User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/10

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:David Lammy 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, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm blocked by an admin that you blocked?

Hi!

I just added something to the talk page of Cuba/Israel relations, and followed the link to my IP account. It shows some edits that I didn't make, and the claim that I am blocked by a user called Lourdes. I went to their page to try to ask why this IP was blocked, and what that means, but it said that you blocked them. What on earth is going on? 1.136.104.255 (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It was revealed that the admin who blocked you was not who they claimed to be. As such they have been blocked and are no longer an admin. This block was placed on your ISP to handle some disruption in September and October. This was recently reviewed and found to be a good block. You could avoid the block by registering an account - which you can do anonymously if you wish. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok! I'm with Telstra. It's possibly the biggest ISP in Australia. Is that normally the source of disruption? I'll have a look at registering if I find something I'm blocked from doing. 1.136.106.151 (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like Telstra rotates IPs fairly frequently which is part of the issue so that the same person can have multiple IPs within a short time. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

• In the media: Propaganda and photos, lunatics and a lunar backup

• News and notes: Update on Wikimedia's financial health

• Traffic report: If it bleeds, it leads

• Recent research: Canceling disputes as the real function of ArbCom

• Wikimania: Wikimania 2024 scholarships

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

hmm (1st-time voter question)

you aren't running again?? I ask in some dismay Elinruby (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

(somewhat later, after some clicking) Oh. I think I see. You were elected in 2022 to a two-year term? Feel free to ignore this first-time voter question, unless I am wrong about that. Elinruby (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby yes people have two year terms and so I am on through 2024. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign 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 15:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Would you be cool with answering some questions?

That section title probably seems more omnious than I intended but I'm not sure what a good alternative would be. You're not obligated to answer anything, I'm just trying to interview as many experienced editors as possible here. If you'd be willing to take a look at it, I'd appreciate your input. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Clovermoss you just want me to answer the questions there? If so happy to do that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks! Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, @Clovermoss. One possible section title you could use with others is "Editor experience invitation". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

November music

November songs

story · music

Hevenu shalom aleichem is my story today. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I added some images from Aachen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

... and some more. My story today is about my song of defiance, - it was a great pleasure to hear it performed today! The line "Ich steh hier und singe" (I stand here and sing) is in the movement with the music pictured, which begins with "Trotz -- Trotz -- Trotz", sounding much tougher than "defiance" ;) - in this YouTube it's at 4:55. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Performers of the 4 Nov concert now pictured on my talk. - I proudly remember having sung in an oratorio premiere seven years ago OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Today I have three items on the Main page, almost too much of a good thing! Bach's amazing cantata with the unusual scale, first performed 300 years ago OTD, the nun for the prostitutes, and Schumann's wedding gift for Clara. Also first day of vacation pics uploaded. - On AN, was I clear enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Today is St. Martin's Day, which stands for sharing. Sharing one more day of vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Enjoy your last day! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I'm back for over a week, but uploading is slow, one reason people keep dying whose articles need work (one of them from stub to GAN), the other the continued waste of time of certain "discussions", Feydeau to AN (was I clear enough?), Rossini with the latest weapon: that a link from a composer's bio to his list of works somehow violates policy, - I mean, how kafkaesque can one get? - But today is Sunday, mushrooms found and eaten, pics to come, just slowly. Three of those who died on the Main page this one day (just not all at the same time). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I began another day of vacation pics, with the deepest blue of the sea ;) - we celebrate the birthday of a friend who wrote quite a book about the compositions of a man who will turn 300 soon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

What a story! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting her story. "What a story" indeed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! - vacation pics now complete, and we sang a good concert today, User Talk:Gerda Arendt#Mozart Requiem --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Today: in memoriam Jerome Kohl who said (In Freundschaft): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment on the latest arb brouhaha -- ?

You have, of course, written quite extensively on the whole issue -- but if you want to add anything to what's at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes, let me know, and I can quote you. jp×g🗯️ 06:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG thanks for the opportunity but I am focused on providing my comments at ACN so as to be transparent and not splinter the conversation. On reading the signpost article, I find it fascinating that Sdkb says most editors were supportive and then only quote things critics said, with Worms quote not noting his second and more recent comment which I'd say was more equivical. But that's more media analysis than a comment. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Growth team newsletter #29

Welcome to the twenty-ninth newsletter from the Growth team! Help with translations

Community Conversations

The Growth team will host its first community conversation Monday, 4 December (19:00 - 20:30 UTC). The topic for this meeting will be Mentorship.

This first meeting language will be English, but we plan to host conversations in other languages, and about other topics. Please visit the conversation page on-wiki for the details on how to join. You can also watch the page, or suggest ideas for upcoming conversations there.

Impact Module

At the beginning of November 2023, the Growth team deployed the New Impact Module to all Wikipedias. We recently released a follow up improvement to how edit data was displayed based on editor feedback. [1]

Add a Link

We released “add a link” to 35 more Wikipedias. [2] [3]

We have a few Wikipedias remaining:

• German and English Wikipedia will be contacted at the beginning of January 2024.
• There are a few small wikis that will not receive the task until they have enough articles for the algorithm to work properly.

Community Configuration

• We shared Community Configuration 2.0 plans with technical stakeholders. [4] 🖂
• Initial Community Configuration design ideas have been shared and discussed with community members.
• A basic Community Configuration 2.0 demo is released on ToolForge.
• Developers can find some initial proof of concept code shared on gitlab.

Mentorship

When a mentor marked themselves as "Away", they were not getting their name assigned to new accounts when they returned. This has been fixed. [5]

We improved the message received by newcomers when their mentor quits, to reduce confusion. [6]

We worked on ensuring that all mentees are assigned to an active mentor. This required reassigning mentees with no mentors to a new mentor. We paused this as the clean-up script confused some editors. We will resume it when the identified blockers are resolved. [7]

It is now possible to create an Abuse Filter to prevent one user from signing up as a mentor. [8]

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

18:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

• News and notes: Beeblebrox ejected from Arbitration Committee following posts on Wikipediocracy

• In the media: Turmoil on Hebrew Wikipedia, grave dancing, Olga's impact and inspiring Bhutanese nuns

• Disinformation report: "Wikipedia and the assault on history"

• In focus: Tens of thousands of freely available sources flagged

• Comix: Bold comics for a new age

• Essay: I am going to die

• Featured content: Real gangsters move in silence

• Traffic report: And it's hard to watch some cricket, in the cold November Rain

• Humour: Mandy Rice-Davies Applies

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Restore

Hello Barkeep49, I hope you're doing well. Can you restore my rights. Thanks for your consideration. — C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 19:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

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

Administrator changes

• Ganesha811
• JPxG

• Ajpolino
• Lourdes
• Mairi
• RockMFR
• Somno
• WilyD

Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Oversight changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
• The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

That humongous yellow banner...

...at the top of the case talk page I only just noticed... no comment! Sorry for the time loss. In my defence I'm in bed with the flu so not in my best shape. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

No worries @Gtoffoletto. I was doing a lot at once otherwise I'd have moved the comment myself. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitism CTOP extension

I'm here because of this diff, where you majorly extended the ArbCom decision regarding antisemitism in Poland. Right now, there's an ugly discussion at ANI where several people including me have expressed a desire to extend the contentious topic status from antisemitism in Poland to either antisemitism in Poland and Lithuania or antisemitism in Eastern Europe. I asked, because I don't know, where this conversation is supposed to take place and two supporting editors have responded to admit they don't know, either. Are you able to start this or do you know where this should go? If not, do you know who would? Thank you very much in advance. City of Silver 01:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@City of Silver that thread is longer than I have time to read (let alone dig into) but you could go to WP:ARCA to request some changes to either the Eastern European contentious topic or the antisemitism in Poland (APL) contentious topic. The big difference is that APL has an additional sourcing requirement. If you go to ARCA there will be - at least from me - some effort made to examine the conduct of people involved as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Oof, yeah, I definitely wasn't hoping to drag you into that so I'm glad you're not even tempted. So I'm clear, are you saying that to avoid dealing with what might be difficult and possibly unnecessary sourcing concerns, the next step should be to try to get either antisemitism in Lithuania or antisemitism in Eastern Europe as a separate contentious topic from APL? City of Silver 20:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@City of Silver I'm saying that WP:ARCA is a reasonable place to go for the concerns expressed in that ANI thread. Going there would allow for a discussion about expanding the sourcing restriction beyond Poland. It would also possibly mean the Arbs would examine the conduct of the editors who were brought up at the ANI discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wanted to be the first to wish you the very best during the holidays. I have mad respect for you . Lightburst (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Learning by teaching

Hi Barkeep49, you helped me 6 years ago, perhaps you can help again! Psansoldo is changing the first sentence of the article "Learning by teaching": "I took away the reference to Jean-Pol Martin as a having originally defined the method, as other people, as Andrew Bell and Joseph Lancaster had already worked and used a similarly defined method before, as cited in the article itself." I think it's not usefull, because I'm the main autor about Learning by teaching since 1980 and everybody quoted my work if writing about "Learning by teaching". What do you mean? Here ChatGPT about LdL: "Learning by Teaching" (or "Lernen durch Lehren" in German), as a formalized educational method, was developed by Jean-Pol Martin in the 1980s. Jean-Pol Martin is a German educator and professor who introduced this approach primarily for language teaching. His method emphasizes the role of students as active participants in the learning process, where they take on the role of teachers to instruct their peers. This approach has since gained popularity and has been adapted in various educational settings beyond language learning, due to its effectiveness in enhancing understanding, engagement, and the development of a range of skills in students." Jeanpol (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I certainly remember you, but unfortunately I don't have a lot of time at the moment to help. Perhaps ask for a third opinion or do an edit request? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!Jeanpol (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jeanpol: I have left you two messages at your Talk page in response to your comment above. Thanks. (talk page watcher) Mathglot (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

A solstice greeting

❄️ Happy holidays! ❄️

Hi Barkeep! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. It was great to meet you in Toronto and to hear your insights on the panels! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!

Cheers,
{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

Solstice Celebration for Barkeep49, 2023, DALL·E 3.

(View full series)

Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Great prompt engineering there. Thanks @Sdkb. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

• Special report: Did the Chinese Communist Party send astroturfers to sabotage a hacktivist's Wikipedia article?

• News and notes: The Italian Public Domain wars continue, Wikimedia RU set to dissolve, and a recap of WLM 2023

• In the media: Consider the humble fork

• Discussion report: Arabic Wikipedia blackout; Wikimedians discuss SpongeBob, copyrights, and AI

• In focus: Liquidation of Wikimedia RU

• Technology report: Dark mode is coming

• Recent research: "LLMs Know More, Hallucinate Less" with Wikidata

• Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols

• Comix: Lollus lmaois 200C tincture

• Crossword: when the crossword is sus

• Traffic report: What's the big deal? I'm an animal!

• From the editor: A piccy iz worth OVAR 9000!!!11oneone! wordz ^_^

• Apocrypha: Local editor discovered 1,380 lost subheadings in ancient Signpost scrolls. And what he found was shocking.

• Humour: Guess the joke contest

• BJAODN: Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas, Barkeep49/Archives! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 16:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

A MERRY CHRISTMAS 2U!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Barkeep49, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Jerium (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Jerium (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

RFA

If you are unaware that the candidate has has at least two prior usernames, you should reconsider your sponsorship. Banks Irk (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk I'm well aware. I've just never heard of a renamed account being called an undisclosed username before at RfA. I've only heard it used in the sense of Wikipedia:Clean_start#Requests_for_adminship which does not apply here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Bizarre complaint. It matters not a jot how many times someone has renamed their account if all their contributions are still visible under the same account. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello Barkeep49: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Spread the love; use {{subst:User:Dustfreeworld/Xmas1}} to send this message.

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

December music

December songs

story · music

Today's story is about Maria Callas, on her centenary. - Aaron Copland died OTD, and Jerome Kohl (mentioned in November) said something wise on his talk, - yes, regarding a soft(ening) stance towards infoboxes. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Today's story is about parts of my life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

How so? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

How much outing should I do ;) - I have an infobox on my user page (of my user, not of me), - it says "singen singen" a few times, with links to groups I sang with, and GD conducted two of those, and commissioned a Missa solemnis from CM, and we sang the premiere with the composer attending, and another performance at the Frankfurt Cathedral, and would have loved to also perform it in the UK once but the composer didn't live to hear it there. "singen singen" means "sing sing" as you will have guessed, and is taken from the Schütz Christmas Story (where it's repeated almost as often as in my box), and we'll sing it for Christmas as I just learned in rehearsal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Today, I managed to get the pics to snow (on 28 Nov), and heard a lovely concert, after listening to a miracle of meditative dreaming on 6 December (or just click on music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

... and today, to Paris (29 Nov) with a visit to the Palais Garnier, - to match the story of Medea Amiranashvili, - don't miss listening to her expressive voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

My story today is about Michael Robinson, - it's an honor to have known him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Pics up to 3 December, with my shadow in one of them, and a story about Beethoven in memory of his birth. When the arb who wrote the infoboxes case installed the community consensus - in 2015! - I hoped these infobox wars were over, really. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I uploaded more pics, with Christmas trees and related artworks, and I have two women on the Main page (for a sad reason). Our Christmas singing (of my user's infobox music "singen, singen") was pictured! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Lithuania

I am pretty confused about the request for modification. I assume that since I am not seeing an announcement it is plain-vanilla RS I should be enforcing still? I am limiting myself to likely EE-acceptable sources in what I am adding, though. Is that about right? Elinruby (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Right now there has been no change to the rules. So normal EE rules still apply. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll look those up. So far I'm working off a somewhat strict verifiability. Just had a doubt.

Lithuanian archivists disagreeing with IPN is shaping up as an issue, but I should probably say that at the request. Thanks for the answer Elinruby (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I will make the above comment at the request but I have spent some happy time reading Arbcom decisions, and am still a little confused. Both Eastern Europe and Eastern Europe and the Balkans seem to both be about behaviour not sourcing, which is why we are doing this I guess? If possible, can you confirm that articles about pogroms in Lithuania fall under contentious topics whether or not the talk page says so? There are no particular restrictions on sourcing however? Just against edit warring and canvassing etc? Since I am the only person editing these articles right now (so far anyway) I want to be certain that I don't seem to be taking advantage of that to impose a PoV, not that I have one about Lithuania. If you wpuld prefer I put this in the request also, just let me know and I will do that. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Barkeep49!

Happy New Year!

Barkeep49,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), and Frostly (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent RFA

I read through the RFA for Tails Wx with some initial puzzlement. I think I've resolved it in my mind but I'd be interested in your reaction. (I understand the awkward timing and I'm not looking for an immediate response.) I'll start by noting I don't recall any interactions with the nominee. The first oppose came from user:Banks Irk. I read optional question number 15, which started my puzzlement. Banks made an assertion about prior usernames, you responded, in essence saying that the assertion was false and banks doubled down. While I don't know you personally I know you by reputation, and my default assumption was that you must be right, and while I don't know banks and had no default assumption, I thought the assertion made was obviously true. That left me puzzled.

I think the light went on, and embarrassingly revealed that I may have been working under a misunderstanding for years. Wikipedia has long held that multiple accounts are not per se a violation of policy, but there are limitations on how they can be used, and there is an expectation that anyone standing for RFA will reveal the existence of all accounts. My misunderstanding is that I may have conflated usernames and accounts in my head.

I think Banks was emphasizing that Tails Wx has edited under other usernames and that wasn't disclosed. I think your response effectively was there's nothing to see here as there are no other accounts. If one is interested in reviewing any of the candidate edits in the candidate has edited for more than one account you need to know the names of both accounts, but if they've edited under multiple usernames but those usernames are simply a renaming of their username, searching the current username will reveal all edits including those made when using a different username.

Is it possible that Banks did not catch this distinction? Could it be that Banks thinks the requirement to disclose all prior accounts also includes all prior usernames? If so, it might explain why you and Banks appear to be disagreeing about facts, but it is simply a semantics issue. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick on the talk page Banks said he understood this distinction as I too wondered if that's all this was. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems clear, which leaves me puzzled, but maybe a mystery which will never be solved. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Reputable institution

In the context of WP:APLRS, is "reputable institution" defined somewhere? I'm seeing it applied as a synonym of "academic", while I think most editors would consider a generally reliable news organization to be both "reputable" and an "institution". What is the intent here? VQuakr (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Building off my response to a similar question the restriction doesn't just say a reputable institution. It says "an academically focused book by a reputable publisher". So most news organizations are publishing books and the ones that do are not, to my knowledge, publishing academically focused ones. Beyond that, my talk page is the wrong place - WP:ARCA is the right one - because it's not just my opinion that matters, and I think there are limits to discussing this in the abstract precisely because people are inclined to focus on a part of the phrase rather than looking at the entire phrase. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply! Those are separate clauses separated by an "and/or": When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article..., so if the intent is for the "article published by" noun to also be modified by the phrase "academically focused" then the language should be tweaked or a footnote or similar added. WP:ARCA looks terribly formal and complicated to be honest so I'll probably not do that (is there really no lightweight venue for informal Q&A like this?), but we agree this discussion here is an informal conversation and not "official". What do you mean by the abstract? VQuakr (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

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

Administrator changes

Clovermoss

Dennis Brown

• Julia W
• Marasmusine
• PBS

CheckUser changes

• Aoidh
• HJ Mitchell
• Sdrqaz
• Spicy
• ToBeFree
• Vanamonde93
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• Aoidh
• Firefly
• Sdrqaz
• ToBeFree
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you add this page for deletion?

Bu (instrument) Heyandwhoa (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello? Heyandwhoa (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You can find instructions about how to nominate something for deletion here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Welp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bu (instrument). Heyandwhoa (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

• From the editor: NINETEEN MORE YEARS! NINETEEN MORE YEARS!

• Special report: Public Domain Day 2024

• Technology report: Wikipedia: A Multigenerational Pursuit

• News and notes: In other news ... see ya in court!

• In focus: The long road of a featured article candidate

• In the media: What is plagiarism? Oklahoma Disneyland? Reaching a human being at Wikipedia?

• WikiProject report: WikiProjects Israel and Palestine

• Obituary: Anthony Bradbury

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2023

• Crossword: everybody gangsta till the style sheets start cascading

• Comix: Conflict resolution

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

NFL cent worthy?

It's not really about NFL, but about following P&G. Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, replying during a commercial break of the Browns/Texans game so I'm not anti-NFL. But we're not talking a wide enough scope to say it has potentially wide-ranging impacts and therefore require input from the community at large. in my judgement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It's an example of what can happen when a WikiProject makes a style that's at odds with the main MOS. Examples of other such situations are discussed in the RfC. Maybe we should have gone meta on it, and asked is WikiProjects should be allowed to enforce a style at odds with the MOS. Except that's been decided before, so we're dealing with this specific problem. Maybe it's not the scope you'd want to see there, but we needed to get more people who care about P&G issues to participate, since all sports WikiProjects were invited. Dicklyon (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

– DreamRimmer (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yo! Uh...,

You mind trying to expand this page? Trajectoid. Heyandwhoa (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not really in an area of my editing expertise. And unfortunately I don't have much time to edit content at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

City of Champaign v. Madigan

Hi! I know you're busy with other on-wiki responsibilities, and it's been a few years since you reviewed my GA nomination for City of Champaign v. Madigan. I just wanted to let you know that I've nominated it for FAC. You probably don't remember the article that well, if at all, but any feedback you have for the review would be greatly appreciated! Edge3 (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Edge3 congrats on getting this to FA nomination status. Well done. I really can't promise anything but if you're at risk of delisting due to lack of input feel free to reach back out and I'll see if I can help at that time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

i am elite

yessir ( my user is 2 days old )

Wicontrib4 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes I believe I've written that you are. Congrats and good luck with your future editing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

contentious topics alerts

Regarding this comment: Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics says that ...anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using the {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} template. I'm not aware of any formal restriction that only uninvolved editors can place the alert. isaacl (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. That was discussed and not done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

2024

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Same location pictured as 2019. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy 2024 to you as well @Gerda Arendt. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

Talking about the same time ;) - I discovered a story today per OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The 2023 picture (above) is from the Abel Fest in Köthen, celebrating the tercentenary of Carl Friedrich Abel, a viol virtuoso, composer and concert organiser in London (together with Bach's youngest son), born on 22 December 1723 in Köthen, where the new catalogue of his works was introduced, - my story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

• News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail

• Opinion: Until it happens to you

• Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry

• In the media: Katherine Maher new NPR CEO, go check Wikipedia, race in the race

• In focus: The long road of a featured article candidate, part 2

• Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining [admins]"

• Comix: We've all got to start somewhere

• Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

• Enterprisey
• Izno

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), with one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, and two DYKs;
• Vami_IV (submissions), with one FA on Doom (2016 video game), one GA on Boundary Fire (2017), and 11 reviews;
• MaranoFan (submissions), with one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and two DYKs;
• Skyshifter (submissions), with one FA on OneShot and one DYK;
• Sammi Brie (submissions), with five GAs and five DYKs on television and radio stations;
• voorts (submissions) and Elli (submissions), both with one FA and one DYK each.

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

• News and notes: Wikimedia Russia director declared "foreign agent" by Russian gov; EU prepares to pile on the papers

• Disinformation report: How low can the scammers go?

• Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to touch grass to dramatically improve images of flora and fauna

• In the media: Speaking in tongues, toeing the line, and dressing the part

• Serendipity: Is this guy the same as the one who was a Nazi?

• Traffic report: Griselda, Nikki, Carl, Jannik and two types of football

• Crossword: Our crossword to bear

• Comix: Strongly

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Secret ballot

Regarding this comment: although I do think there would be more opposes coming from voters with personal agendas, I think there is another category of voters who currently go unheard from. Being critical of another editor is an unpleasant thing to do, so I think there are potential opposing editors who demur from participating in the current RfA process. I also think most editors aren't collecting diffs on everyone they encounter just in case they might have to weigh in on them someday, and they aren't so motivated to participate in an RfA to spend extensive amounts of time hunting down past diffs, so they don't contribute. I appreciate of course that relying on people's unreliable memories makes the system more vulnerable to gatekeeping and unconscious bias. Historically, I haven't been a fan of moving to a voting system, but the community is no closer to agreeing on something like my proposal for a pros-and-cons evaluation, so it might be time to consider voting, the other approach commmonly used by organizations everywhere. isaacl (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the current system discourages opposers and so yes that is a substantial part of the reason why I think opposes would go up if we moved to secret ballot. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

February music

story · music · places

My calendar story today is about Michael Herrmann celebrating his birthday. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

same kind of birthday for Josef Protschka --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

today I am happy about a singer on the Main page (at least for the first hours), after TFA the same day last year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to Seiji Ozawa. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Quite the globe trotter. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Very selectively, - images just updated. - The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Listen to music from Ukraine if you like, - I heard it in 2022, and the November concert (at a different church) raised a truckload of winter clothes. My story today is also from my life: I heard the singer in 3 of the 4 mentioned musical items. I sang in yesterday's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Rinaldo (opera) was premiered on 24 February, which OTD on the Main page recognized, pictured. I gave it an infobox. What do you think about what happened then? For context: Carmen, The Bartered Bride, L'Orfeo, Nixon in China ... all by the same user who sadly died years ago. The last time an infobox opera was disputed was Robert le diable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I won't be able to answer your infobox question at this time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Your comments

It's always quite disconcerting to find out that one has been discussed somewhere without a courtesy ping to be allowed to speak for themselves, as I did today. That said, I wanted to specifically thank you for what you said, and for initiating a (gentle) rebuke on your own cognizance.[9][10] I was taken aback by that accusation, then puzzled, and then incensed. It took quite a bit of restraint to respond the way I did at the time, when a fairly significant part of me was screaming stuff about hypocrisy and (especially) tone policing hypocrisy and the weaponization of AGF and so on. I greatly appreciate that you made an effort to correct that and to push back against the characterization of my observation, even as you acknowledged not agreeing with it yourself.

Not coincidentally, given your comment at the proposal and above here about secret ballots at RFA, the furor we have in reaction to Oppose votes can contribute just as much to toxicity at RFA as actual bad Opposes. Certainly the accusation leveled against me is the sort of thing that can be used to silence editors, and someone less experienced might come away from that RFA afraid to lodge an Oppose in the future, worried they might be bullied by an admin suggesting they violated AGF. Grandpallama (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

• Generalissima (submissions), who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
• Vami_IV (submissions), who has 790 points from two FAs on Felix M. Warburg House and Doom (2016 video game), two GAs, one DYK, and 11 reviews
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who has 580 points from one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, two DYKs, and five reviews
• Sammi Brie (submissions), who has 420 points mostly from nine GAs and seven DYKs on television and radio stations
• MaranoFan (submissions), who has 351 points from one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and three DYKs
• Skyshifter (submissions), who has 345 points from one FA on OneShot, one DYK and two reviews

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Barkeep writes a blog

I have started a new blog. Talk page watchers might be interested in following that. The first entry: Why do arbs often need stuff explained to them clearly and multiple times despite having the evidence right in front of them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

HJP

In your comment on the Palestine-Israel ARCA you say This was demonstrated in HJP. It took me a minute to realise you were referring to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland not to an editor named (or abbreviated) HJP. To avoid others (especially those not familiar with that case) getting similarly confused it would be good if you link to the case. Thryduulf (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Administrator changes

• Sdkb
• The Night Watch

• East718
• Isabelle Belato
• Mzajac
• Staecker
• Stan Shebs
• Sugarfish
• Tamzin

Bureaucrat changes

SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

A request

This is the second time in as many weeks that I've seen a member of the committee speaking to an editor on the Administrators' Noticeboard with phrasing like "I think that if it weren't for this, they would be complaining about something else." I've generally found you to be a responsive and respectful editor and committee member, so I hope you'll take on board my suggestion that you (collectively) consider retiring this phrase, as it comes off (to my ears at least) as disrespectful, imperious, and lacking in empathy. I'm sure it's not your intention to talk down to others based on your position on the committee, but phrases like that can give the impression (to me, at least) that you are, intentionally or not. 28bytes (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I have struck the comment. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that. 28bytes (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Please remove me from this list and note that I wish to recieve no notifications or pings about this. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure if you mean you don't want anything to do with RFA review anymore, which would be understandable with everything else that's going on, but I was wondering what your opinion might be on whether a non-admin close of proposal 3 was inappropriate. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I have decided to step away from RfA and so have no opinion of what you're asking about because I haven't been following. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I feared as much. I think I will leave it alone too. Thank you for taking the charge in the past. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

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 22:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

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 23:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you strike or delete this?

Hello Barkeep49. I was tussling with Laura over on Commons regarding a Ukraine-related Category, and noticed that he has an account here. I then saw that he didn't really have one anymore, but I did see the note you left on his talk page awhile ago.

It is kind of awful what he wrote, and you properly flagged, see this and similarly, this. Might you be able to delete both en situ, i.e. on the Cfd entries where they were written? They are entirely gratuitous, and add nothing to the discussion other than to be unpleasant in the style of Karl Marx and Martin Luther (although I forgot the title of his uh tract).

Thank you for considering my request.-- FeralOink (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @FeralOink. I believe the comments have been removed from the "live" page of those discussion and are only available in the edit history. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow, you're so fast! I was just doing some fixing up and you answered already! Okay, I understand what you're saying. I'm glad those comments aren't visible to anyone passing by on the live pages, as they are mean. Thank you.--FeralOink (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2024 United States presidential election 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 02:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Need help with something

Hi, I'm sorry if I'm disrupting anything, but some of my edits are being incorrectly marked as vandalism.

I don't know why this is happening, as my edits are all in good faith.

If you could somehow check my contribs and see if I'm doing something wrong, I'd appreciate it- I don't want to get banned anytime soon. Again, sorry if I'm disrupting anything or if this is the wrong place to ask. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 13:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@3OpenEyes can you provide some examples? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a template on Poverty gap index (by a template) and it got marked as vandalism, as well as adding another template for plagiarism/very close paraphrasing on A5114 road that got marked vandalism, and added a reference on Campbellsville, Kentucky that was also marked as vandalism. There are a few more. I tried to upload screenshots but ran into issues while doing so. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 17:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

So from what I can see they're not showing as marked as vandalism. I know you can't do screenshots but where are you seeing that? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@3OpenEyes have you turned on WP:TWINKLE by any chance? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have turned it on. I see them in the interactive page history, while comparing any previous edits to my own. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 00:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@3OpenEyes So a guess of another admin who I shared this discussion with is that you're seeing the vandalism button there and it's not that your edits are marked as vandalism. Both of us independently looked at WP:ORES to see if that was it and it's not. So bottomline: good news your edits aren't being marked as vandalism and you don't need to worry about them at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Thank you so much! (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 14:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

does the exemption for Mschwartz1 apply to the new filing you suggest?

Just wondering because I felt it didn't, but clearly I'm not sure. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller the exemption was made specifically so that they could file an arb request (or a request to the community at AN/ANI) so yes this if fitting with the intent. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. My bad, I didn’t look closely enough and thought it was to take part in a current case. Looks like it might be interesting. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for helping me with the problem I was having. Enjoy your wikikitten

(3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 14:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

• Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year

• Interview: Interview on Wikimedia Foundation fundraising and finance strategy

• Special report: 19-page PDF accuses Wikipedia of bias against Israel, suggests editors be forced to reveal their real names, and demands a new feature allowing people to view the history of Wikipedia articles

• Op-Ed: Wikipedia in the age of personality-driven knowledge

• Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors

• News and notes: Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter ratified

• In the media: "For me it’s the autism": AARoad editors on the fork more traveled

• Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune

• Humour: Letters from the editors

• Comix: Layout issue

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Barkeep49/Archives,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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 11:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox person 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 02:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Relation to Pythagorean triples

Metallic Ratios in Primitive Pythagorean Triangles

Metallic means are precisely represented by primitive Pythagorean triples.

In a primitive Pythagorean triple, if the difference between hypotenuse and longer leg is 1, 2 or 8, such Pythagorean triple accurately represents one particular metallic mean. The cotangent of the quarter of smaller acute angle of such Pythagorean triangle equals the precise value of one particular metallic mean.

Consider a primitive Pythagorean triple (a,b,c) in which a < b < c and c - b ∈ {1, 2, 8}. Such Pythagorean triangle (a,b,c) yields the precise value of a particular metallic mean $S_{m}$ as follows :

$S_{m}=cot\left({\frac {\theta }{4}}\right)$

where θ is the smaller acute angle of the Pythagorean triangle

and $m=2{\sqrt {\frac {c+b}{c-b}}}$

For example, the primitive Pythagorean triple 20-21-29 incorporates the 5th metallic mean. Cotangent of the quarter of smaller acute angle of the 20-21-29 Pythagorean triangle yields the precise value of the 5th metallic mean. Similarly, the Pythagorean triangle 3-4-5 represents the 6th metallic mean. Likewise, the Pythagorean triple 12-35-37 gives the 12th metallic mean, the Pythagorean triple 52-165-173 yields the 13th metallic mean, and so on. Wanderer909 (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Outing

I saw you warn someone about outing. May I please email you about this issue? It is NOT about the question where I saw you warn them, but an entirely separate matter unrelated to that/those users. It's just that I saw you mention it and have something to ask you, please. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

My email open. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Just emailed you, thanks. DBaK (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Cut and Paste question

Hey there. I'm sure I've come across this before, but for the life of me I can't remember the correct procedure. DXYZ was changed into a dab page, but the editor cut and paste the article's content to DXYZ-AM. I reverted the dab conversion, but the article created by the cut and paste, what to do about that? The dab is the right move. Should I just do a dummy edit on the AM page, and give attribution? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Onel5969 so good to have you around my talk page again. The good new is nothing needs to be done. DXYZ-AM was properly attributed and is back to being a redirect so no further cleanup is needed. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me. Where is the attribution in Special:History/DXYZ-AM? Special:Diff/1218330866 has clues that a copy occurred, and Special:Diff/1218392470's edit summary links to DXYZ, but attribution is not stated clearly. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

For me Article transferred to DXYZ-AM to distinguish Iligan-based DXYZ-FM is enough in the context of the diff to provide attribution @Flatscan given that transferred is a close enough synonym of copied. If your concern is that it doesn't say from where and if you want to null edit or talk page message to clear that up don't let me stop you. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I have done so, following WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution (guideline, shortcut WP:RIA): dummy edit on the redirect and {{Copied}} tags on the talk pages of the source and the destination.

Three components were lacking:

1. That a copy occurred Savvy editors can identify the creation as a likely copy, but an inexperienced reader may not see it as clearly.
2. Link to the source DXYZ-FM was linked in the creation edit summary, but the source was actually DXYZ (cross-page diff). The redirect edit links DXYZ, but it does not mention the copy.
3. Mention of "history" and "attribution" Most of WP:CWW's suggested edit summaries include this pointer to guide readers to the correct page's history.

Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
• Tamzin (submissions) with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
• Kusma (submissions) with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Your suggestion about noticeboards

Hi!

I just saw that in the Venezuela discussion you proposed GS applying arbcom-like restrictions to noticeboards. Mind elaborating further on what your idea is and why it would improve things?

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@RadioactiveBoulevardier I wonder if the community would want to pass a general sanction to allow uninvolved administrators to impose word limits on involved parties at notice boards and, as a separate but complementary idea, to require involved parties to participate in certain sections. I genuinely don't know - there's a good chance the answer is no - but it's possible there's support for something like that. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Rules

Regarding this comment: perhaps you might be willing to provide a bigger hint on what rule you feel is being ignored? I understand of course if it involves a private discussion or if you just don't want to go into further detail. isaacl (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have edited my comment. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit and subsequent comment. isaacl (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Brothers of Italy 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, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Growth News, April 2024

The Growth team will now send quarterly reports to keep you in the loop. Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work.

If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.

Community Configuration

Growth features are currently configurable at Special:EditGrowthConfig. This quarter we are working on making Community Configuration accessible for other MediaWiki developers while also moving Growth feature configuration to the new CommunityConfiguration extension.

An early version of Community Configuration can be tested at Spanish Beta Wikipedia. We plan to release the new Community Configuration extension to pilot wikis (Arabic and Spanish Wikipedia) in early May, 2024. The first non-Growth team feature to utilize Community Configuration will be Automoderator.

In parallel with the development, the Growth team will propose Community Configuration usage guidelines, Community Configuration design guidelines, and provide technical documentation.

Experiment Results

Add a Image experiment analysis results

The Growth team conducted an experiment to assess the impact of the “Add an Image” structured task on the Newcomer Homepage's "Suggested Edits" module. This analysis finds that the Add an Image structured task leads to an increase in newcomer participation on the mobile web platform, particularly by making constructive (non-reverted) article edits:

• The likelihood that mobile web newcomers make their first article edit (+17.0% over baseline)
• The likelihood that they are retained as newcomers (+24.3% over baseline)
• The number of edits they make during their first two weeks on the wiki (+21.8% over baseline)
• A lower probability of the newcomers' edits will be reverted (-3.3% over baseline).

Personalized praise experiment results

This feature was developed for Mentors as part of the Growth team's Positive Reinforcement project. When A/B testing on Spanish Wikipedia, we found no significant impact on retention, but we found a significant positive impact on newcomer productivity. However, we concluded that the results weren’t positive enough to justify the time investment from Mentors. We plan to discuss this feature with our pilot wikis, and consider further improvements before scaling this feature further. Meanwhile, communities willing to test the feature can ask to have it deployed. (T361763)

English donors encouraged to try editing

As in previous years, donors were directed to a Thank you page after donation (example). However, this year we tested a new “Try editing Wikipedia,” call to action on the Thank You page. This call to action linked to a unique account creation page. From this account creation page we were able to track Registrations and Activation (editing for the first time). During the English banner campaign, the Donor Thank you page led to 4,398 new accounts, and 441 of those accounts went on to constructively edit within 24 hours. (T352900)

Future work

Annual Plan

The Growth team and the Editing team will work on the WE1.2 Key Result in the coming fiscal year. We will start initial discussions with communities soon to help finalize our plans. (T361657)

Newcomer Homepage Community Updates module

We plan to A/B test adding a new Community Configurable module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We are early in the planning phase of this project that will take place first at our pilot wikis and wikis volunteering. We welcome community feedback on initial designs and plans, in any language at our project talk page.

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

18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

• In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics, and another wikirace on live TV

• News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law

• WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)

• Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users

• Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The thing is growing faster than I can keep up with

... check your email before your inbox explodes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia sorry was in a rush so didn't reply but all have been sent. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It's kind of a mess; should I resummarize it all in retrospect, or is it understandable as is? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I re-summarized it to one email. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

• News and notes: Wikimedia enters US Supreme court hearings as "the dolphin inadvertently caught in the net"

• Recent research: Images on Wikipedia "amplify gender bias"

• In the media: The Scottish Parliament gets involved, a wikirace on live TV, and the Foundation's CTO goes on record

• Obituary: Vami_IV

• Traffic report: Supervalentinefilmbowlday

• WikiCup report: High-scoring WikiCup first round comes to a close

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

March music

story · music · places

in memory of the birthday of a friend who showed me art such as this - and of Vami --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

... and the premiere of Nabucco --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Rossini's Petite messe solennelle was premiered on 14 March 1864, - when I listen to the desolate Agnus Dei I think of Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Vacation pics uploaded, at least the first day, - and Aribert Reimann remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Next day, around Porto da Cruz, on Bach's birthday. You may remember that I suggested to give him an infobox in 2013. That one still listed some "prominent" pieces. Later we found the better solution: link to the complete list of compositions, - it's more neutral, avoiding editorial preferences. - On that background: what do you think of Vivaldi? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Some days later, a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration - did you think about Vivaldi? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I listen to Bach's St John Passion today, - 300 years after it was first performed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

April music

I understand that you are busy, and Vivaldi can wait a bit longer, but we have the same situation now at Aaron Copland, with his Appalachian Spring going to by TFA in three days. The question is easy: does a list of compositions belong in the composer's infobox? I think yes (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven), and was reverted twice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

My answer to the question is "whatever a consensus of editors decide is appropriate". This, even more than whether or not to have an infobox, is a content issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

You didn't look. They have an infobox, - that's not the question. The question is: does the list of compositions belong in the composer's infobox, and I rub my eyes how that can even be a question. What else could be more worthwhile to show? - As I write this I have two supporters against the lone reverts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I understood the issue. This, even more than whether or not to have an infobox, is a content issue. where "this" means compositions in the infobox. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I really didn't know understand what "this" meant. Sorry, more sorry, but I don't agree even after understanding. See Vivaldi: it wasn't painted as "lets discuss if we have the works or not" but as "the link violates a guideline" (questioning at the same time all compromise versions, Bach etc.). A longish discussion resulted in "no, they don't". And now? My little brain has no room for any good reason not to point at a composer's works, sorry sorry, and a simple "ce" or "trim" for an edit summary doesn't enlighten me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I go to bed knowing that I have three supporters against the lone reverts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I woke up to see that she offered a new idea! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I like to see Appalachian Spring on the Main page today (not by me, just interested and reviewed), and I also made it my story. - How do you like the statue (look up places)? I was undecided so show three versions ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Today I see Marian Anderson as my top story (by NBC, 1939), and below three people with raised arms, - and the place is the cherry blossom in Frauenstein. - With the ballet, 10k+ readers saw the composer's and didn't complain ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Marian Anderson - finally a musician you're posting about who I'm very familiar with. She was an amazing women and an incredibly talented performer. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes! I saw the news item last year when it was posted on Easter Sunday - as had been in 1939 - but then was too busy to listen to the whole broadcast. I did today, and was quite impressed, especially by the last two spirituals which sound as if sung by different women. - I brought Jessye Norman to GA, a singer where an infobox was never a problem. The short question & answer for Anderson from 2020 is refreshing (still on the talk). Why a few other cases are so problematic I'll never understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

My story today is about a piece composed for the Second Sunday after Easter 300 years ago, and I just returned from a (long) opera about the same age, with soprano Pretty Yende --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

relief: the last of six RD articles in one week is now on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

followed by two birthdays in a row, and I prefer those (see my talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

today a sad task - memory of Andrew Davis - turned into entertainment (yt at the bottom of his article, actually both) -- the latest pictures capture extreme weather --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

today you can look at the last three stories or "music" on my talk: the same topics, Youth Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine, Samuel Kummer and (pictured) one row of 8 double basses and another of 5 bassists ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

Nyttend

• JohnOwens
• Killiondude
• MelanieN
• Nihonjoe

Bureaucrat changes

Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe

Oversight changes

GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news

• Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Good luck!

Wishing you success. Deb (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the most likely outcome is I serve out the remaining time on arbcom but we'll see in a few weeks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Barkeep49 is a candidate in the U4C election

In case there are other lurkers like me who previously had no clue and weren't going to bother voting, Barkeep49 is a candidate in the U4C election. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure there are lurkers on this page who if they vote will vote against me. I hope they do that. I think this first committee is going to have an outsize influence on whether the U4C follows its charter in whether it respects large wikis with established mechanisms or it doesn't. I'm guessing enwiki people have real feelings on that matter (mostly in one direction, I guess, but some in the other) so I hope people find the candidates that are right and vote for them. There are also likely to be some candidates who editors find unappealing for a variety of reasons and I hope that people oppose them - better ot have a too small committee than a full one with bad people. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Re: age of discussions at CR

I don't want to request a word limit extension for this, but I do want to say it: merge requests tend to remain listed at CR for a very long time because merges are complicated and discussions about them often result in very unclear consensi. I understand your general point, but I would not interpret the fact that there are three older outstanding merge requests as evidence that the RMs are not being unusually delayed; I consider them a separate animal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

And there are 3 RfCs which had been unclosed longer than that. I didn't want to be accused of doing an apples to oranges comparison so I didn't mention them but my point is: we don't have enough editor time to support the processes we have and so hard calls (and there's no denying that close was a hard one) face a burden. Especially when they're not one off's as someone else takes one of those hard ones but may not be up for repeatedly taking them. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2024 United States presidential election 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, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

• News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections

• Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators?

• Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24

• In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis

• Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure

• Comix: Generations

• Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

A request for amendment

I am thinking about submitting an amendment request as outlined here, but I have a few questions. First, do you think I can try it, or given the AE issue, I would better wait another year? Secondly, do I understand correctly that such request only involves myself, and I should not notify other users? The interaction ban was one-sided. Or I should notify VM and Piotrus because they are mentioned in the FoF and decision about me? Finally, I would probably need a help from an arbitration clerk to correctly submit it. Thank you, and sorry for the trouble. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @My very best wishes. I am of course speaking just for myself here. I think if you waited until a year from the AE enforcement, an amendment request would be fine or rather not too much more is gained by waiting an additional year. As for notifications, since you're already going to be asking for help from the clerks with posting (which I would suggest doing at WP:AC/CN) perhaps they could also help you with notifications, which in my opinion do need to happen for any kind of iban amendment request. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Then I will definitely wait until a year from the AE enforcement, unless someone else will submit an amendment for this case, so perhaps it will be easier to consider several participants during one request for amendment. I must admit that I did not expect to receive these bans, I felt terrible after receiving them, and I counted days to apply for the amendment. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests 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 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ed Winters

Gottagotospace has asked for a deletion review of Ed Winters. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 15:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I mixed up the closing admins from the two deletion reviews, so I notified one but forgot to notify the other. Thanks for correcting my mistake :) Gottagotospace (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

IP block exempt

WP:IPECPROXY told me to contact a CU. I'll be traveling next month and wish to use a VPN on any WiFi network that isn't under my control, which will likely be all of them. I've also requested global IP block exempt but understand that may not be enough. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've studiously avoided doing IPBE requests until now. I have made an exception to grant this for a month but also noting for any other talk page watchers I'll likely be bowing out from any future requests. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

May music

story · music · places

Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear (DYK) and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old (OTD). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

29 May 1913: The Rite of Spring - today's story, actually something I saw at that place in a revival. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about Samuel Kummer, one of five items on the Main page - more musing on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You have many fans!

My dad is a teacher and he's pals with the school librarian, who recently mentioned to him that she's a huge fan of Wikipedia's coverage of children's book awards. That's you! I figured I'd pass along the message. Thanks for all your arbitrating and children's literature creating :-) Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and for taking the time to post them @Crunchydillpickle. One of the things that I love about editing Wikipedia is that it attracts real readers and it's always good to hear about a specific one rather than just ones in the abstract. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump 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 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Lightburst (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox political party 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 19:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

Graham Beards

• Deskana
• Mets501
• Staxringold

Bureaucrat changes

• Deskana
• Warofdreams

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

• Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
• The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

• WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Pofka

Hello, I am writing to you to inform you that I have filled an appeal regarding a sanction which was imposed to me by you (see the appeal HERE). -- Pofka (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023

• Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade

• Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor

• In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say

• News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024

• Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies

• Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth

• Featured content: We didn't start the wiki

• Essay: No queerphobia

• Special report: RetractionBot is back to life!

• Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer

• Comix: The Wikipediholic Family

• Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox

• Concept: Palimpsestuous

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Question

what are the requirements for declaring a Contentious Topic? Thanks for any thoughts. Elinruby (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: each arbitrator would have their own standard but generally a pattern of disruption where the normal processes are insufficient to counter. This is often some combination of amount of articles/forums being disrupted and the amount difficulty caused by the disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank your for the answer. Last follow-up, I promise: Can this be done by motion or does there need to be a case? And is a request for a case the right thing to file either way? Also, difficulty for whom? Elinruby (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It can be done by motion but often arbs want a full case. A case request would be the right place to go. I would recommend reading the new Guide to ArbCom before filing any request (in this case probably part 2 is the crucial one for what you need to know to be successful). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Elinruby (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Adil Raja's Draft Page

Hello,

You recently left a warning on my talk page for offering Saqib some money to accept the page. That was my mistake. I did that out of frustration because I worked on it for months and he rejected it twice. Would it be possible for you to review the draft? Draft:Adil Raja

Please check it out and tell me if you think it's ready to be submitted. I believe that it's ready and has enough references. Also, could you ensure that Saqib doesn't edit the draft anymore? He seems biased against Adil, as he immediately rejected the draft twice. When I asked him to help me improve the draft, he told me to wait. I waited a whole month, and even then he said he was busy. Things don't add up. Please assist.

Thank you so much! WarriorYt43 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@WarriorYt43 I know how frustrating it can be to wait for a draft to be reviewed. Unfortunately I am not reviewing drafts at this time and cannot help you. My general advise would be to improve the article based on the suggestions left to you before trying again - often the drafts which are clearly notable (the standard Wikipedia uses about who gets an article) are accepted faster than drafts where notability is more borderline. Good luck with your writing, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

WarriorYt43, Normally, I don't edit drafts, but I made changes to this one, like cleanup to remove WP:GUNREL sources and WP:OR hoping to get it approved. If I were biased, I would've not even bothered improving the bio. or have simply stopped you from editing this draft because you declared your COI so accusing me of being bias without evidence is unfounded and unhelpful. Just because I declined the draft doesn't mean I'm biased. The draft is on my watchlist, so naturally, I reviewed it and declined because it was not ready. Fwiw, I declined it, not rejected it. Anyway, I won't review it next time you submit it, but I've the right to edit it as I see fit (and I hope @Barkeep49 is cool with that) because we don't allow POV or poorly sourced BLPs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I guess that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying your position and the steps you took to improve the draft. @Saqib WarriorYt43 (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I-Ban

If I recall correctly, you imposed a two-way IBan between me and ElinRuby (ER), and I am addressing the correct person:

Today, at RSN, I spotted a thread on the reliability of Dorchester Review, opened by ER. I vaguely remembered a familiarity with the the magazine's name and the topic (Kamploops School grave) and discovered that the previous RSN discussion on the issue was motivated by this article-t/p thread. Long story short, it was me who had questioned the reliability of the source and initiated the debate.

Now, ER ought to know of the previous RSN discussion on the magazine (the section header goes "Dorchester Review, again", emphasis mine) and my involvement on the narrow locus, but I do not seek any sanction whatsoever and deem this a trivial mistake. Further, Kamloops Indian Residential School has been significantly edited by me and ER before the IBan but now that ER has significantly edited it after the IBan, I perhaps cannot edit it anymore. Once again, I do not claim any wrongdoing of ER; it is unfeasible for them to check the article-history of all articles they plan to edit, articles might exist where I have been guilty of the same, and the text of IBAN generally allows editing the same pages.

However, I would like to know if there is any way to partake in the current RSN discussion and the article since my involvement — on what is arguably a very narrow locus — predates ER's. I am not pinging ER to avoid breaching the IBan. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam I didn't impose it (that was Bishonen) but am now the responsible administrator so the result is the same. I think the answer to whether you can participate in the RSN is no because it's clearly a discussion started by ER and so pretty much any reply is going to violate the IBAN rule of reply to <the other person> in discussions. You have 1 edit to Dorchester review in the last 500 so it's not some great amount of editing. You both edited Kamploops School before the iBan and can after as long as you don't revert each other. Thanks for checking and let me know if you have any follow up questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That being the case, I am appealing for the IBan to be vacated unless ER wishes for it to stay.

It is quite hilarious that an issue which was first raised by me at the article t/p (and subsequently discussed at RSN) gets raised by ER — of all people — and I do not get to opine. Fwiw, it appears (to me) that I and ER have rather-aligning views on the broader locus though I am unsure about their opinion on the particular RSN question and won't speculate. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI, @Bishonen. In case, you have anything to say. With apologies for the ping, TrangaBellam (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy for you to appeal. You need to demonstrate that the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. You can do that with me or you can go directly to one of the community forums to make your appeal. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I and ER do not edit a common set of articles and, hence, I do not really see the conflicts resuming. In any case, I plan to not engage with ER and ask for a waiver of the IBan primarily (only-?) to participate in the rare content-dispute threads started by him where I had already partaken earlier. That said, I do not know if ER wishes for the IBan to stay. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam after thinking this over, I think this should get wider feedback, including from ER and I do not want to be singly responsible for policing that interaction, and so I suggest you formally appeal this to a notice board. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This was a CT IBan? Where is this to be appealed — AE? TrangaBellam (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread. Without getting into the merits of the original sanction, which I have previously disputed, there is now and RfC and an ANI thread titled "Riposte97: time sink". I think TB is mistaken about who edited the Kamloops article first but more to the point for the record I have zero, zilch, negative infinity objections to TrangaBellam helping with the denialist disruption that is going on in the residential school articles, and am intelligent enough to accept help that is clearly needed since Riposte97 last I checked was still actively disrupting Canadian Indian residential school gravesites Kamloops Indian Residential School even as this has been grinding through RSN and ANI. I am confident that collaboration can take place without unseemly and counterproductive squabbling. Right TB?

that said I would really appreciate it if you would get my name and gender right. And I dislike ER and would prefer El if you don't want to type All That.

Barkeep, is there such a thing as dropping the i-ban by mutual agreement? TB is right, it did not occur to me to check the history of Dorchester Review at RSN, and I appreciate the graciousness about it. Meanwhile, pending the paperwork (NOTBURO?) if TB wants to chime in on these denialist threads I am starting I absolutely welcome the help. Elinruby (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Elinruby; I agree that there will be no counterproductive discourse. So, given our mutual agreement, Barkeep49, are you willing to vacate the I-Ban? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Let's try it. I'll strike the log in a moment @Elinruby @TrangaBellam. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrongful speedy deletion

I am requesting the reversal of the wrongful speedy deletion of 2024 Kissena Park sexual assault case. As per WP:G10:

Examples of "attack pages" may include: libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person, or biographical material about a living personthat is entirely negative in tone and unsourced.

The stub created was sourced by ABC, NBC, CNN & the New York Post. It did not contain libel as it was sourced directly from these reliable and prestigious sources. It hadn’t even named the perpetrator in the content of the article yet so you cannot claim that it was targeted - or even claim it was unjustly written given the fact that the case as since swept the media coverage of the Northeastern United States.

You could have nominated it for deletion. The misuse of speedy deletion was inappropriate, uncalled for and in violation of Wikipedia policy. 9t5 (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@9t5 The article when deleted had been nominated by another editor and on my review I found it to meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I see you have re-created the article. In the re-created article you avoided the serious issues that justified the previous deletion, but continued to have violations of the Biographies of Living People policy, specifically WP:BLPCRIME and so I have had to revision delete much of your creation. I suggest you review the policy to avoid other issues. In addition I will be alerting you to our contentious topic procedures. Please let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Your revision was absolutely justified. Other editors keep including the name of the suspect. I am going to revert those edits, and I will keep a close eye on it. I apologize. I thought you were the one who tagged it for speedy deletion. 9t5 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Christophervincent01

Hi, I just blocked and tagged Threeseven29 as a sock of Christophervincent01. I didn't tag the master, mainly because I have no idea why he was ArbCom-blocked. Nonetheless, I thought you might like to know.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert @Bbb23. By tag the master what do you mean? I see that Threeseven29 links back to Christophervincent01. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't tag Christophervincent01.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Another heads up. The new account admitted being a sock and left a diatribe on their Talk page. I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

June music

story · music · places

Franz Kafka died 100 years ago OTD, hence the story. I uploaded a few pics from the visit of Graham87. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about a tune used by Bach and Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Today I wanted to write a happy song story, on a friend's birthday, but instead we have the word of thunder on top of it, which would have been better on 2 June, this year's first Sunday after Trinity. The new lilypond - thanks to DanCherek - is quite impressive. As my 2 Jun story said: Bach was fired up. - Today's Main page is rich in music, also Franz Liszt and a conductor. I try to avoid the topic infoboxes, really, but compare Liszt and Schumann: which difference do you see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Today is "the day" for James Joyce, also for Bach's fourth chorale cantata (and why does it come before the third?) - the new pics have a mammal I had to look up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

New pics of food and flowers come with the story of Noye's Fludde (premiered on 18 June), written by Brian Boulton. I nominated Éric Tappy because he died, and it needs support today! I nominated another women for GA in the Women in Green June run, - review welcome, and more noms planned. - The attempt by Wugapodes to get MoS/infoboxes more in line with current usage was closed as no consensus, as you will have seen. It looks like before it could gain consensus, infoboxes would have to stop being regarded as contentious. Until then, we'll live with a MoS that is not in line with current usage, as we have done for the last 10+ years ;) - (I'm writing a bit more to get the image next to the text:) I would prefer if infobox discussions were kept factual. "ignore ignore ignore", helpful advice by a friend who was desysopped for protecting Laurence Olivier because of edit-warring over the hidden text about no infobox although he was of course not neutral - is not so easy when you face comments such as in Talk:Gustav Mahler where I think I made a neutral statement. I mind two things in the responses: being described (which has nothing to do with the question at hand), and (more) the proud statement to have retained the infobox for Robert Schumann while expanding for FA, when (looking closer, and not obvious) it wasn't retained but made almost worthless by removing the link to the list of his compositions. When Brian Boulton came up with a compromise "identity box" for FA Percy Grainger, it had this list, as suggested in {{infobox classical composer}} in 2010, well before I even knew what an infobox is ;) - Laurence Olivier received an infobox per RfC, as you may remember. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Today is a feast day for which Bach composed a chorale cantata in 1724 (and we had a DYK about it in 2012). Can't believe that Jodie Devos had to die, - don't miss her video from the Opéra-Comique at the end, - story to come. The weekend brought plenty of music sung and listened to, and some of it is reflected in the last two stories! + pics of good food with good company --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

the sad story today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
• Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
• AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

• News and notes: WMF board elections and fundraising updates

• Special report: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board

• In focus: How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators

• Discussion report: Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna

• In the media: War and information in war and politics

• Sister projects: On editing Wikisource

• Obituary: Hanif Al Husaini, Salazarov, Hyacinth, and PirjanovNurlan

• Opinion: Etika: a Pop Culture Champion

• Gallery: Spokane Willy's photos

• Op-Ed: Why you should not vote in the 2024 WMF BoT elections

• Crossword: On a day of independence, beat crosswords into crossploughshares

• Humour: A joke

• Cobwebs: Counting to a billion — manuscripts don't burn

• Recent research: Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps

• Traffic report: Talking about you and me, and the games people play

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your dedication in serving on the arbitration committee. I appreciate the careful consideration given to resolving difficult conflicts. isaacl (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you, Barkeep49, for the time and effort you gave to the Arbitration Committee and to the Checkuser crew. I wish you a stressless transition. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• In my many years of acting as an arbitrator, I had many esteemed colleagues. There were some who stood head and shoulders above the others, exemplifying everything you'd want from an Arbitrator. Barkeep, you sat at the top of that pile. I am sure you will go on to lead the U4C and go on making a difference to the project, but I just wanted to say thank you for being someone I could trust on the committee. Worm^TT(talk) 10:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think we appear to disagree more than we actually do, because I never see the point of saying something when I agree with ArbCom. Even when we've disagreed, you're always thoughtful. So I'm sorry to see you leave ArbCom. On the bright side, there's someone I know on this U4C thing; perhaps you'll even be able to explain to not-really-metapedians like me what on God's green earth that actually is, and how it affects en.wiki. At the very least I trust you to guide whatever it is in a rational direction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam thanks. I hope you'll indulge me two reactions. First, I hopeful that the U4C will not affect you. The U4C should be about helping small/medium projects and being a place for the community more easily and to fix it when a project has gone off the rails. Neither of those are true for enwiki. Helping it be successful in those two things without going beyond that mandate is part of the work I want to do. Second, I'd encourage you to maybe rethink I never see the point of saying something when I agree with ArbCom with other arbs you respect. Hearing only negative feedback from editors you like and respect is one of the hardest things about being an arb. It can also impact the actual work done because it becomes harder to figure out when you're genuinely doing something wrong and when complaints should just be ignored as the baseline of upset people that ArbCom encounters. Getting this wrong on either side isn't great ("fixing" things that you needn't fix creates a problem where there was none and not fixing things that should be fixed is obviously bad). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, and I probably should know better. back in the Dark Ages when I was on ArbCom, I felt the same way. Probably intentionally blocked out the memory of it.

  "I'm hopeful that the U4C will not affect you" is exactly what I was hoping to hear. I find it grating when, for example, someone mentions how someone else violated the UCOC at ArbCom or ANI. Well, then they violated an en.wiki policy too. Refering to UCOC makes me nervous that an amorphous "they" are coming for "our" aAbcCm. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  While it doesn't bother me if someone cites the UCoC, I agree that it would be better if they just cited the applicable enwiki policy or guideline because it's there. It's why I really advocated for this principle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for your service, BK49. Even when I've disagreed with you, you've always been thoughtful and careful to explain your reasoning, and I've truly appreciated that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• I've just said it at the Arb talk page, but I want to say thanks to you here, too. Just the other day, I laughed out loud on hearing about a children's book called The Quacken (about a very large duck) and, knowing of your editing interest in children's books, my mind went to you. Best wishes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like an ex-arb habitually checks this, but just in case

Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Heh. Yeah I pretty regularly checked my email even before arbcoms and am still in the habit. Will get back to you soonish. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

• Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo

• News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter

• Essay: Reflections on editing and obsession

• In the media: What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book?

• Obituary: JamesR

• Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword

• Humour: Joe Biden withdraws RfA, Donald Trump selects co-nom

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Liar, Liar: The Theory, Practice and Destructive Properties of Deception

Call me a doofus and get it over with lol. Knitsey (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean just from the text it would be an attack on Kevin. But yeah we all have our moments... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

ARCA

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

A vandal only account

There is a user by Toastyt74 that is a vandal only account I reverted one of their edits and saw their contribs I saw no edit with no vandalism. Felicia (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind it has already been taken care of. Felicia (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Growth News, July 2024

Community Configuration

The Growth team released Community Configuration at all Wikipedias. You can access it at Special:CommunityConfiguration.

This new special page replaces Special:EditGrowthConfig. For now, all Growth features can be configured using Community Configuration. Configuration for AutoModerator (T365046) and other features will be available in the future.

You can help with translations. The interface translation is done at Translatewiki.net. You can also help translate the documentation.

If you attend Wikimania 2024, please join us for the session about Community configuration's future!

Current work

Newcomer Homepage Community Updates module

We will add a new Community Configurable module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We have released a simple version available to beta wikis. We will conduct an A/B test at our pilot wikis using the new Metrics Platform. We still welcome community feedback on initial designs and plans, in any language at our project talk page.

Future work

Increase constructive activation on mobile

As part of the Growth team 2024/2025 Annual Plan, the Growth team will explore various ways to increase the percentage of newcomers who successfully start editing.

Editing a Wikipedia page requires too much context and patience. It means many trial and error for newcomers to contribute, meaning a steeper learning curve and potential discouraging reverts. To support a new generation of volunteers, we will increase the number and availability of smaller, structured, and more task-specific editing workflows (E.g. Edit Check and Structured Tasks). The Growth team will primarily focus on Structured Tasks, while working closely with the Editing team to ensure our work integrates well with Edit Check.

Stay informed

Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work. If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.

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

15:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

July music

story · music · places

The story is today about the first published composition by Arnold Schönberg which I was blessed to hear. Listen, and perhaps read what Alma Mahler (to-be-Mahler at the time, to be precise, who was present at the first performance) said, and yes that was too much for the Main page ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about a Bach cantata premiered 300 years ago OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

3 July is the birthday of Leoš Janáček, and I'm happy I had a meaningful DYK in 2021. It's also the birthday of Franz Kafka, and I uploaded pics from his family's album seen in Berlin. Janáček's infobox has a list of his compositions, like Bach's, Mozart's, Beethoven's. Schumann had one for years, until one featured article writer removed it (and I noticed only after it was too late for a BRD revert and discussion). I am not welcome in the FAC, and another user who noticed was dismissed, but I believe that our readers should not miss a valuable link because one person believes it's a "rotten idea". You may remember that this was mentioned in the Mahler discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Libuše Domanínská, the subject of yesterday's story, would have turned 100 today, but I missed that ;) - Overnight, Tamara Milashkina became GA and Lando Bartolini went to the Main page. I made my story about his almost unbelievable career, from Luigi in Il tabarro in Philadelphia in 1968 (with a nod to Liberty) up to Calaf in Turandot in Beijing in 1999 ;) - 4 July is also the birthday of Brian Boulton who was a pioneer of a concise infobox in 2013, including a list of works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Pictured on the Main page: Brian's Mozart family grand tour, my story today, and Mozart related to all three items of music on my talk: our 2023 concert, an opera in a theatre where a Mozart premiere took place, and those remembered, Martti Wallén, a bass, and Liana Isakadze, a violinist from Georgia, (whose article would be better with more details about her music-making). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about an outstanding violinist from Georgia, which is a sad story in the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

My story today is - because of the anniversary of the premiere OTD in 1782 - about Die Entführung aus dem Serail, opera by Mozart, while yesterday's was - because of the TFA - about Les contes d'Hoffmann, opera by Offenbach, - so 3 times Mozart again if you click on "music" ;) - I am sad to see you go as an arb who understood me - a rare thing - and I wish you progress in the other position. My two stories illustrate the arb matter a bit, explained for Dronebogus, in case of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers the chamber music from two amazing concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page history/2024 July 30b will have a baritone, a violinist, a composer and a Bach cantata, - almost too much, and the composer's article, Wolfgang Rihm, should be better, help wanted. - Plenty of music on my parents anniversary day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for repeated pings

Hey Barkeep, sorry about the repeated pings emanating from User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)#Paid editing on American literature articles. I'm trying to get across a point you made on COIN some years ago, which, in my view, applies to a current situation and so pinged more than once (the second time was probably not necessary). Anyway, just thought I'd let you know. Btw- I've never visited your page and really like the pic of the books. In fact I like it enough that I might copy it, if you don't mind. Do you collect books? Victoria (tk) 14:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Welcome. The whole Rachel Helps situation has been one I've chosen to stay away from since it popped back up. But I definitely stand by my COIN comments. As for the books by all means use them. They're on commons for a reason. Although funny story - they were nominated for deletion on commons due to copyright concerns about the covers. But in the end some people knew the magic words to explain why it wasn't a copyright concern so I got kept so I happily get to keep it on my userpage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I would have made my own pic of books in my house. But I'd forgotten about the issue of 3D with books displayed like that. I'll mull it over. Re the BYU issue, ok, thanks. Victoria (tk) 16:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The good news with taking your own picture is that the saving grace was having a large volume of books on display such that no cover was too distinguishable. I'm guessing that won't be a problem for you :). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I have plenty and even plenty pre-2024 in the public domain. That might fix the copyright issue. For a day when I have nothing else to do :) It's a nifty idea, anyway. Victoria (tk) 19:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Recent AE close

Hi Barkeep,

I am looking at closure, and I am mostly in agreement. However, I am struggling a bit to see how there was a rough consensus that “if there is any disruption at AE within the next 12 months any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban without further consensus”.

In the discussion linked above, I had specifically objected to the imposition of a probation, and Extraordinary Writ appears to have supported lifting the ban with “no probation needed”. You and El_C seemed to favor probation (though El_C also expressed that they were OK to repeal outright). FireFangledFeathers seemed indifferent to the probation requirement, and SFR does not appear to have expressed an opinion one way or the other.

To me, none of the arguments made by participants were obviously stronger on a policy basis, and whether or not to impose probation comes down as a matter of taste and/or discretion. But, in light of the split of admins in the discussion, shouldn’t we say that the discussion resulted in a consensus to accept the appeal and no consensus on imposing probation?

— Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 13:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Just confirming that Red read me right. I don't have an informed opinion on the probation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I read you as opposed, FFF as neutral and EW as neutral. This latter piece was clearly in error. I'll amend the close. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

Isabelle Belato

• Ian.thomson
• Modussiccandi

Interface administrator changes

Izno

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49

Technical news

• Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
• Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

minor suggestion

Regarding this edit: perhaps you could modify it to say a "general copyediting pass"? At first glance I thought you were suggesting that someone pass some changes to the arbitration procedures, and couldn't off the top of my head remember what GOCE stood for. isaacl (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Zionism

I would appreciate your guidance on one issue. For the past two months, there has been an ongoing dispute concerning the lead paragraph of Zionism. A group of editors is seeking to redefine Zionism as a movement "aimed at the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside of Europe."

Without getting into the specifics of the content dispute itself, those advocating for this revision claim that there is a consensus supporting their change. However, a significant number of editors have voiced opposition on the talk page across multiple threads, and extensive evidence from other encyclopedias supporting the original phrasing has been presented. Despite this, proponents of the new version continue to re-introduce the disputed wording through edit warring. They argue that the burden of starting a formal RFC falls on those wishing to restore the original text. Given that I am currently under 0RR, what additional steps can we take to resolve this matter? ABHammad (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@ABHammad you can continue discussion to see if you can find consensus, to see why they insist consensus is that way, or you could work with them to formulate an RfC - including what the status quo is should it fail - to decide the issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Jersey Surf Drum and Bugle Corps

A while ago, you soft deleted this page. Someone recently brought it back, but it's clearly been re-done from the beginning. Is it possible to send me a copy of the source code from the revision before it was deleted for the show summaries and such? (Those are a hassle to input manually.) If it has been recreated, I want to get it at least back to how good it was!

Thank you! Why? I Ask (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Why? I Ask I have restored the article history, so you'll be able to see the old content. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Why? I Ask (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

August music

story · music · places

Today I have two "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, watch and listen, - I like today's especially because you see him at work, hear him talk about his work and the result of his work - rare! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

... and a third, like 22 July but with interview and the music to be played today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extrordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi

I was clear, in my opening paragraph or two, that I wasn't expecting any action or even discussion -- that I was merely posting the facts for the record, and giving fair notice to Beland. Your close made it sound like I was some neophyte posting a giant wall of text in the expectation that the community will spend its collective time reading it. My response to you makes it clear that's not the case, and for it to perform that function it needs to be adjacent to your comments. Otherwise people might think I'm off my wikirocker.

BTW, I do expect the community to read my post -- just not now, but rather the next time some drive-bys call for my head based on my block log. Thanks for understanding.

EEng 03:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. I thought I'd posted this earlier today but the stupid "new thread" interface sometimes demands you hit ctrl-ENTER for some reason, and I didn't notice.

@EEng I certainly understood your need to reply to my close. And so it's there in the place post close comments go at the end, after the closed discussion where it will be preserved, along with the rest of your comments, for anyone to read before the thread is archived and in the future. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that most people read only the close, and yours gives the incorrect impression that I'd made a foolishly overlong post on which I was expecting action -- which I explicitly said I was not. I also believe that your heat/light comment was inappropriate, in light of Brandolini's law. I therefore ask that you revise your comments to be consistent with the facts. I believe something along the lines of "Closing promptly since EEng has stated his post is not a request for action but rather for the record" would be appropriate. EEng 16:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I stand by my close. ANI is a place for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems with an expectation that people who file an issue are brief and include diffs. You made a choice to provide a complete documentation of the issues you saw with the other editor and to do so without asking the community to act on it. I described what you did and why based on those choices it made sense to procedurally close. If you feel that it makes you seem foolish that's your interpretation but not mine. I did not call you foolish or any other name or intend to do anything but describe why I was closing and options you had. It is not an accepted practice for reporters to have an in-line reply right to closers hence why I moved it to the place that post-close replies go. If you feel that you needed something else from the community that this didn't provide it remains open to you to find a way of reporting something more briefly for the community to act on - I think you have several options to meet the challenges Brandolini's law without going as comprehensive as you did. Happy to name what I'm thinking of but you might think of others if thats the route you decide to go down. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

In thinking about this a tad further, I added to the procedural close note the fact that you weren't requesting any action. That point of yours was in keeping with my general intent/approach of describing what happened and since you seem to feel that is an important thing to have in the close. If you don't find that part helpful I'm happy to revert it. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

What you did isn't perfect -- but then, what on WP is? -- but I'm OK with it. BTW, is a tad more or less than a bit? More or less than a scrunch? EEng 20:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

A tad is 5 ponderings, with a bit being 4 tads. At least that's what I was taught. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

• In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse

• Recent research: STORM: AI agents role-play as "Wikipedia editors" and "experts" to create Wikipedia-like articles, a more sophisticated effort than previous auto-generation systems

• In focus: Twitter marks the spot

• News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded.

• Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?

• Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing

• Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird

• Humour: I'm proud to be a template

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed motion in Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)

Hello Barkeep49. There is proposed motion in the amendment request where you were listed as involved. The motion would remove the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" in the definition of the "area of conflict" in which ARBPIA sanctions apply. SilverLocust 💬 17:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Referral from the Artibration Enforcement noticeboard regarding behavior in Palestine-Israel articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Minor typo at the AE referral case?

You wrote " I'd suggest it find a wait to "punt" that decision,". Didn't you mean "way"? Doug Weller talk 07:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

BLP NB editnotice

Thank you; I'd started it using a comment I had posted previously and hadn't really thought about it in a less-argumentative more useful-to-newcomers context. Your edits have made it much better. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@OwenBlacker it's a really good idea for an edit notice. Hopefully it helps lower the temperature in some places (even if we won't know when it did since success will mean nothing happens). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. We do already have {{Pronoun editnotice}}, but that's more "this is a reminder" rather than "dear gods, stop it people!", y'know? :) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 20:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Sometimes people need to know that they're crossing a behavioral line that people will notice and care about. Your notice does that nicely. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiConference North America 2024

Hello @Barkeep49! If you feel comfortable, could you please send me an email at jamie.flood2@gmail.com so I can send you correspondence (Acceptance!) about the session you proposed for WCNA 2024? Thank you for your time! JamieF (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

A question.

Hello @Barkeep49. I had a question and was not sure where to post it so I figured I might as well ask an admin. I have suspicions of undisclosed COI by a user and have uncovered potential off-wiki evidence. While I know not to post such things directly on wikipedia, I was wondering if I should make my case entirely through the provided email or if I should make a section on WP:COIN presenting the on-wiki evidence and only email the off-wiki evidence. Thanks. Yvan Part (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Yvan Part. Great question - and you're not the first to have it. Because your suspicions include off-wiki evidence you should email it to WP:COIVRT. There is a bit of a backlog there at the moment, but that is the right place to handle it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Cheers. Have a good day. Yvan Part (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

BLP-violating draft

Hi! I'm a little torn here (I also admit to being a little intimidated, having seen your name on things like Arbcom decisions as One Who Speaks Sense). While it's certainly nice to see an admin taking care to consider a speedy nomination instead of just hitting delete, I'm concerned that in this draft you then restored completely unsourced information alleging a named person was responsible for (and convicted of) various heinous offences. I've gone ahead and removed every instance of the name from the draft but remain concerned the surname is still in the title, the offending material is still archived in the history, and also by the question of if simply restoring it unedited was really in compliance with WP:BLPREVERT.

Am I wrong? I probably am, to be fair, but something about this feels not in-tune with BLP policy. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Technically some stuff is cited - there are links in the Infobox to case related materials - including the Oral Argument whcih establishes some of the facts, though you are of course correct nothing is cited in-line. I wasn't going to point that out in the decline because the bigger point remains: this is a US Supreme Court case and so if there are negative facts about a BLP, well that's just the way it goes sometimes and for speedy deletion purposes this was not negative enough to justify deletion. Replacing the person's name with other language until better citation can be done in the draft does seem appropriate to me as well. And thanks for the kind words. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

<nods thoughtfully> Thanks for the quick response. If I were a better writer/researcher I might try and source/expand the draft myself, as it strikes me as a reasonably important question of law. Certainly it seems better than the other drafts I found around the same time (now gone but see my deleted contribs for examples). Unfortunately I don't think I'm competent to do it. Thanks for all you do around here. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
• Arconning (submissions) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024 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 02:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

Pppery

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

Oversighter changes

Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

• Courcelles
• GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

Miscellaneous

• Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

• News and notes: WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked

• In the media: AI is not playing games anymore. Is Wikipedia ready?

• Recent research: Simulated Wikipedia seen as less credible than ChatGPT and Alexa in experiment

• News from the WMF: Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election

• Wikimania: A month after Wikimania 2024

• Serendipity: What it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year

• Traffic report: After the gold rush

• Humour: Local man halfway through rude reply no longer able to recall why he hates other editor

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Change to the Functionary team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permissions of Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the Functionary team

AE Request

Hi, thanks for permission to go over 500 words in responding to my AE report. I'm not familiar with how this plays out really - is it usually the done thing for the reporter to continually amend the complaint? In my statement I replied to points made and incorrect claims which have been removed or edited or changed. I've already edited my statement once to account for the changing request, I don't have time to stay on top of it though. Apologies for asking here if this isn't the done thing either! Void if removed (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Void if removed no they shouldn't be doing that. I've requested they stop. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Am I allowed to add a reply to my statement? LunaHasArrived has pointed out I've made a mistake I want to apologise for, and also I'd like to respond to the "LGBA Founders" thing because it's been kind of my white whale and I've not covered myself in glory there over the years but I've moved on. Void if removed (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. If you keep your total replies under 300 words you're fine. If this gets much larger and you need more words ask again. I hope to jump substantively to what's happening soon. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

RE: this comment 22 December Went back here per Radilacs response to my first batch. WP:SPLC notes that they are reliable but their labeling shouldn't automatically be included in the LEAD. I'm curious in what circumstances Void would find it appropriate to include a gender related hate designation in the lead given their reluctance on these two. I'm happy to respond but I'm at my limit now do you still want me to? I've already added links to relevant context to two edits you mentioned I hope that's ok. Void if removed (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You can definitely have some additional words to reply to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Void if removed thanks for your email. As chance would have it I was in possession of that information already, but I appreciate your making sure of that. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the time you put in to assessing my case. I'll take all the constructive comments on board. Void if removed (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Attack page

The "singer-songwriter" draft page you just moved is the target of a long harassment campaign similar to Chris Chan. The page is pure trolling and serves no purpose except to continue that harassment. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Helpful Raccoon I appreciate that background. I'm certainly familiar with the harassment of Chan. My quick googling doesn't reveal quite that same kind of harassment but does reveal a focus on the BLP violations that caused me to revdel the move logs. Can you document (perhaps best done in an email) more of that harassment campaign? Alternatively I agree it's unlikely they'll ever be able to move from being a draft page so perhaps try MFD? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I removed some false information that is part of the trolling. This is very similar to Chris Chan, including a wiki his "fans" have put together that documents his delusions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Liz if you think the page is better off deleted don't let me stop you. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I put it up for a MfD, although I still think it should be speedy deleted. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

AE, travel

BK and SFR, I don't want to clutter the AE page with my typical travelogue, but I saw the AE last night after I finished packing, am headed this morning to the airport, will be flying all day, then traveling from the airport to my destination for a family wedding, getting in late. That is, at best, it will take me at least 24 hours to even be able to read the rest of the diffs. I'd like to have more time to view and comment on any real issues, which the most recent was not. And the mobile diffs will make it much harder to work from my (very slow) hotspot at the airport; I did not realize, for example, that WhatamIdoing was the first to use the term "trans kids" because of the mess of trying to view the whole page from a mobile diff with limited time. Is it possible to reinforce that the OP needs to better focus their diffs on any that are truly problematic, hopefully with non-mobile version, so that context can be more easily viewed and discussed? I wasted what little time I had last night commenting on a mobile diff with no context that was better handled by WAID. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It would be really great if someone could just edit those urls to be standard diffs. Surely that's not contentious? -- Colin°^Talk 13:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

On the topic of mobile diffs, User:Þjarkur/NeverUseMobileVersion.js will take care of that. I have that installed to keep the site from forcing me back to the horrible mobile interface randomly, but it also shifts diffs to regular desktop diffs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems to work, though I can see the browser fetch the mobile page and then the desktop one after. SFN, your common.js is, em, extremely trusting of a lot of random users! -- Colin°^Talk 14:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it has to load all your scripts before it knows to open the right version of the page. It's better than nothing though. Also, you reminded me to do a bit of cleanup on my common.js. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thx to both, that helps, I'm off ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I assume that confusion (around who used the term first) is because Colin objected when a different editor used the same language, and I assume that was because it's difficult on long pages to keep track of which comment belongs to which sig, or because he had other things he needed to say about that comment. Mixing up who said what happens all over the wiki. I really don't think anyone was trying to be unfair here.

I do think sometimes that we need the equivalent of amusement park signs on some subjects. Instead of saying "You have to be at least this tall for this ride", we need one that says "If you have this much real-world anxiety about this subject, don't edit this page". It's obvious when you watch the conversations across multiple pages that some people have significant real-world fears about restrictions on gender care. IMO those fears aren't entirely misplaced, but from the Wikipedia POV, real-world anxiety does not make for a dispassionate Wikipedian. Regardless of whether the fear is about COVID vaccines, Trump's re-election prospects, climate change, gender equality, the mess in Gaza, immigration, or any other subject, real-world anxiety consistently produces POV pushers. We have traditionally tried to address this by accepting and moderating the POV pushing. I hope that we will be able to continue doing that for GENSEX topics, but perhaps society has shifted enough over the years that it's no longer a viable model. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Just making sure

I was going through my contributions, and the edits I did to an AN/I hat was revdel'd. Did I do something wrong? Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Nomad Vagabond)} 12:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Babysharkboss2, looks like your edit was caught up in a revdel of material added to the Kautilya3 thread by Ms Sarah Welch. Your contributions came between the addition of the material and its removal. Folly Mox (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh. So I didn't do anything wrong? Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Nomad Vagabond)} 14:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

oh, ok! Thanks! Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Nomad Vagabond)} 15:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about AE report

Regarding your closure of the AE report about me, I don't understand what happened with the concerns of myself, Levivich and SashiRolls that filer was engaged in disruptive editing and POV pushing? It would appear these concerns were ignored and have not been addressed. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS as @Vanamonde93 indicated filing a separate report - especially given the source manipulation concerns - would be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I really don't understand how AE works. One doesn't get the impression that concerns of POV pushing are being taken seriously here. I will not be filing a separate report. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement is designed to be a board with structured discussion about editor behavior in certain (Arbcom approved) places. A problem with many Palestine-Israel reports there is that it attempts to turn it into a wide ranging discussion about many editors' behavior. AE does not do that well. And so with your report there was an attempt to keep the discussion focused - which in this case was on the edit warring presented by the filer. The ask for a separate report is showing it's being taken seriously. Rather than nothing happening because it is buried as a small part of a large discussion of which it is not the focus, its own report means that conduct would be the focus. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Serious allegations were made and they were ignored. That seems rather bureaucratic (in the sense of being "overly concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency or common sense").

I don't intend to be argumentative and I'm just registering my disappointment. I have a lot of respect for the individual admins who respond at AE, but AE itself has something wrong with it. There seem to be inconsistencies with how things are done there, and I'd like to ask if there is somewhere where all the rules etc governing AE are written.

Thank you for your time Barkeep, and know that I take seriously the warning I recieved for edit warring/1RR. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I can understand why as a non-frequent participant you're not seeing it this way, but it is my sincere belief that Vanamonde's suggestion was correct: filing a seperate report was the right answer for efficiency. If someone were to file a report today that was straight forward in the way the report just closed was, there's a great chance that the total time to close both would be less than the time it takes to close the sprawled report about IntrepidContributor. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Could I file a report saying simply "In a previous AE report, I made a statement alleging misconduct by user(s) x. I was told to submit a separate report to address these concerns. Here is my statement and note that there were statements by other editors in the IOHANNVSVERVS report which are relevant to this report."

And should two or three separate reports be filed or can my concerns about the three editors be dealt with in the one report?

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The most successful reports have specific diffs with easy to understand explanation of why those diffs present a problem - that was something the report that just closed did well. So "read a whole bunch of other stuff to find what was relevant" won't be successful. Nor would "read the statements by me, Levivich, and SashiRolls" because the one that comes closest is SashiRolls here but that is just a single diff when the 3 of you are arguing a pattern and the rest are assertions without clear evidence to back them up. Someone needs to compile what the pattern of diffs are. An example of that happening for something somewhat like this is this by Levivich which, not for nothing, was too late in a thread that had already spiraled. And yes a person can file two or three concerns in a row about similar concerns for different editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that serious allegations are ignored unless certain hoops are jumped through.

I'll ask again if there is somewhere I can read about the rules/procedures/etc regarding AE? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

They're not ignored, as much as there have been millions of words written on talk pages and thousands upon thousands of edits. Without a clear demonstration of what exactly the problem is its very difficult to suss out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

They've not been ignored? Three users reported concerns about a user's conduct but these concerns have not been responded to or addressed.

"Without a clear demonstration of what exactly the problem is"? The allegations were very clear in identifying what the problem is. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for missing that question earlier. I wish there was a good tutorial for learning about AE. The rules and procedures are written in the box labeled "Important information". But how to write effective AE reports is something that doesn't exist as far as I know. However, most of the advice on how to write an effective ArbCom statement would also apply to AE. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Very clear evidence was presented that user x was misrepresenting the source you provided and which he and user y repeatedly reverted. His claim that the variant on the wh-cleft structure "What happened in 1948" was vague was shown to be false as it was clearly defined in the source as "massacres and expulsions at gunpoint" "which led to over 80 per cent of the Palestinian population being violently forced to flee". What BK49 seems not to want to say is that it is easier for AE admins to treat AE as though it were WP:AN3 where simple revert-counting is normally addressed. I too was sorry to see that the complaint was not treated seriously, as the evidence presented was very clear and in the context of a larger complaint it will likely be successfully muddied. While someone could reinitiate the same case with exactly the same evidence, mentioning both user x and user y, it would have been much simpler to give a 1RR warning without falsely claiming that you were unilaterally edit-warring when there were three people involved, counting user x (who made claims on the talk page) and user y (who did not).-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason I haven't said What BK49 seems not to want to say is that it is easier for AE admins to treat AE as though it were WP:AN3 where simple revert-counting is normally addressed is because I don't think it's true. Instead I think The ask for a separate report is showing it's being taken seriously. Rather than nothing happening because it is buried as a small part of a large discussion of which it is not the focus, its own report means that conduct would be the focus. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

AE

(ping ScottishFinnishRadish) I won't have a chance to write anything substantial till this evening. I've responded the most recent issue (the “trans kids” one) on the talk page it occurred, to try to address how that's been misrepresented. But as you note there are a lot of diffs offered, and I'm quite sure by this evening there will be other posts by other editors with 50 more diffs. I wish it was clearer which are the areas of concern you guys would like me to address, and which you've already dismissed as misinterpreted. You can email me if you think that might be kinder. -- Colin°^Talk 10:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad FFF was able to reformat the diffs for you (I was going to put them here). Also because this is at a conduct noticeboard I will be keeping my substantive comments there. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

(ping ScottishFinnishRadish again). There are two diffs with a "diffonly=1" flag on them, which prevents examination of the context. Could those be removed too please. -- Colin°^Talk 17:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Colin you could delete that and make a new link you use in your response. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Barkeep, ScottishFinnishRadish, Valereee and Vanamonde93 for considering my case as fairly as you can. I can only conclude that all four of you must have been terrible people in a previous life, and brought back to spend your evenings moderating the bickering of folk on the internet. -- Colin°^Talk 21:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for closing, I did think we had a consensus for a general reminder re: AGF though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 Did we? You and I agreed, SFR was ambivalent to negative and Valereee didn't really comment on it. I'm obviously not opposed but I'm not sure it was there. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess I see this as assent, but we can just ask him. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty ambivalent. I don't think it does much, but I didn't want to hold up a possible consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 if you want to amend a statement to my close please do so. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I will make a minimal amendment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

an invitation to join a study

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Have a great day! Phoebezz22 (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Clear vs clear and substantial

This came up in an earlier discussion, and I finally found it. Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 19#Quick question. Maybe the standard changed, and maybe it only applies actions taken to enforce Arbcom placed sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish I can confirm that it was intentionally changed in DS to CT from clear and substantial to clear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. I'm just glad that I didn't hallucinate asking about that somewhere. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn't important enough for its own talk page section, so I'll just tuck it in here. Openness is one of those words that always looks wrong. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Recall

I am curious why you started a discussion at Village Pump (policy), when editors are still working on finalizing a proposal at WP:Administrator recall. Now, I agree there are some editors who strongly believe the entire proposal needs an up or down !vote, I think your addition to Village Pump (policy) may be premature. - Enos733 (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

My read of that activity is that it is procedural rather than policy. And if there's not consensus to do it, it's a waste of time figuring out procedure that won't be used. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The last comment on the talk page was to hold off on bringing it forward and allowing supporters to develop the strongest case for the proposal. - Enos733 (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Barkeep49, while I can understand your PoV that it's a waste of time to develop procedures that will never be implemented due to community opposition, I think Enos733 has a point that in reality support for such a policy is likely to depend significantly on the precise procedural details. Especially since we already has a consensus in support of a recall procedure, I don't see any need to rush into another RfC on it. Let those developing it refine it until they feel it is ready. Provided it's clear to those editors that what they're refining might never be implemented and that the amount of time they spent on it is not going to be a compelling reason for the community to implement it, it should IMO be their choice on whether they want to risk wasting their time on such a thing. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to say this, but if the consensus is "sorry this procedure is terrible let's start again" or "sorry having read the procedure I'm not sure why we even though recall would be a good idea, let's abandon the whole thing" then okay fine, we'll stop a waste of time. Likewise if consensus is "yes this procedure is fine, feel free to tweak it without needing another RfC and implement it once you feel it's done without asking us again, then okay again those involved can get down onto the nitty-gritty in full swing. But frankly I feel much more likely is we might get yet another consensus in favour of a recall process but not a consensus on the precise procedure which is after all still being tweaked. So then we would surely need yet another RfC on implementing the actual final procedure. I'm really unconvinced that is beneficial to the community, more likely there will start to be a real degree of fatigue or WTF are we !voting on this yet again? In fact, that will likely already be the case in the current RfC to a greater degree than IMO it needs to be precisely because anyone considering taking part is going to look at it and realise "wait so you're asking is to !vote yet again on some possible procedure which isn't even finalised yet and so we'll need to come back again to !vote on the final procedure or take part in writing the procedure when we really don't want to or just let others do it and hope they do a good job since it's going to be implemented without any further feedback from us"? Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think early comments back up this hypothesis and supporters have already been arguing they have consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

And if there's not consensus to do it, it's a waste of time figuring out procedure that won't be used. No matter what, there was going to be at least one more RFC, either something akin to what you started or a straight up/down vote. It's best to do the tweaking first to maximize the chance of success. In the case of an RFC like yours, it reduces the risk of needing yet another RFC; the ~ten editors who are keeping track of the discussion spending maybe 15 minutes each can reduce the amount of community time spent by dozens of hours. Everyone editing WP:ADREC is a volunteer and aware it may not pass, but I expect that's a risk of time all of us are willing to take. Sincerely, Dilettante Sincerely, Dilettante 15:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

September music

story · music · places

Per calendar, BWV 78 is 300 years today! = my story -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Three stories related to today in memory, 11 September, 20 July and 20 June, the latter piece of art also pictured on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with a DYK hook from 2010 and another from 2014, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My story today features a pic I took from my position in the choir, I can also offer varied delightful music, some from Venice, also with pics I took, - note the rose in the clarinet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

• In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws"

• Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus

• Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics

• Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing

• News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections?

• Gallery: Are Luddaites defending the English Wikipedia?

• Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors

• Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mustang Challenge 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 19:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Definition of the "area of conflict" amendment request archived

A request for amendment which you were a party to has been archived with the following summary:

There is currently no appetite on the committee to change the definition of the area of conflict

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

• Asilvering
• Significa liberdade

• Good Olfactory
• Hesperian
• I JethroBT
• TommyBoy
• Woody

CheckUser changes

• Barkeep49
• Izno

• Doug Weller
• Spicy

Guideline and policy news

• Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
• Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
• An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
• Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

• If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Hello Barkeep49, can you unprotect Emmanuel Michael? You protected it in 2019 for repeated creation and now, I need to accept Draft:Emmanuel Michael. Best, Reading Beans 08:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure Michael is notable as a footballer but since that's not why the page was protected I've removed the protection and you're free to accept the draft. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I see a 50% chance of survival, so, thank you for unprotecting. Best, Reading Beans 03:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Good admins

Regarding this comment: I confess to be a bit confused. I understand the view that English Wikipedia doesn't necessarily benefit from having a surfeit of oversighters beyond what is needed at the moment. However if you're influenced (presumably favourably) by those you respect that oversight is a type of good admin badge, I feel the analogy breaks down, because I don't think there's a capacity concern with how many good admins are identified. isaacl (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That should have been should not. Sorry for the confusion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, OK; that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification! isaacl (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Makhnovshchina 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 13:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

• News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning

• Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper

• In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!

• Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South

• Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night

• Book review: The Editors

• Humour: The Newspaper Editors

• Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Growth News, October 2024

Current work

Newcomer Homepage Community Updates module

We will add a new module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We have released a simple version on beta wikis and we will soon start an A/B test on our pilot wikis. This module will only display on the Newcomer Homepage if communities decide to utilize it, so learn how to configure the Community Updates module, or share your thoughts on the project's talk page.

One design concept aimed to increase constructive activation

Constructive activation experimentation

After showcasing early design ideas at Wikimania, we conducted user testing of design prototypes. We now aim to engage communities in further discussions and plan to run a targeted experiment, presenting a structured task within the reading view to logged-in new account holders with zero edits.

Community Configuration

This Community Configuration extension was developed to help communities customize wiki features to meet their unique needs. The Growth team is now helping other Wikimedia Foundation teams make their products configurable:

• The Moderation Tools team now provides Community Configuration for Automoderator. (T365046)
• Certain Babel extension settings will be configurable soon. (T328171)

Future work

As part of the Growth team annual plan, we will continue to investigate ways to increase constructive activation on mobile, while also working with Data Products to move forward A/B testing functionality via the Metrics Platform.

Community events

• Growth team members presented Community Configuration: Shaping On-Wiki Functionality Together at Wikimania (slides). The session recording is available to watch on YouTube. This session provided an update on the Community Configuration project and introduced details about the upcoming features that communities will soon be able to configure. Representatives from the Moderator Tools, Editing, Web, and Campaigns teams shared their plans for utilizing Community Configuration in the future. Following these presentations, the WMF Growth team's Benoît Evellin and Martin Urbanec answered audience questions.
• Habib Mhenni gave a presentation of how mentorship works at WikiIndaba 2024. The recording is available.

Stay informed

Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work. If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.

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

Trizek_(WMF), 15:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Nishidani comment

Hey Bk, I see you removed Nishidani’s bizarre and offensive comment. I’m not sure removing it helps, as I feel it should be addressed. The offensiveness of an editor citing some joke as evidence that there is a Jewish tendency to gratuitously and abusively accuse non-Jews of antisemitism is pretty bad, but it is secondary to the derailing irrelevance of this particular line of “Everyone knows it exists! Stop asking for secondary sources!” argumentation that’s been popping up repeatedly at that Talk. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If anyone's serious about stamping out toxic conduct in ARBPIA, apparently Nishidani thinks it's acceptable to make condescending antisemitic jokes (~"Jews are so lazy and greedy, bumming our toothbrushes and razors") about antisemitism (~"and they're so oversensitive about antisemitism") to win arguments. Hate is disruptive. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC) Nishidani didn't make the joke, so that part was incorrect. And they've said they weren't intending to communicate anything hateful. See below for clarification. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

See https://www.jstor.org/stable/538991

p.218 states the exact joke Nishidani used, and makes the exact same academic point that Nishidani makes.

Barkeep, please could you self-revert your removal of Nishidani’s comment, and reverse the clearly mistaken ban.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. I had not thought to search JSTOR. However, I read Katz and Katz's interpretation of the joke far differently than you (even if we ignore the difference in context between two Yiddish speaking people telling jokes to each other and a person - Jewish, a Yiddish speaker, or not - telling it on the Internet to win a point). Specifically, Katz and Kate write, In this story it is not the inanimate machine that is accused of anti-Semitism but a man, who presumably belongs to the majority culture and who has behaved toward the Jews with uncommon courtesy and-be it noted-toleration. The Jew, on the other hand, is at best an outrageous and at worst a repulsive figure. We may in fact be initially amused at his impudence...Here the Jew soon appalls the hearer by his total lack of standards in such ele­mentary matters as hygiene and privacy, not to speak of more subtle areas. as delicacy and good manners. He has already been indulged far beyond the patience any hearer would show and, when the line is finally drawn, his cry of "anti­Semitism" is the culmination of a process that has taken him progressively out of the realm of our sympathy. So at best this source says that it was a known joke in early 20th the 1960's century Eastern European Jewry but by 1973 was being criticized. It is now 51 years later. I stand by my sanction for the way Nishdani's comment was, to quote the previous warning, unnecessarily inflammatory language. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Prior to the quote, Katz and Katz write (my bolding added): It is quite well known that jokes form a prominent part of the Jewish folklore tradition. Jewish folklore itself attributes to Jews a kind of expertise as raconteurs and connoisseurs of jokes… The point of the story [an equivalent story being contrasted against said joke] is familiar. A negative reaction to behavior that is inadequate or inappropriate is interpreted by the Jew as reflecting ethnic prejudice… Dorson's story [i.e. the joke Nishidani quoted] also involves a charge of anti-Semitism…

Nishidani was making the exact point that they make. Please could you explain what you consider to have been inflammatory about Nishidani’s comment?

For ease of reference, Nishidani’s entire comment, without the joke was as follows: I mean, reaslly Bob, you yourself cannot but be familiar with old Jewish jokes that, with typical irony, make fun of a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism. [The joke]. Testimony if ever how deeply ingrained (and understandably so) a sense of diffidence with those not of one's persuasion can go, even in Jewish communities.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Nishidani was making the exact point that they make. Please could you explain what you consider to have been inflammatory about Nishidani’s comment? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have already quoted Katz and Katz writing specifically about this joke and the way that it is inflamatory. This is beyond the idea that what may have been common in the 1960s (the time period for the source of the joke) may no longer be common and, crucially, what they describe as common is jokes as part of Jewish folklore tradition, not the specific jokes they cite. And, I will add, what was common in 1973, the date of the source, may no longer be common 50+ years later. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but you have not answered my question at all. Nishidani wrote two sentences, and correctly quoted a joke from academic literature, in accurate context.

Which of these two sentences did you find inflammatory?

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It can be quite appropriate for academic literature to dissect inflammatory language and explain why it is inflammatory and improper. This is what Katz and Katz do. So you don't get to handwave the content of the joke away. Correctly quoting academic literature does not mean it's OK in the context of a Wikipedia talk page discussion to reproduce it. The contexts are different and the point Katz and Katz are making is rather different than what Nishdani was doing. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What are you suggesting that Nishidani was doing? Please explain with reference to either or both of his two sentences. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I am stating that by posting this comment Nishidani was inflaming the discussion and further stating that they had previously been warned about doing this. I understand I have not answered your specific questions, because I reject the idea that I can only consider the two sentences you keep asking about. At this point I'm quite repeating myself here and so absent this conversation moving forward in some new productive way, I feel I have met the expectations under the Administrator Policy and the Contentious topics procedures. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep, while your original revert and block was in good faith, you have already accepted that your original rationale was mistaken. Further evidence for this is below - the joke is widely published as representative of historical Jewish humor.

• Sherman, J. (1992). A Sampler of Jewish-American Folklore. American folklore series. August House. p. 152. ISBN 978-0-87483-194-8.
• Novak, W.; Waldoks, M. (2006). The Big Book of Jewish Humor. G - Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. HarperCollins. p. 85. ISBN 978-0-06-113813-3.

The second citation (p.85 of the Big Book) quotes the joke within a particularly detailed section (from page 60 onwards) on self-deprecating Jewish jokes about anti-semitism.

I appreciate that you acknowledged above that your initial search was lacking.

But since then you stuck to your claim that Nishidani’s comment was inflammatory, without explaining either what or how you reached that conclusion. Administrative actions are required to be supported by explanation.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

As you said, it's self-deprecating humor. Most self-deprecating jokes, especially those relating to minority groups, would be offensive if they weren't told in a self-deprecating manner (or if it wasn't clear from context). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Very true.

The context here was crystal clear. The description of the joke was used to illustrate an academic point – specifically the point that such a joke exists, and thus the existence of the cultural phenomenon of Jewish people being aware of the perception of hypersensitivity to antisemitism.

It was clearly not directed at anyone, or being used as an attempted joke.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you think to ask @Bobfrombrockley if he thought it was an issue? Or do you decide that something is inflaming the discussion without thought as to if the participants a. have a history together, b. dont take offense to such a comment, or c. instinctively know that somebody is not mak[ing] condescending antisemitic jokes? nableezy - 16:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Barkeep, while I'm not sure if I have heard this particular joke before, it is based on an authentic Jewish theme and I've heard many jokes with much the same punchline from Jewish friends. Your edit summary "a joke weaponizing antisemitism" is not correct; rather it is a joke about weaponization of antisemitism, or at least about oversensitivity towards antisemitism. A Jewish comedian telling this joke would evoke a laugh from any Jewish audience because everyone in the audience knows someone who sees antisemitism everywhere. I would have advised Nish against repeating it on-wiki, but I don't think it deserves a TB. Regards. Zero^talk 02:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

As I note at more length to Levivich below, the difference in context between a Jewish comedian talking to a Jewish audience and Nishidani writing on an article talk page remains core to why I do not find use of the joke OK in the context they used it. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record, Zero you have heard this one, since I mentioned it in response to you, as an acute Jewish community insight into hypersensitivities over antisemitism. But that was 6 years ago. A lot of people, many hostile to my presence here (something i know because in reading the endless reports about me at AE/ANI over the years and not one hostile reader of my page ever noted this remark in 2018 as anything like a 'gotcha' smoking gun piece of evidence to haul me in for a sanction - and Barkeep's is the 6th action against me this year -, I am always impressed by how minutely records are kept of every edit or comment I make on wiki and on my talk page esp. These chaps know more about me than I do- and so I wouldn't have taken your advice. On principle. I don't buckle to the kind of discursive intimidation that would banish, in this case, from wikipedia discussions, a disturbing trend, stuff that is amply circulating, and subject to wise analysis out there in the public record. Unfortunately, admins have a remit to hyperspecialize in 'behaviour' <(- meaning, understandably, few have the time to plunge into a deep, comprehensive background reading of the literature on any topic -) for which there are wokist and byzantine rules and cases, and are not required to be familiar with any topic content. To both SFR and Barkeep (and leeky cauldron) this 'looked' inflammatory and rather than just ask me about it, BK did what he did. I think you are seriously wrong to think that there is even an odour of this being read as inflammatory such that an editor should shy from using it heuristically, as I did. There is something disturbingly toxic about the implicit principle laid down here: that an ethnic group's conversation cannot be quoted by anyone outside of that 'pale', and that to do so is to aggressively trouble the sensivities of those within the ingroup who would otherwise laugh at it, a joke in this case which is about one person in an ingroup (Jews) misreading what a kind person (non-Jew) did as evidence of hostile prejudice. This pathetic episode is a palmary case exhibiting the very hypersensitity the joke I cited mocked, to the point that the friendly outgrouper I am is sanctioned for mentioning it. The next step after this inflammatory precedent would be to start saying papers by the world's top Holocaust scholars in the Journal of Genocide Research cannot be cited on wikipedia because the content is 'inflammatory' since it disturbs many readers from Burma to Israel. 'And so it goes,' as Billy Joel once sang. Sigh — Preceding unsigned comment added by nishidani (talk • contribs)

You wrote in your edit summary "I can find no evidence that this is a commonly familiar old Jewish Joke. So instead I see a joke weaponizing antisemtism on the talk page about such an article." Now that you've been shown evidence that this is a commonly familiar old Jewish Joke, why doesn't it change the second sentence of your statement? Levivich (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What I should have done was remove it and then ask Nishidani about it and only then make a decision with more information about any potential sanction. But the reason I haven't with more information reversed my topic ban, is because use this joke in this context for this purpose remains by my reading and judgement "unnecessarily inflammatory language" which Nishidani had previously been warned for. And not for nothing this also seems to be the reading of the first two editors (one of them an UNINOVLVED admin) in this very user talk discussion. Nishidani is not a scholar suggesting that Jewish folklore humor needs to change (Katz & Katz) nor is Nishidani a jurist advising legislators to stand up to anti-semtism without being hyper sensitive to it (Sedley) or any of the any other contexts we're talking about. They are instead an editor on a multiculutral encyclopedia debating whether there is the correct content on an article about the Weaponization of antisemitism has adequately sourced and written material in its lead paragraph. And in this context, to repeat what I wrote above, it remains my judgement that it was "unnecessarily inflammatory language". Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Barkeep49. As to Nableezy's three points - if Nish wanted to banter with Bob ... the proper place to put off-topic jokes would be on Bob or Nish's talk page. The reason I agree with Barkeep that it was inflammatory was that in the context of an article talk page, where others besides Bob and Nish are involved, even if Bob was fine with the joke from Nish, others quite likely would not be comfortable with such a joke, and would likely not consider it bantering between friends. Instead, it's quite likely to put off other editors and make them feel that the talk page is a hostile place. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I doubt many editors would confuse this for banter. The point of telling the joke wasn't because Nish thought the joke was funny. Rather, the joke was cited as evidence that what the RSes said was widely accepted and uncontroversial. Levivich (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Levivich is right.

@Barkeep49 and Ealdgyth: are you aware that this famous joke is recorded only as a joke told by Jewish people about their own community? If Nishidani had retold a joke told by antisemites about Jews in order to make a point I could understand your argument and would be inclined to agree.

But this is provably not what this was.

The whole thing appears to be based on three false premises:

1. That Nishidani invented the joke, or wrongly described it as famous PROVEN FALSE PREMISE

2. That the joke was an inflammatory joke written by antisemites against Jews PROVEN FALSE PREMISE

3. That Nishidani was telling the joke as off-topic banter PROVEN FALSE PREMISE

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

(Another option would have been to ask about it before removing it.) What makes it not inflammatory IMO is that it's an old, widely-published, Yiddish folklore joke. I think you had it right in your edit summary: either it's a commonly familiar old Jewish joke, or else--"instead"--it's a joke weaponizing antisemitism. I think you'd agree there is nothing inherently inflammatory about a commonly familiar old Jewish joke, even a self-deprecating one.

It might still be inflammatory in the context of how it's told, and point that Katz & Katz p. 219 makes: the joke "can be regarded as anti-Semitic to the degree that the repulsive Jew is meant to stand for all Jews" but not when "the subject does not stand for all Jews". I don't see anything inflammatory about the context in which Nish told this joke.

In a discussion about a sentence in the lead that gives examples of the weaponization of antisemitism, and whether those examples should be attributed or not (or the sentence removed or otherwise changed), Nish says "abundant sources ... underline the view that it is extremely commonplace for any criticism of Israel to be countered as 'antisemitic'. I've been seeing that for half a century, and I cannot believe that editors are unaware of this obvious fact."

And then Nish says it's so common that there are even old self-deprecating Jewish jokes about it ("...you yourself cannot but be familiar with old Jewish jokes that, with typical irony, make fun of a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism."), and then Nish re-tells such a joke. It's like a use/mention distinction: the joke isn't being told for the sake of being told, it's mentioned as evidence that the weaponization of antisemitism is commonplace (and thus attribution is not needed).

Now the thing about the use/mention distinction is that one doesn't need to re-tell a joke to mention it, and in hindsight it might have been more professional to just mention the Jew-borrowing-toiletries joke, or link to it, rather than re-telling it on-wiki, and that's the kind of thing I could see one editor having a quiet word with another editor about, but I don't think it's inflammatory or otherwise sanctionable. Levivich (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The most inflammatory thing here, imo, is somebody saying Nishidani made a condescending antisemitic joke. Just bonkers. nableezy - 21:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay. This is a WP:TLDR read, but I've a right to defend my good name which Barkeep and others have impugned by calling or insinuating I am an antisemite, which throws almost two decades of IP work, tens of thousands of edits, under a cloud of suspicion.

Sigh. That, Ealdgyth, makes 4 admins (the leeky cauldron’s outrageously silly suggestion that joke means I'm ‘making condescending antisemitic jokes (~"Jews are so lazy and greedy, bumming our toothbrushes and razors") about antisemitism.’. The joke is not about ‘Jews’ fa chrissake) who didn’t do their job, and concur that I am an antisemite (if I were Barkeep, who says that, I’d have permabanned me). Did you, Barkeep and SFR actually trouble yourselves to read, other than the single diff, the remarks I made immediately before that illustration which was a paraphrase from Sedley? I.e. this, then this, where I quote from Amos Goldberg, Raz Segal, Distorting the definition of antisemitism to shield Israel from all criticism +972 Magazine 5 August 5 2019, and tweaked here? No.

Amos Goldberg is professor in the Department of Jewish History and Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem ) Raz Segal is Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies Both are Israeli. Like Sedley they recognize the problem the joke comments on, and warn that this hypersensitivity is damaging above all to Jews.

They give the abstract scholarly analysis for the by now ingrained weaponization of antisemitic accusations which the joke I then added illustrates, in a friendly, come-now tone to Bob. I did so to him because we have a fairly good relationship editing-wise, and he would be familiar with the anecdote since it figured in the London Review of Books in 2018 and I quoted it on my page, which I believe he has bookmarked, back then. A reminder that the hostility to this documentation on that wiki page by many editors really does go against the grain of scholarship, and editors should recall the dangers of a habit of mind, historically comprehensible, but still mocked for the exaggerated lengths it can go to in Jewish humour.

Barkeep didn’t do his homework, because he keeps saying Sedley’s remarks were addressed to Jewish MPS. They were not. They were addressed to the broad readership of the London Review of Books quietly pulling apart the intense wave of accusations, often coming from Jewish bodies and given wide coverage in the press, that the Labour Party was rife with anti-Semitism. It was not then, as Barkeep keeps repeating, a joke by one eminent (Jewish) jurist giving advice to Jewish MPs (‘nor is Nishidani a jurist advising legislators to stand up to anti-semtism without being hyper sensitive to it (Sedley)’ - another devastating misreading showing he has not read the Sedley piece which lies behind my paraphrase).

It was a Jew if you like, telling a broadly non-Jewish readership that this sowing of suspicions about anti-Semitism has both its politics, unfortunately promoted by core Jewish bodies in the UK, and he pulls the rug from under the impression this lobbying might make among non-Jews it by by telling a joke which captures inimitably this problem of overreacting. If anything Sedley's piece is a brilliant defense of Jews before that broad non-sectarian readership. It is saying:'Look, the huge assault on the Labour Party you read about is problematic but you must before passing some facile judgment realize that it reflects a hypersensitivity we ourselves, as Jews, are all too familiar with, and have been traditionally critical of'. So much for the way leeky cauldron's spin to me inexplicable misreading of an edit injuriously glossed it.. How this hypersensitivity is weaponized is now documented in great detail by Anthony Lerman in his Whatever Happened to Antisemitism? Redefinition and the Myth of the 'Collective Jew', Pluto Press, London 2022, which I have at least twice asked IP editors to read, apparently with no effect.

No one here read this, or the article I cited. They just looked at the diff and got the impression I was an antisemite. Onceinawhile at least managed to get Barkeep to google around, but even there he found excuses/reasons to remain stoutly on his given ground. Disappointing, but Wikipedia is full of the wreckage caused by not checking the full discursive record, It was inevitable that I too someday would be thrown under the wheels in the usual traffic jam of inattentive drivers. Is there no limit to admin solidarity when a patent error, understandable given the haste, is made, one that brands an editor as an antisemite, a vicious insinuation that would formally demand serious evidence and scrupulous backgrounding work? I know you guys have immensely and (in terms of the pleasure of just reading) tediously tiring tasks. I take what has happened here to be a matter of haste and reader fatigue, certainly not malevolence. Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I have written So instead I see a joke weaponizing antisemtism on the talk page about such an article but that describes a single action not any sort of pattern nor does it describe you as a person. I have no reason to believe you are antisemitic and have not written that you are for that precise reason. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Let us say that if you put that remark in its context before any competent grammarian, they would, if they know their job, construe it as lending itself to the interpretation that anyone using that joke, like the joke itself, was 'weaponing antisemitism'. The joke itself does not 'weaponize antisemitism'. The joke is about the fraility of people thinking something is antisemitic, when it is not. A person who cites that joke can be 'antisemitic' or viscerally intolerant of antisemitism, like the eminent Sedley and, I insist in my own defense, my own peonish self since my earliest years. A sanction for having, in an aside, used it to illustrate the abuse of antisemitic charges previously argued via the citation of scholarly work, will suggest to many readers that in using it, I played into the antisemites' worldview. I take you at your word that you do not believe I am an antisemite. Yet, this is the way language works: it gets the better of all of us at times no matter how hard we try, or what we thought we intended to say. And that your judgment was immediately endorsed by theleekycauldron, who said my remark is an instance of hating Jews, underlines this reading present in your phrasing. She, another admin, took the joke and your construal of it as showing I was an antisemite. Thank you, by the way, for the courtesy of hatting NMMGG's abusive jeremiad against me (even though if you follow all of the links thoroughly, they show the opposite of what that editor contends/contended, and I, like the AE cases he made, found them harmless, would not have been embarrassed had they been conserved here). In any case, no grudges. If anything, I anticipated the likelihood of something like this happening 3 weeks ago. It's in the nature of the way wikipedia works, where the rules can work out to do their function, or make working here, conversely, dysfunctional. Regards Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I'm likely not going to win any friends by saying this, but I respect y'all, so here goes. I've seen the full context for that joke now, and its use was not appropriate. In a topic this fraught, nobody should be making jokes as a means of persuasion (really, Nishidani, if your opposite numbers were not going to be convinced by scholarly sources, do you think they would be convinced by a joke?), and it's far too open to misinterpretation - nobody should need to do some research to recognize that you weren't making a novel joke in very poor taste. I think you need to recognize a need to temper your rhetoric - yes, it's boring to stick narrowly to source material, but that's what editing a CT on Wikipedia requires. I'll go a step beyond Ealdgyth and say that that sort of banter - if intended as such, and not as part of discussing an article directly - shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Reserve it for a forum intended for such. That said: TLC's reading of this diff above is a very superficial one indeed, and I do think TLC owes Nishidani a retraction. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think that’s wrong, I don’t disagree it would have been wiser not to post that, but I also don’t think that merits anything more than a request to not digress in such a way on a talk page. Certainly not a sanction without even talking to somebody. nableezy - 01:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  In isolation, I agree. This isn't isolated. Nishidani has the unfortunate habit of raising the temperature; he uses rhetorical flourish, he uses strong language, he uses analogies that aren't appropriate, he uses jokes like this one. And before someone inevitably starts complaining about aspersions, that is my summary of the multiple instances I remember of Nishidani being told off at AE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: Yeah, I should have recognized that Nishidani didn't use the joke, he cited it. Consider that part of my previous statement struck. But uncritically citing the joke as an example of how Jews are oversensitive to antisemitism isn't better. Per Katz and Katz, the joke portrays Jews in a grossly negative light – greedy, ungrateful, and oversensitive to antisemitism. Yes, I'm aware that it's a self-deprecating joke made by Jews. I wonder if there are any other pieces of superficially derogatory language and culture that are fine when used by the targeted group (reclamation), but take on a very different meaning when used by the outside.

  More to the point, there's a huge difference between "Israel apologists distort the concept of antisemitism to suit their own needs" and what Nishidani said, which is that Jews have "a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism". There really is no reasonable AGF explanation for that, and it rules out a reading of the diff where Nishidani mentions the joke but tacitly acknowledges that its protagonist is a gross caricature of a Jew. I guess it's possible that Nishidani thinks Jews have the "tendency" but doesn't think Jews are ungrateful bums otherwise, and he just forgot to mention that, but it does strain AGF.

  A key tenet of Jewish humor is playing off of antisemitic stereotypes, part self-deprecation and part mockery. But the context the joke is cited in here fundamentally twists its meaning and tone. Nishidani's comment implies that the joke is funny because it's built on a truth about the Jewish community that still holds true for modern Jews, and that is something I do find very offensive. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Nishidani is saying that Jews have made jokes about other Jews being oversensitive to antisemitism. It's a terrible method of persuasion, and as I said to him, inflammatory in context because it's not actual evidence of anything - but he's not telling the joke to be funny. He's not telling the joke at all, really. You're accusing him of endorsing a caricature, rather than pointing out its existence - and that's assuming pretty bad faith on his part, especially given extensive explanation here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Right, Nishidani's not telling the joke. But they are citing it. They say so in this thread and in the diff. They cite it as evidence of, in their words, "a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism". They say it is "testimony if ever how deeply ingrained (and understandably so) a sense of diffidence with those not of one's persuasion can go". That is a straightforward argument: ~"Jews (not bad-faith Israel apologists, not even Zionists, Jews) tend to blast everything they don't like as antisemitism. Even Jews say so." The evidence for that argument is the joke and its caricature.

  If you're arguing that Nishidani was merely citing the existence of the caricature, not its content... citing in support of what, then? Its existence has no bearing on whether bad-faith Israel stooges distort the meaning of antisemitism for political purposes and no bearing on whether Jews are, as they said, "hypersensitive" to antisemitism. "Look at how the Jews make fun of themselves for being oversensitive. The caricature is bogus, but its existence proves that they really are so easily offended". I find it unlikely that someone as well-read as Nishidani would say something that specious. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  The only way you can remake Nishidanis comment in to one saying Jews as a people blame everything they don’t like on antisemitism is you if you distort it beyond recognition. And if he actually had said such a thing, why haven’t you blocked him as a racist? nableezy - 20:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  • 19 October 2024, taking out the words 'by Jews' in a wiki article with the edit summary Undid revision 1251948920 by Herostratus (talk) Good grief. The ethnicity of those who constructed it is irrelevant. It's not 'Jews' but Zionists. To say Jews in such contexts is loose. No Jew is responsible for what any other Jew might do.
  • you yourself cannot but be familiar with old Jewish jokes that, with typical irony, make fun of a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism
  • Sedley's piece is a brilliant defense of Jews before that broad non-sectarian readership. It is saying:'Look, the huge assault on the Labour Party you read about is problematic but you must before passing some facile judgment realize that it reflects a hypersensitivity we ourselves, as Jews, are all too familiar with, and have been traditionally critical of. So much for the way leeky cauldron's spin to me inexplicable misreading of an edit injuriously glossed it. How this hypersensitivity is weaponized is now documented in great detail by Anthony Lerman in his Whatever Happened to Antisemitism? Redefinition and the Myth of the 'Collective Jew', Pluto Press, London 2022, which I have at least twice asked IP editors to read, apparently with no effect.Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

    @Nishidani: All right, I'm gonna try and make this my last reply, because I think I've explained my view well enough in response to Vanamonde's request that I strike my previous statement. Props on that first edit. If you're really insisting that you don't believe and didn't mean to say the proposition I understood from your statement – that Jews are hypersensitive to antisemitism as a group or culture – then I have no further quarrel with you. I have no interest in "spinning" or prosecuting, so if you're telling me straight that you're not that person, then I can move on to the article I was excited to get started on today. Does that work for you? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

    (talk page stalker) If anyone's serious about stamping out toxic conduct in ARBPIA, apparently Nishidani thinks it's acceptable to make condescending antisemitic jokes (~"Jews are so lazy and greedy, bumming our toothbrushes and razors") about antisemitism (~"and they're so oversensitive about antisemitism") to win arguments. Hate is disruptive. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

    @Nishidani: Copy-pasting my comment along with this edit summary makes for a very confusing reading experience for others later. I'd appreciate it if you made the intention of your comment clearer within the context. (Which is also, coincidentally, how I felt about your original comment!) I appreciate that there was a misunderstanding, and my perception of your original comment is different now with additional context, so sure, I'll strike it. Would you mind striking your calling my comment "spin"? I participated in this discussion in good faith, and would appreciate it if you acknowledged as much. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

    see here for why I do not respond in the form requestedNishidani (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  TLC, I don't normally vote in RFA but I did vote positively for yours. Please don't make me regret that by carrying this on further. As it stands, Nishidani has been banned from the "Arab Isreal" topic area for three weeks but can still participate in the "Arab Isfake" topic area. While this may have seemed overhasty to many (myself included), it's unlikely to be changed no matter how many pixels get splashed from the well to the screen. I would suggest that, following the adage, fewer is more. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

People have been sanctioned for a long time in this topic area. This discussion goes into some of that history. If you want to go back 11+ years this is the wrong place - and I'm not sure there is a need or right place anywhere. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not the first time Nishidani has engaged in antisemitic discourse. here he says the Jewish holiday of Purim is a celebration of genocide. here he has an anecdote about "Jewish eyes", completely unrelated to the discussion. Nishidani was one of the first editors to be TBANed from the topic area, prior to the original ARBPIA case [11] and was allowed back in based on the assumption he will be civil [12] which he very obviously isn't and has never been. He should have been permanently banned over a decade ago, but it's not too late to do so now and rid the topic area of one of the most toxic editors around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC) I could have sworn I’ve seen you make the same claims at AE. That’s right, it ended with your ban from AE for accusing "an editor of serious and ethically tainting misconduct, namely antisemitism, on specious grounds". nableezy - 23:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Indeed, there is a lot of relevant info there regarding the pattern of behavior I mentioned above (I completely forgot the "chosen" remark). Thanks for posting it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC) What’s most relevant is the finding that you made specious claims of racism, and having been sanctioned for it previously you return 11 years later to do it again. nableezy - 01:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 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 17:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Warnings and waggings

You know how I feel about warnings and reminders, and I know how you feel about my oft open disdain, so I'll keep up the decorum of AE in the future. As for the actual utility, when we've been dealing with editors who are making repeat appearances, with warnings and sanctions, and we're talking about warnings as anything other than an ineffectual finger-wag it really irks my taters. In my mind, warnings are to let someone know that they crossed a line, and if the line is crossed again there will be repercussions. When you're issuing repeat warnings it really is nothing more than a finger wag, or maybe a frown with a head shake from your homeroom teacher. Warnings only work if those that continue behavior after being warned face repercussions. When we warn for behavior that has already been sanctioned in the past it weakens the entire arbitration enforcement regime and reinforces the idea of WP:UNBLOCKABLES.

While I appreciate that you took the heat for the sanction discussed above, If I had seen this comment from someone who just barely had ECR, I'd have likely indef blocked them further shows the kid's gloves we're using with editors that have already been sanctioned and warned. We're essentially saying that having been warned has less weight than lacking social capital. I understand that is how things play out, because no one likes spending their limited time eating shit and dealing with fallout, but it really reduces the efficacy of warnings, particularly for established editors.

All that said, you're right, at AE I should be a bit less flip with the language I use describing the tools in our toolbox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not totally unsympathetic to the "we need to do better than finger wagging" criticism of some outcomes at AE that I propose and I appreciate you bringing up a differing point of view on such things. But yes my point was that is the wrong place to engage in that style of criticism and I appreciate what you and Valereee wrote in response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Irks my taters? New one on me. Yes, the whole unblockables thing is a very strange phenomenon. Valereee (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but read it with a Samwise Gamgee accent in my head. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You like that one? Try "had the radish" on for size. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't find it particularly astonishing that in a volunteer community where volunteer time is our most crucial resource, it can sometimes be the case that very productive members are afforded more leeway in rules infractions.

I'm not planning to opine here on the value or detriment of the phenomenon, nor how much leeway to afford – inclu­ding none – is the most optimal, nor where the bright lines and grey zones should be. But it feels logical that this arises naturally from our circumstances. Folly Mox (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

October music

story · music · places

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Today I remember an organist who was pictured on the Main page on his birthday ten years ago, and I found two recent organ concerts to match, - see top of my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Today brought a timely promotion of Helmut Bauer to the Main page on the day when pieces from Mozart's Requiem were performed for him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

My story today is about a composer and choir conductor, listen to his Lamento. - My story on 13 October was about a Bach cantata. As this place works, it's on the Main page now because of the date. I sort of like it because today is the birth date of my grandfather who loved and grew dahlias like those pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you listen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Qwerty talk page

Hi Barkeep49 (and also @ScottishFinnishRadish as I saw you also made a comment), I saw your comments on User:i.am.a.qwerty's talk page; in my experience, I have never gotten a response from them on their talk page, they usually just delete everything when people leave messages. This has happened even when myself and another editor have warned them for BLP vandalism, they just deleted it all. GraziePrego (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that experience. I noticed here they did leave an explanation on the article talk page which I am considering as their response. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Generalissima (submissions) wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize for 23 FLs overall.
• MaranoFan (submissions) wins the featured topic prize for 9 articles in featured topics in round 1.
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize for 110 FA/FL reviews overall.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize for 58 GAs in round 5, and 70 GAs overall.
• Fritzmann (submissions) wins the good topic prize for 6 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Sammi Brie (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize for 45 GA reviews in round 2, and 78 GA reviews overall.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 131 Did you know articles overall.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

• Crisco 1492

• Babajobu
• Daniel
• Elf
• Jayron32
• Thue
• Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
• Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

• Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

• RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

• From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation shares ANI lawsuit updates; first admin elections appoint eleven sysops; first admin recalls opened; temporary accounts coming soon?

• In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel

• Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship

• Gallery: Why you should take more photos and upload them

• In focus: Questions and answers about the court case

• Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?

• Technology report: Wikimedia tech, the Asian News International case, and the ultra-rare BLACKLOCK

• Humour: Man quietly slinks away from talk page argument after realizing his argument dumb, wrong

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm so confused

With all the page moves etc, but I created those pages by clicking links that were all in my face so I assume you know what is up and i'm not (completely) insane? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 10:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways you're not insane (at least in this regards). Somehow the pages all got created as JSS (Alerts 0) which messed everything up. I have mostly fixed this; you have 1 or 2 more steps left to do. The step I definitely know you have to do is go to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/Just Step Sideways/Statement and uncomment the template that is on the page (and I think delete your statement that's on there). You may also have to transclude the page to the candidates page. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't remember this being the least bit difficult in the past. I'm lost. I'm not running for template editor. I think I got it? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what the behind the scenes setup is for all this. I think the lesson learned is to not accidently have some weird text present when you create the candidate pages :). You are showing as a candidate so I agree it seems to be all worked out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)