the joke was as follows: I mean, reaslly Bob, you yourself cannot but be familiar with old Jewish jokes that, with typical irony, make fun of a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism. [The joke]. Testimony if ever how deeply ingrained (and understandably so) a sense of diffidence with those not of one's persuasion can go, even in Jewish communities.
Nishidani was making the exact point that they make. Please could you explain what you consider to have been inflammatory about Nishidani’s comment? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I have already quoted Katz and Katz writing specifically about this joke and the way that it is inflamatory. This is beyond the idea that what may have been common in the 1960s (the time period for the source of the joke) may no longer be common and, crucially, what they describe as common is jokes as part of Jewish folklore tradition, not the specific jokes they cite. And, I will add, what was common in 1973, the date of the source, may no longer be common 50+ years later. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry but you have not answered my question at all. Nishidani wrote two sentences, and correctly quoted a joke from academic literature, in accurate context.
Which of these two sentences did you find inflammatory?
It can be quite appropriate for academic literature to dissect inflammatory language and explain why it is inflammatory and improper. This is what Katz and Katz do. So you don't get to handwave the content of the joke away. Correctly quoting academic literature does not mean it's OK in the context of a Wikipedia talk page discussion to reproduce it. The contexts are different and the point Katz and Katz are making is rather different than what Nishdani was doing. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I am stating that by posting this comment Nishidani was inflaming the discussion and further stating that they had previously been warned about doing this. I understand I have not answered your specific questions, because I reject the idea that I can only consider the two sentences you keep asking about. At this point I'm quite repeating myself here and so absent this conversation moving forward in some new productive way, I feel I have met the expectations under the Administrator Policy and the Contentious topics procedures. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep, while your original revert and block was in good faith, you have already accepted that your original rationale was mistaken. Further evidence for this is below - the joke is widely published as representative of historical Jewish humor.
The second citation (p.85 of the Big Book) quotes the joke within a particularly detailed section (from page 60 onwards) on self-deprecating Jewish jokes about anti-semitism.
I appreciate that you acknowledged above that your initial search was lacking.
But since then you stuck to your claim that Nishidani’s comment was inflammatory, without explaining either what or how you reached that conclusion. Administrative actions are required to be supported by explanation.
As you said, it's self-deprecating humor. Most self-deprecating jokes, especially those relating to minority groups, would be offensive if they weren't told in a self-deprecating manner (or if it wasn't clear from context). — xDanielxT/C\R17:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Very true.
The context here was crystal clear. The description of the joke was used to illustrate an academic point – specifically the point that such a joke exists, and thus the existence of the cultural phenomenon of Jewish people being aware of the perception of hypersensitivity to antisemitism.
It was clearly not directed at anyone, or being used as an attempted joke.
Did you think to ask @Bobfrombrockley if he thought it was an issue? Or do you decide that something is inflaming the discussion without thought as to if the participants a. have a history together, b. dont take offense to such a comment, or c. instinctively know that somebody is not mak[ing] condescending antisemitic jokes? nableezy - 16:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Barkeep, while I'm not sure if I have heard this particular joke before, it is based on an authentic Jewish theme and I've heard many jokes with much the same punchline from Jewish friends. Your edit summary "a joke weaponizing antisemitism" is not correct; rather it is a joke about weaponization of antisemitism, or at least about oversensitivity towards antisemitism. A Jewish comedian telling this joke would evoke a laugh from any Jewish audience because everyone in the audience knows someone who sees antisemitism everywhere. I would have advised Nish against repeating it on-wiki, but I don't think it deserves a TB. Regards. Zerotalk02:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
As I note at more length to Levivich below, the difference in context between a Jewish comedian talking to a Jewish audience and Nishidani writing on an article talk page remains core to why I do not find use of the joke OK in the context they used it. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Just for the record, Zero you have heard this one, since I mentioned it in response to you, as an acute Jewish community insight into hypersensitivities over antisemitism. But that was 6 years ago. A lot of people, many hostile to my presence here (something i know because in reading the endless reports about me at AE/ANI over the years and not one hostile reader of my page ever noted this remark in 2018 as anything like a 'gotcha' smoking gun piece of evidence to haul me in for a sanction - and Barkeep's is the 6th action against me this year -, I am always impressed by how minutely records are kept of every edit or comment I make on wiki and on my talk page esp. These chaps know more about me than I do- and so I wouldn't have taken your advice. On principle. I don't buckle to the kind of discursive intimidation that would banish, in this case, from wikipedia discussions, a disturbing trend, stuff that is amply circulating, and subject to wise analysis out there in the public record. Unfortunately, admins have a remit to hyperspecialize in 'behaviour' <(- meaning, understandably, few have the time to plunge into a deep, comprehensive background reading of the literature on any topic -) for which there are wokist and byzantine rules and cases, and are not required to be familiar with any topic content. To both SFR and Barkeep (and leeky cauldron) this 'looked' inflammatory and rather than just ask me about it, BK did what he did. I think you are seriously wrong to think that there is even an odour of this being read as inflammatory such that an editor should shy from using it heuristically, as I did. There is something disturbingly toxic about the implicit principle laid down here: that an ethnic group's conversation cannot be quoted by anyone outside of that 'pale', and that to do so is to aggressively trouble the sensivities of those within the ingroup who would otherwise laugh at it, a joke in this case which is about one person in an ingroup (Jews) misreading what a kind person (non-Jew) did as evidence of hostile prejudice. This pathetic episode is a palmary case exhibiting the very hypersensitity the joke I cited mocked, to the point that the friendly outgrouper I am is sanctioned for mentioning it. The next step after this inflammatory precedent would be to start saying papers by the world's top Holocaust scholars in the Journal of Genocide Research cannot be cited on wikipedia because the content is 'inflammatory' since it disturbs many readers from Burma to Israel. 'And so it goes,' as Billy Joel once sang. Sigh — Preceding unsigned comment added by nishidani (talk • contribs)
You wrote in your edit summary "I can find no evidence that this is a commonly familiar old Jewish Joke. So instead I see a joke weaponizing antisemtism on the talk page about such an article." Now that you've been shown evidence that this is a commonly familiar old Jewish Joke, why doesn't it change the second sentence of your statement? Levivich (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
What I should have done was remove it and then ask Nishidani about it and only then make a decision with more information about any potential sanction. But the reason I haven't with more information reversed my topic ban, is because use this joke in this context for this purpose remains by my reading and judgement "unnecessarily inflammatory language" which Nishidani had previously been warned for. And not for nothing this also seems to be the reading of the first two editors (one of them an UNINOVLVED admin) in this very user talk discussion. Nishidani is not a scholar suggesting that Jewish folklore humor needs to change (Katz & Katz) nor is Nishidani a jurist advising legislators to stand up to anti-semtism without being hyper sensitive to it (Sedley) or any of the any other contexts we're talking about. They are instead an editor on a multiculutral encyclopedia debating whether there is the correct content on an article about the Weaponization of antisemitism has adequately sourced and written material in its lead paragraph. And in this context, to repeat what I wrote above, it remains my judgement that it was "unnecessarily inflammatory language". Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I concur with Barkeep49. As to Nableezy's three points - if Nish wanted to banter with Bob ... the proper place to put off-topic jokes would be on Bob or Nish's talk page. The reason I agree with Barkeep that it was inflammatory was that in the context of an article talk page, where others besides Bob and Nish are involved, even if Bob was fine with the joke from Nish, others quite likely would not be comfortable with such a joke, and would likely not consider it bantering between friends. Instead, it's quite likely to put off other editors and make them feel that the talk page is a hostile place. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I doubt many editors would confuse this for banter. The point of telling the joke wasn't because Nish thought the joke was funny. Rather, the joke was cited as evidence that what the RSes said was widely accepted and uncontroversial. Levivich (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Levivich is right.
@Barkeep49 and Ealdgyth: are you aware that this famous joke is recorded only as a joke told by Jewish people about their own community? If Nishidani had retold a joke told by antisemites about Jews in order to make a point I could understand your argument and would be inclined to agree.
But this is provably not what this was.
The whole thing appears to be based on three false premises:
1. That Nishidani invented the joke, or wrongly described it as famous PROVEN FALSE PREMISE
2. That the joke was an inflammatory joke written by antisemites against Jews PROVEN FALSE PREMISE
3. That Nishidani was telling the joke as off-topic banter PROVEN FALSE PREMISE
(Another option would have been to ask about it before removing it.) What makes it not inflammatory IMO is that it's an old, widely-published, Yiddish folklore joke. I think you had it right in your edit summary: either it's a commonly familiar old Jewish joke, or else--"instead"--it's a joke weaponizing antisemitism. I think you'd agree there is nothing inherently inflammatory about a commonly familiar old Jewish joke, even a self-deprecating one.
It might still be inflammatory in the context of how it's told, and point that Katz & Katz p. 219 makes: the joke "can be regarded as anti-Semitic to the degree that the repulsive Jew is meant to stand for all Jews" but not when "the subject does not stand for all Jews". I don't see anything inflammatory about the context in which Nish told this joke.
In a discussion about a sentence in the lead that gives examples of the weaponization of antisemitism, and whether those examples should be attributed or not (or the sentence removed or otherwise changed), Nish says "abundant sources ... underline the view that it is extremely commonplace for any criticism of Israel to be countered as 'antisemitic'. I've been seeing that for half a century, and I cannot believe that editors are unaware of this obvious fact."
And then Nish says it's so common that there are even old self-deprecating Jewish jokes about it ("...you yourself cannot but be familiar with old Jewish jokes that, with typical irony, make fun of a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism."), and then Nish re-tells such a joke. It's like a use/mention distinction: the joke isn't being told for the sake of being told, it's mentioned as evidence that the weaponization of antisemitism is commonplace (and thus attribution is not needed).
Now the thing about the use/mention distinction is that one doesn't need to re-tell a joke to mention it, and in hindsight it might have been more professional to just mention the Jew-borrowing-toiletries joke, or link to it, rather than re-telling it on-wiki, and that's the kind of thing I could see one editor having a quiet word with another editor about, but I don't think it's inflammatory or otherwise sanctionable. Levivich (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
The most inflammatory thing here, imo, is somebody saying Nishidani made a condescending antisemitic joke. Just bonkers. nableezy - 21:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay. This is a WP:TLDR read, but I've a right to defend my good name which Barkeep and others have impugned by calling or insinuating I am an antisemite, which throws almost two decades of IP work, tens of thousands of edits, under a cloud of suspicion.
Sigh. That, Ealdgyth, makes 4 admins (the leeky cauldron’s outrageously silly suggestion that joke means I'm ‘making condescending antisemitic jokes (~"Jews are so lazy and greedy, bumming our toothbrushes and razors") about antisemitism.’. The joke is not about ‘Jews’ fa chrissake) who didn’t do their job, and concur that I am an antisemite (if I were Barkeep, who says that, I’d have permabanned me). Did you, Barkeep and SFR actually trouble yourselves to read, other than the single diff, the remarks I made immediately before that illustration which was a paraphrase from Sedley? I.e. this, then this, where I quote from Amos Goldberg, Raz Segal, Distorting the definition of antisemitism to shield Israel from all criticism+972 Magazine 5 August 5 2019, and tweaked here? No.
Amos Goldberg is professor in the Department of Jewish History and Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem ) Raz Segal is Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies Both are Israeli. Like Sedley they recognize the problem the joke comments on, and warn that this hypersensitivity is damaging above all to Jews.
They give the abstract scholarly analysis for the by now ingrained weaponization of antisemitic accusations which the joke I then added illustrates, in a friendly, come-now tone to Bob. I did so to him because we have a fairly good relationship editing-wise, and he would be familiar with the anecdote since it figured in the London Review of Books in 2018 and I quoted it on my page, which I believe he has bookmarked, back then. A reminder that the hostility to this documentation on that wiki page by many editors really does go against the grain of scholarship, and editors should recall the dangers of a habit of mind, historically comprehensible, but still mocked for the exaggerated lengths it can go to in Jewish humour.
Barkeep didn’t do his homework, because he keeps saying Sedley’s remarks were addressed to Jewish MPS. They were not. They were addressed to the broad readership of the London Review of Books quietly pulling apart the intense wave of accusations, often coming from Jewish bodies and given wide coverage in the press, that the Labour Party was rife with anti-Semitism. It was not then, as Barkeep keeps repeating, a joke by one eminent (Jewish) jurist giving advice to Jewish MPs (‘nor is Nishidani a jurist advising legislators to stand up to anti-semtism without being hyper sensitive to it (Sedley)’ - another devastating misreading showing he has not read the Sedley piece which lies behind my paraphrase).
It was a Jew if you like, telling a broadly non-Jewish readership that this sowing of suspicions about anti-Semitism has both its politics, unfortunately promoted by core Jewish bodies in the UK, and he pulls the rug from under the impression this lobbying might make among non-Jews it by by telling a joke which captures inimitably this problem of overreacting. If anything Sedley's piece is a brilliant defense of Jews before that broad non-sectarian readership. It is saying:'Look, the huge assault on the Labour Party you read about is problematic but you must before passing some facile judgment realize that it reflects a hypersensitivity we ourselves, as Jews, are all too familiar with, and have been traditionally critical of'. So much for the way leeky cauldron's spin to me inexplicable misreading of an edit injuriously glossed it.. How this hypersensitivity is weaponized is now documented in great detail by Anthony Lerman in his Whatever Happened to Antisemitism? Redefinition and the Myth of the 'Collective Jew',Pluto Press, London 2022, which I have at least twice asked IP editors to read, apparently with no effect.
No one here read this, or the article I cited. They just looked at the diff and got the impression I was an antisemite. Onceinawhile at least managed to get Barkeep to google around, but even there he found excuses/reasons to remain stoutly on his given ground. Disappointing, but Wikipedia is full of the wreckage caused by not checking the full discursive record, It was inevitable that I too someday would be thrown under the wheels in the usual traffic jam of inattentive drivers. Is there no limit to admin solidarity when a patent error, understandable given the haste, is made, one that brands an editor as an antisemite, a vicious insinuation that would formally demand serious evidence and scrupulous backgrounding work? I know you guys have immensely and (in terms of the pleasure of just reading) tediously tiring tasks. I take what has happened here to be a matter of haste and reader fatigue, certainly not malevolence. Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I have written So instead I see a joke weaponizing antisemtism on the talk page about such an article but that describes a single action not any sort of pattern nor does it describe you as a person. I have no reason to believe you are antisemitic and have not written that you are for that precise reason. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Let us say that if you put that remark in its context before any competent grammarian, they would, if they know their job, construe it as lending itself to the interpretation that anyone using that joke, like the joke itself, was 'weaponing antisemitism'. The joke itself does not 'weaponize antisemitism'. The joke is about the fraility of people thinking something is antisemitic, when it is not. A person who cites that joke can be 'antisemitic' or viscerally intolerant of antisemitism, like the eminent Sedley and, I insist in my own defense, my own peonish self since my earliest years. A sanction for having, in an aside, used it to illustrate the abuse of antisemitic charges previously argued via the citation of scholarly work, will suggest to many readers that in using it, I played into the antisemites' worldview. I take you at your word that you do not believe I am an antisemite. Yet, this is the way language works: it gets the better of all of us at times no matter how hard we try, or what we thought we intended to say. And that your judgment was immediately endorsed by theleekycauldron, who said my remark is an instance of hating Jews, underlines this reading present in your phrasing. She, another admin, took the joke and your construal of it as showing I was an antisemite. Thank you, by the way, for the courtesy of hatting NMMGG's abusive jeremiad against me (even though if you follow all of the links thoroughly, they show the opposite of what that editor contends/contended, and I, like the AE cases he made, found them harmless, would not have been embarrassed had they been conserved here). In any case, no grudges. If anything, I anticipated the likelihood of something like this happening 3 weeks ago. It's in the nature of the way wikipedia works, where the rules can work out to do their function, or make working here, conversely, dysfunctional. Regards Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'm likely not going to win any friends by saying this, but I respect y'all, so here goes. I've seen the full context for that joke now, and its use was not appropriate. In a topic this fraught, nobody should be making jokes as a means of persuasion (really, Nishidani, if your opposite numbers were not going to be convinced by scholarly sources, do you think they would be convinced by a joke?), and it's far too open to misinterpretation - nobody should need to do some research to recognize that you weren't making a novel joke in very poor taste. I think you need to recognize a need to temper your rhetoric - yes, it's boring to stick narrowly to source material, but that's what editing a CT on Wikipedia requires. I'll go a step beyond Ealdgyth and say that that sort of banter - if intended as such, and not as part of discussing an article directly - shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Reserve it for a forum intended for such. That said: TLC's reading of this diff above is a very superficial one indeed, and I do think TLC owes Nishidani a retraction. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think that’s wrong, I don’t disagree it would have been wiser not to post that, but I also don’t think that merits anything more than a request to not digress in such a way on a talk page. Certainly not a sanction without even talking to somebody. nableezy - 01:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
In isolation, I agree. This isn't isolated. Nishidani has the unfortunate habit of raising the temperature; he uses rhetorical flourish, he uses strong language, he uses analogies that aren't appropriate, he uses jokes like this one. And before someone inevitably starts complaining about aspersions, that is my summary of the multiple instances I remember of Nishidani being told off at AE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Yeah, I should have recognized that Nishidani didn't use the joke, he cited it. Consider that part of my previous statement struck. But uncritically citing the joke as an example of how Jews are oversensitive to antisemitism isn't better. Per Katz and Katz, the joke portrays Jews in a grossly negative light – greedy, ungrateful, and oversensitive to antisemitism. Yes, I'm aware that it's a self-deprecating joke made by Jews. I wonder if there are any other pieces of superficially derogatory language and culture that are fine when used by the targeted group (reclamation), but take on a very different meaning when used by the outside.
More to the point, there's a huge difference between "Israel apologists distort the concept of antisemitism to suit their own needs" and what Nishidani said, which is that Jews have "a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism". There really is no reasonable AGF explanation for that, and it rules out a reading of the diff where Nishidani mentions the joke but tacitly acknowledges that its protagonist is a gross caricature of a Jew. I guess it's possible that Nishidani thinks Jews have the "tendency" but doesn't think Jews are ungrateful bums otherwise, and he just forgot to mention that, but it does strain AGF.
A key tenet of Jewish humor is playing off of antisemitic stereotypes, part self-deprecation and part mockery. But the context the joke is cited in here fundamentally twists its meaning and tone. Nishidani's comment implies that the joke is funny because it's built on a truth about the Jewish community that still holds true for modern Jews, and that is something I do find very offensive. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Nishidani is saying that Jews have made jokes about other Jews being oversensitive to antisemitism. It's a terrible method of persuasion, and as I said to him, inflammatory in context because it's not actual evidence of anything - but he's not telling the joke to be funny. He's not telling the joke at all, really. You're accusing him of endorsing a caricature, rather than pointing out its existence - and that's assuming pretty bad faith on his part, especially given extensive explanation here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Right, Nishidani's not telling the joke. But they are citing it. They say so in this thread and in the diff. They cite it as evidence of, in their words, "a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism". They say it is "testimony if ever how deeply ingrained (and understandably so) a sense of diffidence with those not of one's persuasion can go". That is a straightforward argument: ~"Jews (not bad-faith Israel apologists, not even Zionists, Jews) tend to blast everything they don't like as antisemitism. Even Jews say so." The evidence for that argument is the joke and its caricature.
If you're arguing that Nishidani was merely citing the existence of the caricature, not its content... citing in support of what, then? Its existence has no bearing on whether bad-faith Israel stooges distort the meaning of antisemitism for political purposes and no bearing on whether Jews are, as they said, "hypersensitive" to antisemitism. "Look at how the Jews make fun of themselves for being oversensitive. The caricature is bogus, but its existence proves that they really are so easily offended". I find it unlikely that someone as well-read as Nishidani would say something that specious. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
The only way you can remake Nishidanis comment in to one saying Jews as a people blame everything they don’t like on antisemitism is you if you distort it beyond recognition. And if he actually had said such a thing, why haven’t you blocked him as a racist? nableezy - 20:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@Nishidani: All right, I'm gonna try and make this my last reply, because I think I've explained my view well enough in response to Vanamonde's request that I strike my previous statement. Props on that first edit. If you're really insisting that you don't believe and didn't mean to say the proposition I understood from your statement – that Jews are hypersensitive to antisemitism as a group or culture – then I have no further quarrel with you. I have no interest in "spinning" or prosecuting, so if you're telling me straight that you're not that person, then I can move on to the article I was excited to get started on today. Does that work for you? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Copy-pasting my comment along with this edit summary makes for a very confusing reading experience for others later. I'd appreciate it if you made the intention of your comment clearer within the context. (Which is also, coincidentally, how I felt about your original comment!) I appreciate that there was a misunderstanding, and my perception of your original comment is different now with additional context, so sure, I'll strike it. Would you mind striking your calling my comment "spin"? I participated in this discussion in good faith, and would appreciate it if you acknowledged as much. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
TLC, I don't normally vote in RFA but I did vote positively for yours. Please don't make me regret that by carrying this on further. As it stands, Nishidani has been banned from the "Arab Isreal" topic area for three weeks but can still participate in the "Arab Isfake" topic area. While this may have seemed overhasty to many (myself included), it's unlikely to be changed no matter how many pixels get splashed from the well to the screen. I would suggest that, following the adage, fewer is more. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥21:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
People have been sanctioned for a long time in this topic area. This discussion goes into some of that history. If you want to go back 11+ years this is the wrong place - and I'm not sure there is a need or right place anywhere. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not the first time Nishidani has engaged in antisemitic discourse. here he says the Jewish holiday of Purim is a celebration of genocide.
here he has an anecdote about "Jewish eyes", completely unrelated to the discussion.
Nishidani was one of the first editors to be TBANed from the topic area, prior to the original ARBPIA case [11] and was allowed back in based on the assumption he will be civil [12] which he very obviously isn't and has never been.
He should have been permanently banned over a decade ago, but it's not too late to do so now and rid the topic area of one of the most toxic editors around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I could have sworn I’ve seen you make the same claims at AE. That’s right, it ended with your ban from AE for accusing "an editor of serious and ethically tainting misconduct, namely antisemitism, on specious grounds". nableezy - 23:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, there is a lot of relevant info there regarding the pattern of behavior I mentioned above (I completely forgot the "chosen" remark). Thanks for posting it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
What’s most relevant is the finding that you made specious claims of racism, and having been sanctioned for it previously you return 11 years later to do it again. nableezy - 01:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
You know how I feel about warnings and reminders, and I know how you feel about my oft open disdain, so I'll keep up the decorum of AE in the future. As for the actual utility, when we've been dealing with editors who are making repeat appearances, with warnings and sanctions, and we're talking about warnings as anything other than an ineffectual finger-wag it really irks my taters. In my mind, warnings are to let someone know that they crossed a line, and if the line is crossed again there will be repercussions. When you're issuing repeat warnings it really is nothing more than a finger wag, or maybe a frown with a head shake from your homeroom teacher. Warnings only work if those that continue behavior after being warned face repercussions. When we warn for behavior that has already been sanctioned in the past it weakens the entire arbitration enforcement regime and reinforces the idea of WP:UNBLOCKABLES.
While I appreciate that you took the heat for the sanction discussed above, If I had seen this comment from someone who just barely had ECR, I'd have likely indef blocked them further shows the kid's gloves we're using with editors that have already been sanctioned and warned. We're essentially saying that having been warned has less weight than lacking social capital. I understand that is how things play out, because no one likes spending their limited time eating shit and dealing with fallout, but it really reduces the efficacy of warnings, particularly for established editors.
I'm not totally unsympathetic to the "we need to do better than finger wagging" criticism of some outcomes at AE that I propose and I appreciate you bringing up a differing point of view on such things. But yes my point was that is the wrong place to engage in that style of criticism and I appreciate what you and Valereee wrote in response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don't find it particularly astonishing that in a volunteer community where volunteer time is our most crucial resource, it can sometimes be the case that very productive members are afforded more leeway in rules infractions.I'm not planning to opine here on the value or detriment of the phenomenon, nor how much leeway to afford – including none – is the most optimal, nor where the bright lines and grey zones should be. But it feels logical that this arises naturally from our circumstances. Folly Mox (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
My story today is about a composer and choir conductor, listen to his Lamento. - My story on 13 October was about a Bach cantata. As this place works, it's on the Main page now because of the date. I sort of like it because today is the birth date of my grandfather who loved and grew dahlias like those pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing that experience. I noticed here they did leave an explanation on the article talk page which I am considering as their response. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
WikiCup 2024 November newsletter
The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!
The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.
Generalissima (submissions) wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
I have no idea what the behind the scenes setup is for all this. I think the lesson learned is to not accidently have some weird text present when you create the candidate pages :). You are showing as a candidate so I agree it seems to be all worked out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
More agile
Regarding this comment: "more agile" is, of course, a relative term :-), as the arbitration committee wasn't all that quick in modifying the discretionary sanctions framework. But true enough, the community as a whole is too big to reach consensus agreement on major changes, and too ingrained with the idea of deriving procedures from the bottom up to worry about aligning discrepancies in its procedures. (Not worrying about trying to align everything has certain practical advantages which probably outweigh the negatives on the whole, but it leaves a lot of room for argument if everyone isn't willing to go along to get along.) I'm guessing there will have to be a bigger divergence between the contentious topics and discretionary sanctions frameworks before the community is willing to invest time to reach a consensus on the matter, and I imagine that once again they'll just say "like that, with these small differences". isaacl (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't quick to modify DS as a whole. It has been quick to make more granular changes. And despite it being slow to modify DS as a whole it's done it a couple of times where as - as you note - the community never has. So even on that front it is "more agile" if not exactly "speedy". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes – the committee being a much smaller group is actually able to generate real-world consensus, and it can fall back to voting if necessary. So changes everyone agrees on can get done quickly, and larger scale changes stand a much better chance of being considered and eventually implemented. (The vocal segment of the community that gets involved in process discussions seems less interested in that practical example of moving forward, versus ensuring their dissent will be strongly heard.) isaacl (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I hope the character serves you well in your MMORPG and may I one day reach the levels that Bakreep has already reached . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
For a surprise, a Bach cantata is on the Main page today, where it was last year for the 300th anniversary, and they were too lazy to find something new ;) - Look at my story, and listen to the 3 whole-tone steps and the dialogues of Fear and Hope. - An open letter open to be signed (more info on the talk), - I haven't checked if you did, please ignore then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello @Barkeep49:, I want to make sure someone is monitoring @Nishidani:'s violations of the topic ban you placed. Two days ago, they made these edits on their talk page [13], which clearly breach the ban. A similar violation happened a couple of weeks ago, where Nishidani also uploaded content violating the ban [14]. @ScottishFinnishRadish: reverted them and pointed out the violation [15].
There’s also this minor edit on an ARBPIA-related article [16], which seems to follow the exact same pattern. I think this situation calls for fair enforcement, consistent with prior cases. ABHammad (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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.
This participant-driven meeting will be organized by the Wikimedia Foundation’s Language Product Localization team and the Language Diversity Hub. There will be presentations on topics like developing language keyboards, the creation of the Moore Wikipedia, and the language support track at Wiki Indaba. We will also have members from the Wayuunaiki community joining us to share their experiences with the Incubator and as a new community within our movement. This meeting will have a Spanish interpretation.
As someone who knows little about music and especially classical music, I can appreciate how difficult some of his pieces are to play. Yourself? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
(I didn't mean the music - sadly: of course not - but how a user new to a certain topic that I'm not supposed to mention is treated. I was new to it in 2012.) - I uploaded pics of a trip that was a 10-day celebration of a 16 November event, but the day was also when a dear friend died. We sang Hevenu shalom aleichem at his funeral yesterday, and it was good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Feedback from Buidhe
Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing — although I don't really follow admin stuff too much, I do believe that you are a net positive as admin and therefore hope you do not resign
Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently — although I am skeptical of the firewall that arbcom tries to place between conduct and content issues, if you are going to wade into content issues (such as whether some country has a "right to exist" or not) it's important to be informed about the content in question—see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive344#Nableezy where I hope you took into consideration the criticism of the assumption you made going in
(Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep
(Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know
Thanks Buidhe for the feedback. To your second point I do take it seriously and it's why I started by asking questions while also being transparent about my thinking behind it and then listening seriously to the answers. So I agree with your point and will endeavor to do it even better in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
My apologies for blowing off the 4 question format, but I just want to say that when you were on arbcom, you always struck me as one of the few adults in the room. I get why you left, but I hope you'll go back once you've got the U4C thing out of your system. RoySmith(talk)16:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback Roy. got the U4C thing out of your system is an amusing way to hear that work of mine described, though I do appreciate what I perceive as the background thought: the U4C is a distraction from the core work we do on enwiki. Making that statement true is a major reason I've done this work for closing in on 4 years now. So I'm not sure I'm going to ever get it out of my system but I hope to reach a point where I feel like I will have done what I set out to do. I am also really enjoying not having the constraints of being an Arb - for instance I've once again had headspace to do content work when I've had the time and I love doing content work. Producing high quality content is why we're all here and so returning to those roots is really important to me. However, I did take satisfaction in the work I did as an arb and there are things about that work I miss, so I could see myself standing for election again someday. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Feedback from Floq
Pros
I think we tend to generally agree on the important things, and when we do disagree, you're wrong in reasonable, thoughtful ways. :)
Protecting enwiki from U4C or C4C or U4U or whatever the hell it is.
Cons
I'm not on your list of people who could recall you?? That hurts.
Your automatic feedback form autofills the section as "Feedback from Barkeep49" unless you remember to change it.
Thanks Floq for the feedback. I have no idea why I didn't include you on this list. I am pleased to have this be an exception to me being wrong in a thoughtful way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to provide feedback
Hello talk page watchers. Inspired by Worm That Turned's re-RfA where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback.I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my feedback form. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I thought about doing it via MMS rather than manually but my guess is that would have also spammed it. Sorry for the flood on your watchlist but knowing how big your watchlist is it'll be knocked off the visible top in like the next hour. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I have a positive opinion of you. I'm not sure why. It's just a general feeling of satisfaction when I see your username cross my watchlist. JehochmanTalk01:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Good admin; would support again. Communication makes thought processes transparent, and is thorough without being exhaustive or tedious. Reasonable person, strong work ethic. Downsides: despite promising "Bark" substring, dog puns difficult and largely unsuccessful. Folly Mox (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I think Clovermoss has it right: keep doing what you're doing, as long as you're getting a level of satisfaction from doing it. I'm happy to see you taking your extensive experience from English Wikipedia to a global level, and I hope that you bring back what you learn from working with global teams to share here on Enwiki. I think our project benefits greatly from this kind of diverse perspective and, as you are a good communicator, there's a reasonable hope that such messages will sink in to a few more people. We do tend to be quite insular on this project, although we'll make exceptions for Commons and Wikidata. I like seeing that you're puttering in the broad range of admin/functionary tasks, including SPI and XfD.
I'm really happy to see you returning into the content sphere, and am inspired to work much harder at doing that, too.
The one thing I would suggest is pacing yourself. It's hard to do when you're working on things that you feel are important/time-sensitive/valuable, but burnout is a real thing. Personally, I'm in favour of reading cheap trashy novels and long drives to see people I like or go places that are interesting, but I'm sure you have your own ways of bleeding off frustration. Risker (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I too am hopeful of bringing back things from other projects. For instance, I have found value in the way dewiki ArbCom does its case requests and I am considering bringing back an element from another project's blocking policy which I like. And yes continuing to find joy in our volunteer work is important. It is why, as you note, I'm happy to have headspace for content again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Feedback from PMC
Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: Being a voice of reason and gentle good humor
Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently: Write more content so I can do GA/FA review for you, because I feel like that would be fun
Thanks PMC. As for me writing GA/FA I will definitely take you up on it. I am determined to get YouTube up to GA so be careful what you wish for (though I would bet I get something else up to GA/FL before that - no immediate plans for any FAs). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to tworeferrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
Hey Barkeep, I got your note asking for feedback and per the others here I'll skip the questions you asked and just say the things I wanted to say.
My thoughts are almost universally positive. As you know, I've known you for a long time in wikiyears, and there possibly is nobody I'd trust more. The thoughtfulness, good faith, and sheer volume of work you bring to this community is very near unparalleled, and I'm beyond grateful for your presence here, both personally and when thinking about the future of this project.
In struggling to offer some actionable feedback, here's what I do want to mention: We really don't have a lot of barkeeps in this project. By that, I mean that we don't have many folks at all (right now, maybe just you) with the combination of availability, dedication, energy, gregariousness, precision of analytical thought, and ability and willingness to do the work that you bring to the table. I know that all sounds like a compliment, and it is that too, but my point is this: you're in a position to build new structures, institutions, and processes that will hopefully stand the test of time, both at enwiki and globally. To do that, you can't assume there will always be a barkeep49 ready to save the day. By that, I mean that there will be times – years at a time, even – when ArbCom, or the U4C, or whichever other body that comes along has nobody with that combination of qualities, and we need to build structures and institutions that are able to muddle along just fine in that case, even without someone like you. I think this is a hard message to internalize, because it's hard for anyone in particular to view themselves as that unusual (without being a bit of a narcissist, maybe). But my point is that you really should view your presence as an exceptional thing, and that you should not count on the availability of someone like you to serve on the bodies you are designing and getting off the ground, in the long run.
I hope you get what I'm trying to get at. Anyway, as you know, I've been concerned for some time about the long-term sustainability, relevance, utility, and health of the projects and the associated communities, and it is people like you who make me feel optimistic that we can still get through this. No pressure :)
Let me also say that I think this request for feedback idea is a good one and I think a lot of people would benefit from it. Thinking back on my own wikijourney, the last time I've really heard substantive feedback from a bunch of people was my own RfA, over six years ago now. And I think that both sides of the coin are valuable in different ways: of course actionable feedback for self-improvement is helpful, but hearing the reaffirmations of trust and appreciation can also be very important to both the effectiveness and enjoyment of this work. And there are many ways in which both of those (but perhaps the latter especially) are harder to access the longer one has been around the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 19:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Kevin. There's a lot to think about here. I'm not even sure where to start on the capacity building you mention (even if I don't 100% subscribe to the way you think I'm unique). My attempt at capacity building had been RfA. But as you know, I've had to put those activities on pause because I couldn't do that with enough remove; what happened around RfA made me reconsider my entire involvement in the project. Ultimately I decided the right answer for me was to step away from RfA while continuing other activities. So yes I agree with your general comment about capacity building (it was something I did at NPP when I was active there). If you come up with anything specific there I would love to hear it because my best answer so far has been to write about those things. But I will also give it more thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks. I think what I was getting at is that we need to build systems and institutions that are resilient to the lack of people like you, at least for a time, which may sometimes mean shifting the expectations we have for volunteer-driven work. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 18:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for butting in, but can I ask what you're referring to with what happened around RfA? I would assume you mean WP:RFA2021 in general, but it looks to me, as someone who post-dates that discussion and has the hindsight of WP:RFA2024 having occurred, that it was extremely successful, at least as far as anyone can be successful at trying to get this old ship to change course. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Oof. I guess I assumed it was something further in the past since you've always seemed like such a rock. Glad you're still around. For what it's worth, to this post-RFA2024 addition to the corps, it looks like capacity has indeed been built, even if it felt awful at the time. -- asilvering (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: I've found you to be a level-headed admin who's always willing to offer a helping hand. Like PMC, I think you are doing well at being a voice of reason, so you should keep it up. Cliched as this may sound, admin or not, you are a positive presence on Wikipedia.
Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently: Unfortunately I don't know what feedback to provide in this regard. In my view, you have it pretty much nailed down; if anything, there should be more admins who are like you. I do realize that this would be a tall order, though, like L235 mentions above. Other than that, I suggest jumping back into content creation, even if only occasionally (I see you're already doing that). It'll be fun.
(Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep: I don't have any questions.
(Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know: I don't have a list of things I wish you'd stop/do differently, at the moment, so I'm not sure how useful my feedback is. Personally I think you are doing a great job, but I do think it's worth soliciting feedback from folks who may have had disagreements with you. Epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome. Hopefully my feedback can be helpful even though I don't have any specific suggestions for improvement. Also, for Q3, I should have asked how you're doing, but then I'd be stealing Amory's idea. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Feedback from Amorymeltzer
Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: Keep thinking systemically, broadly, and communicating your thoughts. You're quite good at it; putting a name to an issue and conveying it clearly is hugely valuable. I'd basically echo everything Kevin said above here, so all of that as well. Institutional is a word I'd use.
Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently: Take care of yourself! I can't know this and I think it probably belongs above, but I just want to make sure you're doing all the things we're saying we want you to do but keeping yourself balanced and on an even keel. Also—and I know this is contradictory—ArbCom.
Questions I have for Barkeep: How's it going? How're you feeling?
I miss our paths crossing regularly. I hope you're well. Thanks for taking some of your limited time to comment here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok since you and Epic have now both said that you want to know the answer, I suppose I better answer your question. I'm generally feeling quite good about wiki related matters these days. Serving on ArbCom is a privilege I've been lucky to do and I miss some elements of the work, but its work also tends to occupy nearly all the space I have for wiki related matters. So not being on ArbCom has been tremendously freeing and reinvigorating; I'm truly enjoying being a volunteer again on wiki. And helpfully the U4C work has been good so far. The committee members are all great colleagues, we're doing a reasonable job of setting up systems and processes that are going to endure (which was my major reason for running). And having just the little bit of distance in work between what happens with ArbCom and the cases we've gotten has been useful too. Outside of not having as much time for wiki work as I once did, I do feel like I'm operating as my "best self" in the work with the U4C. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
.jpg)
