This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. 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.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Miscanti Lake you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
The article Miscanti Lake you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Miscanti Lake for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
There is a limit on the amount of emails a user can send each day. This limit is now global instead of per-wiki. This change is to prevent abuse. [1]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 November. It will be on all wikis from 4 November (calendar).
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Mobile IP editors are now able to receive warning notices indicating they have a talk page message on the mobile website (similar to the orange banners available on desktop). These notices will be displayed on every page outside of the main namespace and every time the user attempts to edit. The notice on desktop now has a slightly different colour. [2][3]
In the future, unregistered editors will be given an identity that is not their IP address. This is for legal reasons. A new user right will let editors who need to know the IPs of unregistered accounts to fight vandalism, spam, and harassment, see the IP. You can read the suggestions for how that identity could work and discuss on the talk page.
Regarding your nomination statement, you state that the image is likely replaceable and gave a file name, but it is the same file as the nomination. Did you mean to point to a different file? -- Whpq (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Most large file uploads errors that had messages like "stashfailed" or "DBQueryError" have now been fixed. An incident report is available.
Problems
Sometimes, edits made on iOS using the visual editor save groups of numbers as telephone number links, because of a feature in the operating system. This problem is under investigation. [5]
There was a problem with search last week. Many search requests did not work for 2 hours because of a configuration error. [6]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 November. It will be on all wikis from 18 November (calendar).
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Congratulations, Jo-Jo Eumerus! The article you nominated, Cerro Blanco (volcano), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Buidhe (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Congratulations! - Today, thank you for Uturuncu, "about a volcano in Bolivia which was glaciated in the past and is the highest summit in the region. It'd be unremarkable - except that satellite images show that since 1992 it has been inflating due to the ascent of magma at depth. Because it's in an area with numerous supervolcanoes, some folks think this inflation may be the prelude to a giant eruption although a regular eruption is certainly possible too."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 December. It will be on all wikis from 2 December (calendar).
Today, thank you for El Tatio, "about the highest geothermal area in the world, and the largest of the Southern Hemisphere with over 100 geothermal manifestations such as geysers. It is today mainly a tourism destination, and also a research object for scientists analyzing microbial life in extreme habitats comparable to Mars. In the past it was also prospected for geothermal power generation but a major incident in 2009, which had major implications both for regional geothermal power politics and natives-government relations, has probably terminated this prospecting."!
Thank you also for the source review for my FAC. Over travelling, I read an interesting thesis about the topic. I guess I'll add it to the external links, because it's very detailed, and a bit hard to grasp when it comes to musicology wording. However, it also supports some facts already in the article, - I might eventually use it for such things. I'm back home (pictured) after travel (check out songs for places), and will go over the FAC with more time today or tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, because per WP:SCHOLARSHIP a thesis is a reliable source only under certain circumstances. I've backed that vandalistic edit out and requested semi protection; I often see good IP edits on my articles but today and on this one it seems like it's all vandalism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Thesis: as said I'd place it as external link, unless it's also useful to back up what's already said. She has latest scholarship quoted, so might be helpful to fight some of the myths surrounding the piece. - For the moment, I'm still writing today's little article which is mentioned - without a link, as I'm late - on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Kudos (and a question)
Keeping in mind how poorly the AfD's text was formulated, and taking into account the amount and quality of arguments, I am impressed that your verdict and your summary was so balanced and reasonable. That was a really good job. I find the paragraph starting from "To the extent there were substantive attempts to engage ... etc"
especially important. In connection to that, I think it would be correct to know your opinion about our next steps. Concretely, do you believe that continuation of DR process (which is normally a tool to resolve minor or moderate conflicts) is a correct way to resolve the article's global problems? Do you see any alternative solutions? I also would like to know the opinion of @Joe Roe:, @Rosguill:&@Seraphimblade:
Thank you for your efforts, Paul Siebert (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, I think this is a little above my pay grade. So much of the issue is about interpreting certain sources - interpreted one way they support the article content, interpreted another way it's WP:SYNTH. A WP:DRN was/is underway and was discussed in the AfD so we mentioned in the close. I believe the big gun for resolving a content dispute when talk page discussion doesn't help is a WP:RFC but I haven't experienced them frequently enough to tell whether the dispute is ripe for RfC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Paul Siebert, we discussed that in the close somewhat. One suggestion I might make is that the DRN process could be helpful in generating a neutrally-worded, narrowly-focused RfC (or series thereof, though I'd probably only run one at a time) on any issues that agreement cannot be reached on by the DRN participants. I think a more focused discussion on a particular issue stands a substantially better chance of reaching a consensus than a sprawling, highly-contentious AfD discussion. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Actually, my plan is to invite the most active participants of the AfD discussion to join this (or a new) DRN, and to discuss the questions that are seen as the most crucial by the panel (and by me):
What a majority of peer-reviewed and other scholarly sources say on the subject?
What a majority of peer-reviewed and other scholarly sources say about each of the events described in the article?
Is there any discrepancy between the former and the later, and if yes, what should we do to correctly represent the majority view?
I think we must reach some consensus in one year or so. If the discussion will not come to any meaningful result, I am going to submit another AfD, which will be better written and will focus on main problems that make this article incompatible with our policy.
Well, no one can stop you from starting a new AfD in a year, if you want to, but quite honestly I don't foresee that having any different result than this time around. I think the best thing to do is utilize the DRN process to find out where agreement can be reached (in which case, hey, great), and for those areas that remain at an impasse, to formulate a neutrally-worded and specific RfC for consideration by the wider community. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Deletion of this article has never been my primary goal. I didn't support deletion in 2010, I participated in DRN, I was trying to postpone this AfD, and I am going to try to fix this article during the resumed DRN and using other tools. However, I am sure deletion of the article should always be a possible option, otherwise the process of improvement may be efficiently filibustered in an attempt to preserve the article in the current terribly POV state. That is not my assertion, that a conclusion that anybody can make based on the past 11 years of the article's history.
Without any doubts, you are much experienced in our policy and rules than me, but I am much more experienced in this topic. And my experience tells me that only a small fraction of arguments in support of deletion had been presented during this AfD. In contrast, the massive canvassing campaign brought surprisingly little amount of fresh arguments and NO new sources. It had just one real outcome: the voters and off-wiki coverage put an enormous psychological pressure on you, but you sustained that burden quite well. This fact is very encouraging: you brilliantly demonstrated that WP:DEMOCRACY is not just a declaration, and that means that 100 votes "keep" cannot overcome one "a comprehensive analysis of sources demonstrates that this article is a non-fixable POV-fork" (or similar ironclad arguments). I already know how to address (and debunk) all arguments presented by the article's supporters, and I know that they hardly will be able to present any fresh counter-arguments of sources.
However, as I already explained a prospective 5th AfD is just a possible option, it is not my goal. Thank you again for doing your job well.
Don't worry, it is also NOT my goal to delete the article either and I too "am much more experienced in this topic." And I am here to give kudos to the people in a controversial wikipedia AfD. And I too " already know how to address (and debunk) all arguments presented by the article's" delete-supporters. You guys were all brilliant and sustained "enormous psychological pressure on you"... And yes I think those who want to delete this article like Paul (although it's not his primary goal) and "I know that they hardly will be able to present any fresh counter-arguments of sources." Besides, not a single scholar in 80 years has been allowed into the USSR or Maoist China, to dig up, investigate, analyze archival documents, write books and sources to document all the bodies. I know that you are a Ph.D. in philosophy Paul, but how did you get into the topic of mass killings and deaths, what books have you read in detail that really got you started on your expertise? I'm just looking for new books to read to educate myself on the matter like you are Paul. — talk §_Arsenic99_20:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Honestly I don't have any direct experience with DRN. But I was happy to recommend it in the close (speaking only for myself here) because Robert McClenon seemed positive about the idea, and if there's anyone who can make progress on a complex dispute, it's him.
As for other next steps, the most important conclusion from the AfD, for me, is that asking a single big question (i.e. "should we have an article?") is not going to work here. You could try an AfD again, and maybe if the nomination is more solid, and it isn't covered in off-wiki media and brigaded to hell, and participants avoid emotional reasoning, then there's hope of reaching a consensus... but I wouldn't bet on those things happening.
I know that you've already noted and started this, but: you've got to break the dispute down into more manageable pieces. We highlighted the debated over whether the use of "communist mass killings" as an analytical unit is mainstream, minority, or fringe amongst historians – that could be a question for an RfC. With a conclusion on that in hand, you could then try to find a consensus on the scope of the article, then on the inclusion and framing of specific sources and incidents, and so on.
Not easy by any means, and you shouldn't feel like it's all on your shoulders (WP:OPTIONAL always applies), but I think it's possible to make progress, yes. – Joe (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I mentioned DRN as well b/c people in the AfD were discussing it and apparently there was already a DRN underway on this article. I have to admit freely - and in line with my "pay grade" comment above - that I don't have much experience at settling complicated content issues that deal with source interpretation so treat any advice I have on the matter with a grain of salt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
As Robert correctly noted, currently, English Wikipedia has no tools for resolving major content disputes. DRN is intrinsically not suitable for that. However, I think I found a solution, at least partially. Instead of one big DRN, we may start several DRNs about more local issues, and discuss those problems one by one. I dont know yet if it will work, but, at least, we may try.
I am a little bit worried about an emerging tendency to misuse RfC on the MKuCR talk page. Although voting is explicitly prohibited, RfC is de facto a voting procedure: majority of users come from nowhere, express their opinion (usually, in a form of "support"/"object"), and they do not participate in a subsequent discussion. You may probably notice that by themselves: during RfCs, people very rarely change their !votes as a result of a subsequent discussion. Therefore, RfCs just collect opinia from a broader set of users, and it is NOT a discussion. In connection to that, a mediated discussion (at DRN) would be a much preferable way towards consensus. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Actually, this AfD had demonstrated a very serious problem. In reality, the AfD was not a conflict between "anti-Communist" and "pro-Communist" parties, but a conflict of the views expressed in mass-media and popular websites, and the views published in peer-reviwed journals and scholarly publications. A proper resolution of that conflict requires collection of a representative sample of sources, followed by their thoughtful analysis. It cannot be resolved within the AfD format. Since English Wikipedia has no tools for resolving such disputes, that will inevitably lead to what Luit called "Pfister's destabilisation": Wikipedia becomes a voice of the sources that WP:V does not consider as the most reliable ones, and the opinia expressed in the most reliable sources (per Wikipedia's own policy) become suppressed. It seems, currently, English Wikipedia has no adequate tools for resolving that type problems. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I would like to command too everyone for the closure, and that I agree with Siebert's analysis and also their concerns about how to fix the issues, e.g. it is very hard to fix them when some users from one side rejected both yours, and DRN moderator's, conclusion of NPOV issues, and resort to strawman about us denying the events (1), of which I am tired, especially in light of the closure's summary.1Here, I provided a series of questions that we must answer to move us forward. Are those good questions, and what is the best way to answer them and reach an agreement? I agree with Siebert that it would be better to discuss and answer those questions at a DRN-mediated discussion, where we may perform an analysis of sources, which is what the closure noted as the core of the dispute,2 rather than a RfC, which would not properly contextualize and scrutinize the issues at place.
Notes
1."It was not a discussion about whether the regimes mentioned in the article committed atrocities, nor about their scale, but rather whether a standalone article on 'mass killings under communist regimes' is the appropriate way to present such information in an encyclopaedia. ... Unfortunately, the majority of the outside coverage has falsely portrayed it as a politically-motivated attempt to 'cover up' or otherwise remove the history of left-wing political violence from the encyclopaedia."
2."To the extent there were substantive attempts to engage between the two sides, the discussion centered on whether the references given in support of the article actually represented a significant, mainstream view in reliable sources, or were 'cherry-picked' examples from a non-significant, 'fringe' minority. A subsidiary debate concerned whether the sources presented were correctly interpreted. In our analysis, these questions represent the core of the dispute, and are critical to deciding whether the article should be deleted. Unfortunately, we can find no consensus on them, and consider it unlikely that further discussion in this forum will produce one."
Thanks for the input folks, but unless y'all want to get further clarifications/comments on the close itself I think further discussion on the arguments needs to happen elsewhere. I have no special insight in the underlying facts of the dispute, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
MediaWiki 1.38-wmf.11 was scheduled to be deployed on some wikis last week. The deployment was delayed because of unexpected problems.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 December. It will be on all wikis from 9 December (calendar).
At all Wikipedias, a Mentor Dashboard is now available at Special:MentorDashboard. It allows registered mentors, who take care of newcomers' first steps, to monitor their assigned newcomers' activity. It is part of the Growth features. You can learn more about activating the mentor list on your wiki and about the mentor dashboard project.
The predecessor to the current MediaWiki Action API (which was created in 2008), action=ajax, will be removed this week. Any scripts or bots using it will need to switch to the corresponding API module. [7]
An old ResourceLoader module, jquery.jStorage, which was deprecated in 2016, will be removed this week. Any scripts or bots using it will need to switch to mediawiki.storage instead. [8]
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
