User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/6

This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

Congrats! I know you'll do great. —valereee (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Valereee. I plan to work very hard at it and my hope is that will indeed mean I do great :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I can honestly say that I don't think anyone could be better suited to the role. Thanks for putting yourself forward, you mad, impetuous fool. Good luck. GirthSummit_(blether) 20:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I know several people better suited to the job. Say Newyorkbrad? Fortunately I will get to serve, and learn, alongside him. I appreciate the wishes of good luck. I will take all the luck I can muster :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad? Pshaw. He's probably a sock, you should totally pull his PERMS. ^[FBDB] GirthSummit _(blether) 22:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations, of course! Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks (of course!) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations on your election to Arbcom! Best of luck next year. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks LuK3. As I mentioned above I am willing to take every piece of luck I can muster. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Congrats my friend! I know you'll be an excellent arbitrator. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Your sage counsel to run far far away from ArbCom will be remembered every time things take a sour turn :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey, you're the one who was smart enough not to take my bad advice :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations on your success in the election and welcome to the 2021 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.

Please use the EmailUser function to indicate:

the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business, and
if you wish to assigned CheckUser and/or Oversight for your term.

Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned CheckUser or Oversight permissions, you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L37) and the OTRS users confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L45), and your name must be listed on the Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. If you haven't signed the agreements, please do this promptly. Instructions for signing can be found here. Again, if you want CheckUser or Oversight permissions during your term, you must sign both agreements listed in the instructions. If you have signed but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 20:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Katie for reaching out so quickly. I have sent my email. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations, Barkeep49...and good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. Your wish of good luck is also definitely appreciated :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice! I was dissapointed when you didn't make it last time, Barkeep, so good on you to blaze it up this time! As promised, I call voter fraud on In actu (Guerillero) not making it. Grr. El_C 22:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I was disappointed last year too. Making it this time with the level of support is all sorts of things. Overwhelming. Gratifying. Puzzling. Inducing a sense of commitment to not let down the people who've trusted me. I've already felt the need to reread WP:MUSHROOM. Thanks for your good wishes El C. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

This year, many people had COVID to fear,
The holidays are getting near,
One thing that will be clear,
We will still have holiday cheer,
Happy holidays and happy new year!!
From Interstellarity (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Ϣere SpielChequers is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Hello Barkeep49: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am writing to follow up on the deletion of Priya Ramani's article, so I can better understand the reasoning. I had made substantial updates to the article in an attempt to address the concerns raised by the nom and all of the comments preceding my comments and additions. I was wondering if instead of deletion, the article could be relisted for additional discussion so the deletion could be reconsidered in light of the updates to the article. If the discussion continued, I would make a case per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, and note the additional sources added after my most recent comment. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beccaynr:, when I'm evaluating AfD I only read the discussion there. It wasn't clear to me from your comment that you had done significant improvement. Given that I'm happy to restore it and relist it to see if more people agree with you now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I am fairly new to AfD and I can see how I was not clear about the amount of work I had done; thank you for the feedback and for relisting the page for further discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beccaynr: you did just fine, I wouldn't sweat it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme 💬 📧 04:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

No images, fancy backgrounds or fancy code in those curly bracket things. Just a boring old plain text note wishing you a very peaceful Christmas season, and a Better New Year. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! In this toughest of years, thank you for continuing to care about others - both in your editing, your words, and just in your being. For you in particular, thank you for stepping up in multiple areas to help us all, even those who won't know it. Roll on 2021 and I'll see you there!
Nosebagbear (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg	Merry Christmas Barkeep49/Archives
	Hi Barkeep49/Archives, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

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 2021.
Happy editing,
Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I Am Half-Sick of Shadows, Said the Lady of Shalott		Happy holidays
		Dear BK, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy". Wishing you health, peace and happiness this holiday season and in the coming year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Please explain to me why you deleted my user page? Well that's not right, you explain to me or if not, I will. Thank you -- Sergio de Jesús Muñoz Lara (talk) 20:48 December 25, 2020 (UTC)

@Sergio de Jesús Muñoz Lara: can you email me and I will explain? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey I already tried to press the "email" button but it tells me that I have to log in, but I am with the account open. -- Sergio de Jesús Muñoz Lara (talk) 21:10 December 25, 2020 (UTC)

@Sergio de Jesús Muñoz Lara: try now, I changed a setting for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is the stage? -- Sergio de Jesús Muñoz Lara (talk) 21:18 December 25, 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. Click email me and send me an email. Or go here and turn on email for you and I will email you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero Concept last year. Now it is back with just as poor (if not worse) sourcing. Please see Hero Concept. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@IceWelder tagging it with the appropriate deletion criteria is indeed the way to go. I'll just note that after a year it's possible notability could have changed and so in some cases it might be necessary to do a new AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Should the draft (Draft:Hero Concept) also be taken care of? Same author, same content. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 21:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, mate! Happy remaining holidays! IceWelder [✉] 21:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Arbitration report: 2020 election results

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

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

Traffic report: 2020 wraps up

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

Recent research: Predicting the next move in Wikipedia discussions

Essay: Subjective importance

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

Gallery: Angels in the architecture

Humour: 'Twas the Night Before Wikimas

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2021
I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind.
Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk

16:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2020 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! -- Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. 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. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to be an administrator, but what do I need to do to become one? Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in adminship Ssjhowarthisawesome. I'll give you a few specifics but the first thing I'd do is encourage you to read Wikipedia:Really simple guide to requests for adminship. In your case you don't have the activity level that the community expects. Generally successful candidates will have had a couple hundred edits each month for at least 12 months. The community also generally looks for some sense of how to do content - writing a good article is a great way to show that. Those are a couple baseline examples of the kind of work you can do if you have your eye on becoming an admin. Out of curiosity what does the Ss stand for in your username? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy new year :)

Tatupiplu'^talk 05:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I've been continuously learning about the Wikipedia guidelines, and I'm practicing it every day. I think now I can perform the NPP operations with full efficiency.

If I qualify for a one month trial for NPP permission, Can you monitor and be my mentor? - Tatupiplu'^talk 06:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tatupiplu sorry I am not taking on new Wiki commitments at this time as I sort out how much time and energy being an arbitrator will take up. Good luck in your pursuit of the NPR user permission. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 No worries, :) -Tatupiplu'^talk 16:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you help? Pmelo1 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. What do you need? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I am using this new account after receiving a veiled threat about a separate deletion request involving another page and am using this alias out of an abundance of caution

According to thus afd a decision was made to delete and salt the (misspelled) page in question. The page has magically reappeared here at yet another page that was deleted and salted (see below). As in the previous articles all of the contributors are either sockpuppets or SPAs. This re-creation of a deleted and salted page seems to have occurred when an unknowing editor mistakenly transferred the creation of another intentionally misspelled page ending with the Roman numeral ‘I’ and transferring it to the original deleted and salted page without waiting to re-create it until a consensus was demonstrated in support of re-creation.

Therefore, the present article should be speedy deleted (which I can not nominate due to extended page protection) under G4 especially since the most current and most recently edited version of the article is substantially identical to the deleted version (save the mention of the subject’s death). Also the content was not undeleted via a deletion review or was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion (the only exceptions for a G4 waiver).

On top of that, the article falls under WP:BLP1E, lacks individual notability, and is apparently a hoax. Coverage is primarily based in local media and therefore may fail depth of coverage and is (with few exceptions) definitely not persistent. Google News searches return 4 results with no significant coverage. Other results indicate significant decrease in coverage from 2015 until the subject’s death in February 2020.

The article is a re-creation under a deliberately misspelled title most recently created in November 2019 and previously created and deleted multiple times with multiple spellings, including on August 18, 2013, which was later re-created, G4’d and salted on August 29, 2013 with a reinforcement of the salting on February 13, 2015. Under another spelling, the creation, deletion and salting happened in February 2015. Yet another attempt was also salted.

The central claim for notability for the subject is this man’s court case against a state social services department and legislation drafted based on the allegations in the case with the occasional news story. The court case was the subject of another AfD on August 18, 2013 resulting in delete. Many years later the case and/or the legislation is not mentioned on the department’s article and that only strengthens the argument that the threshold for this man’s individual notability has not been met.

The individual sources on the article prove the lack of independent notability, depth, and persistence of this low profile individual:

1,2,3,4,9,10,11,24 – relate to illness and death of subject, in itself not sufficient for individual notability and no mention of anything to cross the line of WP:BLP1E
5,6 7,8,12,13,14,15,16,25 - local coverage rehashing or retelling reasons for or events in his court case or legislation (that was directly prompted by same court case) which do not grant individual notability
17,18,19,20,22,23 – mention in passing regarding court case or associated legislation. Proving the fact, but not individual notability
21 – op-ed written by subject about same exact legislation and court case; an op-ed does not give rise to individual notability

Therefore, the article likely falls under WP:BLP1E and lacks individual notability. Coverage is exclusively in local media with the exception of his death which was put out from a local AP wire, and therefore fails depth of coverage and is (with one or two exceptions) not persistent. News coverage from 2015 is non-existent except for the mention of his death and a reintroduction of the same legislation in 2020, neither of which proves individual notability. Even if we put aside the aforementioned we are still guided by the policy that “Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article.” The principles for BLP1E that the “person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual” and “the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented” also apply.

As an aside it must be noted that the page was re-created after being deleted and salted without going through the proper channels as it was not re-created with a consensus that demonstrated a support of re-creation.

Therefore, in conclusion, because of the multiple circumventions of deletions, saltings, G4s, and the lack of individual notability, this article should be speedy deleted. Also each incarnation of the page was created by a banned user in violation of G5. Pmelo1 (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I know just enough about this topic to know that I am not the right admin to consider this request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Right. Thanks and have a good day. Pmelo1 (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Youth Against Rape. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

You have closed the discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fateh Singh Ahluwalia and even deleted the article.

There are so many refs in Google books for "Fateh+Singh+Ahluwalia"+1758 All these talk about this military general and king. I have no idea why Sandstein thinks that Government of India website will falsify history about an important historical person, Sandstein has made an incorrect assessment. Don't forget that the state speaks Punjabi language. The article should not have been deleted. Can you change your decision to keep or to relist the AfD so that I can post these refs for others to consider. --Walrus Ji (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji, I did indeed close that discussion and which included a weighting of your comment. When I close a discussion, I am merely judging the consensus reached by the participants of the discussion. In a deletion discussion, it is best to bring your three best sources to the discussion rather than relying on people to search through results. I will go ahead and relist the discussion so you can give your sources and see if consensus changes over the next week. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Thank you for considering. The AfD had received very little participation. Hope more people will participate. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year and congratulations on your decisive endorsement from the community as a new Wikipedia arbitrator.

That said, I think you owe someone an apology. Your agressive and misguided pile on, threats, and bullying are particularly distressing from a new arb. Be better. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind wishes. I happened to approve a draft of yours the other day and went by your talk page and was happy, for you, to see so many AfC accept notices. As to the substance of your message I know that my messages feel different as an arbitrator than they did on 12/31 and I'm attempting to be mindful of that when I write messages - including this one. I'm sure that in 2 years, as my term ends, I will be better at doing that than I am today.

However, I do stand by the comments I left Missvain and I dispute the idea, even after a re-read, that I threatened or bullied them. I knew what I had to offer was not of the "warm and fuzzy" variety which is why I did make an attempt to differentiate the "cost" of doing AfD closes and what i saw as specific issues there. I worked very hard to try not to mention ArbCom, both because I don't want this to go there and being especially mindful that I am now an arb and that would feel like a threat. However, I did have in mind a few cases around administrator actions that happened in 2020. And a theme there was that issues built up over time and that people didn't want to have difficult or hard conversations. So then the issues kept happening. And the end result was desyop. That's not an outcome I would want for her (or any administrator). This morning someone at work referenced a Brené Brown quote that I think speaks to my intent here "Clear is kind and unclear is unkind." Perhaps I missed the mark in impact but I was trying to hit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughful and respectful answer. I certainly appreciate your generous words of support and encouragement.

1) You're an Arb now so whatever you tell an editor or admin carries that weight. Treading softly and using all the kindness and collegiality you can muster would be wise.

2) The particular example you sighted of the early snow close of Public Perceptions of Jared Kushner was entirely within policy and was effective in stemming what continues to be a time wasting disruption that has garnered not a single keep vote aside from its troublesome creator. Moreover MissVain had already cordially reopened the discussion upon request. A mistake in copying something that was corrected when it was pointed out was also not worth criticizing her or anyone for.

3) If you wanted to tread at all on an admin doing thankless work in a contentious area you could have politely suggested slowing dowm there to share the burden and avoid ruffling feathers.

4) The manner in which you expressed yourself remains shocking to me. Especially after you say you've reviewed what you said and stand by it. "Sandstein might not be asking you to stop but I will." You go on to say youve never interacted with her before this week. So wouldn't some polite inquiry and discussion FIRST be more appropriate? You also said you would've dragged her to an admin noticeboard if she wasn't an admin. A problematic statement in several respects. And all this followed on User:Sandstein's bullshit objection to her relisting a school article that had one keep and one delete vote a third time because the guideline says we "generally" don't do that.

To summarize, you were wrong on policy, wrong on approach, and wrong on outcome. And instead of correcting course you've reiterated your earlier stand doubling down on your stayements and position which has encouraged us to go further delving into it and dragging those involved through the muck. I would AGAIN ask you to reconsider and to always seek to bring more light to situations and stem drama rather than adding to it.

If you're going to attack an admin for speedily closing a discussion obviously heading for a snowball delete, and one that was generously reopened upon polite request, and one that now continues to offer nothing but drama you better explain yourself. C'mon man. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I will give you a longer response but Missvain has set to archive after 51 hours. Were you aware that I had left a message on 12/29? That answer will help to guide me in my answer to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I was wrong on that point. There were some housekeeping issues identified but mistakes do happen. Certainly you raised your concern over sped and volume. But your followup missed the mark and my points on those issues remain. But ultimately the key issue is really the point you raised about getting more people involed at Aritcles for Deletion and Wikipedia generally. We are volunteers. Aspects are rewarding and others not so much. I am banned from AfD as part of an ugly series of attacks I received after creating lots of entries on Reconstruction era African American politicians. Up to that point I had been quite prolific there going through entries, reading them, looking for sources, fixing things up, offering my opinion. This ruffled feathers as does my prolific article creation. There are also agendas beneath the surface of what people say and do. I don't miss the drama of AfD but I out in the time because I saw lots of worthy entries getting deleted. I also did plenty of delete votes. My point is that constructive efforts that improve the encyclopedia shoukd be encouraged not discouraged. Sometimes people take on too much, but lending a hand or a kind suggestion to share the burden would be better than a reprimand or punishment. I respect your work here and obviously so does the community overwhelmingly. I can see that being an arb isn't easier or more fun, at least in having to deal with complaints, than admins face. But helping, guiding amd encouraging seems to me a better approach than what you did. And again, the substance of the issues raised doesn't support your position. If you think her closes were wrong take then to DRV and offer a friendly opinion. Or maybe you should habe offered it up in the discussion instead of second guessing? Reprimanding someone for doing great work and threatening to go after them if they continue to do can never be the rifht approach even if their work isn't perfect. I've seen what the "by the book" Wikilawyer set gets away with here and it's ugly and chases a lot of people away. Party on. You don't owe me any more of an explanation. Take care and have fun. Thanks for your good works. I was rereading Oberlin Academy and while you weren't spot on off the bat I think you were reasonable and ultimately got it right. Maybe a different more friendly approach could have achieved the outcome in the present dispute with an enthusiastic if zealous editor you were concerned about taking on too much. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Since you've indicated I don't owe you any more explanation I won't respond in full, other than to acknowledge I have read your message. If you change your mind and would like a longer response let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey aren't you're that guy who created The famous meme guy standing in 2012? 950CMR (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not create that meme. I did attempt to bring it to Simple Wiki because I find it amusing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

By talk page on Red Velvet (group), I suggested to update their new photos for fulfilling good articles criteria, and Paper9rolls said it can be working on, so I thought editing Joy's photo in article Joy (singer). But Alexanderlee still insists that it was on talk page of Red Velvet, so it doesn't apply to Joy article. So there was numerous conflicts, but i think I didn't do anything wrong for edits on Joy (singer). Could you pls mediate us on that articles? If I was wrong, then I will admit my fault to Alexanderlee who involved in -- Wendylove (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wendylove: unfortunately I don't have time right now. You can find a mediator at third opinion who can help you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 01 January 2021:

Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bradv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CaptainEek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Maxim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Primefac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the CheckUser and Oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2020:

DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Joe Roe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mkdw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2020 at their own request:
Oversight: Joe Roe
Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
DGG, Joe Roe, and Mkdw will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 01:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2021 Arbitration Committee

Congratulations; I' m glad you will be there to replace me (and that goes for the other new people also). We may overlap on one case. and if there's one thing I like, it's giving advice. . DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
@DGG: thanks for that kind offer and for those kind words. I am looking forward to learning a lot and offering what I can to the committee and the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

My congratulations to you. A more worthy candidate I have yet to see in fifteen years of being here. My only advice, for what it's worth, don't forget your roots! Well done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I was just talking last night that I need to figure out how I can keep doing content creation. I need to be in a particular mindset to do content creation and 2020 sapped a lot of that from me. I worry that even if I carve out time for content, easy enough to do on the whole, that I won't be productive with it. Long story short, I won't forget my roots but I worry about how well I'll do engaging with them these next couple years. I am just hopeful that acknowledging this issue will help me to confront and overcome it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS! The result was a foregone conclusion. With such an impressive score, if ever the Committee had a chair (it doesn't) you would be the best candidate for that too. I sincerely hope that you will be a strong voice there, not simply go with the flow, and do your best to make the Committee a more equitable place. I do also hope that you won't now leave NPP high and dry without your superb leadership - I would hate to see nearly a decade of my work go to waste. So I'll dive back under my blanket now it's all over. Stay well, my friend. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
NPP remains near and dear to me and I will work hard to ensure your legacy is carried on. Thanks for the good wishes and I hope that the place under your blanket is comfy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Throwing my congratulations in amongst the throng as well. Good luck! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I am taking all the luck I can get. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Joining in, congrats! — Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I had planned to circle back to your NPP School yesterday Berrely but then I ended up doing other things. You remain high on my to do list though, no worries. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
All the congratulations. Very happy for and proud of you. - JDL. Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm obviously pleased with the result. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
If it isn’t my tutor !!!!! Congratulations Captain, boy am I glad!!!!!! Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm certainly glad too. Look forward to continue seeing you around the way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Celestina007, Captain? Aren't you getting confused with another newly minted arb? Merge and redirect to Captain BarEek49. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit, lmfao I’ve always referred to Barkeep49 as “Captain” since forever.

The merge and redirect part got me laughing and tearing up. Happy holidays to you both. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, and to you - have a great one! GirthSummit _(blether) 20:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Finally!! A ray of hope and sunshine bursting onto the scene!! Congratulations, Barkeep - it's where you need to be and well-deserved. Atsme 💬 📧 19:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad that I could (somewhat) contribute to a ray of hope and sunshine in a year that needs more of them but no pressure or anything, eh Atsme :)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

My reflections on ACE

I just took some time to write my reflection on ACE. I wrote there that I would be OK if no one read it but all things being equal I'd prefer people to read (and react) than not. I always feel a bit pompous posting to my own user talk to gather attention but since there aren't a ton of ways to advertise such things here I am. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

BK, you did yourself a disservice by putting this up at a time when it is lost amid the Holiday greetings taking over watchlists (not to mention that watchlists have become unusable because of increasingly unhelpful bot activity, causing one to miss important edits, but I digress). My reflections on your reflections:

Unhappy people: In my guide, I admitted I was happy with the 2019 Arbcom, even though I initially was not. But one of my candidates still didn't make it, so ...
Candidate statements: Agree (I paid a good deal of attention to them this year).
Extended statements: Agree.
Candidate questions: Made all the difference in my votes and recommendations, but agree they are underread.
Non-admin candidates: Agree that this has not been well tested by a strong candidate.
I agree with you on 'crats. I think they are an unnecessary super-class. On clerking, I find it somewhat useful; an unhelpful inattentive clerk is not likely to make a good arb.
I don't think guides made a difference this year, but that is a reflection of the makeup of the candidates. This year was a foregone conclusion except for one slot (where I think we missed it, and will come to regret not having either Ballioni or Guerillero in the final slot). I think it is wrong to say there haven't been years where they did make a difference. I won't single out where they were most certainly particularly helpful in the past.
Content creation: From historical (seeing the misrepresentations and hounding of Eric Corbett) to the more recent (the failure to understand in some quarters the severity of the impact on content creation by the WPMED dysfunction) means we need arbs who really understand the issues and work in the trenches of content creation. Your success this year, I believe, proves me right, as you were a candidate who bridges both (admin and content experience). The same problem we see at RFA (those who have climbed the grease pole by checking all the right boxes) affects the arb elections. On the other hand, I have seen arb guides that focus ONLY on content creation, which is equally problematic.
Personal experience, yes.

Now back to guides. These were fine when an individual user could put up a guide for their Wikiassociates and talk page stalkers, in place of having to answer the question "who are you voting for" over and over. At some point in the past, it became required to link them to the template, which gave them a prominence that was never intended by ... at least people like me ... who only wanted to be able to answer the question among the circle of editors who follow and share our concerns.

Merry Christmas ... you shoulda made this post a few days later ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

You're right from a "how can I get the most people to read this" perspective I should have waited. I also appreciate your general thoughts, but I would stand by my general assessment of guides going back years and my conclusion that we spend way too much time talking about them. They are what they are and we should just kind of let them be at this point, in my mind. FWIW I think one reason content creation has been underrated as an asset is because of the content creation focused guides (though I think we're pretty close to agreement on this point). Merry Christmas to you and your family. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are my initial thoughts about the first items:

Unhappy people: If we wanted to reduce this behavior, we would ridicule it. Imagine that we stop responding with hand-wringing and justifications, and instead keep a box at the top of the page that says "It's been ____ days since someone last declared this ArbCom to be the worst ever" or replied with "Congratulations, you're the third person this year to declare this ArbCom the worst ever!"
Candidate statements: I don't know if these are massively underrated. They seem pretty useful, and people seem to think they're pretty useful.
Extended statements: I have no opinion.
Questions: I wonder whether a formal process is necessary. What if there wasn't a central location, we stopped pretending that this was supposed to work like a real-world legislative election, and if I wanted to ask you something, I just asked you on your talk page, exactly like I would normally do?
Non-admins: The reason is that some of us have enough sense to avoid things like that. If you have enough sense to avoid RFA, then you also have enough sense to avoid ACE.
I agree with SandyGeorgia about clerks.
I also have my doubts about how valuable these are in general, but some of them can be valuable to a small number of people. I think there is a lot of potential for harm in writing these. If you write that Alice and Bob are bad candidates, they're likely to remember that for years to come.

The other two didn't hold my attention as well. However, on the subject of content creation, some folks in the past have found it helpful to dedicate a specific time for content creation. If you intentionally plan to write content every Saturday morning, then you are likely to get some done. The automatic ritual of it helps make it happen. For myself, I find that it helps to start every day with a content-oriented page. I usually see WT:MED before I check e-mail, and sometimes before I even get out of bed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing taking Sandy's scolding above to heart, I waited to reply until today so more of my talk page watchers might see it. Thanks for your feedback. I have to say the idea of using humor to change the social mores around ArbCom is one I hadn't really considered and might be the one most likely to work. I wish I had thought of that a year ago when I lost since I could have actually done it over the last year. As for candidate statements, I think you and I are saying similar things. From having talked to both successful and unsuccessful candidates, no one really said "pour lots of energy into your candidate statement" as advice. But I think they should have because, as you note, you and many other voters find them helpful. As for questions, I think your idea is an interesting one. Fundamentally I think the questions are good as a method of making sure that our elite remain accessible to all editors. But you're perhaps right that this could just easily, and perhaps even better, happen on user talks rather htan as part of the ArbCom process.

Finally as to content, I find it hard to write content at home, especially on the weekends. Too many distractions and calls on my time. Instead I tend to write my best content on Fridays because it is the day at work that tend to be pretty quiet in terms of problems and unscheduled in terms of meetings so I have nice chunks of uninterupted time to focus and make it happen. I hope to keep to that this coming year. I also hope to do enough non-Wikipedia writing that I get so inspired about something not having a Wikipedia article that I simply must write about it. I have a couple other ideas but I appreciate your sharing what's been successful for you given the similar ways that other Wikipedia work could get in the way of content for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that people answer questions differently if it's part of a process vs informally. On the one hand, I'm pontificating to a faceless group, and on the other hand, it's just us (and whoever happens to be watching).

Speaking of questions and ArbCom (rather than its election process), I've wondered whether it would be helpful to ArbCom if its members asked questions during the Evidence and Workshop phases. Some sort of mid-case feedback ("Yeah, I think we understand Part A of this dispute, but could somebody please explain the dancing elephants in Part B?") might get you the information you need more efficiently.

And, I suppose, this comment is an example of the above. If I were proposing this at some suitable ArbCom page, I'd probably write up a whole proposal, suggest an implementation process (e.g., should questions manifest as a note on a case talk page, or a section at the end of each page?), marshal arguments in favor, etc., but here I just suggest that ArbCom members could make a practice of asking questions during cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm all about asking questions at the workshop - my first two comments there as an arb were both questions . I will just note that the way ArbCom is setup is that most arbs don't engage with the case until the PD has been drafted. This is, I think, a healthy division of labor. But for the arbs that read it, yes to questions. I'm now a couple days behind on the evidence (and might just wait until it closes) but I'm guessing I'll have some more questions after reading that. And yes both formal and informal spaces have their virtues and I'm glad that I have smart people watching this page who I get to chat with. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

... and time for a long walk. Could you, or an independent admin TPS who may have the time and patience, please look at User talk:Oshwah#Please undelete User:RobertFindling and User talk:RobertFindling? These are good faith editors who have exhausted my patience for the day, and I am beyond my non-admin knowledge of what needs to be done next. Time for me to push back in frustration that I was trying so hard to catch up on other work just when this hit ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Never mind... the message was finally absorbed, and dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia except isn't it still a COPYVIO? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Arrrrrrgh ... I hadn't even looked at that. So, revdel ?? Sheesh, I have this ability to hyperfocus, but when I am trying to get through content work requiring focus, I should learn NOT to look at those blippity-blip-blip pingie thingies at all. One of the many reasons I hate them. I should not have even looked until I was done with the content work I had planned for this morning. Appreciate you looking .. if it need revdel, probably better at this point anyway ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You can turn off all pings in Special:Preferences, or convert them all to e-mail instead of web. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Turning them off sounds dangerous ... but converting them to email had not occurred to me ... if I do that, then I can look at them when I am not going to be frustrated by 85 little thingies pinging at me! Thanks, WAID ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

BK and WhatamIdoing, it's a whole new world since I made that change five days ago. Only now am I fully seeing how much of a yoke that pingie-thingie was around my neck, and how miserable it was making me, and how much it was affecting my editing conduct. Because I would lose track of pings, I would feel I had to answer right away, even if I didn't have time, and that also led to the impression of bludgeoning because you answer everything, and ... ACK !!! Now I can process through my talk page, process through my watchlist, and go over to my email to check my pings only when I have the time to respond properly. With trying to submit evidence to the arbcase (where I searched for days for a diff I have never been able to locate), just as we had a veterinary emergency (good outcome), thankfully, only this morning did I check my email, and having the pings in email allows me to mark read or archive what I have responded to, and leave unread those that are pending.

So, here's why I'm here :) How do the rest of you do it? Now I feel guilty every time I ping another editor, because here I am being a hypocrite, when I hate those things. By what process do the rest of you get any work done and keep track of what pings you have responded to? Am I really dumber than everyone else in here? (Don't answer that ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I start every day with the page history for WT:MED and Special:Notifications. I toggle the individual notifications on and off as I need to. Also, I'm not an Inbox Zero person, and I don't mind letting the notifications sit while I finish what I'm doing. Other people can't tolerate letting it sit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

See I am an inbox zero sort of person and so when I have that little grey notification sitting there crying for my attention it ensures I don't forget about things I want to make sure to do. In general I try to have an agenda for what I want to do on Wikipedia on any given day before I start editing and it then becomes about triage with what calls for my attention onsite vs what my goals were. I'm glad the email pings are working for you. Great suggestion by WAID. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both ... my problem was that before I had no central way of tracking what I had responded to and what not, which left me feeling like I Must Respond Now or I will lose track, whereas now I can use Mark Unread in my email to know what I have to come back to. The downside to that is that I am now more tied to Wikipedia email, where before, I rarely checked it. But overall, I can go back to processing my watchlist and talk page the way I did pre-pingie thingies, and then only when I am done with that, go review the pings in my email. And if others are comfortable with pinging, I guess I don't have to feel like a hypocrite when I ping others ... ? Bst, and thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ping other editors liberally. Most people like it, and will be happy if you do so. And you are using them, just not via the default interface. I'm glad that you've found a system that works better for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hypocrite guilt resolved ;). Thanks again, both, for all the help, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		To go along with the big bucks you get for mopping up :) Happy New Year! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Quick Facts Two years! ...

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Always an exciting remembrance. Thanks Gerda. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. For 2012 wishes look here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey.

I noticed you have reviewed a few pages in your time at Wikipedia- I am a beginner to Wikipedia and have just finished writing my first article, now the draft is pending for review. It'd be great if you could check it over! I am apprehensive that it will contain mistakes and I will need to wait another few weeks/months before getting another review.

Many thanks, Apaul291003 (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Apaul291003 I do review articles from times to time but don't take requests. Sorry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  Heyyy! I apologize if I am going about this incorrectly (in which case feel free to purge your talk page of my interrogative pollution), albeit I had one question pertaining to a possibly sensitive subject (Hence my reaching out to a member of the Arbitration Committee)...
  How would I go about properly editing an article where there is misinformation on a subject having a general scientific consensus, but various factions of the population differ for religious, social, or political (ideological) reasons? This, for instance, would apply to the subjects of gender identity, climate change, etc... Is there recommended reading for new Wiki editors on such subjects? Thank you in advance, and again, I apologize if I was suppose to about this differently!

BlushChablisPhilosopher (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@BlushChablisPhilosopher I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Can you clarify so I can help point you in the right direction? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Re this deletion, I'm concerned about how a policy-based argument supported by a reliable source seems to have carried no weight in determining the consensus, given that the fellow editors had not reviewed that argument yet. I expected a relist/no consensus in the worst-case scenario. Currenlty, the vacant space created by the deleted article is occupied by an other one. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ab207, I am skeptical that the award you mentioned will change the outcome of the discussion. However, because that is new information that was not mentioned in the discussion, I will relist it for a week to see if consensus changes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for being considerate! -- Ab207 (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If the article is restored, please put it at Teerpu (1994 film). There is no primary topic. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 that might be. If so it should be hashed out in a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion (or BOLDLY, if it sticks following the AfD discussion). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, my article on Karen Earle Lile was deleted by you and I would like to know the process for undeletion. I think that the votes to delete were made without sufficient consideration of the quality of the secondary sourced and the number of secondary sources that were articles or news stories entirely on the Karen Earle Lile.

I have never had an article deleted. If Karen Earle Lile was the subject of multiple articles from nationally recognized news articles and even 48 hours news feature, how can this not be considered notable? Should I take photos of the articles and add them to Wikipedia, since many of these did not have URL’s but were in library or subscription services? I am thinking that those who voted just did a cursory search by google and did not look at news sources before Internet was created.

The reasons given by those who voted were vague and did not address the answers I gave and references I added to the article.

I would welcome more info about what I can do. I took a lot of time to research this and I respectfully disagree with deletion.

SoundNotater (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)SoundNotater is a historian with interests in philately, music, dance, sociology, sports and genealogy. Not new to research. 2:40am ET

@SoundNotater thanks for your questions and interest in Wikipedia. I note that your sources were presented pretty early in the discussion and were considered by other participants in the discussion. Unfortunately they did not consider those sources sufficient to establish notability (at least as Wikipedia defines it). If you wish to appeal this decision you may do so at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I would suggest if you decide to appeal that you write your appeal as concisely as possible - it's possible, reading the comments, the length of your participation during that discussion hindered rather than advanced your point of view. Let me now if there are other questions I could answer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 thanks for advising me on this. I do believe that I made many mistakes and that it hindered the fair consideration of the article. I didn't know that using an asteric was a vote or individual comment, so, when I listed sources, I did it as a list with an asteric for every point. So, everyone had voted against my article before I realized that. Then I did more research taking everyone's comments into consideration, and added that research to the article, but the voters did not come back and look at it, so it was never considered. I know know how to do things better. But, I think that I would like to wait before asking for it again. Instead, I would like to put that research into several other articles, because in perusing Wikipedia, I see that my research fills in many gaps in several different fields. Could you place the last deleted article into my draft space, or somewhere I can pull out the references, so I don't have to start from scratch?. Then after I am finished with sharing this research in other articles, I may propose the article again, in a time to come or someone may see what I see and do it instead of me. Does this seem like a wise approach? SoundNotater (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC) 12 January 2021 (UTC)User:SoundNotater 11:50am ET

It is possible to restore something to user space for you to work on it. When you're ready to work on this article again come on back. There are some guidelines/practices around doing this that I'll share with you at that time (some of which depend on how long it's been since the deletion discussion which is why I'm not just doing it now). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Please reconsider your close of this AfD. The nomination made claims which were, in my view, quite false, and it received zero support. As this is a BLP and the subject is quite respectable, it seems important to fully clear their name. The only issue seems to be the lack of !votes but that is a mainly consequence of the lack of participation at AfD. A respectable person's reputation should not be besmirched because of Wikipedia's failure. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson as you speculate, that AfD was closed due to lack of participation more than on the merits. The idea that an AfD is a potential BLP violation, which seems to be what you're intimating here, had never occurred to me and even now having considered it for a couple hours after first reading your message still doesn't resonate with me. You are around AfD enough to know that people make really bad statements, for keep, delete and everything in between, on the regular. So to whatever extent this was an illformed nomination, it is just someone being wrong on Wikipedia, which is hardly unusual.It doesn't really qualify for a third relist, in my judgement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not wanting the AfD to be relisted; my expectation is that it should be closed as Keep. My thinking is based on the following points:

The article has existed for over 5 years without any previous trouble
In this time, the article has been edited by 199 editors and read by over 800,000 readers. It appears that only one person has ever felt that the topic should be deleted.
During the AfD, the count was 1 nominator for deletion and 2 !voters against. That's a supermajority for keep.
There's also the strength of argument to consider. Naturally I am involved, but it seemed to me that the nominator misunderstood our notability principles and misrepresented the facts of the matter by claiming that this person was not the subject of coverage.
The nominator also used the prod process first, implicitly claiming that deletion would be uncontroversial. This is so far from the truth that it seems to be a disruptive and fringe viewpoint. They should not be encouraged to persist in this behaviour.
The proceedings are a matter of public record and the talk page now records your finding that there is "no consensus" about the standing of the article – that it is sufficiently dubious that it might yet be deleted. It seems to me that this is derogatory, suggesting that the subject may not be sufficiently reputable to have an article. Such suggestions are noticed by subjects who naturally take an interest in what is said about them and then write in to OTRS to complain about notability tags and the like.
The details are now recorded on the talk page which also notes that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." I consider the AfD outcome to be contentious in this way.
Leaving the matter unsettled therefore still seems unsatisfactory. If you stick to your position, I shall be taking the matter to DRV but, as that's a last resort, I have explained my case in detail to see if we can avoid that.
My apologies if this wrangling is tiresome but I didn't invent these processes. I started that article in good faith and it's my time that is being wasted too.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In terms of points 6 & 7 I continue to note that there is no basis in policy, guidelines, or practice to suggest that a BLP violation occurs because there was an AfD discussion about a topic. In an AfD discussion with 3 editors participating where there is not a consensus means that there is no consensus (points 3,4). The solutions for no consensus are either to relist to have more editors participate or to close as no consensus. Because this had already been relisted twice, I did not see a reason that it would qualify, under our guidelines, for a third relist. I see no reason to think that this nomination was made in bad faith and so I cannot just weight that position away. Your arguments about using or PROD, the length of time the article existed and number of editors who've worked on it would be relevant if the outcome were delete if this situation were reversed - 2 editors arguing delete and 1 keep (points 5, 1, 2). However, as that outcome was never on the table I find that information to have no weight as to what the close of this discussion should be. If you feel that this needs to be taken to DRV, so be it, but I am not going to reverse the decision because you've invented the concept that a no consensus decision at AfD is a BLP violation (point 8). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, I know you're terribly busy, but I'd appreciate it if you actually did review the sources used to support this text that was the subject of the RfC, and that most respondents endorsed. Per AN editor comments that quotes from sources are required, I've added quotes from the sources there . The quotes are not that long: well-written academic summaries of the issue by historians and social scientists. The proposed text is almost wholly based on what they write, with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet, I've obviously been paying attention to that discussion and while the general concept of how to close an RfC well interests me, doing the work necessary to establish whether or not that was a proper close does not. Much of my Wikipedia time is taken up these days in ways I can't control. This probably makes me less receptive to a reasonable request such as yours to spend it further in ways that I've not volunteered for. Sorry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright Barkeep49; understood. By the way, I don't know if you read it but I thought I saw Tombs' "The English and their History" on the table in your userpage - I loved that book! Am now working my way through a book about the American revolution and Tombs is proving a helpful background. -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't actually read that book. I just like books and that was an image that seemed to obey the rules enough (though we'll see what Commons ends up saying) that I could use it to keep my userpage from being too text heavy. But I do love history myself and so now I'm interested in adding that to my reading list. When I turn to the American War for Independence, it will be to read Atkinson's trilogy which I've heard really good things about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Huh, just read Ellis' NYT review, and Atkinson's work sounds fascinating. Some of these revolutionary battlefields are close enough that I visit them once a week, so an "up close" account like this will be appreciated! -Darouet (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I politely believe you should consider removing your "new page reviewer" infobox. I believe so as it links to a different user when the verify button is clicked and therefore, has the potential to be confusing. Thanks, Steve M (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't want to be confusing so I have fixed it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I know about my topic ban but am I able to revert blatant vandalism like this and it would be OK? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I don't see how this is blatant vandalism – an MOS violation, sure, but those are a dime a dozen and it's unclear to me why you think it was made in bad faith. Blablubbs|talk 11:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

While that is a manual of style violation it is not blatant vandalism and so would not be covered under Wikipedia:BANEX. Blatant vandalism would be "Londonderry is <expletive>" (with an actual swear word). I'm glad you asked so you didn't, in good faith, violate the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a frustrating time under it not knowing what you can and can't do, that's for sure. I do want to make sure I do everything right so I don't unintentionally cross the line. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

	Celebration~!
	Wikipedia will only ever turn 20 once! Hope you are doing well and have a prosperous onwiki experience in the future. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you please look at this? Somebody wants to merge "peer-Learning" and "learning by teaching". I don't understand why "Learning by teaching" ever is menaced! Thank you very much! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Learning_by_teaching Jeanpol (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"Menaced" is a pretty strong word and not one that I think accurately reflects what is going on. Wikipedians are merely trying to decide what way of organizing knowledge will best serve our readers. We want to cover lots of topics but frequently having separate articles is inefficient for both readers (who have to go to lots of places to get the encyclopedic overview they're seeking) and editors (who have to monitor multiple pages). The question becomes in what sense is "Learning by teaching" a distinct concept with its own pedagogy and information and in what sense is it a phrase that might cover differing ways of the same idea. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right. I first was afraid and then I looked at the intention behind this action. So I understood. Thanks a lot!Jeanpol (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello admin. Could you please start an arbitration on Chengdu J-20 and WS-10 pages? Specially regarding J-20's engine.

I have encounter this user: Revolving Personality Construct whom asked me to "reason" with him on the WS-10 talk page. After many attempts with references. He just can not win an argument and just started disruptive editing by removing sourced materials with the references themselves all together.

Thank you,

--2601:152:4400:5580:3046:5C53:419D:91E6 (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This does not seem like a problem that is ready for arbitration. Another form of dispute resolution would be more helpful. Honestly, I would consider treating this like a content problem because you are both edit warring. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I see you listed at NPP as chief coordinator, so I'm putting this query here. I was extremely concerned to see this response by Hog Farm at their RfA. Out of four bad CSD tags that SoWhy asked about, they blame two for the first half of 2020 on their attempting to meet CSD tag quotas for NPP school. For all I know, this concern has already been raised at NPP and there are no longer quotas, but in case it has not, I am registering deep concern that quotas will inevitably lead to trainees disregarding the most important rule about CSD, that it is reserved for the most obvious cases, and predispose them to over-tagging after they complete training. This is in addition to the BITE concern. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, it's still part of the NPPSCHOOL rubric. That having been said, trying to complete the assignment by rushing to fill out the quota instead of looking for pages that actually meet the CSD will only result in doing poorly on the assignment, so I'm uncertain that this is a significant concern in practice. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it was more me than a significant flaw in the assignment. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. It encapsulates an assumption of bad faith on the part of page creators. We have the example of police department quotas for speeding tickets to draw on for where such expectations of patrollers lead. (Incidentally, are patrollers taught to notify page creators when applying any kind of deletion tag? I've noticed for some time that many taggers don't do this, which makes it worse. It's unreasonable to expect new editors, in particular, to be using their watchlists.) @Hog Farm: That speaks well of you, thank you. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thinking on it more, while I mirrored your use of the word "quota" in my first comment, I don't think it's accurate to describe it as a quota analogous to policing quotas. These tasks show up as assignments at the end of the CSD section, and are framed as "nominate 5 pages with X CSD rationale and list the page names here for evaluation". There is no time limit, or expectation that the trainee do these tasks repeatedly. Rather, it is a controlled test of their ability to use CSD criteria with an instructor closely monitoring their decisions. Page reviewers are instructed to inform editors when placing deletion tags, and are encouraged to use Twinkle, which does it automatically for them. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir, thanks for your concerns. It's important to get outside perspective. Making sure that editors do CSD correctly is, as you point out, important and it's important that reviewers get this right before they have the permission (or before they start using it). Every NPP School teacher runs the curriculum that they desire, but I am going to talk about the "standard" curriculum that most teachers use in whole or in part. Assignments are a mixture of generalized "answer this question about this policy/guideline in your own words", theoretical scenarios, and hands-on practice. Speedy deletion work follows this progression. We look at the criteria, with the student answering question. They then get a set of scenarios, designed to be difficult and explore the hardest scenarios. Only after completing those two steps do students move on to practicing on live articles. As Rosguill indicated, it's in the student's interests to do well here and their work is being monitored closely by an experienced Wikipedian. If they misstep they are going to find out, not just with the decline or acceptance (because truthfully I've had student's speed deletions accepted that I would judge wrong) but with specific feedback. If they rush through in order to speedily complete an assignment that is not going to reflect well on them and could lead to them ultimately failing the course. If they view it like a quota that's going to be a problem and so I heartily disagree that we're incentivizing speed over quality. But maybe I'm wrong. How would you suggest we build reviewer capacity so we have more editors who understand correctly how to use speedy deletion tags? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest you mention the damage to the encyclopedia and to editor retention from overzealous deletion tagging at all levels of project discussion, and that coordinators ensure it is never presented to trainees as a "quota"; Rosguill, I appreciate your further reflection, but your having accepted the term as valid in your immediate response indicates that distinguishing the assignment(s) from quotas has not been a concern. Trainees need to be explicitly told that it isn't a quota, that taking their time and being sure is one of the things they will be evaluated on, because even a rejected nomination can alienate a good-faith article creator, and as you mention, Barkeep49, there's an appreciable risk that some admin will action the CSD even if others would have declined it. It only takes one hasty nomination and one hasty admin and the article is for all intents and purposes gone forever. (I would like to suggest that speedy deletions based on trainees' nominations during training be automatically reviewed by an admin NPP coordinator, but I think that would violate community procedures.) I also mentioned my concern that an appreciable number of editors tag articles for deletion under all three processes without notifying the creator, let alone substantial contributors. I would also strongly advocate training new page patrollers to notify liberally, at a bare minimum the article creator; even the cops give a ticket informing the speeder of how to appeal. In fact, let me go further: new page patrol has historically been the most important way new editors are discovered by the community, and new editors' adjustment to our rules and ways of doing things has suffered considerably since experienced editors stopped welcoming them. May I suggest that rather than simply starting someone's talk page with a template notifying them that their first article has been nominated for speedy deletion, trainees should be taught to put a welcome template at the top of the page as the previous or following edit? There are welcome templates specifically for editors who have created inappropriate pages. "We have the Teahouse" or even "What a pity your first article has been nominated for deletion, we have a Teahouse where you can maybe find advice and consolation" is not the same thing at all as "We have rules for articles and I'm afraid you appear to have broken them. Here they are, and here below is the notification about how to appeal the deletion nomination". Yngvadottir (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. You have some intriguing ideas which I will be bringing up with NPP School teachers. I will note, however, that I dislike your repeated use of a police metaphor for what NPP does. If an NPP used that kind of language I would discuss it with them too. There is a reason that our third sentence of our landing page, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers states It's what keeps bad pages out and, equally important, it gives a boost to new, good faith users creating their first genuine articles. Giving boosts to good new articles and new article writers is a core component of NPP and essential mindset of the successful patroller. If someone views themselves as the cop on the beat at NPP they are ultimately going to fail in the task, which given your overall empahsis on other editors is something I am guessing you agree with. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do think we agree. Which is why the fact a NPP trainee promising and self-reflective enough to be running less than a year later for admin, so far successfully, still perceived a CSD nomination "quota"—a term that implies the policing role—is so concerning. (NPP is not a shooting gallery or a game, either; I suspect those have been more discussed concerns in the past.) And thank you for considering my ideas, which are very much from an outsider perspective with regard to the current NPP program. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure that quota really connotes policework. Honestly, if we're concerned about reviewers developing a cop mentality (and I agree with Barkeep49 that we should distance new page reviewing from policework as much as possible), I'd be more concerned about the word patrol. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I am the the NPPS trainer of Hog Farm and I am deeply disappointed of Hog Farm comments that the assignment is a quota as no time limit is set for any assignment including the final exam which they chose not to part take citing they have " I've been granted NPR through WP:PERM. I mostly plan on working with redirects.". At no point have I pushing Hog Farm to complete the assignment but as always I do check with all my trainees if they need any help if they cant answer the questions or dont understand the reading material. I also concern of Hog Farm intention of putting the blame on NPPS system instead of taking their act responsibly, reading the Wikipedia guidelines as provided nominate and nominate the CSD/AfD within the guidelines, as not only NPPS participants should do but all editors who nominate any CSD/AfD. It is not the issues of the NPPS rubric but the bad faith of Hog Farm on blaming NPPS instead of own up their conduct as Hog Farm might want to give a reason to pass RfA. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Thanks for weighing in and clarifying, but I think you're being a bit rough on Hog Farm. People do make mistakes when they're new or learning something new, and several experienced editors have referred to that RfA answer in support votes, including the questioner and Ritchie333, whom I'm pinging here because they've expressed concerns about our use of templated messages, especially with new editors, so they may have thoughts on the feasability of my suggestions about notifying/welcoming. (I think I tend to be more supportive of use of warning and notification templates because I regard them as the products of long consideration about how to be clear without seeming brutal, but I may be out of touch.) Barkeep49, on reflection it's the trainee perceiving a quota of speedy deletion nominations, rather than the word quota per se, that makes me regard police ticket quotas as an informative analogy. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, Everyone made mistakes and I am definitely included and plenty of times when editing Wikipedia. I am not here to be rough on Hog Farm as if English is their second/third language then I could understand the editor misunderstand the word "quota" but I doubt it is the case. I am here to defend NPPS and not commenting anything on their RfA page. There is no quota and no time set on answering the exercises/assignments in any shape of form. Participates do the exercises as when they chose to in their own time, just like any editors edit any pages in Wikipedia, and inform us to review the assignment when they have finished them. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: - I think part of the problem may have been my word choice with "pushing". In the background I'm from, "pushing" or "pressing" is a sports phrase for when someone has a perceived failing in an area, and they start trying way to hard to make up for it. I felt like I shouldn't be taking me so long, when the problem was only perceived in my mind. I didn't mean to blame NPPSchool whatsoever, but to attribute to a psychological failing on my part. Like I said above, I was the issue there, not your NPP program. If I'd known that my intent would have been misconstrued, then I would have phrased it differently. Maybe this should be posted somewhere in the RFA, so that nobody gets an incorrect bad impression about NPPSchool, or an incorrect good impression about me. The more I think about my mindset in that, the more I think of it as problematic, and it does give me some real pause about my qualifications for RFA and if I should withdraw. I would have appreciated a ping to this discussion though, so I could clear things up as to what I meant. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, you tend towards being much too hard on yourself (which is one of the reasons I don't worry about how you would behave with the tools; you are introspective, and you learn from mistakes). When you stated above, "I think it was more me than a significant flaw in the assignment", that was sufficient. You weren't blaming the system, you were taking responsibility for how you interpreted the requirements, and I for one understood it just the way. Carry on; withdrawal would just be you being too hard on yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, Thank you for your message. Sorry to learn you that you feel you might have the intention to withdraw from RfA for I guess my words might be too strong, in retrospect, and I would like to ensure you that that was not my intention.

NPPS, CUVA as in Wikipedia in general, we welcome editors to edit and they do it in their own free time. I had trainees who completed NPPS/CUVA program rather quickly and do also had participants took many months to complete the programs, for some of the took a long break and decided to continues the program due to personal commitments which they had to stay away from editing. Participants are always welcome to see assistance/feedback/comment/review/explanation at any point of the the assignments, thus no pressure should be placed on oneself to hurry for answering the question if more time is needed. A note to the trainers would be appreciate so they know the participants are still interested in the program but need a little help or time to work on the exercises.

Mistakes happened to all of us as we learn about Wikipedia guidelines for I have tagged CSD A7/A9 wrongly when I first start out even I have read the guidelines but not 100% get meaning of it and lucky me an more experience editor brief me on my talk page on that topics. So it is ok to make mistakes as long as we learn from it.

I would not comment on your RfA page for as a trainer of yours, my comment might have some influence on the vote. I had the experience myself during my RfA and my CUVA trainer brought up an incident of my "wording/conduct" when I was starting editing Wikipedia years ago where I meant to say "skirting around the topics instead of answering the questions and uncivil language" during a discussion where by the editor using vulgar language "FUCK" to provoke me and I ended up saying "talking to you like talking to a child". My trainer brought this up on my RfA which that incident even after I have more than 100k edits and I have learnt my lesson and contribute in my failing of RfA. Thus I would not wish that on you. Being an admin is to having a set of tools to do the normal editors wont have. Admins chose their areas of services where they could contribute. My only comment to you is that if you want to serve in the area RPP or AIV, then do take up the CUVA program (it is a lot easier than NPPS) where you might find it useful and gain some knowledge. Good luck on your RfA and stay safe. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Seconding SandyGeorgia—please don't think of withdrawing. I said above that coming here and responding as you did reflected well on you, and I'm pleased to see that now that the concern has been raised in an oppose at the RfA, you have yourself linked to this discussion and again made what I consider a very good statement responding to that concern. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Since this is my talk page I should note that I chose to tell Hog Farm he shouldn't withdraw from RfA via email approximately 11 minutes after his original message. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look like you need any help there (unfortunately, since it would be nice to have more folks interested), but if you ever do, and feel I'd be qualified, be more than happy to chip in. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969 you should put yourself down as a teacher. You are definitely qualified and different editors resonate with different teachers so it's nice to have a variety of options (especially because I think ICPH is basically retired and I'm not able to take new students right now). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Will do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop making edits that I find directly rude and hostile, as an editor. I don't know what your motivation is, nor am I in any way addressing motivations. Your recent edit on my talk about edits in my sandbox is way OUTSIDE the parameters of the ban. I find them hostile and rude, unnecessary, and unbecoming for an administrator. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pasdecomplot, no, they aren’t “unbecoming for an administrator” what Barkeep said was a factual statement the “nervous breakdown” line you used was very wrong of You & unbecoming of an editor who has voluntarily decided to join a collaborative project. I say this from an objective and unbiased stance seeing as I have worked with both you and Barkeep49. Celestina007 (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the process to officially resign from the New Pages Patrol? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520 just ask a sysop to remove the user permission. Should I do so? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520

Done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you have managed the settings for investing.com, whose editing is currently limited to extended confirmed users; I just completed its draft - can I submit it for AFC (technically speaking) or does it have to be lifted first? Also, could you please verify that it doesn't meet WP:SD G4 at its current state?
I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the draft as I believe the article is ready for mainspace, it's not a typical AFC case (I'm not sure how this notable platform's entry got deleted, nevertheless I examined all the issues that have been raised such as wp:N refs and language and resolved them). Thank you for your good work! Bezrat (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bezrat I would not delete the new version under G4. And yes you can submit the draft at AfC without me having to change anything technically. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

If you agree that the article meets WP:GNG, it would be appreciated and save a lot of wait time and effort if you could simply move its draft to mainspace, and lift its protection, as (unlike me) you have the authority to do so. I think it's clearly ready and does not need to go through the AfC process. Regards, Bezrat (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I don't generally review AfC drafts on request. I'll let a fresh pair of eyes make the decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem. If you too believe G4 or G11 don't apply to it now I would like to simply move the draft to mainspace, extended-confirmed limit? Once this happens I really hope that new and objective pairs of eyes will make sure it doesn't get censored as a certain editor keeps tagging it for SD. Bezrat (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean the third paragraph is more promotional than informative. So while I would not delete under G4, I'm not really weighing in on G11. I am also not seeing the kind of information I would expect to see in an article that is sourced by multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources, which is what is required under Wikipedia:NCORP so avoiding AfC/DRV does not strike me as wise. You need to show how it has become notable since August or you need to show how the August AfD got notability wrong. One of those two things must happen before this article goes to mainspace and AfC or DRV is the right way to do that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

One of my recent edits to Conservative Party (UK) has been reverted by Czello on the basis there is 'no consensus'. The edit in question is changing the description of party's position on the political spectrum from 'centre-right' to 'centre-right to right-wing' to include the broad range of factions in the party.

There is by no means unanimous agreement for / against this change but from looking at talk:Conservative Party (UK), there are more contributors favouring such a change. Additionally, from looking at similar pages which have been the subject of similar disputes, such as Conservative Party of Canada, it can be seen that there is precedent for such an approach. I have noticed Czello has previously engaged in an edit wars over this, so I thought it best to seek arbitration immediately.

Many thanks, Crunchynotsmooth (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Crunchynotsmooth, arbitration is the final step of our processes and you're not there (or close to there) yet from your description. For now if they're edit warring you can ask for administrator help at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. It sounds like there are also content issues so you might be better off getting a third opinion. I would also definitely recommend reading more about our dispute resolution systems. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I definitely have asked you this before but for clarity sake I need to ask again, now, when I tag an article for notability concerns, or any tag at all, it is marked as reviewed, more often than not I unmark it, my question is, is it good practice to manually mark it as unreviewed ? or do I just leave it as reviewed? Celestina007 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It depends. Sometimes I want to place the tag so another reviewer will look at it. When I want to do that I use Twinkle. Rarely I want to put the notability tag even when I mark it reviewed. In that case I use the toolbar. Hope that answers your question @Celestina007. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bear Came Along 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.

Research notes:

As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.
The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month. Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
A large A/B test will start soon. This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.

New discussion tool

The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself. You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.

Next: Notifications

During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Barkeep49, would be you please explain this to me: I've asked the Clerks twice to remove the uncivil language and personal attacks (false accusations) on the page of my arbitration request as off-topic and offending. Although I received "awaiting moderation" notices on both communications, there has been no further response. The false accusations are still there. Even a new attack against scholars in the comment space of one of the other parties remains without being recognized as such, even though it could be added to the evidence. So losing confidence in the proceeding two days ago, I decided to withdraw my case and explore a suggestion by user Robert McClenon, see . However, the arbitration request is still there as if active. Is there a special reason for keeping all the insults in place and treating the case as active? It's somewhat ironic that one of the voters advised me to go check this: while at the same time several of the items listed as rude and uncivil are disrupting my request on the Arbcom page. Thanks.Saflieni (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni - your request to withdraw the arbitration request was retrieved and was passed along to the clerks. Per Arbitration Committee procedure there is a 24 hour waiting period which we are now in. As for the personal attacks, I'm sorry you didn't receive an acknowledgement of your emails. This is always tricky and the new committee is committed to doing this right but also is on its own learning curve as us new arbs learn the ropes amidst one of the busiest times of the year for communication.. Your request about the attacks were indeed received and generated discussion and I'm sorry we didn't circle back to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Barkeep49. Not sure what to do next, though. As I noted in my message to user Robert McClenon, the Guide to Arbitration states: "Arbitrators ... are hesitant to making a ruling on the grounds that one side is right in a content dispute. There are minor exceptions to this; for instance, the committee has historically taken a dim view of individuals using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy." I can't say that I noticed this "dim view" playing a role. As a result the parties involved have been handed executive control over the article (and related articles). How this helps Wikipedia is unclear.Saflieni (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni the issue here, at least for me, was we were talking about a single article about a book. It wasn't clear, for me, that this had spread to related articles. When I get to the place you do with an issue, I find a way to step back from it for a time and focus on other things. Sometimes within Wikipedia sometimes outside of it. Then when I'm feeling a bit more relaxed, I often find I can come up with new approaches to the situation or at least a great willingness to take a longer view about the approaches I had been using. I don't know if that will be of any help to but I hope it is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Making me the problem again is not very helpful here, no. I am relaxed, had time outs. I don't respond well to dishonesty, but got that under control now. However, I wonder if the community would be okay with this situation if it was about a more familiar but similar topic, for instance: if editors were promoting a book which claims that Jews had infiltrated the SS, were ultimately responsible for the Holocaust and had themselves carried out a secret genocide on the side? Well, maybe they would. I've been picking up some strange vibes to tell you the truth.Saflieni (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you thought that was me making you the problem. You said you weren't sure what to do next and I shared how I approach those situations. I didn't know if it would be helpful for you and it turns out it wasn't. In terms of your analogy I think this is where Wikipedia's system underrepresentation bites us. If this were the Holocaust we'd have had a much bigger pool of editors who were already interested and immersed in this topic. So even if they weren't watching that article they would be able to join the discussion once it appeared at a larger forum. That isn't really the question you wanted me to answer but it is the answer to the "what if this were about the Holocaust?" in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Thank you for taking an interest and sharing your thoughts. Saflieni (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In case you're still interested: Handing them a free pass didn't work out very well. They've continued to add insults to the Talk page and basically do whatever they want with the article. They're now taking turns deleting/reverting my edits to circumvent the 3RR rule. Saflieni (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like it's time to try another method of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I hope you don't mean this type of harrassment: . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saflieni (talk • contribs) 20:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a conduct forum, so no it's not what I was referring to. I was thinking of something like an RfC or WP:DRN. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Won't do any good. They'll just disrupt it again. Btw, they're now even using our present conversation and the one on Robert McClenon's Talk page as evidence for my guilt. And they'll probably succeed too. Haven't seen anyone checking facts in their context yet. Oh well. Best to you too.Saflieni (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Barkeep49, Sorry to bother you again. Last time my messages to the Arbitration Committee got lost in the mail so I want to alert you to my email of yesterday in which I request the arbitrators to check the validity of my recent ban. The main reason provided to justify the ban overlooks information which directly contradicts that argument. I informed the editor who issued the ban about this but they maintained it based on their personal opinion of the content. This means it's a content dispute between the banning editor and the banned editor. They furthermore acknowledge that my rebuttals were deliberately ignored. This raises questions about fair play. Would you mind having a look at it? Thank you.Saflieni (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni our privacy rules preclude me from listing the dates you've sent emails to ArbCom/Clerks but if you want to write here or email me privately with the dates you've sent emails I'd be happy to confirm whether or not we received them all. If we didn't receive one I'd like to know. This is different from us acting on it quickly or at all - as a committee ArbCom decision making takes time and is also setup, intentionally, to be deliberate. Also yes we did receive your email yesterday and discussion about it has begun. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni I can confirm that we did receive the messages you sent. ArbCom, as a committee, moves slowly and, especially when multiple emails are sent in a short time period (such that an earlier email may still be under discussion when a new one comes in) is imperfect about acknowledging them all. Thanks for working through that with me. I will also acknowledge your reply to the message you received from the committee a few hours ago. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Barkeep49. The response I received from the Committee is a little puzzling. It discusses a different topic than the message I sent on January 19. So if anything is not clear, please ask. Saflieni (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni:, I am going to reply here rather than your talk page for what I hope are obvious reasons. I will speak generally but hopefully you will follow what I'm responding to.

The analogy you gave is an interesting one but ultimately the wrong metaphor. We're not a classroom or a school. We're a community and a self-regulating one. If that isn't for you, fair enough, it has some good points and some bad points. But it is the system we have.

I understand why you dislike the message you refer to, it is definitely not friendly. It is not how I would put that message. However, the one left by the second editor is not written so aggressively and is, from my perspective, someone trying to help you. You may not like the help being offered, which is fine and you choose not to follow through on the advice, which is your choice. But it is, I am convinced, offered with good intent.

And finally yes everything you sent was read and that decision was the one that was arrived at. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to reply to me here then please do respect me and my questions. I didn't refer to classrooms or schools but used the common English expression Marking your own homework . It means that people or groups shouldn't judge the quality of their own work or decisions, because they're not likely to recognize their flaws. For cases like mine, where an ANI decision violates several Wikipedia policies, there is a provision in WP:UNBAN which says that bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee ... where there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure. This seems pretty straightforward. So if Arbcom says "we don't feel like" without further explanations it is appropriate for me to use a common expression which sums up the inherent problem of the alternative option. The first reply I received from Arbcom gave advice about the different ways to appeal a block, so they had not read or understood my message. The second one, signed by you, mentioned my appeal request but again advised to check ways to appeal a block. Moreover, the page you referred me to refers to WP:UNBAN so we've been going round in circles. This didn't give a lot of confidence again. By the way, as an administrator, would you mind explaining why you believe that demands by hostile editors to stop mentioning the key Wikipedia policies they violate or else, including behaviours listed as personal attacks in WP:NPA, are somehow good advice? I'm trying to get a grip here. If some people here are exempted from following the principles, perhaps a list should be published. Saflieni (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom didn't say "we don't feel like". The page I sent you to advised you on how to write a successful appeal. My email directed you to where you could file an appeal. If you were going to be successful in your appeal it would have been about taking the advice offered. Maybe it still can be.

Wikipedia is not a debating society or a legal system. The tactics you're using, including in the message I'm replying to, would be more successful in those contexts. However, this is a different context and so it's not going to be successful. It's why all the experienced editors you've encountered have refused to engage with you on those terms. If you can accept our context and way of handling disputes, that's great. You've got a sharp mind and we can use those. If you find that our way of doing things isn't for you, well that's a sad thing (like I said we can use sharp minds and you seem to want to be involved) but also simply the way it has to be at times. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I subscribe to Matt Yglesias' newsletter and part of what he wrote this morning expands on the point I'm trying to make in my second paragraph so I am going to quote it below. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

More information Excerpt from Lawyer-brain, NECTAs, marriage penalties, and the trouble with normal by Matthew Yglesias ...

Excerpt from Lawyer-brain, NECTAs, marriage penalties, and the trouble with normal by Matthew Yglesias

I’ve been thinking lately about something I’ve decided to call “lawyer-brain” though it is of course not exclusive to or universal among lawyers.

What it amounts to is the belief that things that are not courts of law should act like courts of law, where every decision is made with heavy emphasis on both adhering to precedent and setting new precedent and an extremely high priority is placed on the application of neutral principles. Courts act this way for a reason. But nowadays we often see demands that other institutions — social media companies, op-ed pages, elected officials, vaccine administrators, etc. — act like appellate judges when there’s no actual reason everything should be like a court... Hotels have policies, which is a way of managing the staff and setting customer expectations, but the managers can also just make ad hoc exceptions if they want to.

“Check out time is at 11AM” is not a constitutional principle, and even if you write it as “Check out time is at 11AM — no exceptions,” they can still make an exception.

Close

The page you sent me is Guide to appealing blocks. But I'm not blocked, am I? The only helpful information on that page is this statement: Banned users, too, have special rules for their appeals. See WP:UNBAN for procedures of ban appeal. So when I go to WP:UNBAN I read this: Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community or, where there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure, to the Arbitration Committee. It's not very complicated. Valid reasons for appealing to Arbcom are specified in the linked reference, of which these two: some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, and: the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad are relevant here. Your weird lawyering story designed to evade this information, which I'm sending you now for the third time, is very rude. Not sure why you think that's a good idea or why it's the Wikipedia way. But if you refuse to respect me and my appeal request and won't give me decent answer, so be it. Saflieni (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I have tried to respect you. This is why I have tried to continue the dialogue despite your increasing frustration. In fact I tried to identify why you're frustrated with my answers in the hopes of naming it that you could understand what I'm saying. My respect for you is why I have tried to get you to absorb what GAB had to offer, including (but definitely not limited to) the nutshell, which is something I've seen lacking in your requests so far. I'm sorry I have not been successful. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, so after all this "dialogue" you still go on about the Guide to appeal blocks, even after I've told you three times that I'm not blocked. In case you're implying that I'm just looking for excuses, let me repeat the main points of my appeal request: My topic ban is based on a difference of opinions, between the editor who banned me and myself, over the content of a source (that editor is not familiar with the subject, btw). There was no fair discussion; the banning editor confirms that they ignored both the allegations against me and my rebuttals to those allegations. There you go: no legitimate cause and an unfair procedure. WP:UNBAN is clear about how this should be handled and by who, despite your stream of evasive replies which are not respectful nor in any way acceptable, at least not in my culture.Saflieni (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings! Just wanted to follow up and see if you had additional comments for Talk:City of Champaign v. Madigan/GA1? Edge3 (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It's on my list of things to do and I expect to return there later today or sometime tomorrow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries! Take your time. I just wanted to ensure you were still keeping an eye on it. Edge3 (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Caldecott Medal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Outside In.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I have just read your comment at User talk:Patrick L. Stephen, and found it said essentially the same as I said to the editor by email. JBW (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

His hearing the same message from multiple people will hopefully be a good thing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick Facts

Close

Have a good new year! - On the Main page today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

We need more closes like that. :-) At least when the input is solid enough to do them with such specificity. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd love to take credit but most of it was just Guy's proposal, reformatted to reflect the consensus of the conversation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

News and notes: 1,000,000,000 edits, board elections, virtual Wikimania 2021

Special report: Wiki reporting on the United States insurrection

In focus: From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Wikipedia's First Two Decades

Opinion: Wikipedia's war against scientific disinformation

In the media: The world's press says "Happy Birthday!" with a few twists

Technology report: The people who built Wikipedia, technically

Videos and podcasts: Celebrating 20 years

News from the WMF: Wikipedia celebrates 20 years of free, trusted information for the world

Recent research: Students still have a better opinion of Wikipedia than teachers

Humour: Dr. Seuss's Guide to Wikipedia

Featured content: New Year, same Featured Content report!

Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2020

Obituary: Flyer22 Frozen

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Administrator changes

Hog Farm

Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes

Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes

Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration

The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The article Bear Came Along you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bear Came Along 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2021 (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.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Davidwr: the diff you sent was indeed suppressed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey Barkeep49,

You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at merchandisewikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks!

On behalf of the Merchandise Giveaway program,

-- Vermont (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for the clarification on Kyle Card. Would you be able to give any pointers about what parts are too promotional, or any sources I should remove when rewriting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelwvideo (talk • contribs) 09:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Michaelwvideo: awards that have no Wiki articles almost always seem more promotional than beneficial. Wikipedia articles are written using someone's last name rather than first name to refer to them (e.g. Card moved back to Japan in 2011 to pursue an acting career...). The first name format contributes to a more informal/promotional feel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Thank you very much for that information. I've edited the piece along those lines. Let me know if you think it requires further work.

Hi, as you asked for ;-) -> Rituraj_Kishore_Sinha&diff=1005776496&oldid=1005775974 (only one example, see several ones every day like this) CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Reminder sent. I really am happy to keep doing these as striking the right balance between being a welcoming place for newcomers and protecting the encyclopedia is very important to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Addressed the changes you noted, though I agree that it would be best to wait until the signing with the Cubs is official before promoting to GA status. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Signing is official now. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It was already on my todo list for early this coming week. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Changes responded to. I'm afraid we'll have to disagree about the highlights (see review for discussion). I think they should all stay in. I don't think this is a dispute that should keep the article from reaching GA status, however. I did make the other changes you noted, like adding in the part about Pederson wanting more playing time and including a quote from the Players' Tribune article. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and sorry for all the disputes! I mention highlights in the careers of shorter-tenured players a lot, which is why I was so keen on keeping the information in. However, I wanted you to know that I really appreciate you taking the time to review the article! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologize and hopefully I have no need to apologize. I appreciate the time you take to create articles :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Barkeep49. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Eldridge Broussard, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello captain, what are your thoughts on WP:ENT to be specific on #2 which insinuates an entertainer might be notable if they possess a “cult following” is there a specific number to this effect? Because I believe subjective statements as such does the community a huge disservice as it is open to multiple interpretations? What do you think? Celestina007 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007:, defining a cult following is always going to be difficult. No there is no number attached. I think this shows the development of notability with Westerners in mind because cult following plays out differently in a global context. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khin Thiri Thet Mon (businesswomen) saying the article was redirected and the nomination withdrawn, but the article is still there and tagged with an AfD notice at Khin Thiri Thet Mon. Fences&Windows 10:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) this is the AFD - the businesswomen afd was closed because the creator agreed with my redirecting while we hashed it out only to restore it after the AFD was closed. CUPIDICAE💕 11:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae summarizes the events correctly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Fences&Windows 00:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I see you closed this afd as delete. Please note the article was moved to Fab four (cricket) during the discussion, so further deletions are needed to mop this up. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks,@Wjemather. I did notice that (which is why I worded my close as I did) but XfD closer didn't give me any warnings like it normally does for page moves so I didn't give it furhter thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article New Kid 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That was weird. When I ran it, it gave me like a 72 or 73%, and when I looked at the similarities, the "Life" section was almost all highlighted. Not sure what happened. Ran it again just now, and yeah, I wouldn't have tagged it. Sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I saw you had tagged it so I really spent a fair amount of time look and even was like "is this really close paraphrasing". No worries on this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49. I am Malvinero10 and I mainly active in eswiki. Yes. The text deleted here is a literal translation from this article (from the part "Alistamiento de las unidades" to "Para el 02 AGO de 1991, la misión del GT 88.1 estaba finalizada"). Also, the article has irrelevant informations.

I have removed other copys in other articles (see my recent edits). Regards, Malvinero10 (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Malvinero10. I am going to leave it for an admin who speaks Spanish and can verify the COPYVIO as Google Translate was not helpful enough. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.--Malvinero10 (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

7 Minutes for a CSD A7 :) PS: Thanks for noticing me yesterday about the Copyvio.CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Concerning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronic Tacos, you didn't elaborate any reason as to why consensus was to "Keep". You just closed it as keep. I have a suspicion that you just counted votes and not actually read the reasoning behind them. Jerm (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I can understand why you'd be concerned (assume good faith not-withstanding) but I did read the entire discussion. I, for instance, did not weigh Ally's comment as a keep because it was a procedural note rather than a substantive comment on the article. Cunard presented an extensive list of sources, as they tend to do when I see them at AfD. In this particular AfD some editors disagreed with their assessment, which is also common when Cunard participates, but there were enough editors who agreed with the assessment in this case to justify a keep consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I and those who supported deletion actually assessed these sources and provided multiple guidelines as to why the information in those sources were not adequate enough to have the article meet notability, while those who preferred to keep the article based on the sources did not assess them but took Cunard's reasoning at face-value. That is why their keep reasoning was based really on the one guideline, WP:N. We are talking about an organization/business meaning it falls under WP:ORG guidelines. I don't remember anywhere in WP:N stating it's superior to all other notable guidelines. Jerm (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeed this topic falls under WP:NCORP. I'm sorry that your position didn't attract a consensus of editors in this case but there we have it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The number of votes do not determine who's right or wrong, it's those who provide the most accurate arguments based on the guidelines. Jerm (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not a vote and sometimes participation will be discounted - that's why I gave you the example of Ally. Other times, participation will be weighted, giving it more than normal weight or less than normal weight, by their adherence, or not, to policies and guidelines. However, if both sides are suggesting talking about the same guideline, in this NCORP, but have an honest disagreement in judgement over whether sources satisfy its criteria, the side that says "no it doesn't" does not automatically have a stronger claim. I have certainly been on the "I think this doesn't meet NCORP" while it gets closed keep side and it doesn't feel great. My job, as a closer, remains to determine the consensus of the discussion, weighting appropriately by policies and guidelines, which I have done in this case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to weigh in on this. Yes, Cunard did provide a bunch of sources *but* he did *not* evaluate them against NCORP but against GNG. This is the key part of the argument presented by myself and others. As you are aware, the appropriate guideline in this case is NCORP but you do not appear to have been weighed this vital part of the argument to Keep/Delete in your close. All bar one of the Keep !votes made no comment on NCORP and merely referred to GNG. Please take another look. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

With respect, when I see Cunard comment on a NCORP AfD you nearly always do as well but in the opposite way. You are often able to carry the day with your arguments. I tend to be pretty cautious about just wiping away editor's participation as insufficient. But I will, out of respect, give the AfD another read later today when I have some time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't ask for anything more, thanks. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

So in re-reading the discussion there was a new editor who was blocked and also another editor or two who was voting keep more on procedural rather than substantive grounds. As such I have changed the close to no consensus on merits. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, for the same reasons as above/before, can you review your close at Games Research Inc, another involving Cunard-research where he didn't apply NCORP guidelines and everyone other Keep !voter just went +1 for Cunard and another went to far as to dismiss NCORP. Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@HighKing:, Cunard ,in what is a first for the AfDs I've closed, actually specifically noted what he saw as significant coverage. Multiple other editors specifically cited his research, in indeed those specific sources. I think you know that I care a good deal about the relationship between SNGs and GNG. But that participant rejecting NCORP is interesting but only partially relevant to the broader consensus that available sources do satisfy NCORP, which was full well how I evaluated the AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There's significant coverage related to GNG (and other) requirements and significant coverage related to NCORP requirements. Seeing as how Cunard only refers to GNG (and quotes the "significant coverage" line from the GNG), and neither Cunard nor a single other Keep !voter even mentions NCORP (except to deny it's relevance), you can understand why I have asked for you to take another look. I cannot find any basis for you saying that the "broader consensus" was that "the sources satisfy NCORP". I provided a detailed rebuttal of the top 3 "significant" sources - only Hobit argued and that argument ended with the dismissal of NCORP relevancy. P.S. I'm not doubting your caring about the GNG/SNG relationship. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

So you're arguing that because Cunard left out the word secondary that he's making no claim to notability under NCORP? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That quote comes from WP:SIGCOV. I'm simply pointing out that there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest any of the Keep !voters looked at the sources, and NCORP, and the only one that did said NCORP wasn't even relevant. Are you suggesting the word "secondary" was "accidentally" left out and that you're sure that Cunard was examining the sources under the NCORP guidelines? If that's your position, fair enough, I don't see it myself and that is the reason why I've asked here. I don't understand your decision and it won't make future AfDs any easier if you've half the editors arguing on the basis of GNG and the other relying on NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately, for me, NCORP is just the strictest application possible of the GNG. SIGCOV says significant coverage in reliable independent sources while ORGCRIT says significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Cunard added multiple, which for me, was him clearly referencing NCORP. I've done alright for myself on enwiki in part because I'm willing to make sure that I don't call a guideline a policy and because I can rattle off the difference between SIGCOV and ORGCRIT off the top of my head (but then still go and double check it before I press to submit). However, I still slip up with my words from time to time and know that others don't make as much effort as I do to be precise. I'm not willing, in the context of a consensus forming discussion, to throw out their participation when a good faith reading can be had that doesn't require that. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Cunard added multiple? Lol. When have you ever known Cunard to add anything *other* than multiple? This isn't anything significant - on multiple occasions in the past, editors (including me) have complained to Cunard about "too many sources" at AfDs. Anyway, not sure I buy that reasoning either. SIGCOV specifically requests multiple sources too - There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. For me, it is a stretch to suggest that Cunard was referencing NCORP/CORPDEPTH because he added multiple sources given the above. I suppose it demotivating/disheartening when there doesn't appear that any consideration was given to my !vote pointing out that the main issue was that the "significant" sources identified by Cunard actually all failed ORGIND. Just seems from where I'm sitting that the non-Keep !votes weren't given the same shake of the stick and although there were less of them, I thought their arguments had a lot of merit. You can probably appreciate I'm not here trying to hound you for whatever. We've each had our say, I'm happy to leave it and move on. Plenty more articles at AfD. I only edit at NCORP-related AfDs so I'm probably too picky about interpreting the guidelines and sometimes lose sight of the wood for the trees. Thanks for the detailed responses. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY Clearly states it has to pass EITHER the General Notability Guideline OR one of the subject specific guidelines, it has never had to pass both despite years of people getting confused and arguing about this. It clearly passed the GNG. All those saying delete said so because of SSG, ignoring the fact that it passed the GNG so it didn't matter. Dream Focus 23:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Strange you'd jump in to make that comment given that you're fully aware of the RfC at the WP:N Talk Page where this paragraph was discussed, etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. There was a cut and paste, which also created a couple of redirects. I attempted to fix it, but since I can't delete redirects, I simply screwed it up worse. The redirects are Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, [Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union]]. The original article was Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. Hopefully you don't waste much time fixing my screw-up, but thanks in advance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 05:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

So I saw this last night Onel5969 and thought "This seems like a problem better faced in the morning." As I now look into it I'm not seeing any issues. The two Wikipedia space redirects have been deleted and Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union is pointing to Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. So it looks like all is right? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Props to Polyamorph who it looks like cleaned up my mess. Yes, it's all good now. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi both, I came across this in the newsfeed, it was messy :) The only problem with my fix is I had to first move (without leaving a redirect) Presidium of the Supreme Soviet to Draft:Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, given that it only contained two redirects to the wikipedia-space article I thought this would be a non-controversial move. So barkeep, if you wanted to delete Draft:Presidium of the Supreme Soviet as final cleanup that would be cool. Otherwise it will get deleted in 6 months anyway...Polyamorph (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I've since reached a higher level of understanding via discussions with various kind and patient colleagues. :D —valereee (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee:, I know which is why I think it only needs to be noted in a passing comment rather than somewhere formally :). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspected that might be the case, which is why I didn't post to the proposed decision talk lol! :) —valereee (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Grettings, Barkeep49. I need some assistance, please. Where I can request the change of visibility of reversions with copyvios? I am from the Spanish Wikipedia and I don't know where request it. Thank you.--Malvinero10 (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Malvinero10 you want Template:Copyvio-revdel. This script can also assist you in your request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49, I want to join NPP School. Visiting there, I saw you have three student slots open. So could you please adopt me? Thank you. With love from Kammil ⟨talk⟩ 15:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kamilalibhat, I think you misread the table. Unfortunately at the moment I am busy elsewhere onwiki so I am not accepting new students at this time. Sorry. But there are some other great trainers so I hope you get matched up with one soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, no need to say sorry. I will ask any other trainer. Thank you. Happy editing! - Kammil ⟨talk⟩ 16:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Please participate on the talk page if you are interested in the topic. Thank-you. You the man(converse) 20:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I find you from the top banner on WP:ANI as recent active admin.

Can you take a look at [] where an editor claims me (and another editor) to be Sunni zealots (indirectly, see preceding merge proposal by me).

Thank you. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam I'm not going to be able to give this attention at the moment. You might be best served by posting on ANI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

News and notes: Maher stepping down

Disinformation report: A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video

Opinion: The call for feedback on community seats is a distraction

In the media: Corporate influence at OSM, Fox watching the hen house

News from the WMF: Who tells your story on Wikipedia

Recent research: Take an AI-generated flashcard quiz about Wikipedia; Wikipedia's anti-feudalism

Featured content: A Love of Knowledge, for Valentine's Day

Traffic report: Does it almost feel like you've been here before?

Gallery: What is Black history and culture?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 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 a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the seventeenth newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

Structured tasks

Add a link: the team is continuing to engineer on our first "structured task", which will break down the workflow of adding wikilinks to articles, and assist newcomers with an algorithm to identify words and phrases that could be made into links.

Add an image: even as we build our first structured task, we have been thinking about the next one. "Add an image" is a structured task in which newcomers would be recommended images from Wikimedia Commons to add to unillustrated articles. This is an ambitious idea with many details to consider. We have already learned a lot from community members, and we encourage everyone to look at the project page and join the discussion.

Moving forward: more wikis to get the features

Last November, our team published the analysis of the impact of newcomer tasks. We announced that we found that the Growth features, and particularly newcomer tasks, lead to increased editing from newcomers. Because of these results, we believe all Wikipedias should implement these features.

We have started to contact more wikis to deploy the features, including Wikipedias of all sizes. Bengali Wikipedia recently began using Growth features, and Danish, Thai, Indonesian, and Romanian Wikipedias will be coming soon. Please contact us if you have questions regarding deployment.

We are looking for translators who can help by translating the interface. Translating is done on Translatewiki.net (it requires a different account that your Wikimedia one). Communities that already have the Growth features being deployed are invited to check on the translations. Access translations here.

Variant testing

As mentioned in our previous newsletter, we ran a test of two variants of the newcomer homepage, meant to find a version that increases users completing suggested edits. We have completed the experiment, and learned that one of the variants leads to more edits on desktop while the other leads to more edits on mobile. Therefore, we will deploy the strongest variants for each platform to all newcomers.

News for mentors

Mentor dashboard: we have interviewed mentors from several communities as we plan a mentor dashboard feature, which would help mentors track the progress of their mentees. We encourage all mentors to share their thoughts on tools that would help them.

Magic word for mentors: it is now possible to use a magic word, {{#mentor}}, to display the name of a given newcomer's mentor. This can be used on welcome messages, userboxes, etc.

Help panel questions going to mentors: in most wikis, newcomers using the help panel ask questions to the help desk. On Czech Wikipedia, we have experimented with sending these questions to mentors instead. This simplifies the newcomer experience, and only led to a increase in mentorship questions of about 30%. We tried this in Arabic, Bengali, French and Vietnamese Wikipedias, and we are making it the default experience.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you include in your close statement a link to the commons discussion(s)? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith yes but if you have the link at your fingertips that would make it easier :) (I'm going to look as well but...) Barkeep49 (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, No, I don't have it. I was just looking around a bit, but I don't know my way around the commons drama boards. From the way you worded your statement, it sounded like you had a particular discussion in mind. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith not really. I was just going off what others had indicated having read the thread. I'm honing in though... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith

Done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Admittedly cannot be unbiased, but drat. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra if you want to to propose a CBAN, fair enough. Please don't let my close stop you. I just don't think it's fair for these to happen by procedural loophole. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No. Too biased. Too emotionally engaged. This will work out better. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The article New Kid you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:New Kid for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The article New Kid you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:New Kid 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe the text book answer to this question is usually a “No” per WP:V, & WP:N , but I figured per WP:IAR if it benefits the encyclopedia it wouldn’t hurt to create the article, all the same as any good chela would, they must seek advice & approval from the sat-guru so I came to seek your opinion on this bold step I’m still currently contemplating on if or not to undertake, the thing is, I’m thinking of creating a biographical article on Nigeria's first official occultist, but unfortunately the sourcing would predominantly be primary as he was notable in 1993(before Nigeria got internet) & wasn’t available to Nigeria until 1995 (I know that’s a silly & lousy excuse though) anyway, this article is of immense value hence for the first time I'm actually contemplating on following the IAR route as third party sourcing is proving very difficult to find although the article is of encyclopedic value. What are your thoughts on this? Celestina007 (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Not Barkeep, but we do wear similar hats :P What do you mean by primary sources? It doesn't have to be online. I use books and newspapers all the time, and anything newer than about the 1960s should easily be RS. If you can find newspaper coverage of the dude you're golden. Newspapers.com (of which the Wikipedia Library provides a subscription to) is a good friend there. Though not sure how it'll do with foreign papers. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek, ironically I refer to him as Captain so seeing you reply on his behalf amused me. I say primary sources because most information about him is from the book he wrote, I’m conversant with offline sources & how to optimize them,(which I had done before asking Barkeep for their opinion) but even the offline sources aren’t sufficient enough for me to say “oh well this is sufficient enough to meet WP:BASIC”. To say this is a curious case would be putting it mildly. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say he is the Aliester Crowley of Nigeria. Celestina007 (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there substantial secondary sourcing of this person? If so it can be OK if a lot of the material is verifiable through a primary source. What establishes notability is different than what can be used to successfully verify and expand the content of an article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49. This is just a courtesy note to let you know that I've increased Rich Farmbrough's block that you placed from 1 month to indefinite - as he has made it clear that he does not intend to abide by his restrictions when he returns. Worm^TT(talk) 11:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned there was certainly no need to consult with me before turning this into an indef and there is, under our policies and guidelines, ample evidence for this being a reasonable action. The only thing I'll note is that Rich still chafing under things 1 week into a 1 month block isn't too surprising. If it seemed likely that they could get it in 1 week that's what I'd have blocked for. I seriously considered 1 and 3 months and went with the hopeful view of 1 month and hold out hope that that will remain the right timeframe for Rich to be in a good frame of mind to return to our community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I did consider the fact that Rich will be feeling it and I'm one of the most hesitant blockers on wikipedia. However, Rich was making it clear that he not only disagreed with the block, but also that he was intending to not change behaviour afterwards - "If I come back from this block and fix one typo, and get indeffed for it, it's still one typo fixed", that the issue was with others (splitting possibilities into paraphrased "I made a mistake but I fix those, someone is annoyed with me or someone just OTT regarding rules") and finally stating that he does not believe the restriction is valid and should not have to follow it.

This wasn't spouting insults or grumping about individuals, which I would largely ignore during a block, but it appeared to me to be considered opinion that disruption would occur beyond the one month block. He's said he wishes to discuss further, so I am hopeful that a solution might come forward, but a simple time limited block does not appear to be one. Worm^TT(talk) 15:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sir, i follow up some info like zeyan shafiq create new acoount for spamming and you should also see the Stalwart esports page edit. I hope it also needed to be deleted. I hope the person also trying to edit this by himself .Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.127.95.162 (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

sir, i want to say that some paid or related person of Stalwart_Esports are editing this page. I hope this esports page must be delete because it’s has no personal achievement. It’s only get press release for India Pakistan issue. Please do essential steps. 103.127.95.163 (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae has edited that page recently. They do lots of work with paid editing. I will leave this to them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Good morning. I wanted to give you a ping to see if you were interested in participating at Talk:NowMedical under the “Requested Changes…” section and making whatever edits you feel comply with Wikipedia’s policies. Thank you in advance for your time if you decide to chip in. MarthaLuke (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@MarthaLuke, thanks for the invite. My participation in the AfD which combined my admin and OTRS hats hopefully stands on its own. If there is further need of one of those you could call me in, but I do not plan on participating in the discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: can I suggest for clarity that you expand your question to avoid solely using an all-caps redirect jargon term? If I understand correctly, you are asking for evidence that the adminstrator's overall behaviour is in alignment with community expectations on conduct. Using just the shortcut term by itself can be confusing, as people sometimes drop references to the shortcut jargon when speaking about policy violations without actually using a negation. For example, when referring to a biased opinion, editors sometimes say something like "This is WP:NPOV" instead of "This violates WP:NPOV". Just something to consider. isaacl (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

You gave me an edit of yours Isaacl but I'm guessing you're referring to the section I created here. I have clarified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I must have copied the link from the wrong page (it was someone else's edit actually). Thanks very much! (For anyone else's benefit, this is the correct edit.) isaacl (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for all the help, support and guidance you provided here — Amkgp 💬 04:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I've seen your topic here. Just to make it clear, is it possible to change the city name from "Kiev" to "Kyiv"(i.e. place of birth, etc)? I'm not speaking about changing the whole "Kievan Rus" or "Prince of Kiev". Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kram333r (talk • contribs) 01:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Note - Barkeep49, before answering you may want to look here, and here, and here. Multiple editors are dealing with this. Just an fyi. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kram333r it is possible to change the name. However, it should only be done so in keeping with the RfC close you linked to. This means in historical cases, which appears to be most of what you've been looking at, it should stay Kiev. For the parts that fall between historical and contemporary discussion and consensus is what is required. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Here you mention my comment and ask for some diffs. Fair enough. But there's a couple things here and I'm not sure what diffs to provide. I make essentially two claims:

The restriction is not needed because the kind of sources it applies to are either already NOT used in the topic area, or if they are they can be removed according to just regular WP:RS policy
The main problem in the topic area is not shoddy sources but editors misrepresenting what reliable sources say.

I provided some examples for #1 and can add to it. I'm a little hesitant with respect to #2, however, as I don't want to fuel the WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere. Providing diffs for #2 would necessitate me getting specific about WHICH editors are doin' the misrepresentin'. And that would immediately lead to escalation and fights, probably here or on the ArbCom page. Some of this has already made it's way to WP:AE or talk pages so I want to emphasize that I am NOT making a evidence-free claim. The diffs are there if needed. But I'd rather avoid turning that AbrCom page into another slug fest at this point. If you think these diffs are needed let me know. Volunteer Marek 16:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek thanks for your thought and attempts to not inflame a delicate situation. If there are diffs of administrators (preferably at AE) saying #2 I would like to see those diffs. You would be welcome to email me diffs and from there we could jointly figure out what might be appropriate to post onwiki and what would not help in that clarification. Of course I am but one arb so you can also feel free to ignore this :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, hope everything is fine and well - Question regarding Article انجم_لکھنؤی, article subject is salted - how should I tag it?! I now PRODed it but it is clearly more a case for CSD but G8 does not fit really ... any advise highly appreciated. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford good question. It looks like Bishonen did the salting and so I am pinging them as they are more likely to be familiar with this and might know if there was an AfD which would allow for G4 (and salting) or some other criteria for salting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, For a page about an individual person that has been salted, the same user may frequently try to return to try to recreate it, often under related but slightly different titles. In that case, WP:G5 speedy deletion is often a good fix, or opening an SPI on the matter will also sometimes do the trick. In this case, there has been an AfD however! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjum Lucknowi (poet) So I would say G4 is also a suitable option. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek, ok, thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

And just to be a little useful I have gone ahead and salted this new spelling. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd be lying if I said I remembered my original salting. But there's a note on my page from Joseywales1961, who mentions adding the matter to this SPI, whose clerk has requested global locks. Bishonen | tålk 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC).

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the person who applied the speedy tag. I made a completely different edit (correcting a categorization problem) after the speedy tag was already on it, and the tag was applied by a user named Kinvidia. So you'd have to ask your questions about it of them rather than me. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, Bearcat. Best Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I came back to add that I do actually remember a couple of other situations in the past where we really did somehow end up with two different articles about the same person at only slightly different title variations (such as slight differences in name spelling and/or identical names but different disambiguators), covering completely different portions of the same person's career so that there was little to no actual overlap in the information present in either article. Those situations, of course, got sorted out after some outside investigation showed that the claims all pertained to the same person. So it can happen sometimes, and Kinvidia may be able to show some added evidence once they respond. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49,

Since you closed the Shooting_or_Death_or_Killing_or_Murder? RfC and are very familiar with the article title policy for those types of articles and the arguments being made, could you please close these two move requests please?

In both cases, the killers were charged with murder but were later convicted of manslaughter; but the WP:COMMONNAME, used widely in reliable sources and books, even years after the convictions, all use Murder. Thanks! Some1 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Some1 while I closed the RfC, I am happy to leave these requested moves to other qualified closers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Two quick questions, is there a rule or policy somewhere for these types of "charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter" article type moves? Does the RfC that you closed still apply in those cases (i.e. use the WP:COMMONNAME)? The answers to those questions will be very helpful to future closers, so they can base their closes on policies and guidelines instead of personal preferences or a vote count. Thanks! Some1 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That RfC was just from December and so yes the Consensus to use COMMONNAME (which was a strong consensus) certainly still applies. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Barkeep49, one more question I hope: the RfC still applies in the cases of "charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter" correct? Thank you! Some1 (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The explanatory supplement remains up to date but crucially in that RfC there was no consensus to make it a guideline. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses! I'll mention this discussion at the two requested moves so the future closers know. Some1 (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I’ve got a question Captain, you see, sometimes I come across articles (mostly new ones) with details of which precise new page reviewer reviewed the article but sometimes I can’t seem to observe that information anywhere in some other older articles, so my question is, is there a conventional way to know which editor reviewed an article or are you aware of any script that helps with that? Celestina007 (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007, older articles didn't necessarily have anyone review them. So if the log doesn't note anything it's possible no one reviewed it (or it was autopatrolled). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

It may be more heat than light but irrespective of the outcome, a lot of people are putting a lot of trust in the leadership of the new Committee and the changes you are making in the hope of turning it into a more equitable process. So far from me risking being desysoped again (?) by telling the Committee what they have to do, it may be worthwhile not ignoring everything that been said, and also stimulating the clerks into action concerning some of the totally inappropriate comments that are being made with impunity. Otherwise all your efforts (and mine) are wasted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I am attempting to be the best arb I can be. That means reading everything can comes our way - diffs and all. Reading of the diffs takes the longest because frequently I have to read far more than the diff just to get a sense of context and sometimes the diffs are links to entire discussions anyway. I look forward to discussing the proposed decision with the arbs, you, and the rest of the community when it is released. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reverting my changes. Didn't realize it was post-closure until I saw the notice up top AFTER posting. I didn't want to screw it up worse by deleting and then finding out I should have struck it or some other formatting faux pax. Buffs (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs, we all make good faith mistakes and I appreciate how you went about this (realizing you made a mistake and just saying "I don't know what to do now"). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm just curious and really not wanting to be a pest, but where I am it's already 21 March. In SF it's 20 March 11:03, in NY it's 14:03, and in the UK it's 18:03 and it's proposed decision day (Proposed decision to be posted by 20 March 2021). Having been through this process myself and kept waiting for weeks, I just wouldn't want RexxS to be kept on tenterhooks. Whether certain members of the community want him desysoped or not, or another remedy pronounced, or even none, I hope your team will please put itself in RexxS' shoes and be as humane as possible. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kudpung, it's certainly a reasonable question. I hope the answer is soon - I can see work being done on the decision on ArbWiki by the designated drafting Arbitrators. If you'd like an update it's entirely fair to ask on the Proposed Decision talk page. As you might or might not be aware, we shaved off a week from the standard timeline of the case in the interests of not prolonging this. One advantage that week has normally is giving the drafting Arbs more time to go through the submitted evidence before having to write a decision. Hopefully their decision will be ready soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC) P.S. When you write "your team" I'm hoping you mean a team I'm a part of rather than a team I'm responsible for because I am just 1 of 14 Arbs. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and detailed reply. Yes, I meant 'team' in terms of a deliberately informal use for the Committee (which if anyone has ever noticed, I always write with a capital C) without inferring that you are its chairperson or leader. It has not gone unnoticed however, that you are often regarded as a spokesperson, and provide a bridge to the rest of the community which heretofore did not, or rarely existed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I followed your advice only to notice that the dates have very discreetly been extended by editing the casenav template without a word to the community. My comment did solicit a response from a non-involved user who has some inside knowledge of how the Committee used to work, but there's little they can do about it. Nowadays, I naturally have very little desire to do anything much for this encyclopedia but with so much going on right now and a couple of big RfC on the verge of failing or petering out, I have a couple of little ideas for minor but possibly impactful changes to Arbcom. If they were put to RfC by someone they might just fly. I think any positive changes to the way the Committee works should be community decisions and not made by fiat of arbitrators. Anyway, it's none of my business and no future changes to Wikipedia's governance will affect or bother me personally, but If you are interested, I'd drop you a line. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I would definitely be interested in hearing your ideas. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

..."ArbCom is an awful place" to become conventional wisdom - according to this comment by Hammersoft, it already is, and he puts it far more strongly than even I would dare (although I totally agree with him) - I got desysoped for making vaguer mentions about less clearly defined groups of people. I'll get round to dropping you that line when I've put my scribblings into coherent form. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I think if that were the conventional wisdom the community desysop would be passing or there would be some other movement afoot to change ArbCom. Instead I see many people saying ArbCom is doing a good job with this area (not universally but also not enough to dismiss out of hand). I do look forward to those comments when you have a chance to put them into coherent form. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering who is the clerk on the Arb Com Poland request. This comment by the User:Bob not snob account is extremely problematic and should be at the very least redacted. In addition to making personal attacks against User:Piotrus it falsely accuses a publishing house, Aquila Polonica, of being a "vanity press" (it's nothing of the sort), and, even worse, it falsely claims that the publishing house "white washed" the figure of Romuald Rajs (Quote: "Reliable academic sources (not Aquila Polonica Publishing) are unanimous in describing Rajs as a murderer.") where the fact is that this publishing house has never published ANYTHING about Rajs (which of course means that they were never used as a source on that article, since no such source ever existed). "Bob Not Snob" is just making 100% false accusations. And while a publishing house is not quite a BLP, these kinds of comments raise the same kind of issues that are relevant for WP:BLP. Normally, I think these kinds of comments would be suitable for WP:AE report but since it's happening on an ArbCom page I'm guessing that the clerk(s) should address it.

(full disclosure: I have nothing to do with Aquila Polonica and I have never been in contact with them, I'm simply appalled by the nature of these false accusations. In terms of the account which seems to be associated with the publishing house that has shown up to comment on the clarification page () my understanding is that there's nothing wrong with their comment as long as they declare their association and WP:COI up front). Volunteer Marek 17:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek there is no set clerk for an ARCA. I've put out a call for a clerk to do some preliminary looking into it because my focus has been elsewhere (publicly on Tenebrae and RexxS) and so I haven't looked at the activity carefully from the past 3 or 4 days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek a clerk had a look and redacted part of the statement. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Volunteer Marek, I have removed the personal attack on Piotrus. I have not taken a long look at their other comments (except to check for further blatant personal attacks) nor been able to verify myself about whether the statements they made about the publisher are true or false. If you think something else needs removed, please do ping me here, ask at my talk page or ping me in your statement at the ARCA. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, Thank you for the removal of the PA against me, it's refreshing to see CIV/NPA enforced. I concur with VM that the comments about new editors should be similarly redacted, also per WP:BITE. To accuse someone of being WP:NOTHERE, to say that they are editing primarily motivated by a COI, and to disparage their workplace as a vanity press (when such a claim is not supported by a single source) is quite unfair. In fact as much as I appreciate the removal of the PA against me, I have been here for 10+ years and have a thick skin - I am more concerned about what this will cause the new editors to think about Wikipedia (both in general, as well as suggesting to them that such tone and attitude towards others are ok here). I think new editors should not be presented with such attacks; after all we want to retain people, not convince them that Wikipedia's discussions are toxic from day one... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Astounding this defense of "new editors" from https://www.polandww2.com/. These "new editors" (both posting in ARCA: AK at Aquila Polonica Publishing, Tataqp) are

Confirmed to be one in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AK at Aquila Polonica Publishing. As for Piotrus' comments above, Piotrus just now:

saying he thinks that removed information on a supposed criminal conviction and role in communist era police is "uncontroversial", and that asme.pl is a reliable source for such a conviction. But asme.pl was run by one individual, is Publicystyka Antysocjalistycznego Mazowsza - an "anti-socialist" website that was initially the website of the Masovian district of the Real Politics Union, a small extremist political party.
dismissing academic scholarship based on country of origin (Belarus).
, referring to David Irving, said "I don't think it is ok to call someone a "notorious Holocaust denialist"". Irving is mainly known for this, he was even convicted: Austria Imposes 3-Year Sentence on Notorious Holocaust Denier (NYT on Irving).

Astounding that such comments are made here.--Bob not snob (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep, thanks for reverting the other BADNACs. I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnham Beeches Golf Club as well. Discussion still had potential so I feel that this was closed prematurely. Thanks Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Spiderone

Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Saw your post and thought, "I can't believe it's been 12 years since I wrote that". Kind of funny that it's still useful. Risker (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Good ideas remain good ideas and so when I finally found the provenance of them on ArbWiki I was not surprised to see your thinking behind it. Glad I could take you on a trip down memory lane. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I want to thank you, Barkeep49, for being frank and detailed in reporting back to the community about ArbCom's deliberations, while maintaining appropriate confidentiality. You are doing a very tough and mostly thankless job for the community. Plaudits so far. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328 thanks for the kind words. I hope you still consider me doing as good of a job in month 23 as month 3. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully people will separate the individual from the group. — Ched (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

News and notes: A future with a for-profit subsidiary?

Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments

In the media: Wikimedia LLC and disinformation in Japan

News from the WMF: Project Rewrite: Tell the missing stories of women on Wikipedia and beyond

Recent research: 10%-30% of Wikipedia’s contributors have subject-matter expertise

From the archives: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes

Essay: Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia

Obituary: Yoninah

From the editor: What else can we say?

Arbitration report: Open letter to the Board of Trustees

Traffic report: Wanda, Meghan, Liz, Phil and Zack

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to drop to mention a few things. No, I'm not interested in rehashing any cases, reviewing any evidence, or voicing any opinions on the merits of the case. It's been closed, and I'll respect the results (whether I agree or disagree with any of it). What I DID want to say is that I admired your efforts. The time you took to respond to any questions or concerns I think rose to the "Above and Beyond" category. I really appreciate all the time and work you put in during that case. It's obvious that it took a lot of your time, and I suspect there had to be at least some level of stress to find the proper responses. >> *Arb* << .. that is an Arb barnstar. :-). Thank you Barkeep. — Ched (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Ched. The kind words are always appreciated (and sometimes needed). I am trying to do the best job I can in what I think is an important role and the fact that so far people have appreciated it is a bonus. I thank you for taking the time to come here and say something. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello again Barkeep. I have a question. How are the drafting arbs determined? Is it on a volunteer basis? — Ched (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Basically Ched. When we need drafting Arbs a call goes out and it's basically whoever raises a hand. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		for your extensive efforts to improve communication between the Arbitration Committee and the community. — Ched (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hope these are OK: Thanks for all the work you and your colleagues do. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed they are, thanks @Daniel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll comment here as this is going a bit off-topic and the case page is long enough.

something I've supported changing at the recent RfC You made me curious, do you have a link? I don't follow RfCs so I wonder what it's about. And thanks for the clarification, I understand now you were saying you believe he's entitled to the process, not that he wouldn't be desysopped.

However, we can't do that without removing all the other associated permissions (something I'd love to see changed). I doubt this is a major technical issue. I don't know if it's already possible, but I don't think it would be overly complicated. (I might be wrong though) It's mostly that the community would have to express a desire for this change.

if a regular editor created poor articles we would remove autopatrol, we might remove New Page Reviewer, but I cannot imagine us removing pending changes reviewer just because of the autopatrol issues. Actually, I think that wouldn't be unreasonable. If a user can't be trusted to patrol their own edits, should they be trusted to review pending changes? Maybe rollback (by that I mean mw-rollback, not Twinkle) would be a better example?

I think in the section for motions, you forgot to edit "First and only choice" after voting on KevinL's motion. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz that would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021). There was also, briefly, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminship term length. And yes I agree that unbundling autopatrol and some others is not a technical challenge, just a matter of community will. If it's ever proposed I will support it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Zeyan Shafiq. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -Warm Regards--Abhay Esports Talk To Me 17:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

So we are unblocking socks without discussing with the blocking admin these days are we? Classy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Spartaz fair enough I probably should have waited for you to reply to my comment rather than just accepting the second appeal. If you have evidence beyond being a DUCK SOCK, I would also be happy to reinstate the block and/or run checkuser. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the featured, good, and article assessment icons. Pbrks (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep, I’m Abhay. I joined wikipedia a month back and the reason was when Zeyan Shafiq asked me to look after the presence on wikipedia. Unfortunately, Shafiq’s article was deleted via an discussion at AfD after thorough discussion. The reason was: Promotional content and advertising. The author/editor who created this article earlier (Hum4r) has been an identified sockpuppet on this pedia and has been abusing the multiple account policy. Despite my knowledge of Wiki markup language, I decided to read and learn more about the policies on how things work here. I don’t have an idea of the promotional tone used by Hum4r in the Zeyan Shafiq article. After reading all the policies i do believe that i can work on the issues addressed at the Shafiq’s AfD. As per my research, i think if Shafiq’s article is written in an NPOV it will meet WP:GNG WP:BASIC and will be suitable for wikipedia. It does have multiple reliable sources as per WP:RS it’s just it requires to be written in a proper tone. Shafiq has a chapter on him in a book written by Ravi Agrawal which was published by Oxford Publication. Page no 147 onwards Another detailed article written by VICE another article which cover’s him significantly and is published by a reputed source this is fromIndian Express Another one from reputed source with bylinesthis one is another reputed media agency By TheHindu with bylines] There are many more sources but above mentioned one’s can be used as reliable sources as per WP:RS. This was one issue addressed in the AfD as well but unfortunately it was messed up with SPA accounts. Many sources are indeed regurgitated copies but this is how the media in india works.

I am completely aware of the COI i have with this subject. I will declare it once i have the permission for working on the article. I’m writing this to you since at WP:REFUND it is mentioned that i will have to contact the deleting administrator before and discuss it with him.
So, I’d request you to refund the article in an draft space so that i could work on it and remove the promo part and improve it. Otherwise authorise me with the permission to work on the article from scratch. Also I’d make sure the article goes through the AfC process before going live in the mainspace so that it’s peerly reviewed by an AfC reviewer. -Warm Regards--Abhay Esports Talk To Me 15:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abhayesports the deletion discussion happened recently so it's going to be harder to change the decision. You have two options. The first is to present your new sources at Wikipedia:Deletion review and ask to be able to recreate the article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. The second is the second is to just recreate it at Articles for creation. The risk of this second method is someone declines it because of the recent AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and information, I didn’t ask for the article to be made live again(i-e to change the decision). I Am asking for the permission to recreate the article so that i can present it in a possibly better way. I’d definitely do the way that isn’t risky for me because I’ve loved contributing to the wikipedia on esports and i look forward to contribute more. So what way would you suggest? -Warm Regards--Abhay Esports Talk To Me 16:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I understood @Abhayesports. You can either ask for permission first to recreate the article or you can recreate the article without permission but you might be told to get permission. You can also use your userspace to draft the article. See the Articles for Creation link and Help:Your first article for more on this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Hey, I've followed your first option which was less risky for me lol. I've completed till 3rd step. I'm unable to understand the 4th and 5th Point. Can you eloborate please. Screenshot of 4th and 5th Point -Warm Regards--Abhay Esports Talk To Me 17:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for disturbing you again but I’d like to understand more about DRV procedure. I’ve posted it there, what next? Is it like an AfD where other user’s would put their opinions or would someone come and approve/decline my request? I mean how do I understand whether the permission has been granted or not?Warm Regards---Abhay Esports Talk To Me 19:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Barkeep -I was going to add this diff which is extremely important to the discussion but there was a (edit conflict). I'm confused. Atsme 💬 📧 16:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You and Awilley have both expressed longer views elsewhere on that consultation and getting too focused on any one or two people isn't going to be helpful at the level of discussion we're trying to do at the consultation which is why I hatted it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, well...if you don't think that diff is relevant, then I don't mind if you delete it. I simply believed that Swarm touched on the crux of the problem and thought it should be part of the discussion - you're the boss. Atsme 💬 📧 17:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You must be an experienced user to delete that article, I just summarized a little history and facts, I know nearly all locations with my own eyes, there are also wikidata data, so sorry, I cannot understand the deletion process of a little survey of the biggest industries in indonesia for centuries, maybe you know much more than me regards Joachim Lutz (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Joachim Lutz, I've moved your comment here because you put it on Barkeep49's user page, rather than here, his talk page. I have not reviewed the article in question, but the deletion discussion (which you can read here) was closed as 'soft delete' - that means that you can request that the article be undeleted and turned into a draft, which you could continue to work on.

The reason it was nominated for deletion is that the reviewer thought that there were not enough sources to demonstrate that the company passes our notability criteria, which are described at WP:NCORP. Generally speaking, we shouldn't add anything to articles that we know from our own experience, or which we have seen with our own eyes - we should only add content which can be verified by reference to reliable sources. This is discussed further at WP:VERIFIABILITY and at WP:RS. As I said, I haven't reviewed the article, but if you can find enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and can add them to the draft, it might be possible for the article to be reinstated. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 12:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Joachim Lutz as GirthSummit noted this page is eligible to be undeleted. He gave good suggestions about what to do next. Would you like me to undelete it? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanations Joachim Lutz (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, realized that it would be good for security to have all the permissions removed from my alt account associated with a former job. If you'd be so kind-- Elysia (Wiki Ed) is the account. Thanks in advance, Enwebb (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Enwebb done even if I am sad at how this reflects that Wiki Ed no longer has the levels of staffing that it once did. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm sure Wiki Education will be alright in the long-term. Unfortunately, smaller nonprofits have a really hard time competing for donations and grants with the WMF, which has a mighty financial cushion and weathered the pandemic just fine. Enwebb (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah no kidding. TonyBallioni and I have had multiple discussions about the ways that the foundation just accumulates and accumulates money. With the pandemic they panicked that donations were going to dry up so they slashed stuff and then revenues were fine and so they just ended up plowing it into the endowment they've been building up. And yet somehow they never have enough engineer resources to accomplish things the community reasonably wants done (let alone the unreasonable demands). Given the number of development officers they have it is unsurprising that other nonprofits in this sphere find it hard to gain traction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Noting in passing that Wiki Ed is an entirely separate organization. I believe it still receives some amount of funding from the WMF - around $500,000USD/yr, which is nothing to sneeze at. I suspect that a lot of the "saved up" money at the WMF is earmarked at least in part for providing more financial and structural support to non-European/non-"Western" regions, which are the areas of genuine potential growth of the movement. (Think Africa, Southeast Asia, etc; and better structures for Latin America and probably the "ESEAP" group in particular.) That's going to cost a fair buck. Risker (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Forgive and correct me if I'm very wrong - I'm not so up to date these days and my memories are getting dimmer, but wasn't WikiEd split off from the WMF because of the mess a couple of employees made of the IEP? Like the face-saving way a company rebrands itself when it gets a bad reputation? And doesn't want to fire the people responsible. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope. The entire Education department was killed as part of the "narrowing focus" exercise. Several of the employees joined together to create Wiki-Ed. Risker (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about the bad early closure. That was my first attempt at one. I am quite ill, and I did not catch that such a closure would not be allowed if another editor supported deletion. In your edit summary, you also said that it would not be eligible for a NAC. Is there another guideline that I am missing? Thank you for your time. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry you're not feeling well Scorpions13256. In general speedy keeps are great places for NAC. In fact it is the only place, in my personal opinion, that non-admin closes at AfD should be done. I probably should have omitted that part from my edit summary because it was more about the fact that it was not eligible for speedy closure. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify though, would my close have been problematic if that guy had not agreed with the nominations? Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you're correct that the nomination statement offered no deletion rationale. I think, however, it would have been controversial as a non-admin to try and do it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I totally get it now. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. Can you please add the NPP right to this user? He just finished NPP school. Smashingly, might I add. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Barkeep49, How are you? I hope this message will find you in good health. I'm reaching out with regards to James Crabtree article. As you have rightly pointed, there had been no consensus during the AfD. But, as a nominator... I wish to draftify this article till it develops into a better one. But, before taking any steps... I need your advice as well as guidance for the same. -Hatchens (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC) -Hatchens (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hatchens alas it doesn't qualify for WP:DRAFTIFY. DRAFTIFY can be an outcome at a deletion discussion (rarely) but it wasn't in that one. And it shouldn't be used when you know there are likely to be objections; in fact the thing to do when there are objections after a DRAFTIFY is AfD. I would instead suggest waiting at least 3-6 months, see where the article is at and consider renominating it at that time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, thank you for your wise counsel. I think... then we all should wait and hope this entity develops into something meaningful in near future. Best regards, - Hatchens (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, User:Buidhe violated WP:1RR in a 24 hour period. Here are the links to this edits. I think this causes our work to be distruptive. Is there anything we can do about that?--Visnelma (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

While I have no reason to believe Visnelma has bad intentions, their edit introduces misleading content that verges on downplaying an extremely violent ethnic cleansing campaign to the lead of a highly viewed article. As I stated in my edit summary, the vast majority of Greeks had been forced to leave by the end of 1922. The 1923 "population exchange" merely formalized this occurrence. (See Kieser, Hans-Lukas (2007). A Quest for Belonging: Anatolia Beyond Empire and Nation (19th-21st Centuries). Isis Press. p. 171. ISBN 978-975-428-345-7. The Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 officially recognized the " ethnic cleansing " that had gone on during the Turkish War of Independence ( 1919 - 1922 ) for the sake of undisputed Turkish rule in Asia Minor . and "For the Greeks, the exchange agreement merely formalized a fait accompli, since a majority was already refugees in an unfamiliar homeland") I was going to self revert but Visnelma's edit has now been undone again by a third editor. Perhaps they should try BRD and discuss proposed changes on the talk page?

I just saw unconstructive edits and reverted them without remembering that there is a special restriction. This 1RR rule was set up in 2006 and in my opinion is not serving any purpose in the present. Sometimes unhelpful edits are made at a rate greater than 1/day and it would not be possible to bring this article to GA status as I am trying to do if you can't revert edits that harm the neutrality, etc. of the article. (t · c) buidhe 13:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe, @Visnelma: I'm not sure how this landed on my talk page but welcome. This is a bit of a mess because it is unclear whether the 1RR is still in effect. It appears to me that the 1RR sanction is no longer in effect because that element of the decision was amended away. I have not removed it because it's not clear to me that it isn't because the area still has Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions imposed. Buidhe, to the extent that you think it shouldn't still apply I'd recommend Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Visnelma: that is also the right place to go if you think there are 1RR issues. You'll also have both gotten formal DS notifications from me and it seems like further content issues can be appropriately dealt with by by the talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Just slightly curious about this close as there were no keeps, only questions whose answers confirmed the sources didn't meet notability. Not formally contesting it and would probably just re-nom down the road, but slightly surprised that you saw this as no consensus. Thanks for your thoughts. StarM 14:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi two participants for a longstanding article is just not enough to form a consensus; for newer articles I treat that like a soft delete (PROD+endorsement). It had already been relisted twice and so I closed it. I probably should have noted that was why there was a NC close when doing so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

That's super helpful, thank you. Would you mind editing your closing statement to reflect that and/or link here so folks know your thought process for the archives. StarM 15:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much for doing a review there! If just a few more editors would review daily to help identify the older FAs that are still in Satisfactory shape, we could knock off the list in much shorter order. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Credit to Hog Farm who posted on the baseball WikiProject about 3 articles, one of which seemed to have already been checked by several editors (Koufax), one which needed work which I'm not going to be able to do, and one of which needed another check. It was that last one I was happy to do. Good luck with this drive! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

From the editor: A change is gonna come

Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise

In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby

Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct

Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way

Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia

Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles

Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty

News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

From the editor: A change is gonna come

Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise

In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby

Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct

Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way

Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia

Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles

Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty

News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: note the jump from no levels of bulleted lists to three levels is what caused the extra bullets, and the blank lines between them (which you deleted) caused it to occur repeatedly, since the lists get closed and re-opened. I realize now that the comment for my subsequent edit is inaccurate as your changes didn't add extra list start/end announcements: the initial ones were already there, and deleting the blank lines eliminated many extra announcements. I apologize for the error. isaacl (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I've definitely noticed you doing the screen reader friendly formatting as of late. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to say that if you haven't already, you might consider reviewing the advice in Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks or my essay, User:Isaacl/On wikitext list markup, to copy the previous prefix and then add another character as desired. It's what I did in my edit which removed the extra bullets in the first list item (and did avoid some more extra announcements). From a markup point of view, I'm guessing the poster might not have wanted to nest the last set of comments under the last numbered item, but it preserves the appearance of the original post. isaacl (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)ç

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, hope you are doing well. Could you please have a closer look at those NACs at AfDs -> + + , only a few, only in one day. Thank you.

Addendum: Those also .... sigh... CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Please also see this thread where I have given a clarification from my side. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmorwiki and CommanderWaterford: I'm pretty firmly on the record of disliking NAC at AfD. I think properly done NAC can draw criticism that the same close by an admin would not. And obviously I find the error rate among NAC higher than among admin. However, policy/guideliness/practice currently does allow NAC in some circumstances. Looking over this list of NAC, I don't see any categorical errors of the kind that normally makes me leave a message to them (two major example of these kinds being 3rd relists out of process, articles eligible for soft deletion being relisted). The closest one is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Legitimate_Wise_Guy because draftify is designed to be a rare AfD outcome and doing it after 2 participants is unusual. I also have some kind of issue with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Swancott, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giambattista Bonis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Köerner, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Environmental Group (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Peepol, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celadrin (joint cream). Some of those are more personal opinion than objective mistakes. Others just show a pattern of closing keep in situations where it is a stretch but where no individual one is an issue, the "issue" is the pattern.

Bottomline, I'm not seeing closes that would have lead me, absent this message, to tell Kichu to stop doing NAC but since we're here I will throw out a general word of caution on the topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Barkeep for your advice and I will try my best not to make any errors from next time onwards. And thank you CommanderWaterford for raising this concern over here and at DR. I would not have been alerted otherwise. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Fyi: The User had been identified as a Sockpuppet and has been blocked. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Saw your comment at BN. I wonder if it would be worth pursuing an "automatic" route to adminship. For example, if someone has been granted more than than 3/4 of the available perms that are bundled in with the admin toolset, they must explicitly say the do not want the bit, otherwise it is granted. I'll be watching this page so no need to ping Primefac (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Ooh that's a new idea. Radical but in ways that are really interesting and feel aligned with our "no big deal" roots. Conceptually I'm all for it. But I am also conceptually for several reform ideas but, for now, despair of actually reforming anything. As I was trying to hint in my BN comment I simply don't think there is anywhere close to consensus about what the issue we're trying to solve is and without that consensus no solution would have a chance of passing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: (chased from BN) - keep in mind most available permissions are available at admin discretion - so this is a route for any admin to just make anyone/everyone else an admin (as you could just click on a few perms, then instantly meet the new threshold). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as the current drag-out-discussion at BN, it is very enwiki... Former admins on metawiki for example do have to run a rfa, but it is usually just "hey I'm back and would like to admin again" - if they actually are "back" (as usually evidenced by participating in projects/communities) they usually get 100% support and its not a big deal. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

When I was writing it up I naturally inserted some safeguards. Namely that the person would have to hold the PERMs for some length of time to qualify. There might be some sort of use requirement for each perm as well to demonstrate competency. To me countering the gaming aspect is no harder, and I suspect a little easier, than trying to craft an admin inactivity policy starting from our current baseline. But also getting rid of the gaming policy is the least of this proposal's issues imo. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

As for your second point Xaos, I would love enwiki to show that returning sysops could pass RfA without too much hassle. That's why I was so happy User:Jackmcbarn was willing to go. I am a tad disappointed to see they've been inactive since January because if they don't stay reasonably active it will make it harder for the next such person. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I have to admit, I do really like Prime's idea. It's something I could fully support. — Ched (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Cool idea. May yet make it onto the list of perennial proposals. Only problem is that the WMF does actually require a community-based decision in order to grant access to deleted content. This came up during discussions of whether non-administrators could be on Arbcom; the election process for Arbcom was considered equivalent to an RFA. There are shorter-term, temporary situations where adminship is granted on projects with communities too small to hold an effective RFA, but those requests are made at the stewards board and are available for public comment and are reviewed by multiple stewards. I'll try to dig up the references on this - it's pretty old, but it hasn't been revised and is still the WMF policy to the best of my knowledge. Risker (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar for your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh fight. I had no idea how contentious my nomination would be. I appreciate your willingness to assess that lengthy discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Schazjmd. Recent events are often hard to assess and internet culture noms tend to attract above average outside participation. The intersection of those, therefore, can often be something like that. Believe it or not that's not the longest AfD I've closed though it likely is in the top 10. It is a good example, in my mind, of a nomination so props to you for framing that discussion in a productive way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You came to the right conclusion and explained it well. Kudos from a "Josh fight" fan who still !voted delete :) ~EdGl talk 20:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Schazjmd, yes, thanks to you both. I created the article, but still felt a little queasy when people came flooding in from Reddit. Overall, though, the discussion was better than I expected, and I think you wrote a well-explained and fair closure. A good showing all around for Wikipedia. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Referring to "her reviewed work (GA+FL) has over 800,000 views in the last 30 days alone." Which tool can be used to get this data? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus, I have the XTools widget turned on and then I just used my calculator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I know that a shutout can be less than 9 innings. That was the whole point of adding the "9 inning" qualifier, because per the definition referenced, a Maddux must be a shutout of 9 innings or more, not just any shutout. --Jameboy (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough @Jameboy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks 👍 --Jameboy (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Talk page access for User:Birrd in Crane also needs to be revoked... — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

They're allowed to remove a block notice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, no reason they should be editing at all through this account – in this situation they can only make an unblock request from the master account. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the eighteenth newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

Structured tasks

"Add a link" is now being tested in production and is nearing release on our four pilot wikis (Arabic, Czech, Vietnamese, and Bengali Wikipedias). We'll be doing final tests this week and next week, and then plan to deploy to the four wikis either during May 24 week, or May 31 week. After two weeks, we will analyze the initial data to identify any problems or trends. We expect that this feature will engage new kinds of newcomers in easy and successful edits. If things are going well after four weeks, we'll progressively deploy it to the wikis with Growth features.

News for mentors

We are currently working on a Mentor dashboard. This special page aims to help mentors be more proactive and be more successful at their role. The first iteration will include a table that shows an overview of the mentors current mentees, a module with their own settings, and a module that will allow them to store their best replies to their mentees questions.
We've conducted our quarterly audit on Growth's four pilot wikis to see the activity of mentors. It appears that the vast majority of mentors are active.

Community configuration

We are working on project to allow communities to manage the configuration of the Growth features on their own. In the past, communities have needed to work directly with the Growth team to set up and alter the features. We plan to put this capability in the hands of administrators, through an easy-to-use form, so that the features can be easily tailored to fit the needs of each community. While we developed it initially for Growth features, we think this approach could have uses in other features as well. We'll be trying this on our pilot wikis in the coming weeks, and then we'll bring it to all Growth wikis soon after. We hope you check out the project page and add any of your thoughts to the talk page.

Scaling

Growth features are now available on 35 wikis. Here is the list of the most recent ones: Romanian Wikipedia, Danish Wikipedia, Thai Wikipedia, Indonesian Wikipedia, Croatian Wikipedia, Albanian Wikipedia, Esperanto Wikipedia, Hindi Wikipedia, Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia, Telugu Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia, Malay Wikipedia, Tamil Wikipedia, Greek Wikipedia, Catalan Wikipedia.
A new group of Wikipedias has been defined for the deployment of Growth features. Please contact us if you have questions about the deployment process, or if your community likes to get the features in advance.
After discussion with the English Wikipedia community, the Growth features will be tested on a small percentage of new accounts. At the moment, registered users can test the features by turning them on in their preferences.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, a few years ago you reviewed one of my articles and were complimentary, so I thought I'd ask you a question. I've been working on an article on an Upper Canadian politician; largely forgotten now, but if he hadn't died young(ish), may be better remembered: John Solomon Cartwright. I'm wondering if it is now approaching Good Article status, but have never tried before, so wondered if you would be willing to take a look at it and give me informal feedback? If you're too busy, no probs. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I appreciate that s. 4.2 "Province of Canada" still needs work. The sub-headings are placeholders, and I want to add a section on relations with the French-speaking members of the Assembly.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz congrats on your content work. happy to give a couple thoughts based on a quick read of the article. First I'll note that GA, when done right, is a collaborative process so don't feel like it needs to be perfect before submission. The most common GA issue is one I see here: a LEAD that needs expansion. Specifically the LEAD should be a summary of the article. I roughly think of it as a sentence per section (or two for long sections) that summarizes that section. In a GA all facts also need some kind of in-line citation. You don't need a citation for each sentence - though some people do it this way - but if you have 2 or 3 sentences without a citation this means that the next citation that comes should support all those facts, with a minimum of 1 citation per paragraph. Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! will keep working on it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Barkeep49,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

What is your take on abandoned and neglected veteran actors (in reference to Nigerian actors) that played a pivotal role in the development of the now structured Nollywood cinema movies but unfortunately existed in a time where the internet wasn’t readily available in Nigeria or to Nigerians and thus are hardly ever covered by modern media despite the fact that those actors are veterans and are the founding fathers of the Nigerian movie industry. I know the text book answer is “if they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them or do not satisfy any criterion from NACTOR they shouldn’t be on mainspace” but seeing as they were the founding fathers of the now structured Nollywood are there any exemptions to them? The Nigerian Nollywood movie industry makes more movies than both Hollywood and Bollywood put together and are ranked second only to Hollywood in terms of quality. See this and this. I don’t think it’s fair that the founding fathers who created the platform are neglected and are not duly recognized. Do you think it is possible for us to cut them some slack and lower the notability threshold for them? Celestina007 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: The answer for movies is a bit easier since they would obviously qualify for presumptive notability as historically notable. For actors the answer isn't as obvious. Given the current climate at AfD, I suspect that you would probably find some receptivity for the point you're making as long as there is some RS so verifiability can be satisfied. But that's a gut feeling and I don't actually have a great sense of what the "correct" answer is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I totally understand your POV when you make mention of verifiability and RS. I would perform another deep web search tonight and see what i can dig up. Thanks for your time captain. Celestina007 (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Nominate onel5969 for rfa, he deserves it. 06:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.42.172.159 (talk)

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.

Celestina007 (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I came across this convo with Rosguill, not that I’m interested in participating there, but for the sake of knowledge whats a whitelist and what tasks do editors editing there perform? Celestina007 (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: you know how there's autopatrol? Well the whitelist we're talking about creates a list of users that causes a bot to patrol just their redirects without any human involvement. It's like a redirect only autopatrol. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup! just I thought, I just knew I wouldn’t find it interesting. Celestina007 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I wrote this Wikipedia:Don’t burn yourself and for the life of me can’t seem to create a shortcourt, could you please assist me in creating the shortcourt, I intend to name the shortcourt WP:DBY. Could you please help me? Celestina007 (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I could do it but let me teach you instead. To create the shortcut go to WP:DBY and edit (create) the page. On the page you'll want the following: #REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Don’t burn yourself]]

That should make your shortcut> Let me know if you need more help. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Funny thing is, I had figured it out before reading your reply, thanks all the same for being my life long guide. Celestina007 (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I came across this file and to be honest I got offended by it. I’m not a Freemason, and as a woman I may never be, regardless I’m obsessed with them and very much an exponent of Freemasonry but the file dampened my spirit, is there a bias or prejudice against Freemasons? Should such a file even be allowed here? Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

People are often suspicious of secret groups and Freemasons are no exception. You can read more about Freemason suspicions at Anti-Masonry and Masonic conspiracy theories. That file doesn't seem to be used on enwiki and seems to be used on some other language wikipedias as a userbox. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That does make sense, I’m glad it isn’t used on en-wiki. Thanks for the explanation and clarification. Celestina007 (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@BAnand (WMF) as a member of the drafting committee are there any issues if I attend meetings (schedule permitting) that I'm not strictly entitled to attend (i.e. Stewards)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, Thank you for your response. It would be helpful for us if you attend the meeting as a UCoC drafting committee member and observe and inform the group from that perspective, but if you're interested in joining a group not related to a role you hold as a participating member you probably won't find the sessions very helpful, they'll be designed for discussions around the roles you have.--BAnand (WMF) (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2021 (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.

Celestina007 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	👍 waltercolor 08:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm curious why you reverted my edit to WP:NPP? I'm not sure what I broke, I'm trying to standardize the transclusions of the checklists, and add more (for templates and dabpages) that I've been working on with Novem Linguae. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elli your version, expanded the Wikipedia space checklist (a relatively unimportant checklist all things considered) and collapsed the questions we want reviewers to see - namely the article space questions/ideas. The collapsed sections cover material already discussed elsewhere in the tutorial but useful if a reviewer is going through the checklist on a given article. I would not want someone, reading the tutorial completely as they should before requesting the right, to skip over those questions because that's closer to the "how" of NPP than the theoretical basis elsewhere in the tutorial. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I didn't intend to expand the Wikipedia space checklist - mind if I reinstate part of my edit sans the changes you mentioned? Elli (talk | contribs) 02:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't support the idea of collapsing that section further so if you think it a benefit I'd encourage you to take it to the talk page for discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean, excluding collapsing the article space info. (though, when I came across it, the article space info was noincluded - I fixed that at that page. So I figured it was meant to be collapsed, which is why I did it) Elli (talk | contribs) 02:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Well to be honest I'm not sure what else you were trying to accomplish so if you think you're not doing the two things I observed as troublesome, go for it. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. Of late, I've been involved in several AfD's regarding marginal radio stations (5-25 kW). None of them pass GNG, but the argument by several persistent editors at AfD has been based on BCAST (which I'm not sure they meet either, but their simply saying it does seems to suffice). My position, is that regardless of BCAST, they don't pass GNG. I think the time has come to have an RFC to settle the matter as to whether the SNG trumps the GNG. Especially since an admin has now accused me of simply wanting to pad my deletion count (which couldn't be further from the truth). I don't think the radio project page is the right place, since those folks have a very focused viewpoint. So my question is, where would you suggest I begin the RfC? Thanks, as always. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969 since it's about the SNG, Wikipedia talk:Notability (media) strikes me as undoubtedly the right place with a cross notification to WT:N. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, thanks. But I don't think that's appropriate, since the biases of that group would be prevalent. I was looking for a neutral site. But, as always, thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Onel5969. Sorry to butt in, but I was pinged below and happened to see this. There is another editor that is also thinking about RFCing this. And there is also a debate about whether essays such as NMEDIA should be included in the SNG sidebar. You can find the discussion at WT:N#Should WP:NMEDIA be removed from the SNG sidebar?. Hope that helps. Take care my friend. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You could probably do it at WT:N as Novem suggests, but SNGs tend to be pretty highly watched pages and frequently RfCs about them end up on CENT. These aren't obscure backwoods; if a bunch of the people who follow it think one thing that might not be too out of line with the community as a whole. And I say that as someone who isn't always happy with how discussions at NSPORT play out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Having read the link you directed to me, NL, I think I'll reach out to SDKB and see if we can co-author the RfC. No sense in duplicate efforts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that One15969 is engaged in FORUM and ADMINSHOPPING. They have brought this to two seperate admins now. You are the third. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Neutralhomer, while I might be the third admin they've contacted they are not forum or admin shopping. The first two were based on AfD closes. They asked about the closes and got an answer. From that, they decided that an RfC was going to be a productive way forward. Wanting advice about how to best achieve that they contact me, which is unsurprising as Onel and I have worked together and talked about notability regularly through our joint work on New Page Patrol. They certainly weren't asking me to overturn an AfD close of mine since I won't close AfDs Onel has nommed and I've been too busy with arb business to do much of anything outside of that and RfA in the past couple weeks. I see an editor appropriately attempting to use our consensus process to see where the community stands on an issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Well, as was pointed out the possibility of an RfC is being worked out. Personally, and I've said this before, after 15+ years, I don't think it's necessary. I believe One15969 is kicking a hornet's nest for no real reason, but they the possibility of their RfC. They need to be ready, though, for either the fallout or the possiblity that NMEDIA/BCAST becomes a guideline because that's a possibility. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Be careful what you wish for because something might become a guideline suggests Onel will have lost something if that happens. From my perspective we will all just have a better sense of what kind of consensus it has in the community. A win for us all, I feel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, personally, I think it's going to be an unnecessary mess and there are going to be a few thousand deletions and a few dozen editors to quit en masse. I don't see a win or anything good coming out of this. But, if I am surprised by the outcome, I just don't want to see this all over again and One15969 looking for another RfC. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Please assume good faith @Neutralhomer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I am, but pessimist brain. Can't be helped. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep, thanks. That was exactly what happened. First, I asked 3 admins their rationale for closing the AfD's the way they did. Based on their responses, I then felt the proper course of action seemed to be an RfC. I have very little experience with them, so have asked two admins on their advice regarding where to have that occur. And just so we're clear, I do not give a rat's ass about the outcome. I simply want there to be clarity. It will make reviewing articles that much easier. Prior to some recent article creations which did not even meet BCAST, I must have marked hundreds of these microstub radio articles (usually from the Asian markets) as reviewed, based solely on BCAST. If the result of the RfC is that BCAST becomes a guideline, that would even be my preferred outcome, since one can quickly ascertain whether a station meets that, and then move on. Regardless, sorry to blow up your talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I'm always happy to host interesting discussion on my user talk :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Hello, I'm planning to create a new case at Wikipedia:Arbitration, however I noticed that there is a 500-1000 words limit and with so few words I would not be able to provide enough evidence in the case. Nevertheless, I saw that it is possible to request for permission to include more words, so what is the procedure of it? Best regards, -- Pofka (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Pofka, Not Barkeep, but we generally don't allow you to exceed the initial word limit at first posting. We may, at our discretion, grant additional words. Generally requests to exceed word lengths, etc, may be made at the case's talk page. Some friendly individual advice: if you can't summarize a dispute in under a thousand words, you will probably have a hard time getting us to accept it. Remember, the initial statement is just asking us to open a case, once a case has started further evidence can be presented. While it is our job to read through vast stores of evidence, we remain human and are better swayed by concise statements :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:59, 8 June 2021 (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.

— The Most Comfortable Chair 10:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Most Comfortable Chair thanks for the email. I believe all was sorted correctly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

These users are interlinked they make edits and they themselves accepts reviews. Astrolynux https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AstroLynx&redirect=no

Tgeores https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tgeorgescu&action=view

Grabergs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång&action=view

VenusFeur https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VenusFeuerFalle&action=view Elc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:El_C&action=view JohnsonCherryium9 (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep, you're really doing a nice job with all the RfA nominations. Keep it up. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 01:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words @Nnadigoodluck. Helping editors through RfA is a passion of mine. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Clovermoss. I was interested in joining the WP:NPP school and I noticed that you're a trainer there. Are you taking students right now? At the moment I'm more active on weekends, but I'll be more active during weekdays at the end of June. I'm patient, so I don't mind if I have to wait longer for responses. My timezone is UTC-5. Your box said to say a bit about myself, so here goes. I'm a canadian university student and I've been a Wikipedian since 2018. I'm interested in NPP because I noticed there's a huge backlog and I think that the NPP school would help me learn how to help out with that because NPP looks like a fairly complicated process. Clovermoss (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Clovermoss, I recognize your name so I welcome your interest. I haven't really had time to take on new students (and in fact have been a bit slow in responding to the one student I currently have). I also committed last night to taking on a new student. So two thoughts. One you could try a different NPP school trainer. Or if you're willing to wait I could probably start you in the next 2-4 weeks. Once we get started it's not a big deal to take your time with the assignments. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind waiting. Let me know when you think a good time would be. Have a great day, Clovermoss (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What’s our stance on notable articles created by undisclosed Paid editors? Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 sometimes you can draftify, sometimes you can G11, and sometimes you review the article and try and get the person to disclose. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this change, could you also include a link to the RFC in question? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith

Done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49

Regarding your comments on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Okcoin. I was curious why you thought it didn't meet the requirements. The subject is mentioned on multiple pages on Wikipedia already and is connected to high authority figures and exchanges in the crypto industry. See search results here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=okcoin&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1

Lately coverage seems to be very high lately within Google News. In addition, Okcoin has a big historical connection with Binance exchange CEO Changpeng Zhao with a lot of controversies and legal issues - https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2020/10/29/leaked-tai-chi-document-reveals-binances-elaborate-scheme-to-evade-bitcoin-regulators/?sh=6d7076e82a92

Also, it is connected to Okex, same founder, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-19/crypto-exchange-okex-to-resume-withdrawals-as-issue-resolved

Let me know what you think.

Thanks! MarvelGuy (talk)

@MarvelGuy: cryptoexchanges like Okcoin need to follow our guideline on companies and products, commonly referred to as WP:NCORP. In order to have an article, a company needs to have multiple independent reliable secondary sources discussing it in significant detail. The CEO being quoted doesn't fit that. Neither does it being included in other Wikipedia articles; because anyone can edit Wikipedia, we do not consider Wikipedia a reliable source. There is a fairly high bar for companies and in particular cyrptoexchanges because Wikipedia has been abused by them in the past. I hope this explanation helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.

The key results were:

Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.

These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.

Looking ahead

The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.

The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.

You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): - What does "Enable experimental tools in the quick replying and quick topic adding features' source modes" do? Also I notice you write your signature in this reply in a way that would prevent people from using the reply tool to ask questions. But that doesn't stop me. Mwhahaha :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Special:MassMessage has some limitations around signatures. I succeeded in convincing the bot not to sign its own name, which is probably enough.

At the moment, that scary-sounding line gives you a toolbar in the wikitext source mode (identical to the visual toolbar) and enables some of the Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Keyboard shortcuts (to match what you'd expect if you use the 2017 wikitext editor regularly). There are currently no plans to add anything else to that pref, but I assume that the generic name was deliberate/might be used for something else in the future. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	From Girth Summit to Trialpears RfA nominations. Thank you. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 01:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello captain, I’ve got two questions , the first question is this, I am looking to propose that AFC, Autopatrol and new page reviewer be given to editors who are at least one year old. My second question is how do I make WP:IBUSA and WP:ASIC into a policy.? Pinging DGG, Primefac CaptainEek, Ivanvector, Blablubbs, Liz, Rosguill, TonyBallioni, Worm That Turned, GorillaWarfare, Sowhy, and Maxim. Please all suggestions are welcome on how to go about this. I feel WP:TRIO is very pertinent and most especially to aid sysops and functionaries. Celestina007 (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, While I vigorously believe AFC needs reforms, your suggestion as I interpret it does not seem the solution. You are suggesting that AFC, Autopatrol and NPR be automatically given to every account over a year old? We hand it out by request for good reason: so that we can vet the users involved. Now, we certainly need more reviewers in both spheres, but just handing it out like candy doesn't seem like it will fix the underlying problem. Correct me if I have misinterpreted it :) With regards to IBUSA and ASIC, can you explain why you think they should be policies? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek, not exactly I was suggesting that the aforementioned rights should not be given to editors who are relatively new(one year and under), I was suggesting that WP:IBUSA be made into a policy because I believe it may prove salient to sysops. As for WP:ASIC essay I believe it is pertinent to anti upe editors, this essay is inspired by true life events, Ive lived in Nigeria for 21 years, I accidentally doxxed mysel(my height used to be on my userpage) I got seriously physically assaulted and That’s the reason I believe WP:IBUSA and WP:ASIC respectively be made into a policy. If this is considered moot or not relevant, I wouldn’t pursue it any longer. Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Autopatrol/NPR/AFC idea, I think that it's reasonable for Autopatrol and NPR, although probably overkill for AfC given that those articles are still subject to further review. For NPR, we'd be declining some promising editors (in hindsight, myself included), but I would imagine that most of the good-faith editors would eventually come back once enough time had passed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Few things do become policy, or need to. Heck, some of more most cited internal guidance is just essays. Policies are the most stringent stuff we have. I could see it becoming a guideline maybe? But even that is a stretch. Instruction creep is real, so we try to keep our core policies lithe (not that they are...). I'm not sure that either solve a pressing problem or document a longstanding process, which is what policies and guidelines are intended for. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Rosguill said it best, @CaptainEek, even if WP:TRIO and WP:ASIC are not going to be made into policy I firmly believe that the one year threshold before granting Autopatrol and NPR is very much plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
What problem are we solving by so dramatically increasing the time necessary to obtain those PERMs? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, For one, bad faith editors target Autopatrol and NPR, increasing the tenure before giving out both perms would very much discourage bad faith editors(UPE) from creeping in. Celestina007 (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

What Barkeep said. Permissions should be granted based on user ability, understanding of relevant policy and practice, and merit. They should not be based on tenure, with the very minor exceptions of autoconfirm and extended confirm. Nothing is being protected by requiring a capable editor of six months' tenure from handling AFC/Autopatrol/NPR; in fact, it is damaging. As to those essays that were pointed out, the core idea of UPE is that it is against the Wikimedia Terms of Use, and therefore anyone who egregiously violates it (e.g., refuses to follow the policy despite warnings) is more likely to be blocked and/or banned than to be given additional user rights. Frankly, we have WAY too many policies now; we should reduce them by half. Risker (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Risker, Risker, I’m afraid you misunderstand me. I am not saying both Autopatrol and NPR rights be auto given after a year rather I am saying it shouldn’t be given to new editors younger than 1 year. Any bad faith editor can learn relevant policy and under few months acquire the perms but if the tenure before granting is exponentially increased, it discourages them. I’m only trying to proffer what I thought to be a solution to the UPE crisis we currently encounter especially here in Nigeria. Celestina007 (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, I understood you correctly. It does not make sense to require a certain length of tenure to grant certain rights. We are looking for skill, ability and willingness to do the job. It's important not to get so suspicious of other users that the project shoots itself in the foot. In my experience, the majority of users who are accused of being UPEs aren't UPEs at all, but do no not share the same perspective as their accusers. (Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of UPEs, and I've investigated and blocked enough to know for sure.) But I can think of a lot more accounts being accused of UPE that were not even remotely behaving like UPEs. So let's not confuse the two issues. Rights are granted due to merit, ability, willingness to do the work, and are not restricted by tenure. Risker (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Risker, Alright then, I think that settles it. I merely thought of a way to deal with UPE, but if a majority of the community do not agree with me then it’s okay, I believe posterity would judge me fairly knowing that in the battle against UPE I contributed my quota. Celestina007 (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I gather that the suggestion about rights is not thatt hey be automatically given to users after one year, butt heat they not be granted to users before one year. I became an admin after I had been here 6 months,;I know that's unusual nowadays, but people ho are sufficiently active and apparently trustworthy should be encouraged to get the righat. But I understand Celestina's annoyance at the people who have been given the rights too early. and without sufficient consideration. We do need to be more careful in whom we do give the rights -some of them, especially autopatrol, have ben granted much too loosely. And we ought to be a little quicker to remove rights. There have been cases of editors who have been here a considerable time, and proven not to be worthy of the trust. (There have also been those given the rights longago, have rarely used them, and not kept up to date the few times they do use them) As for policy, what w need is to enforce existing policy, and decrease the amount of overlap and contradictions among them. Adding another statement on essentially the same problems runs a risk of increasing confusion. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I think that one thing that Celestina's proposal would accomplish is that setting a one-year minimum bar for advanced permissions would make it prohibitively costly for freelance UPE editors and less savvy UPE farms to sneak their way into getting permissions. It's feasible for a bad-faith UPE editor to spend 3 months of good faith editing in order to build up a reputation and then start engaging in UPE once they're past heavy scrutiny. Setting the bar at one year would make it much less appealing to try to trick the community. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
While the plural of anecdote is not data, I'm not sure I'd still be editing if NPP hadn't hooked me me when I started editing seriously in 2018. And the only reason I was able to get NPP when I did was because I'd had the "good fortune" to edit for 3 months in 2005 and 2007 and thus got some PERMs thrown at me when such things were given out freely. Given the experiences of the three people in this particular chain, I am not sure that raising the cost for spammers is worth the cost in raising the bar for legitimate editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Rather than having all editors wait a year before getting any advanced permissions, I'd like there to be a "custom" (not saying policy) of waiting a few months between awarding each permission. I've seen some editors go boom! boom! boom! and in a matter of a few months, they have 3 or 4 permissions. I don't spend a lot of time at PERM but when I've checked out specific requests that have been made in the past, it seems like the admins staffing that page have done their due diligence. And, in general, I presume good faith on all editors. But I do get suspicious when I see editors pile on permission on top of permission without acquiring a lot of experience in using each one. Some, like rollback, can easily be misused because it is quicker to rollback than undo an edit and editors need to learn how to use it properly.

One trend I'm seeing that I don't remember happening in the past is giving an editor a temporary permission, for 1-3 months, to see if they are using the tool properly before granting it permanently.

As for your essays, Celestina, I think it is usually a worthwhile exercise to put your thoughts down on issues to see if they resonate with other editors. But, to be blunt, creating new policies or even changing current policies is an arduous task that usually begins at the Village Pump. If you want to see what is ahead if you move forward, go to the talk page of any policy or guideline and see how big the talk page archives are to see how much debate surrounds the implementation and adjustment of policy. I think the biggest talk page archives is WP:Manual of Style which has over 200 pages full of debate about language usage and grammar. I don't think of those subjects as controversial but if people can get that worked up about italics and commas, even more so for paid editing and sockpuppetry. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Liz I understand, creating new policy does entail doing arduous work. Infact when I proposed the idea of creating the WP:IBUSA essay into a policy(see above) it was met with sharp rebuttal and I immediately said “okay let’s forget about that” and let’s focus on restricting Autopatrol and NPR rights that too was met with criticism when it clearly is a great method of dissuading undisclosed paid editing. I’m satisfied that at least Rosguill understands my point of view. I do not want to sound arrogant, but my presence here is a major factor UPE is dying in Nigeria, the records speaks for itself. This year alone I neutralized two UPE rings. I wouldn’t be here forever, so what I’m trying to do is create a system(the 1 year tenure proposal) that discourages UPE so rather than people fighting undisclosed paid editing it would be the system doing the “fighting” I’m marveled at some editors I thought would see reason with me. But it’s okay, posterity would be kind to me.Celestina007 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017 on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49: you were the #2 support for the 2020 ACE proposal on ranked-choice voting (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020#Users who endorse statement #5 (Schulze method)). As the proposer has since been globally locked, I'm writing to remind you that the 2021 ACE RFC will begin in two months, so if this is a proposal you wish to explore, you should consider beginning the technical work on developing the proposal and any related technical systems now. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@L235 I haven't given thought about the appropriate involvement of sitting Arbs (not up for re-election) in ACE but I'm inclined to think the correct involvement might be zero. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

News and notes: Elections, Wikimania, masking and more

In the media: Boris and Joe, reliability, love, and money

Disinformation report: Croatian Wikipedia: capture and release

Recent research: Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology, Black Americans vastly underrepresented among editors, Wiki Workshop report

Traffic report: So no one told you life was gonna be this way

News from the WMF: Searching for Wikipedia

Humour: Wikipedia's best articles on the world's strangest things

WikiProject report: WikiProject on open proxies interview

Forum: Is WMF fundraising abusive?

Discussion report: Reliability of WikiLeaks discussed

Obituary: SarahSV

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Quick Facts

Close

Thank you for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, your comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration gave me hope that this disruptive user will finally be stopped. He simply ignores such sources as Encyclopedia Britannica and does not agree with WP:OBVIOUS. His mission is not to seek for a quality content, but to push his POV no matter what. I had no other choice than to create a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration when this report: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive436#User:Лобачев_Владимир_reported_by_User:Pofka_(Result:_) was simply ignored despite the fact that I and Rgvis provided enough evidence about him. If he will not be stopped, then he will clearly be encouraged to continue his disruptive editing and I'm really tired to fight with him. I came here not to perform edit warring, but to contribute quality content and did only that in my 25,000+ edits. -- Pofka (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pofka, I get that you want to improve articles. Hopefully you are now aware of some options so you don't edit war if there is a future issue. One option would be to request sanctions at WP:AE. There are word limits there which might help you in more than one way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: So I should create a report at WP:AE about him as he is not getting any sanctions for his disruptive actions as of now? Since the latest report was ignored at WP:AN, I have little hope in it... I honestly do not understand why he is allowed to attack my home country's identity with humiliating statements, propaganda again and again all these years. And he moved on to Moldova as well. Seeing that he was warned multiple times over the years, he will certainly come back again and again. That's his mission here. Since my country is a neighboring state of Russia, we perfectly know what type of users from these Russian web brigades are. They are attacking news websites comments sections and posting repetitive disruptive messages again and again. I have no doubt that he is one of these. After all, his cyber leninist reference is still present at Moldavia (he refused its removal) and he won edit warring at Pogonia with his friend (also known for disruptive editing). -- Pofka (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pofka, discretionary sanctions is a unique thing with very specific rules. He would have to create a problem after he was notified in order to be sanctioned. So if there is a problem in the future you could go to AE and ask for sanctions. You could also include previous issues as background to show a pattern. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Understood, thanks for your help. Then I will create a report at WP:AE and ping you if they will continue their attacks. -- Pofka (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: This user continues edit warring in multiple Wiki projects. How is it possible to stop him? He keep reverting the authentic coat of arms/flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (with azure color; see illustrations at this article) in other Wiki projects: Italian Wikipedia, French Wikipedia. Instead, he keep reinserting WP:OR illustration which resembles the alternative Belarusian National emblem of Belarus (with horse rider). Could you initiate some kind of process against his disruptive user globally? I already noted at Wikipedia:Arbitration that he will not stop peacefully as he will revert again and again until his opinion will be on the top. There must be a way to stop him with global blocking. -- Pofka (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." Just wondering if you took this into account since you didn't write a closing statement for this AfD? It comes up pretty infrequently. SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer thanks for the question. I did indeed consider this and a central disagreement of the discussion there seems to be about whether Sharkey was relatively unknown/private individual. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I don't actually think that was a central disagreement - apart from one, the keep !voters simply said GNG is met (which, fine, but most of it was routine campaign coverage which should have been discounted), while the delete !voters discussed the fact he's not a public figure. It's frustrating to me that the wishes of a private individual/BLP with an outdated and problematic article weren't respected. SportingFlyer T·C 14:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I have certainly felt that frustration when I have been an AfD participant @SportingFlyer so I don't take it lightly and did read the discussion twice before closing and once more before replying to your question. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I probably need a break from this site. SportingFlyer T·C 14:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Good article nominations \| July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! There is a Wikipedia article about me that you changed the name of/redirected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zev_Dickstein

This is my first time utilizing these talk page features of Wikipedia so please excuse any formatting or other errors. I wasn't sure how to have the following error corrected, but I read on Google that one can contact an editor or individual that adjusted their page via the Wikipedia talk page. So, here I go!

The Wikipedia page has my name as Zev Dickstein. My legal name is Zev Shapiro. My previous name was Zev Dickstein.

I have received many emails from confused individuals, some of whom I know and others of whom I don't know, that have looked me up recently and think my name is Zev Dickstein because of the incorrectly named Wikipedia article, when in fact my name is Zev Shapiro.

I would be grateful if you would be able to redirect/change the page/page name back to/to Zev Shapiro. I can completely understand why it had been incorrectly moved (and possibly also created) as Zev Dickstein, given that all of the press I received for my accomplishments when I was younger were under my previous name of Zev Dickstein.

All recent publicity/information shows my name as Zev Shapiro. Including this recent article from Teen Vogue shows my name as Zev Shapiro: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/meet-zev-dickstein-shapiro-17-year-old-turnout-mobilization-app-teenagers

Furthermore, this recent Harvard Crimson article quotes me as Zev Shapiro: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/10/29/cambridge-police-drop-boxes-election/

My own LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/zevshapiro

and the TurnUp website: https://www.turnup.us

and this Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/tools-for-mobilizing-youth-with-zev-shapiro-of-turnup/id1243705071?i=1000466973169

Pitch at Fast Forward: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58siAQsoFow

Thank you in advance and please let me know, if there is anything you would need from me to change to Zev Shapiro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevshapiro (talk • contribs) 01:10, June 30, 2021 (UTC)

@Zevshapiro: I was indeed going off the name in the sources that were provided on the page. Your more recent source, particularly Teen Vogue, work for establishing your current name and I have moved the article. You should be aware that it's not clear that you are notable - the criteria Wikipedia uses for who qualifies for an article. This means your article may be nominated for deletion in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you very much, and for doing this so fast. I really appreciate it. Also, thank you for eliminating some of the information that I had written above but that does not belong here for privacy etc. If I should eliminate this entire thread or anything else from your talk page just let me know.

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:

The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree that redirect from the album to the band has long been the consensus. On the other hand, I don't think that you answered the question of the multiple variant titles, which have been used by the cult followers of the album to get four chances to list the album. Will they all be locked redirects, or will there be more chances to game the name? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49 - I see that three of the four forms of the title are salted. The subject of the DRV was Regional At Best (album), and you closed the DRV, saying that it should be redirected to the band. However, that version of the title is not protected. Can you create-protect it, or should I take it to WP:RFPP, or what? I assume that we don't want to allow a cult follower to change the redirect into an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I think I did answer all the necessary questions at DRV but have happily protected this most recent redirect variant. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. In retrospect, the alternate spellings, which were attempts to game the names, should be tagged for G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Administrator changes

Trialpears

AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who

Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes

AGK

Guideline and policy news

Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments on this article; have made further changes, including your suggestion of expanding the lead paras. Just sent it to GAR. Will see what happens. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz good luck with the GA review. It's a process I enjoy and has helped me be a better writer. I hope you also have a positive experience with it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Following the Ucoc How do I reconcile this (the doxxing part) with me providing off wiki/email of possible undisclosed paid editing to functionaries? Does that part in the Ucoc affect this? Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007, it's a good question. I don't know the answer to your question yet and in fact no body does because the UCoC isn't being enforcedyet. Out of respect for the work the drafting committee is doing I'm reluctant to say too much more right now, but I hope you ask it again during the next community consultation when I might be able to give you my personal thought about the answer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay then. I definitely would. Celestina007 (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49/Archives:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For always playing by the book and doing things right. Celestina007 (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

That's kind of you but I haven't been doing much adminning, or anything else for that matter, lately due to a combination of behind the scenes Arb work, business at my job, and having been on RW vacation, for like the last 2 months. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This is more of in general and not necessarily about your activities(or lack of lately) your general demeanor as a sysop is one which falls under “Admins that play by the book” pedantically/meticulously. Celestina007 (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

There has to be something constructive around resysopping those who've been inactive. I have no objection to a resysop, and I absolutely respect someone who desysops because they've been inactive for five years and know they're going to be inactive for a while longer, but this is ridiculous. This should require a period of actual activity and then a new RfA. I don't understand all the sysop pushback against that. —valereee (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I have noted my exasperation with the "hey what can I do, I'm just following the policy as written so if you don't like it change policy" response given that policy was changed and we have new crats saying the same line now. I do think it interesting that the two of us, who are as vocal as anyone about RfA being broken, are also so vocal on resysops. Your point about reasonably was a good one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote at the time of the RfC that enacted the change, I think some editors understandably feel that editing activity levels are a way to evaluate that an editor is "one of us". I think there are others who believe that edit counts shouldn't be a sole determining factor. There are many who maintain trust in the judgement of former administrators to re-assume administrative tasks appropriately, and I think it's also a reasonable viewpoint. To date, the second view has greater consensus support than the first (amongst the sampling of editors who like to discuss the matter). isaacl (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Barkeep!! Quick question - after I graduate a NPP prospect, I've been archiving their course page but my dilemma pops up trying to decide what to do with the individual pages left behind. I've been copy/pasting to the archive with 3 prospects/page, and then I tag the individual pages with CSD U1. Is there a better way, or is what I'm doing ok? Atsme 💬 📧 23:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's a great answer and I have done a huge mishhash of things with old pages, including collecting them and deleting them. As @Onel and I have talked about a time or two, I think there's value in having the pages somewhere that you can reference it but not somewhere that is easy for a student who wants to shortcut the work would look. So what you're doing seems fine to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, after our discussions, I've started to arbitrarily rename the pages, and letting the NPP graduate know where they can be found (through email). Seems to be working. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 2, July 2021Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the second issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.

Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review - Initial meetings of the drafting committee have helped to connect and align key topics on enforcement, while highlighting prior research around existing processes and gaps within our movement. (continue reading)
Targets of Harassment Research - To support the drafting committee, the Wikimedia Foundation has conducted a research project focused on experiences of harassment on Wikimedia projects. (continue reading)
Functionaries’ Consultation - Since June, Functionaries from across the various wikis have been meeting to discuss what the future will look like in a global context with the UCoC. (continue reading)
Roundtable Discussions - The UCoC facilitation team once again, hosted another roundtable discussion, this time for Korean-speaking community members and participants of other ESEAP projects to discuss the enforcement of the UCoC. (continue reading)
Early Adoption of UCoC by Communities - Since its ratification by the Board in February 2021, situations whereby UCoC is being adopted and applied within the Wikimedia community have grown. (continue reading)
New Timeline for the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee - The CRC was originally expected to conclude by July 1. However, with the UCoC now expected to be in development until December, the timeline for the CRC has also changed. (continue reading)
Wikimania - The UCoC team is planning to hold a moderated discussion featuring representatives across the movement during Wikimania 2021. It also plans to have a presence at the conference’s Community Village. (continue reading)
Diff blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff blog. (continue reading)

Thanks for reading - we welcome feedback about this newsletter. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Barkeep49. On June 13, I asked about taking part in the NPP school. You said that you should be able to in the next 2-4 weeks. Do you think that you will be ready soon-ish, or are you still quite busy? I didn't realize at first that you were part of the new ArbCom and that you'll probrably be busy all the time, so I'm fine with looking for another trainer if you need less on your plate. Clovermoss (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Clovermoss we're not quite at the four week mark yet. I expect my time to open up a little bit soon. I have a reminder set to circle back to you by the four week mark. Thanks for checking in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. See you then. Clovermoss (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Checking in again. It's been a month. Are you available now? Clovermoss (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Clovermoss, I had actually intended to set this up on Monday and then got distracted by other work and still haven't done so and now it's Thursday. I think that alone is a good sign that you would probably be better off with a different person. Sorry for the wait. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright. I'll look for a different trainer then. Clovermoss (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49, I don't understand the warning in my talk page, I created the talk page of the other user because I reverted a vandalism him and now I have a wrong warning, I request that this message be withdrawn; please see my editions in enwiki and you will see that I am not a vandal. Regards Valdemar2018 (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valdemar2018 apologies for that. I neglected to uncheck the twinkle box. Message has been removed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep! I hope you are doing well. If it's not too much to ask, I'd like to know if you could check a draft I've begun, to check if the subject is notable enough. I'm not sure right now, since most references are from obituary, though I'm working on finding more. Draft is: User:Isabelle Belato/Bernette Ford. Thanks, Isabelle ^🔔 18:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato I think that the combo of NYT obit and inclusion in African American Women Writers Of Children's And Young Adult Literature is more than sufficient to establish notability with the other sources buttressing that contention. What a great topic choice! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've moved it to main space and will try to expand it some more. Isabelle ^🔔 19:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Isabelle Belato, if you don't mind, I'd like to add my voice to BK49's - that subject is eminently notable, and you've done an excellent job with the article - thank you! I don't know whether you're familiar with the 'Did you know?' section of the main page? That article looks like it's already in good shape, and it should be possible to come up with a hook for it. If you're interested, and not sure how to go about nominating it, drop me a note on my talk and I'll happily lend a hand. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 19:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit. I've done a few DYK in the past, although I find it hard at times to find something good enough to show up on the main page on thing's I've worked on. If you'd like to suggest/point me to a good hook for this article, I'd be more than happy to go through the DYK process. Thanks! Isabelle ^🔔 19:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Isabelle Belato, sure. Let me have a look at it tomorrow and get back to you, I have a few thoughts about potential hooks. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Hello, as you and other administrators had suggested at the Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom previously (1, 2), I requested to solve the red-hot dispute of article Pahonia at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (now archived: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 207#Pahonia), then moderator Robert McClenon stated that he will create a RfC regarding this question and stated that "The draft RFC is at Talk:Pahonia/RFC. If there are no comments or only positive comments, I will publish the RFC, and it will run for 30 days". Robert McClenon published this RfC in the talk page of article Pahonia on 15 June 2021 (see: Talk:Pahonia#RFC: Pahonia). The absolutely majority of the participants of this RfC stated that such disruptive article should not exist and 12 out of 18 participants supported the A suggestion of solving this dispute which is: "Make Pahonia a redirect to Coat of arms of Lithuania, and move any information from Pahonia that is not in the coat of arms article into the coat of arms article". So this RfC was running for more than 30 days and the clear consensus was already reached, however moderator Robert McClenon did not took any actions to fulfill this consensus. Consequently, I attempted to contact him three times (see: User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 35#RfC:Pahonia, but he did not replied anything and did not take any actions regarding the article Pahonia. As a result, this highly problematic question is stuck in the air without any decision despite a clear consensus.
I could take actions myself, however since I was an initiator of a case at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard about it and involved in edit warring with two disruptive users in this article previously (I defended a rightful position which was later confirmed at RfC as well), I believe that this RfC should be closed by a moderator or an administrator in order to ensure a legitimate Wikipedia:Consensus, which would later allow to successfully defend this rightful position at the AN, WP:Enforcement, etc. Since moderator Robert McClenon seems to do not care, could you, being an administrator, please make a closing statement of this RfC and fulfill the RfC decision (make Pahonia a redirect page to Coat of arms of Lithuania). -- Pofka (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pofka I can certainly understand why you're confused and a bit frustrated. I am glad @Robert McClenon was able to help you formulate an RfC. I don't want to speak for him, but it would be typical at that point in the dispute resolution process for the facilitator (or mediator or whatever word we're using to describe him) to step back. So I am not surprised that he hasn't closed the RfC. While RfCs are listed by the bot as being open 30 days that doesn't mean that they're closed on Day 31. There are a few ways RfCs end but given the acrimony it would probably be best to have an independent closer. To help with that I have listed it at our centralized location to request a closer. I hope that helps. If you have further questions about this process please don't hesitate to ask them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Pofka - I apologize for not responding for a few days. I had been planning to list the RFC at Requests for Closure rather than actually closing it. I see that User:Barkeep49 has done that. So you should get an independent closer soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, @Robert McClenon: Thanks for your help, I hope this dispute will finally be solved soon. I was involved in RfC for the first time and had no knowledge about the process. -- Pofka (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

News and notes: Wikimania and a million other news stories

Special report: Hardball in Hong Kong

In the media: Larry is at it again

Board of Trustees candidates: See the candidates

Recent research: Gender bias and statistical fallacies, disinformation and mutual intelligibility

Traffic report: Football, tennis and marveling at Loki

News from the WMF: Uncapping our growth potential – interview with James Baldwin, Finance and Administration Department

Humour: A little verse

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

How do we reconcile WP:BASIC and WP:1E? This question has lingered in my mind for a while now so I figured who else to ask but my satguru. To expatiate, hypothetically speaking, If i come across an article at AFC that although falls below GNG, meets BASIC, let’s say possesses 6 good RS that try to discuss the subject, but the dilemma is all 6 RS discuss the subject of the article within the confines of 1E, What are your thoughts on this? Do I accept at AFC because a BASIC argument can be made or do I decline because 1E applies? What are your thoughts on this? Celestina007 (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

For biographies I generally see 1E as a "must pass". That is if a person is notable only for 1 event, as defined in the guideline, they're not actually notable. So in the example I would decline for 1E. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!!!! Celestina007 (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Generally when I see a reliable source publish a piece whereby the byline contains the name of the source as opposed to the staff name as they normally would, I generally chunk that into questionable sources or questionable pieces, say (guest editor, or an opinion piece) I’m trying to get a very precise answer(if possible) is there a cogent rationale of how to approach such sources(pieces) or could you generally explain this to me? Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Celestina007. It can be really different from publication to publication. If something is an oped the answer is easy beacuse we have a fair amount of guidance on that. Check out RS which has a couple different sections. The harder one is when someone who isn't a staff writer writes a "news" piece. I think you're write to treat these with a skeptical look. For many publications, especially RS, every piece would have to go through the same editorial process so it could be trusted. In other publications it is clear that it hasn't been checked in the same way (via some note normally at the top or bottom. So you'd need to figure out the answer on a publication by publication basis. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Precisely my thinking, I was going through RS yesterday and I largely came to the same conclusion, regardless and somewhat unsure I still needed your take on this as to if or not my ideology of what I had summed up was accurate enough. Thanks captain. Celestina007 (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help where I can :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

My reflections on ACE

Reply tool

New discussion tool

Next: Notifications

Structured tasks

Moving forward: more wikis to get the features

Variant testing

News for mentors

Structured tasks

News for mentors

Community configuration

Scaling

arbcom

Welcome to the Arbitration Committee

Happy holidays

Yo Ho Ho

Season's Greetings from MrLinkinPark333

Articles for deletion/Priya Ramani

Slow as Christmas!!

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas &amp; Let's See the Year Out

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas!

Greetings of the season

User page deleted of Sergio de Jesús Muñoz Lara

Deleted article recreated

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

Happy New Year

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!

My future adminship

A kitten for you!

Hello

Looking for an online admin

Deletion review for Youth Against Rape

Ahluwalia

Apology

Yo

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

I want mediation for Joy (singer)

2021 Arbitration Committee

Exasperated

Precious anniversary

Could you please review my article

Question Regarding Scientific Consensus/Factional Bias Editing

Deletion of Teerpu

Request to undelete Karen Earle Lile

Boyan Slat

Reviewing sources at AN and Kiki Camarena

Your infobox

Question about ARBCOM restrictions

Happy 20th anniversary!

Learning by teaching

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Requests for arbitration on WS-10 and J-20 pages

NPP school

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School

Just stop

Resignation from NPP

A technical hand will be of great help

Possible arbitration required for Conservative Party (UK)

Quick one

Your GA nomination of Bear Came Along

Editing news 2021 #1

Questions

Ping regarding GA review

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Consensus?

2021

Talk:Kyiv#RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

Your GA nomination of Bear Came Along

You've got mail

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination – Successful

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

RE: Kyle Card

CSD A7s

Joc Pederson

Concern regarding Draft:Eldridge Broussard

On WP:ENT

Merry Christmas & Let's See the Year Out