User talk:Snow Rise/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please comment on Talk:Death of Elaine Herzberg[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of Elaine Herzberg. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations of "deny"[edit]

You may have a point about that user asking for something he knows can't exist, or being argumentative. But if you want to "WP:DENY", surely a lengthy discussion of his past edits replete with Wikipedia jargon plunked down into the middle of the Refdesk isn't really what I had in mind. Honestly, it's jarring because I'd prefer to just think about science there. Traditionally, "denying a troll" meant giving someone the silent treatment, and in any case, behavioral discussion just doesn't belong on that particular page. And residually, well, I'm not sure how much I care about an editor's history; so long as they're not blatantly starting a problem on a particular page I don't really want to call them out there. Wnt (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'd advise you look at some of the diffs raised there if you don't think that discussion was headed for a WP:disruptive place; virtually every one of their edits for the last few years has been them dropping into one space after another to rail on a topic that seems to be intertwined with their beliefs regarding how science cannot disprove their immaterial soul; i.e. a WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA effort to turn various talk spaces into a forum on materialism as part of an effort to right a great wrong, one debate at a time--and as you can see, they don't take well to anything that looks like an ontological view that would, as they see it, attempt to deny the existence of their non-material self. If you don't think that pattern is relevant to the debate they were trying to re-engineer on the desks (not for the first time--that's also in the contribution history), I don't know that there's a point to discussing the matter, as it's unlikely we are going to have a meeting of the minds on that.
As to why I outlined their previous behaviour and community cautions they had received while also mentioning WP:DENY, I felt it was the responsible thing to do for my fellow RefDesk contributors, lest they AGF that the SPA's request and unfamiliarity with the topic was genuine and waste their time (just as I initially did) attempting to provide an informative response, before realizing the SPA is just there to troll up a fight with anyone who has a naturalist view on those topics. Beyond that, while I wasn't telling them anything they hadn't been told before about our policies and the limited purposes for which talk spaces are reserved, I nevertheless feel that I was beholden to elucidate what was wrong in their approach if I was going to criticize it, even briefly. You and I may doubt that was going anywhere, but I still feel it important in those cases.
Lastly, I didn't want to make a thing of this point, but since we are talking about this anyway, I'd appreciate if you consider a different phrasing from "nastiness" in similar circumstances in the future. I may have been blunt with them and firm in drawing attention to the WP:NOTAFORUM line they were crossing, but I was perfectly civil from word one. I may not have been in a particularly hand-holding mood once I realized what their angle on this topic was, but I was careful to be clear that I was not belittling their spiritual/philosophical beliefs, merely telling them that this project is not the place for them to engage in an open-ended debate on the topic. The internet is replete with places where they can find masses of people willing to validate their views on dualism and a immaterial essence to consciousness--or to challenge them about it, whichever they are ultimately seeking--at great length, but that's not what the Wikipedia RefDesks or talk pages are for and they need to internalize that lesson or they are going to end up blocked or topic banned. You know me well enough at this point to know the high priority I place on WP:CIV, I think, but if I was curt in this instance, I can live with it--it's not the first time all of this has been pointed out to them.
All that said, Happy New Year--I hope it's off to a good start for you and yours. Snow let's rap 04:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if "nastiness" comes across as too strong a term; still, my feeling was that this was something of an attack, and from what you write above, perhaps a preemptive attack. I'm not sure what harm you intended to spare me and other editors from - either the question would be dull and hard to answer and we would stay away, or the discussion would get interesting enough to pull us in, in which case I have nothing to complain about. You posted some decent links and references before you got (to my mind) side tracked on Wikipedia bureaucracy. I mean, it's one thing to say that "per WP:NOTAFORUM Wikipedia rules I don't want to get into an open-ended debate, so let's stick to the question" (indeed, 'merely telling them' as you say above), but it's something else again to start raising an editor's contribution history there. I mean, to me that seems just as off-topic as any religious debate. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the diffs are the explanation for why this user needed to be addressed about this unacceptable pattern. Look, I know you are super laissez-faire about WP:NOTAFORUM, but that rule did not get spun out of the ether (nor did the RefDesk guidelines) because the rest of us are just oh so WP:BURO; there are many, many, many reasons why engaging in soapboxing and extended advocacy not related to the work of the project in talk spaces is discouraged. Just one of those many reasons is that people tend to be emotionally/personally invested int he things they want to talk about that badly. Look at the diffs and the user moanign about how Wikipedia is a hotbed of arrogant materialists who just won't accept that they can't prove there is something of an essence beyond the body and then look at their initial responses on the desk and then tell me the same thing wasn't unfolding on the desks once again.
And even if that weren't the case, the objective they were trying to serve there--ranting against the belief they perceive as contrary to their own and fishing for an opponent to serve as their foil/philosophical opposite in that process--still would not have been appropriate. "Having an interesting conversation" is not the purpose of WP:RD; the RefDesk is a work space that is meant to serve the purpose of improving the encyclopedia / provide relevant information, just like every other talk space at this domain. Just because that benefit tends to be a little indirect and some editors lose sight of the fact altogether does not obviate the rest of us from adhering to that principle. We get a lot of slack to permit us to serve that end in an indirect fashion that literally no other operational area of the project gets, but that is likely to change (and has been threatened to change by stirrings in the braoder community in recent memory) if we cannot adhere to at least a semblance of adherence to WP:What Wikipedia is not and efforts to make sure the desk does not operate like a Reddit clone. That's not it's function, it will never be its function.
So, I'm done with the matter. If the contrib history is any indication, that user (or at least that account--note that they've socked in the past) will go into torpor now for a couple of months, make exactly zero edits improving any article, and then pop up on another talk page about the nature of existence beyond the physical world and complain about how someone there is assuming a materialist world view that can't be proven. You feed the troll, or others like him, if you like, though I'm telling you that you won't be doing anyone any favours, least that user. Snow let's rap 16:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, no disruption inherit in this guy's approach to this topic at all, right? I'd consider remembering this next time you are inclined to pursue an argument along the lines of "violations of WP:WWIN provision X is essentially harmless". Again, we have these policies for a reason. Snow let's rap 17:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
His comment there doesn't bother me any more than some of your later procedural commentary, though it doesn't advance the topic either. Wnt (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If personal insults with a side of misogyny referencing anatomical terms don't qualify as WP:disruptive in your view, we have very different understandings of the meaning of that term, what manner of commentary is appropriate for a discussion page on this project, and the relevant policies representing community consensus on both topics--and above all the type of behaviour said policies are explicitly directed at preventing. That being the case, I'm afraid we've exhausted any hope at arriving at a shared perspective as to what should be done in the case of such trolls. Thanks for stopping by, though. Snow let's rap 22:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Matthias Corvinus[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Matthias Corvinus. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Tamika Mallory[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tamika Mallory. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ersan ?lyasova[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ersan ?lyasova. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Suki Waterhouse[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Suki Waterhouse. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Rihanna[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rihanna. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Michel Temer[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michel Temer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone was bound to take me up on this someday[edit]

[Note: this message moved from Talk:Death of Elaine Herzberg for WP:TPG reasons on January 29th. Snow let's rap 13:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)][reply]

Okay Snow, lets rap!...or whois me for a dance-off.
♫ ♬ 🎶 🎵 ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ 🎤
So I hear you may want this in iambic pentameter…
and I would have obliged if that is your parameter.
Here’s to the prospect of a healthy restart…
let’s hope this warms the cockles of your heart.
While my deductive thinking builds concrete from the abstract…
your NIMBY cries of imprecision simply do distract.
The rules you flaunt around yourself say a lot about you…
but the ones you ignore also do too!
Before you bite off my head like a judge with a writ…
you might want to reflect on what it would mean to be a hypocrite.
Seems the rules are really guidelines that can be justifiably broken…
and that’s the specific case to which I here have spoken.
I’m not here to cure the Wikiworld of all of its ills…
or tear down policy without a better solution to the void that it fills.
Neutral is not saying you’re “hating this,” or what you provoked about The View…
just look at the byzantine discussions about fault, this entire page is off queue.
We’ve always assessed quality by comparing ours to other pages…
without any worry to who the analogy enrages!
Let’s be real, it was you who first made this look clowned…
nobody said anything about a bombing, but with your box, that’s the talk of town.
Letting it go to disagree would have been the best respect…
but you made everyone gawk because of the Streisand effect.
You’re smart enough to know that not all relativity is theoretical…
saying relativity is conjoined to viewpoint is not heretical!
Carlin would specify that a heart attack is not defined within fatality
and ultimate causation? Don’t be histrionic; that’s simply not reality.
As the time to summon charges is constrained by statutory imperative...
it's the final juncture when criminal responsibility can be added to our narrative.
Whether title is pinned to Uber or whether to Elaine…
has been debated relatively long enough to make a man insane!
Horizons are expanded by listening to other viewpoints and voices…
forbid how we describe reality has other choices.
That learning in turn allows one to find a reliable new source…
the Overton window shifts and neutrality plots a new course!
I have an acknowledgment I will share here in closing…
that my discourse serves no one if it is too imposing.
But if you have been inspired rather than tired…
you all should stand up that I shouldn’t be fired!
♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫........................🎤
40.140.35.124 (talk) 2:25 pm, January 25 (UTC−8)


Yo, IP, you gotta believe,
I don't mean to be dissin'
But you see, on TPs,
it's all about the efficien--
See, on this project,
we gotta always be workin'
Hustlin' that policy,
for the proper WP:Here purposes
Your asides and diatribes,
yeah, they're plenty keen,
But man, understand,
this just ain't that scene
where we can be relating and debating
just any old thing:
We gotta keep matters focused
on an editorial scheme


Yeah, it may sound quite boring
But this just ain't no forum
Open up the gates, and there's no escape,
from that POV warrin'
And you're likely to put discussion
into a lurch
If you lean too much
on that whack original research
Yo homes, I dig your passion
and I don't mean to be bashin'
Hope you'll stick on hand--
lend a hand, with the editorial action
But man, your still quite green,
and I gotta say a few things,
'bout some limitations on the soapboxin'
and straight abstract philosophical themes


Yeah, don't get it distorted
here open debate is exhorted,
But you gotta keep it rooted
in those reliable sources
Too much tack
on your own personal track
will only keep us coming back,
and back, aaand back--
to intractable spates,
and subjective debates
That POV pushin'
making every WP:USER irate
No doubt, in general, expression's gotta be free
But I hope these verses have helped you to see,
That not just everything's fair game,
here on the pages of the WHI-KEE PEEE!


Yo man, just one last little thing,
since you'll wanna be seen:
Gotta sign your posts--
smash out four tildas and you're king!


Snow let's rap 08:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ricardo Vélez Rodríguez[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ricardo Vélez Rodríguez. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request: help with Italian-to-English translation[edit]

Hello. I'm trying to expand an article on an Italian volleyball player Viktoria Orsi Toth. I was wondering if you could help me translate a two short paragraphs (3 sentences) from an Italian source (I found you on Wikipedia:Translators available#Italian-to-English). No worries if you're not interested, but if you are, I'll quote the text here or via email (whichever you prefer). Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bennv3771 I'm happy to help. :) Just drop the content here at your convenience; a couple of paragraphs should only take a moment, so if you catch me quickly enough I can get it back to you immediately--and if not, I'll be on tomorrow as well. Snow let's rap 22:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! Here's the first paragraph:
"Che peraltro la luce l’ha vista a Budapest e già questa è una bella storia, perché mamma Agnese e papà Laszlo erano tutti e due nazionali ungheresi, di basket e atletica (decathlon) e l’ultima cosa che volevano per la figlia era che giocasse a volley: <<In Ungheria non è che ci sia una gran tradizione>>, spiega. Solo che dopo aver chiuso le rispettive carriere hanno messo su casa a Santeramo. <<Dove tutte le ragazze giocavano a pallavolo, e così hanno vinto le amiche, nel senso che mi hanno trascinata con loro>>."[1] (paid subscription needed unfortunately)
I had to type it out manually as the source doesn't allow me to select the text. So if anything doesn't make sense, it's probably because of a typo on my part. Bennv3771 (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the second paragraph:
"Dice Viki: <<Lei è precisina in tutto, in campo e fuori. E poi gioca da molto più di me e quindi fa da guida>>, ovvero il contrario di quel che le capitava con Greta Cicolari con cui ha giocato gli ultimi 2 Mondiali. Ribatte Marta: <<E lei sdrammatizza, mi fa volare bassa. Sul fatto della leadership invece ho dovuto lavorare molto su me stessa, ma mi piace. E’ giusto prendersi delle responsabilità>>. Quelle che Viki si accolla sul piano pratico. Perché con il livello tecnico individuale di Marta (è una delle prime al mondo) è evidente che nessuna coppia si sogna nemmeno di battere su di lei (ricevendo andrebbe poi anche ad attaccare)."[2]
That's all. Your help is much appreciated. Bennv3771 (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Bennv3771. sorry for the delay: I ended up heading out the door very quickly after the last message yesterday and I'm just now getting back online. I've translated both paragraphs, but they come with a caveat: I'm not really the greatest of experts with sports lingo in even my native language and even less so Italian--so I did my best with what turned out to be a fair bit of idiomatic construction in these extracts: I think these are servieable, but with regard to the last sentences of both paragraphs in particular, if they turn out to contain information you want to implment or even quote in the article, you could always consider a second pair of eyes from someone more inured in Italian sports culture! Also I wouldn't mind if you could provide me with the sentence immediately preceding the first sentence of the first paragraph, because it used very atypical syntax in one clause, and some context would be helpful in knowing if I made the right call as to the grammatical actor.
First paragraph:
However, the light has been seen in Budapest and this makes for a great story, because mother Agnes and father Laszki were both nationally ranked Hunagarians, in basketball and athletic (decathalon) respectively, and the last thing they wanted for their daughter was that she play volleyball: "In Hungary, there's not exactly a great tradtion" she explains. Only after closing out their own careers did they relocate to Santeramo, "Where all the girls play volleyball, so in a sense, they won the supporters, in the sense that they dragged me along with them.
Second paragraph:
Says Viki: "You need precision in everything, on the field and off. And as she's played a lot more than me, she can therefore act as a guide.", the opposite of the relation she had with Greta Cicolari with whom she played in the previous two World Cups. Marta replies "And she plays so low, she keeps me rooted. [Literally this was "she plays down, it makes me fly low", but I think the English idioms are the best way to represent this in translation; unless "flying low" has a more specific technical meaning in volleyball, but you would know better than me as to that] On the subject of leadership, on the other hand, I found I had to work a lot on myself, but discovered that I like it. It's only proper to take on that responsibility." Viki takes all of this onboard at a practical level. Because with an individual of Marta's technical skill (indeed, as she is one of the premier players in the world), it is clear that no other set of partners even dares dream of easily beating her (and would face a counterattack if they did).
Once again, thanks so much! As you said, these translations look serviceable to me. I don't intend to quote anything from these, just want to get a better idea of what the source was saying. "Flying low" definitely isn't a volleyball term. For some context on the first sentence, Viktoria Orsi Toth was born in Budapest and I think that's what the first part of the first sentence is referring to. These are the sentences right before the first paragraph (this is also the start of the article): "Le gemelle d'Italia han cominciato bene. A Rotterdam il loro primo Mondiale insieme e partito con un 2-1 alle argentine Gallay-Klug. Marta Menegatti e Viktoria Orsi Toth sono nate a 48 ore di distanza l'una dall'altra: il 16 agosto 1990 la prima, il 14 Viki.". Again for context, Menegatti was born on 16 August 1990 and Orsi Toth on 14 August 1990 so that's what the second part is referring to. Bennv3771 (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great--well for those purposes, I think that wording is plenty reliable then (fyi, the extra sentences merely note that the pair were off to a good start in their first World Cup together and mentions the fact of their close in time births, referring to them in the opening sentence as "the twins"). Note that I did just make a couple of small edits for purposes of a couple of very small spelling and grammatical typos ("brought me alone"-->"brought me along", for example) so be sure to review them again. And you're very welcome--I'm happy to be of help! :) Snow let's rap 01:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just one last thing if you don't mind... I've seen the word battere in the last sentence of the second paragraph also used to mean serve in volleyball (as in like a tennis serve). Would you say in this context the last sentence would be translated to something like "no other set of partners even dares dream of serving her"? That seems to make more sense to me given the parenthesis, since in beach volleyball the player you serve to (aka the receiving player) is also the player who will be making the attack. Bennv3771 (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that is entirely probable, especially as the more literal translation for the parenthetical is "upon receiving, would then also attack". Furthermore, that would solve the main issue I had with that sentence that made feel I might be missing something because of lack of familiarity with the sport's vernacular in Italian--namely that the combination of that verb and the preposition that follows were atypical; normally that combination would suggest "beating on" in a physical sense, not just "beating". Now that I know it is the used as the verb for serving in volleyball, it is clear that it means "to serve at", and thus the entire clause should be read as "it is obvious that no pair dreams of [looks forward to] serving to her (and facing the return attack when she receives it)." I'm glad you caught that because it drove me a little nuts and none of my dictionaries had that meaning for battere. (Although in retrospect, it's obvious that I should have read it as something in the vein "striking at", because the verb more typically adopts a meaning with more physicality than I finally settled upon there; it can be used in the sense of "to prevail", same as its cognate in English, but it's less common.) Snow let's rap 02:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I am (for the most part) done with my expansion/rewrite of Viktoria Orsi Toth if you are interest in taking a look. Thanks to your help I was able to use the above source for a bit of content in the article, mainly in the "early life" section. Bennv3771 (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bennv3771 That's quite a massive and high-quality expansion of the article! And although I presume you are at least a bit of a fan, to put in that much work at once, the article is scrupulously neutral and encyclopedic in tone. Great work! Snow let's rap 23:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bennv3771 it:atletica here is a false friend and doesn't translate easily (that link is a disambig page) and either means Track and field events (atletica leggera), or a group of "heavy" athletics (atletica pesante) that collectively group a bunch of sports (wrestling, weightlifting, boxing) that I don't think we have a single word for in English ("pugilistic sports" doesn't cover weightlifting). In this context, though, it seems like it means "track and field" events, since decathlon is a bunch of track and field events in rotation. Mathglot (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Thanks. I did take it to mean track and field given that other English sources (e.g.[3]) confirm her father was a decathlete. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Linguistic Barnstar
Thanks for helping me with the Italian-to-English translations. You've been a great help. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Awww, thanks so much! I'm glad i could be of help, not withstanding my sport agnosnia! You've made me think I should start checking the requested translations pages again; I used to love contributing in that capacity, but somehow it became less and less a part of my editing. Snow let's rap 02:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Please comment on Talk:Killing of Aya Maasarwe[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Killing of Aya Maasarwe. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Pamela Geller[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pamela Geller. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Cate Blanchett[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cate Blanchett. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

NOTE:COI REFDESK attacks in centralised discussion. You are involved in a discussion I tried to request should not be permitted to be had and have not debated you about. I have responded, however, to your addition to a discussion of me. I wish to encourage you to come out with the events you have witnessed by producing diffs, as I will now do, so that you can make no mistakes what is going on, on my expense, okay?

Regarding your declarations about me at the ANI:[4]

Now I'm sorry, that implies I reverted an admins action four times. It was not admin in either case which closed my request. I would not go four rounds with an admin who had been called in to examine a dispute. In fact, the first close was made to a village pump proposal, by User:Mandruss, not an admin as I had thought. This prevention of my being able to make my suggestion to village pump, caused an argument. I demanded nobody interfere with my request. Once four or five were deleting my attempt to use the talk page I went to ANI for help. Again, another editor summarily close-templated the request for admin before one had responded, with messages threatening discipline I must stress there had been no 3RR at that point and no breach of civility then or after, nor threat to content, just a proposal to deny vandalism, as a vandal has just made a successful swoop at the refdesk. So I waited for an admin and people proceeded to edit war my ability to request an admin off the ANI. It went on for hours and no admin would answer. So I did a 4th RR. And none of the attackers have responded to my requests to make this debacle a sharing of the diffs, or else, after half a dozens challenges, I say lies. I have not broken WP:CIVIL or threatened any kind of content. This is not even a content dispute. I was just making an administrative suggestion. I have no bloody interest in all this nonsense but you must admit this accusations continue to grow no substance in diffs. I am not the one doing this. !I don't doubt..." Maybe not but I do where are your DIFFS? ALL I DID WAS PROPOSE A COMMENT AT VILLAGE PUMP. SUBSTANTIATE, OR DONT MAKE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT ME, OR ANYBODY ELSE, thanks. ~ R.T.G 08:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about me is closed, however this individual comment by you still lingers unaddressed, and once I have responded, I'll have answered you all, which will be handy for me if you should pursue, thanks loads. Unless of course you want to back up your words with diffs and then you'll find, well maybe I did make one revert, over 3RR once. What was all that other stuff you said. And good luck. ~ R.T.G 08:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re "I have not broken WP:CIVIL",[5] and "I haven't been incivil to anyone"[6] and "I have not breached civility"[7]See:
  • "It is safe to say you wish nothing of helping me and are trying your utmost to be provocative."[8]
  • " I can only assume bad faith. ... I'm not wrong. If that makes you suffer, you should avoid me entirely, not based on your input, based on mine. Yawn."[9]
  • ":Rouge, rouge, vandal."[10]
  • "Serial killers are generally the psychopaths who have been intolerably abused as a child. Mass murderers... generally those who have been caballed. A rouge cabal is an extremely bitter event for the main perpetrators. Sharks do not only smell blood in the water. They can sense your movements from beyond the range of vision. To a shark, you literally give off sparks. Sharks do not stop there and look down while they remember to espouse the position of shark-like attitude."[11]
  • "It is safe to say a rouge cabals main activity is to provoke angry response."[12]
  • "(incoherent rant about witches, child abusers, and science fiction)"[13]
  • "One of the ways for a cabal to provoke you is to get you to explain your level of notability, which is like handing them your heart and saying, it's okay, it will continue to beat if you don't crush it..."[14]
I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Snow Rise thinks I am about to explode or something, let's have it. Otherwise, I find your assault poorly timed, Mr Guy.
  • The first 3 diffs are a repeat and inclusion of what I posted above here.
  • These statements, "I can only assume bad faith", is my perogative after a modicum of time has passed with active harrassment of my effort, "it is safe to say you were provocative", "rouge", are supported by your comments, [15].
  • "It is safe to say a rouge cabals main activity," when acting as a cabal, is all of that and more.
  • And if you weren't aware, mass murder has been replacing road safety in terms of topics in the USA this past few years and has been becoming an increasing theme in Europe, where I live. For instance, here is a young man who thought he could leave the cabal behind in school, but found he couldn't walk up the street because he could be spotted, the sharks could smell the blood in the water. When you cabal like that my first wonder is about the next guy.
  • The rant about witches is about what happens when a rouge cabal, not necessarily WP, runs free without reason. You think people who killed witches all went home and cried? You must, be joking.
  • I don't want to bother anyone. I take these threats seriously, but simply not agreeing is not good enough to accuse me of anything or treat me as though I am an urgent threat.
  • I still can't see the weight of the charges, except for using my allotment of communication when requested not to. This whole thing is based on handing me such charges and my refusing to accept them. But it's all very urgent and dangerous, apparently. I must be frothing at my bit or something to say all this, or... ~ R.T.G 18:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closure at "Indefinitely semiprotecting the refdesk"[edit]

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I think you missed adding {{nac}} to your close ([16]). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DannyS712--thank you for the good faith notification. :) However, note that nac templates are not required for discussion closures (most of which are not undertaken by admins), and are rarely seen outside of two contexts: 1) AfD proposals, and 2) Expressly administrative spaces, such as WP:ANI. There's no harm in using them in other contexts and rarely an editor may choose to do so (especially if the close was for an especially controversial topic), but they are the exception rather than the rule since, for most purposes, there is no difference in standing between an admin and a non-admin user under our WP:CLOSE procedures. But I thank you for the message all the same--and please accept my somewhat belated welcome to the project! Snow let's rap 01:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise: Oh. I generally err on the side of always using it, and given the other closes on the page used it I assumed you just missed it. Sorry to bother you, and thanks for the welcome. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No bother at all! :) For myself, I just tend to avoid it outside of administrative spaces because I feel like it could otherwise send the message to newer users that they may be able flaunt consensus if the discussion was not closed by an admin, while policy really does not make any distinction between a rank-and-file close and an administrative one (except in cases of close challenges, disputed closes and certain expressly admin processes) and most are necessarily performed by non-admins. But I respect the view of others who see it as a matter of clarity. Anyway, happy editing! Snow let's rap 05:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing our discussion from the Signpost talkpage[edit]

Hi Snow Rise, Thanks for this. I appreciate your thoughtful response.

I tried to keep my own response briefer than my usual, to facilitate further conversation, but as you can see I failed miserably. So I decided to post it here instead of there. I'll post a link to this thread on that one, for transparency and to close the loop. Responses below, more-or-less point by point.

The researchers stated in their final replies on the VP thread that they were withdrawing the study proposal. They said when they were initiating that thread that they were proposing the study ("My team and I would like to run an experiment"), and I assume they were posting on VP before they began because Aaron (as a volunteer, not WMF staff) had pointed them to WP:NOTLAB and other relevant guidance that he's developed over the years. I haven't had any private communication with them since then, though I did give Diyiyi a Barnstar after things went south because I felt she deserved some encouragement. I've known Bob Kraut as a colleague for many years (he's a big name in my field) and have even proposed studies with him, though never performed a study.

I think their timeline was perfectly fine, and am confused that you (and some others) think that they did things out of order or skipped steps. I just re-read the VP thread and it is clear to me that they had no intention of going ahead without approval. Assuming that they didn't view the VP notification as a voluntary, non-binding, "rubber stamp"—which I think anyone should unless we see evidence the the contrary—how should they have proceeded differently?

My role (am I speaking as staff or volunteer?). I'm speaking as a volunteer. I understand that it may not always be clear what "voice" someone who works for WMF is using when they participate in conversations like this one, and you are right to ask for clarification. I'm speaking as a long-time Wikipedian (first edits in 2006, like you), and as someone who had already performed research on Wikipedia for more than 4 years before I was hired by WMF in 2013.

My research experience: I'm an Affiliate Assistant Professor at the University of Washington. I have a social science background, and I teach a class on (among other things) data science research ethics. I publish academic research, review for conferences and journals in my field, mentor students, and review graduate school applications, give guest lectures... the whole academic shebang (tho so far I've restrained the impulse to wear tweed jacket with elbow patches).

Legal status of the proposal: I'm not a lawyer, I don't believe that the proposed study would have run afoul of any federal or state statutes, and I'm not surprised that the IRB concluded it was "minimal risk". This aligns with my own experience with submitting proposals to IRBs, my (required) human subjects research training, and with my knowledge of the norms and practices that govern research on public online communities. But I know for a fact that up-front consent is not universally required by IRBs, and that studies that involve deception can be performed, which is how some classic studies of social behavior came to be. It is also my understanding that if research is not targeted specifically at minors does not fall under the statutory restrictions you mentioned, even if some minors participate in the research. This is why people can, for example, run large-scale surveys on Wikipedia readers and editors. But again, not a lawyer. If it would be helpful, I can follow up with someone from WMF's Legal team about some of the specific points re: informed consent, etc. Though if they do reply it will likely be to point to external resources.

Interventionist research: beyond the legal questions. I have no principled objection to interventions, and know of many useful and ethical ones that have been performed in online communities. My own work at WMF has involved interventions. Specifically, I've conducted studies where my bot—User:HostBot—sent invitations to the Teahouse or The Wikipedia Adventure to some new editors and not others, or sent different versions of invitations to different editors. The goal was to determine what kind of intervention yielded an increase in new editor retention (TL;DR: Teahouse invites work; Wikipedia Adventure invites don't seem to). We would not have been able to make these determinations without a controlled trial. I'm pretty that WMF has also performed A/B tests of different interfaces, which involve some people seeing a new version of a tool or feature, and others seeing a different version (or none at all). We definitely did this during the VE rollout years ago. Genuinely curious what you think of this kind of intervention, and whether it makes a difference if it is performed by WMF staff, community volunteers, or external researchers (who may or may not also be community volunteers)?

Re: 'circling the wagons' and bad faith: I can understand how, from where you're standing, it may look like User:EpochFail and I are circling the wagons to protect these researchers. I can't speak for EpochFail, but I can tell you what my intention and position are vis a vis these researchers and this study.

  • I thought this particular study was ethical and that the researchers performed their due diligence with good faith. I'm still puzzled by arguments that the way they handled the VP conversation was insufficient or inappropriate. I don't feel confident further addressing the legal issues you've asserted without talking to a lawyer, but beyond those, can you describe what you think these researchers did wrong?
  • As a researcher, I have been shocked by how willing people involved in the conversation have been to allege, without evidence, that the researchers were lying about their intents and motivations. I understand, in the abstract anyway, that Wikipedians are used to dealing with shifty COI editors who freely lie about their affiliations as they attempt to game Wikipedia to their own ends. But academic researchers are not COI editors. And for an academic researcher, especially a professor like Bob Kraut, allegations of unethical behavior are serious. Unlike COI editors, academic researchers are accountable to the rules of their institutions and their academic associations, and there are strong norms within academic communities around research ethics (though all of these safeguards sometimes fail spectacularly). So, in my opinion, the accusations that this research was intended to promote Facebook, and that the researchers were lying about or trying to hide this "fact", because the graduate student involved had been awarded a fellowship were inappropriate. And the concern, expressed by you and others, that these researchers may still be plotting an end-run around the EnWiki community despite the researchers explicit statements to the contrary and the absence of any supporting evidence—this really worries me. I'd like to allay this concern if I can, not only for these researchers, but for all future researchers who engage with EnWiki in good faith. If you can help me do that, maybe the next proposal won't turn into such an epic shitstorm.
  • Not sure if this is relevant, but FWIW: I also deeply distrust Facebook as a company, and believe that their researchers, developers, marketers, designers, and executives frequently engage in unethical practices. But Bob Kraut and Diyiy don't work for Facebook, they work for Carnegie Mellon, and are accountable to the legal statutes of their employer, not a funder. I've never seen an example of a research grant that would give an organization like Facebook special rights or privileges to dictate the form or own the results of an academic research study performed on the open web. I'm not saying it couldn't or doesn't happen at a US university, but I'm certain its not happening here.
  • Also FWIW: I was not a fan of this particular study and am not sad it didn't happen. It was ethically fine, but it had a flawed methodology. I get a lot of barnstars and other "awards" from new editors because my talkpage is linked from roughly 300 HostBot invites every day. So whenever I get a barnstar, I look at the contribs and the userpage of the person who sent it to me. I assume most Wikipedians do that :) So I don't see how a barnstar from a new account whose only edits are barnstars could have a meaningful impact on a Wikipedians motivation. If I were designing the study, I'd ask experienced Wikipedians to select barnstar recipients from an algorithmically-generated list of "deserving" candidates. I'd use an interface like Huggle, modified so that the barnstar giver didn't see the userpage or the username of the potential recipients beforehand, just their contribs (to mitigate certain kinds of bias on the part of the giver). I'm (genuinely) curious whether--all things being equal--this study design would make you less concerned about the ethics of the experiment? In my mind, it doesn't fundamentally change anything from an informed consent perspective, or a safety/harm perspective.
  • Yes, we can ban and block some bad actors, but only the most obvious ones, or the ones you stumble across. Our patrolling tools and workflows are good at catching obvious vandalism, but not at detecting and addressing sneaky manipulative activities, especially coordinated ones. I believe encouraging transparency and open communication are our best defense against this kind of threat. Good faith researchers can be allies and help guard Wikipedia against bad faith ones, but only if they feel like part of the community. If they feel like Wikipedia treats all researchers the same, why bother to stick your neck out?
  • Seemingly innocent activities like surveys can cause harm, even if they aren't controlled studies. Shortly before this whole controversy erupted, I reported some suspicious researchers to the Village Pump (it got crickets). I'm sure that if those researchers ended up sending out their survey, at least some editors responded. I tested the survey myself. It asked for personal information, and attempted to profile me psychologically. It was delivered through a survey platform that probably collected my IP address, my computer and browser information by default, because that's how "free" survey online tools make their money. If it was a purpose-built tool, it could have attempted to install tracking cookies or malware (I have no evidence of this, but it's easy to do). And I have no idea what the researchers want to do with the information they collect. When EpochFail and I started asking them direct questions, they stopped talking to us. The potential negative impacts of that study are objectively far greater than those of the study the Bob Kraut and Diyi Yang proposed.
  • Commercial researchers definitely come to Wikipedia. They probably look a lot like COI editors, and are there for the same reason. There's a lot of money in Wikipedia content, and anyone who thinks they may be able to manipulate Wikipedians' behavior in their favor has a lot of opportunities to do so.

I agree completely that researchers need to proactively work with community members when proposing, or conducting, interventions on Wikipedia. I believe you're incorrect about what US law requires vis a vis informed consent in this research context, but perhaps we can both learn more about this by working on some new guidance for researchers who want to do this kind of work on English Wikipedia. I feel like something in the vein of the Plain and Simple COI guidelines would be appropriate. I'd rather start by working on instructional documentation, rather than by enshrining new hard requirements and prohibitions into WP:NOTLAB, because I don't think that a lack of policy is the problem. I think the problem is a lack of mutual understanding, on both the part of (many) external researchers and (many) community members, about how academic research works, how Wikipedia works, and how they can interact in a mutually beneficial way, or (since I see from your userpage that you're also into ecology) at least a commensal relationship.

I've seen many examples of good research/community collaborations in my years around here. And ultimately I have a vested interest in avoiding the catastrophic outcome of an outright ban on certain forms of academic research on Wikipedia. As a WMF staff member, I conduct research on Wikipedia and I suspect that if EnWiki starts throwing up barriers against academic researchers, it's only a matter of time before someone starts to say that I shouldn't be allowed to (for example) test whether a new algorithmic approach to HostBot invites could yield higher new editor retention. And as someone who goes to conferences and classrooms and encourages people to research Wikipedia (because it's scientifically interesting and because it's good for Wikipedia if we learn more about how it works), I don't want to have to start saying "but don't do research on English Wikipedia, because we're not allowed to do that anymore". Thanks again, J-Mo 00:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, J-mo! Thank you for your courteous and thoughtful response in kind. There's a lot to unpack here and I don't want to respond in full until I have time to give a response that does justic to both the breadth of the issues you raise and the importance of this topic for the community. Unfortunately the next couple of weeks stand to be the busiest of this upcoming year for me, so it may be a few days before I can accomplish that--possibly even longer, as regards the bigger issues, but I will try my best to get at least my initial response to the inquiries you make above regarding the ethical issues, at least, within days. But I did want to give at least this initial response so you didn't think I was ignoring your comments. As a preliminary matter, I will say this much: I think your proposal of additional and clearer guidance for researchers not only makes sense, but indeed is essential at this point. I've already put some thought into what a more robust procedure might look like, and I think even a much more involved process for vetting research should be feasible, even taking into account the limitations we have in terms of number of volunteers who understand the most relevant issues and are willing to assist researchers in walking through such a process. I'll be looking forward to discussing my ideas with you, as soon as I realistically have time for it in a few weeks, with an eye towards putting forth community proposals over the coming years--though again, I hope to address some of your more immediate questions sooner. Until then, thanks again for taking the time to stop by and please do expect a ping from me in the very near future. Snow let's rap 07:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome to hear, Snow. Take your time—I'm not going anywhere (and often go weeks without checking EnWiki anyway, these days). When you're back, let's rap. Cheers, J-Mo 16:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Sofia Carson[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sofia Carson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Dinesh D'Souza[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dinesh D'Souza. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Christopher Nolan[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christopher Nolan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ralph Northam[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ralph Northam. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Moran Mor Athanasius Yohan Metropolitan[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Moran Mor Athanasius Yohan Metropolitan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Shabir Ally[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shabir Ally. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Keith Urban[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Keith Urban. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:The Red Tent (film)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Red Tent (film). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Michael Jackson[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michael Jackson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Conspiracy theory[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conspiracy theory. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.17[edit]

Hello Snow Rise,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typo correction[edit]

Thanks for catching "attributio"n - I did a bot run to fix it. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DannyS712--no problem! Thanks for maintaining the bot/notices! Snow let's rap 10:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Asia topic[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Asia topic. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:35 mm film[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:35 mm film. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:The NeuroGenderings Network[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The NeuroGenderings Network. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Toledo steel[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Toledo steel. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Camera[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Camera. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Slavery[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Slavery. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Rigel[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rigel. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Detransition[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Detransition. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Achziv[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Achziv. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Black and white[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Black and white. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 March 2019[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Please comment on Talk:Sobibór trial[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sobibór trial. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mobile country code[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mobile country code. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Yonaguni Monument[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Yonaguni Monument. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Rocket Lab[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rocket Lab. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Faisalabad[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Faisalabad. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Romania[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Romania. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Heathenry[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Heathenry. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Decline in insect populations[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Decline in insect populations. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1968[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1968. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Cannabidiol[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cannabidiol. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Lisdexamfetamine[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lisdexamfetamine. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of the Mesozoic life of Wyoming[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of the Mesozoic life of Wyoming. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Populism[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Populism. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:History of India[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of India. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Anesthesia[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anesthesia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Superconductivity[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Superconductivity. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Pacific War[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pacific War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Johannes Gutenberg[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johannes Gutenberg. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Juul[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Juul. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Solomon's Pools[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Solomon's Pools. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Rigel[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rigel. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Casualties of the Iraq War[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Casualties of the Iraq War. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Falun Gong[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Falun Gong. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Dental dam[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dental dam. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.18[edit]

Hello Snow Rise,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Methylphenidate[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Methylphenidate. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Xinjiang conflict[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Xinjiang conflict. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Tonsillectomy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tonsillectomy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Internet censorship in China[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Internet censorship in China. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Qizilbash[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Qizilbash. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of wars involving the United States[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of wars involving the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:George Washington[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Washington. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Facebook[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Facebook. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Polyphenol[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polyphenol. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:New Albion[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Albion. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:5G[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:5G. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Danny Baker[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Danny Baker. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Electric smoking system[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Criticism of Huawei[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Criticism of Huawei. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

No, I didn't. Own your own decisions. I purposefully avoided referencing any particular editor or situation and kept all of my arguments rooted in abstracts for a number of reasons. Do no attribute you to me your decision to bring your own history into this: that was 100% you. You demanded that I present a situation where a disruptive editor hoodwinked the community into sanctioning the editor who was trying to keep them in check. Technically, I was only saying that a disruptive editor hoodwinking the community into not sanctioning them by creating reasonable doubt that hounding was not taking place, which is why I had not referred to Catflap. And for the record, it's a really bad example. First off, Catflap "hoodwinked" pretty much no one: he came in for a lot of criticism in those threads, including from yours truly, as best I can recall. You recall wrong. I asked for him to be blocked in June 2014 and February 2015 for his fake citations, edit-warring, and so on. My concerns fell on deaf ears, and the first sanction that came into play was an IBAN he requested because he claimed I was hounding him. He was ultimately sitebanned for repeated TBAN violations and trolling (and later cemented it by socking and email harassment): the initial content-based problems I brought to AN and ANI, which would have been clear to anyone who actually clicked on the links (the sources were largely written in plain English and intended for a lay audience) were never properly addressed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where I ever demanded such a thing (or anything, for that matter); I said that I had never myself seen that scenario play out. That is still, for the record, my perspective.
But look, if you want to raise Catflap as a counter-example, at the end of the day, I can't stop you: as I see it, it's your right as a rhetorical matter to raise it as an example of whatever you choose; I seem to recall we formally removed the IBAN by an express community action at your request shortly after Catflap was CBANned, so there's no problem in that respect. But I think it's a losing argument for you: as I said before, I don't think it's a good approach to view this issue through any personal historical lens and I certainly just don't have the time necessary to re-examine all of your evidence from ANI cases stretching back more than half a decade. So let's suppose for a moment that I take everything you insist upon above completely at face value as established fact. Even under those circumstances, I'd still be recommending to you that you not bring that episode into the matter, because, my friend (I've decided I'm going to make you a friend somehow), you got IBAnned by the community and TBANned and IBANned by ArbCom in connection to that chain of conflict. Hijiri-san, you definitely made some mistakes in connection to that mess. You got blocked for violating the IBAN (with Catflap) right here on my talk page, even as I was urging you to let the matter lay, since the ANI had just been closed and the ban become formal: I remember that much clearly. I just don't think it looks, no matter whose conduct it is framed around (and no matter the threshold of expertise with regard to the editors) like a situation which would have been made better by relaxing the rules on following.
Now, maybe there are untold details which reveal how Machiavellian Catflap was, but I'd sincerely offer to you that if you're holding out for some vindication by/within the community, I think that's probably an unrealistic hope by this point. So you're better off--rhetorically and (I have to think) personally--not dwelling on it, insofar as you never have to worry about encountering Catflap here again. But there are other and more pragmatic reasons to avoid it, one of which is--and forgive me my bluntness--that you tend to get a little intense when certain names come up in a discussion. Beyond that, I just don't think it's the most fruitful way to look at the topic; I think this subject matter requires a lot of aggregating of the cost-benefit factors of the potential approaches and weighing them in terms of how it will apply to a broad swath of editors, considering who stands to be hurt if we err in one direction or another. That's where I think the most fruitful ground for discussion is. Snow let's rap 09:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note (and not to set aside everything I just said about letting sleeping dogs lay), I actually was very ambivalent about that IBAN, and when I looked at that old !vote that you supplied earlier, I remembered expressing those words, listing the reasons why I was not very enthusiastic about the ban. I had already developed a perspective by about that point that IBANs are almost always more trouble than they are worth, at best only delaying (and in some cases even heightening) tensions, while allowing underlying conduct issues to go un-adressed. But the community wanted to try a less drastic option than blocking one or both of you (that was the third of the numerous ANIs, or something like that). I didn't feel particularly like urging for heads to roll, so I agreed to what was the only softer proposal on the table. But I knew that IBAN was a mistake from the start.
I think I've opposed the significant majority of all IBANs I've seen proposed since: they don't work--indeed, I think they are plainly counter-intuitive. I think short term blocks (even if you have make a tough call on who it needs to be or block both parties if the bad acts are sufficiently dispersed) make a lot more sense. If a party can't be trusted not to breach our policies with regard to one person, it is imminently likely they will be willing to do so with others and an IBAN will just molly coddle them and allow them to continue on without their addressing how they are not comporting themselves with the expectations we have of our editorial corps and community members vis-à-vis collaboration. It's a dumb tool and its flaws are, to my mind, manifestly obvious--and yet the community continues to embrace them, mostly because there's no approach at ANI more popular across most discussions than kicking the can down the road, and the IBAN is the ultimate expression of that mentality. Snow let's rap 10:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've already been vindicated by the community: they site-banned him, along with most of the other editors who actively claimed to have looked at his edits and seen nothing wrong (or at least most of them have not edited since 2016/2017). ArbCom were quite open about not looking at content. The present concern has nothing to do with vindication, but is rather entirely about bringing the wording of the policy in line with what the actual policy is, and I only raised CurtisNaito as an example, although I guess Catflap08 would be another good example -- I just didn't want to give the appearance of it being about me retroactively making policy support the assertion that I never hounded Catflap (ArbCom did that pretty handily), and I was never sanctioned for supposedly hounding Curtis, which is why I chose the example I did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, honestly, if I were in your position, I don't think I would feel so comfortable arriving at the conclusion that just because the other editor had been banned, all concerns expressed about me in those discussions where therefore void, expunged, or what-have-you, but I also really don't see any possible gain to debating the matter. However, as to "bringing the wording of the policy in line with what the actual policy is", that's clearly a bit of a non-sequitur with regard to how policy works on this project: policy is what the policy pages, says it is, as a reflection of established formal consensus resulting from organized discussion. You have a theory that the community will endorse a change to WP:HOUNDING such as to expressly empower editors to follow one-another around even where they have been recently in conflict, so long as they claim to be doing it for good cause. I doubt your confidence level is going to be matched by the amount of support that particular proposed change is going to get, but there's only one way to test the matter and find out--putting it before the community at large. Snow let's rap 12:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I would feel so comfortable arriving at the conclusion that just because the other editor had been banned, all concerns expressed about me in those discussions where therefore void As I told you last summer, I'm not interested in discussing "all concerns expressed about me", except to say that I don't think that (which I also told you last summer). I was cleared of the only currently relevant concern (hounding) by ArbCom more than a year before Catflap's ban. What about any of this are you not getting?
I was never under the impression that following the edits of serial disruptors was hounding, either before or after Catflap's ban, and I can't wrap my head around why you keep honing in on that. Do you honestly still think that monitoring the edits of someone you know has competence issues regarding sourcing is "hounding"?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"What about any of this are you not getting?" I'm not getting at anything here--as I told you from the first instant that you raised your history with Catflap on the talk page and as I've continued to consistently state here, I don't think it is a fruitful or relevant line of discussion at all. So let's have this be the end of it. Or at least, you can choose to use it as your benchmark on this topic or not, per your preference, but I'm going to return my comments on the talk page to a discussion of the policy that does not center on your personal experiences.
"Do you honestly still think that monitoring the edits of someone you know has competence issues regarding sourcing is "hounding"?" Honestly, I don't think I could possibly be more clear about this than I already have been: this is a contextual call and a question that can't be answered in the affirmative or the negative for all instances: one has to know quite a bit more about the precise behaviours being labelled under the catch-all of "monitoring" and what gave rise to those behaviours before calling the situation either appropriate or harassing. Between my last three posts on the talk page, I've written probably close to four paragraphs just on the precise question of where that threshold is and what situations and behaviours are often indicative of an editor who has stepped beyond what they are entitled to do, as an unilateral matter, in trying to combat an editor they perceive as a problem. I can only direct you back to those posts again, because I can't see how I could really make my position clearer with more examples, and I don't want to dump another mammoth post in that space. But I believe if you re-review those comments which I have made in the thread, my position should be pretty clear as to why I believe the second proposed change is myopic and not consistent with community expectations. And I'm comfortable putting the matter before the community for review, because I don't believe that greenlighting that change will be seen as an improvement to WP:HOUNDING. But if we're not going to work on finding potential alternatives, I guess we're just going to find out which of us is actually correct about what the community's inclinations are, by putting that question to it.
Anyway, I'm afraid I'm out of time to debate the side-issues here, but thank you for stopping by to discuss: it's always interesting. I'll see you back on the policy talk page as discussion progresses. I hope you have a nice day. Snow let's rap 13:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "getting at"; "getting" meant "understanding". You don't seem to understand that I was never interested in discussing my history with Catflap (or even with CurtisNaito). I only brought up an example or two (you are the one who keeps honing in on Catflap08 when he clearly was not the eleven-character username I referred to before you arrived) to demonstrate a point about how HOUND's wording reflecting what the actual policy is rather than a weaksauce version that seems permissive of bogus hounding accusations is important. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly suggesting, post after post that we not talk about this exact topic, from literally the very first through each subsequent comment="keeps honing in on?" Ok. Hijiri, I have no reason to want to to talk about Catlflap or your crazy history with him, and even after you brought him into the talk page discussion, I have done nothing but consistently try to discourage this line of discussion as expressly and repeatedly as is humanly possible. For that matter, no one on this site has any reason to talk about Catflap--nobody on this site would even remember his name if you completely stopped bringing him up. Please respect when I say I am done talking about this and would like to shut down this discussion here. I would really rather not have to ask you to stay off my talk page again if it can be avoided. Snow let's rap 05:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Bengal famine of 1943[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bengal famine of 1943. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Backup[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Backup. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement at RFAR[edit]

I'm not emotionally up to epic rap battles at present, sorry. Could you please condense your statement at WP:A/R/C to fit the word limit? It may help to remember that the sole purpose of statements there is only to help the committee decide whether arbitration is required, not to argue the rights and wrongs of the case. GoldenRing (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Of course. I'm sorry I neglected to check my post for consistency with the 500 character rule; despite keeping abreast of developments at ArbCom over the years, this is the first time that I've ever felt compelled to comment myself, and only then owing to the extraordinary circumstances. I do think the entirety of my comment is engineered towards the issue of why taking the case is vital to project interests, but I will find some fat to cut to make it length-compliant. I'll address it just as soon as I have fifteen minutes to spare today (I hope it won't be more than an hour or so from now), but if the excess lingers for too long to be tolerated, please feel free to remove as many sentences from the end of post as necessary to bring the message down to the character limit, and then I will do more nuanced edit as soon as I am able. Either way, thanks for the notice and opportunity to amend it myself. Snow let's rap 19:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Found a slap-dash way to make it work for now, without turning the post into word salad. Thanks again! Snow let's rap 19:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Electric smoking system[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:George_Washington#RfC:_Cooper's_abolitionist_tract[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your input on this RfC. The discussion seems to have died down now. Before I request a close, is there anything more you'd like to add to it? Cheers. Factotem (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice/inquiry before requesting a close, Factotem; I think I've provided about the extent of the input I can on the question, or at least that I have time to contribute at present. I will note that usually RfC's are given 30 days to run before a close is initiated, but to the extent the thread has been dead for more than a week, and given that the discussion (last I looked) had gotten a little circular, I personally have no objection to a request for an early close, especially insofar as you are prompting parties for extra thoughts first. I think it's going to be difficult for a closer to form a consensus from the responses there, which normally argues for leaving the discussion open longer to solicit more opinions, but in this case, I'm not sure that would work, given the discussion is kind of dominated by two extreme positions right now, and too many collateral issues have already been pulled in. So, worse case scenario, if you request an early close and it comes back no consensus, the issue can be revisited a little down the line and with a fresh thread that can hopefully focus a little more on the core issues. Anyway, either version is going to destroy the article's integrity, I don't think. All of which is my long-winded way of saying "no further comment here". :) Snow let's rap 11:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Casio F-91W[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Casio F-91W. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Electric smoking system[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:EOKA[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:EOKA. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 14[edit]

Newsletter • June 2019

Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.

There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:

  • A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
  • We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!

Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:

  • Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
  • WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few questions for you. Did you read the subarticles before you commented on the talk page? Do you believe they are a summary of any subarticle? QuackGuru (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you could reply on the talk page if you have time. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi QuackGuru my apologies for not responding sooner: I must have missed your first message: I am on so infrequently right now that sometimes I get a lot of talk page notices at once and something can get lost in the mix. I'll reply to your comment on the talk page presently. Snow let's rap 09:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I replied on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to you last comment. I would like to request a close. If you don't ask me anymore questions I would like to give you the WP:LASTWORD. QuackGuru (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to request a close soon. You can still reply if you want. QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I requested a close. QuackGuru (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Backup[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Backup. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Australia[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Australia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019[edit]

Hello Snow Rise,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2019 Signpost is out![edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snow_Rise/Archive_14&oldid=1037394776"