User talk:Snow Rise/Archive 19

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

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

Administrator changes

Trialpears

AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who

Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes

AGK

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request.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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Side discussion

@Cullen328: Is there any additional context that both privacy concerns and WP:BEANS allow you to disclose openly here about this? That's a pretty pathologically hateful thing to do... I guess maybe my question is a bit moot insofar as this modus operandi seems like it would be easy to spot, so long as your recognize the name, but I do wonder if the pattern so far has been constrained to Kevin's identity? We've had so many high profile loses in the last couple of years...I really hope this doesn't prove to be a trend... Snow ^{let's rap} 05:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I am not by any means a skilled sockpuppet detective, and have no idea which indeffed accounts are associated with this sick individual. What I can tell you is that I first met Kevin at a Wikipedia in Higher Education conference in Boston in 2011. Hard to believe that it has been ten years. Kevin was put forward as a successful example of a young student who got involved with Wikipedia during an edit-a-thon and had continued editing. He was writing articles about mushrooms at that time. My friend Drmies was at that conference and may or may not have some insights. Upon return to California, I participated in number of edit-a-thons with Kevin, some organized by Missvain, who is also a dear friend of mine. Kevin became an administrator, made some mistakes and lost the mop. He was a prolific content creator in the area of women philosophers, and was a strong feminist, opposed in particular to the men's rights movement, and made enemies by opposing whitewashing in that topic area. We were not close personal friends, but he was someone who I ran across a number of times and respected. Kevin was very slender and frail, and it was clear that he had health problems, but I did not realize how serious it was until he died. JSFarman organized an event in his memory at the Wikiconference North America in San Diego in 2016, which was attended by one or both of his parents. I was there to say a few words about his many contributions and have been in touch with JSFarman ever since, who is a fine person. So, my best guess is that this is a troll who is enraged about Kevin's opposition to the men's rights movement, and is unable to leave their grudge behind even though Kevin has been gone for five years. Here is a 2013 news article about an edit-a-thon that mentions both of us, and you can see the back of my grey head in the photo, and a side view of Kevin. The troll dropped by my Facebook page about a week ago, and it was an ugly visit. That's all I have to say for now, but it makes me sad to recount it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to learn of this abuse of the memory of your friend, Cullen. If your theory as to the origin of this behaviour is correct, we can at least hope that the disruption will be contained to Mr. Gorman's account, but I imagine that is small consolation to those of his friends on this project who might be impacted by this particular sad, distasteful, and objectionable form of trolling. I won't press you further for details about their off-project harassment, both because I don't find it altogether appropriate and because I can see how it could only serve to be a source of unpleasant sentiments for you to recall, but I appreciate these details. I'd like to think I would have the foregoing response to a large extent regardless, as a simple moral matter, but the last few years have marked the first instances of our community losing members with whom I was personally acquainted in a more than a passing fashion, so the mere idea of dealing with this kind of sociopathic assault upon such a friend's dignity really hits home a little sharper. And not for nothing, but these friends often worked in the same area and sometimes engendered embittered responses from a similar crowd, so it's not impossible to see it happening.. Anyway, thanks again for sharing this info, Cullen. I hope in other respects, things are well for you these days. Aside from air quality there in NorCal right now, which one assumes is abysmal? Snow ^{let's rap} 07:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the current big wildfires are far to the north and also to the east over the Sierra Nevada and the smoke is drifting east, so we are OK at the moment. That could change at any time because things are bone dry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, small blessings with regard to the smoke anyway. In a more general sense though, frightening how badly things seem to be getting for fire prone regions so early into the wildfire season. :/ Snow ^{let's rap} 15:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, we kind of know who the troll is, and ArbCom knows a lot more, I suspect. The person makes me think some of the worst things a person can think of another person, and I don't like thinking those things. Thank you Cullen328. Anyway, whenever I run into them, on or off-wiki, I notify ArbCom, and unfortunately that's about all we can do. In this case, I'm going to email Zzuuzz. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Understandable reactions, in both regards. Personally, I can think of no other descriptor for such behaviour (and indeed, such a mind) than 'antisocial'. I find myself curious about who this former community member is, but I appreciate the need for discretion here. Snow ^{let's rap} 15:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

10 years

Welcome to the club! Missing Kevin as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Gerda--and indeed, thank you for noticing. :) In truth, it's always been a bit of difficult thing for me to put a date to, since I contributed in an unfocused and infrequent fashion for a few years before registering, but I figured the date as judged by the account was a definite cause for some low key self-celebratory faire. :)

On the decidedly less happy topic of departed friends, I've been thinking a lot lately about the gap that has been opened by Flyer and Sarah passing almost back-to-back, and what it might mean for articles in a certain domain. I need to make more time to try to check in on those areas more frequently again, and do my part to make up for those shortfalls, inadequate as I (or any one of us) may be to fill the gulf perfectly. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Do so, it's exactly what I said on both pages: that nobody can replace them alone, but we all should try to replace a bit. Same for RexxS who left and Jerome Kohl who died, to just name giants. I usually pay tribute to them on my talk, just not when someone in real life dies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

• News and notes: Wikimania and a million other news stories

• Special report: Hardball in Hong Kong

• In the media: Larry is at it again

• Board of Trustees candidates: See the candidates

• Recent research: Gender bias and statistical fallacies, disinformation and mutual intelligibility

• Traffic report: Football, tennis and marveling at Loki

• News from the WMF: Uncapping our growth potential – interview with James Baldwin, Finance and Administration Department

• Humour: A little verse

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Note of caution

FormalDude, when an uninvolved community member makes observations that you don't necessarily care for or agree with at an ANI that another party brought to examine your behaviour, it is generally a bad look if you then follow said volunteer to their next contribution on the project for the purpose of making a generalized denigrating comment regarding what you perceive their biases and failings as an observer to be. In fact, some people might call that WP:HOUNDING via WP:Personal attack.

Now, I don't generally don't seek community oversite of sanctions for comments made at my expense, and certainly don't want to be the third person to take you to ANI in a week, but I feel it is important to note here that this kind of behaviour is very much in the same sphere of WP:tendentious editing that brought you to ANI in the first place: you didn't receive a FRS notice to that discussion and it was literally my very next edit after criticizing you, so it's pretty clear you followed me there in order to use that talk page as a proxy battleground to register your discontent with the fact that I was critical of you at the ANI--and frankly, not even that critical--I was clear there was nothing warranting a sanction in your conduct, merely a bad pattern forming. Much like the invective comment that you made about a party not on the project that your fellow contributors were commenting upon at that ANI, this kind of comment does not constitute good-faith work towards resolving issues on the talk page in question, was inappropriate (especially in the context) and is not the type of thing that is going to do your reputation on the project any favours--even if you can consider yourself pretty safe from the prospect of my seeking a sanction against you for it, these kinds of off-topic, disruptive responses to criticism do get noticed by the community, believe me.

@Cullen328:, @Drmies:--you'll have to forgive me, but you two have the bad luck of being a) the last two admins I've talked with and thus being fresh on my mind, and b) two of the more even-handed admins in my experience, so can I please impose upon one or the other of you to back up my own observation here that if this behaviour of following me from the ANI to my next contribution is not exactly a brightline violation of WP:HARASS as yet, it is certainly a step in that direction and, at the very least, not a good response to ANI feedback from community members uninvolved in their disputes? Forgive my dragging you in, but I want to nip in the bud any prospect that I will see FormalDude showing up at the next few pages where I am involved in a discussion. Let me reiterate, so I do not appear disingenuous in my comments above, that I don't think a sanction is warranted here, nor would that be my preference. But I would appreciate FormalDude hearing from someone other than myself that this is pushing a line and is non-constructive behaviour that does not advance the needs of the project. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely did not follow you to Talk:Alex Jones#RfC - "white nationalist" in lead, I followed User:MjolnirPants, whose contributions I have been stalking recently (which I guess apparently isn't evident). Upon reading the discussion, I happened to notice you using the same logic of focusing in on WP:CIVIL when WP:CIVIL is the least thing to be concerned about of the dispute. I didn't know that was your next contribution–afterall, why would I only follow you to one discussion and then continue on my merry way editing elsewhere if I was WP:HOUNDING? ––FormalDude^(talk) 06:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not think my behavior was pushing the line nor non-constructive anymore than Snow Rise's comment to User:MjolnirPants was (and I don't think anyone would call either a WP:Personal attack). Your comment was not about the discussion at hand, you stepped away from that to instead directly criticize another editor, and seemed to threaten them about further action by saying this is "not their first time. . ." Bringing up editors' past AN/i history every chance you get seems more like the WP:HOUNDING here to me. ––FormalDude^(talk) 07:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are pinging Mjolnir to my page and this discussion when the purpose in my creating this aside was to try to make you aware of what I felt was harassing behaviour on your behalf, not the discussion that was the context in which you dropped your comment. Adding him to the mix and conflating the two strikes me as an action that can only add heat here, and I'd thank you not to do that on my talk page, not withstanding the fact that I invited you here with my ping.

As to the distinction between my comment and yours, I've already address that below. I arrived at that page via an FRS request, and I pointed out to Mjolnir that a comment he had made (or rather aspects of it) on that talk page was not particularly civil or helpful. WP:TPG, WP:CIV and other community standards allow (even encourage) me to do that, provided that the discussion does not become disruptive--and in this case, that aside to the general discussion would have ended with Mjolnir's response after my word of concern: I would be quite happy for them to make the second and only comment in that exchange, having made my own observation. You then showed up on the page and made a generalized and derogatory comment about my abilities/approach as community member. Do you really not understand why those are two entirely different kinds of action in the circumstances, both under policy and as a a rhetorical matter? Snow ^{let's rap} 07:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit of a rather large coincidence that you happened to end up at the very next space I contributed, anywhere on the project, to be handy to make that comment about me, immediately after I had some critiques for your behaviour at ANI. But as a matter of WP:AFG, I feel I should nevertheless take you at your word as to that, and so I will do just that.

The comment itself, however, was clearly still inappropriate, being a generalized WP:PA about what you perceived to by typical shortcoming as an editor--whatever the motivation/course of events that brought you to comment there. For the record, and contrary to your implication, I very much do look into the underlying context in these situations, and that context absolutely informs my own observations about the dispute. However, unless there was rather a significant discussion I missed while being largely absent from this project the last year, there is no principle of community consensus stipulating that "You may ignore the requirements of WP:CIV and WP:AGF if you think another editor has prematurely started a discussion". I stand by my assessment of the comments of that third party: they were inflammatory and unhelpful to the tone of discourse on the talk page. Context is very much king, but it is not a "get out of all criticism free" card which obviates conformity with our behavioural policies. So that's part of why I was not particularly insulted by your comment: I object, in the strongest possible terms, to your characterization that I do not look into the underlying situations before commenting--particularly when I am an FRS respondent. But you are correct at least in so far that I think some behaviour is inappropriate and unproductive no matter the context. Nor do I seek to apologize for supporting that standard.

But more to the point, so I can be clear here about why I felt the need to have an aside here, your comment was not the same thing as mine in that space, and I hope you can recognize the distinction. I was commenting as to an existing, particularized situation already taking place on that talk page, and was commenting on a particular choice of words. Whereas you were making a WP:PA about my general failings as you see them, immediately after a context in which I commented about your behaviour as an uninvolved community member at ANI. You see why those situations are not especially analogous, I hope? Again, I'm not just saying this for mere lip service towards the notion of being easy going about disagreements: I really don't want you in trouble--and now that I am taking it on faith that you weren't following me around, I'm even less concerned about having eyes on the situation. But the observations I've made here about the comment in general really are worth taking to heart, I feel. Not withstanding the fact of the context in which I make them to you. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, why the heck have you been stalking MjolnirPants? Don't you know that stalking is impermissible and unacceptable behavior? And that this admission calls all of your assertions regarding policies and guidelines into question? Be on the alert. You are skating on very thin ice and are very close to an indefinite block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, I have been viewing MjolnirPants contributions because they edit the same topics I'm interested in, and I've commented on a few that peek my interest. I wasn't aware that was impermissible unacceptable behavior. ––FormalDude^(talk) 07:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Stalking the edits of another editor for the purpose of interfering with their normal editing behavior is completely unacceptable, so drop it because you will be blocked if you persist. It is that simple. By the way, the word is "pique", not "peek". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 I had no purpose of interfering with their normal editing behavior. I did not have any affect on their editing whatsoever and I'm certain they would have told me if I did. Sounds like "stalked" was not at all the right word for me to use either, my mistake. I will stop viewing their contributions though because I certainly don't want to be blocked. ––FormalDude^(talk) 07:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, it is difficult to believe how someone who writes in English pretty fluently does not understand the connotations of Stalking. If so, understand the meanings of that term and abandon that behavior or anything like it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

In online vernacular I perceive stalking to typically have a lighthearted associated. For examples the word "Stan" means stalker fan. I was clearly wrong to use it in the context of Wikipedia in light of the established policies on it. I again have never exhibited any actual stalking. ––FormalDude^(talk) 08:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, I'm not sure what sort of history there is here, but FormalDude has categorically not been harassing me in any way that could possibly fall afoul of WP:FOLLOWING, unless they're attempting to harass me in a way that's so incredibly subtle that it looks to all the world like someone who just generally agreed with a few comments of mine, and decided to see what pages I frequent. I'd add that I've seen a rather large number of editors admit to doing just that (to me and to others), including myself, and this is the first suggestion I've seen that someone feels it's inappropriate. I think you're familiar enough with me to know that I wouldn't hesitate to call someone out if they were doing something that bothered me.

At this time, if FormalDude were to be blocked for hounding me, I would be the first to demand a block review.

Now, I do understand that there is a form of stalking which is not antagonistic (as is described in our P&G page covering the topic), but is nonetheless unacceptable. To whit, if FormalDude ever steals my underwear out of the trash or leaves a message on my talk page expressing how we belong together, and if they can't have me, no-one can, I'll be sure to let an admin know.

Probably. Really it all depends on how good FormalDude looks in a nighty. Heyo.

WRT this particular incident, I stand by not only my own response to Snow (pointing out that I was objecting to the beginning of a process with significant disruptive potential, and that said potential outweighs the disruptive qualities of a pair of four-letter words), but I'd wholeheartedly endorse FormalDude's response, as well. In my experience, Snow has demonstrated on numerous occasions that they have far more concern about editors conforming to their own definition of decorum than they do about issues which actually affect this project in a meaningful way. The fact that Snow's opinion on this subject is shared by a significant minority of editors does not make it any less of a vacuous and useless perspective. And the fact that relatively few of those editors actually agree on what constitutes proper decorum only serves to undermine the utter uselessness of the perspective.

And I will also state without reservations that there were no personal attacks made in that thread, and the assertion to the contrary by Snow is as vacuous as their frequently demonstrated views on civility. One could make the case that FormalDude was casting aspersions, but then, one would need to apply that same standard to Snow's comment they were replying to, and reach the same conclusion there. Snow's snotty comment that "This is not an area that the community has not had to address with you before..." doesn't make sense as anything but an attempt to provoke a reaction, or some sort of condescending snark. Which is ironic, but hardly surprising, as I've found that the editors who complain the most about civility are frequently the least civil editors I know, and they always go out of their way to disguise their incivility using rosy language. And frankly, I've always found that sort of behavior to be incredibly more distasteful and disruptive to any sort of collaborative effort than any amount of blunt forwardness or foul language.

And Snow Rise: If I ever want your opinion on civility, I'll ask someone else what they think you might say. At least they might be able to make a decent joke out of it.

Please don't ping me back here. I've now said all I have to say on the matter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for tagging MPants, I didn't mean to add any adversity to this discussion. I just wanted him to be aware, though I do appreciate his sentiments (and much needed comedy). ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Mjolnir, I don't want to have a protracted technical discussion here about our different valuation and interpretations of WP:CIV, as I doubt very much we are going to come to a meeting of the minds. Suffice it to say, I do not think the standard I attempt to apply is anything other than that which is codified as a matter of community consensus in the relevant policies, not just that of a "significant minority"--and to put it bluntly, I think the proof of which of us acts in a fashion more in conformity with the community's expectations is to be found in your block log. But if you believe nothing else in what I tell you here, believe that I wouldn't comment on your (or any community member's) conduct merely for some sort of sophomoric desire to "provoke" a reaction: that's very much the opposite of what I am hoping the outcome to be whenever I am faced with the unpleasant prospect of having to criticize another editor's conduct. I very much view that sort of thing as a chore when it does occur, and certainly don't get the kind of thrill by way of patronization that you seem to assume undergirds anybody who has something critical to say with regard to how you treat your fellow collaborators on this project. We (or at least I) are not out to "get you" or to preach some unreasonable standard of civility as some sort of abstraction from the "reality on the ground" as you seem to see it. I very much would not have said what I did if not for the fact that it needed to be said by someone.

I try to be delicate in CIV discussions in how I frame the conduct of other editors, but if you want to put the cards on the table and speak bluntly, here's the simple plain truth: with that post you were accomplishing nothing more than throwing an expletive-ladden fit because another editor dared to have an opinion other than your own, and to avail themselves of a community process that they are expressly advised to use when discussion is at a loggerheads. Your reaction was not appropriate, not mature, and not in keeping with community standards for collaborative discussion on this project. Somebody needed to say something and I assumed you'd rather hear it in brief with a comment you could outwardly dismiss in your way while also maybe perceiving you were crossing into territory where you needed to check yourself. Forgive me, but I genuinely thought that after spending a large chunk of the 2019-2021 period cooling your heels off project, that maybe you might have learned to consider the possibility that you don't have the best barometer for what your fellow volunteers, on average, consider fairplay in an editorial dispute and if someone uninvolved notes that you might be approaching a line, that you might pause to consider that observation.

Mind you, I expected (indeed, could practically have scripted) the acid-toned response I got, but my hope was that externally you would be satisfied with that outward rejection of my concern, while simultaneously registering the pushback internally--at least to enough of an extent that you wouldn't continue to escalate the incivility in the thread: the direction you were headed in was not civil and not productive to the discussion at hand, or the consensus-seeking process. Even if we assumed that your inflammatory response was appropriate and in-proportion to the circumstances as an emotional and qualatative matter, surely you can recognize that "The fuck do you think you're doing?" style comments do not improve the situation for anyone--and indeed, if anything, undermine the position you are attempting to support in such situations.

Anyway, I do not accept your assessment that only a member of some sort of moral mafia out to make some sort of point in ignorance of the realities of editing would find it appropriate to criticize you there. Someone was going to do it: you don't get to scream obscenities at people here for having a different read on a content issue and/or not bowing to your view on the matter. That's not how our work spaces operate, and you know it. Or if you haven't figured that out yet, your next break is an inevitability and you are correct at least insofar as I very much was missing something and wasting my time. But, in all honesty, I thought you'd rather have a "ok, let's tone it down" style comment that you could dismiss snidely, rather than yet another ANI thread, or a request for admin involvement, or any of the other very likely outcomes had that chain of discussion continued to escalate down the trajectory it was on.

I'm sorry Mjolnir, but for all the value you bring as an editor by virtue of your internal drive, you are also very much your own worst enemy here, and you can continue down the path of convincing yourself that all of the people that call out your outbursts are a vocal minority who just don't get (or have lost sight of) what it is like to be "in the trenches" on contentious issues, but I think you have too rational a mind to really believe that at your core. I'm not your enemy, and I am not out to thwart you for vague ideological cause. I, like many others here who have noted your value but are frustrated by your rejection of community behavioural standards, just want you to even out your approach a little. And don't worry, I don't intend to make a habit of being the one to try to reinforce this point for you. Indeed, nobody really needs to: either you'll find a way to understand that your philosophical objection community standards (and perception that they are being pushed by some sort of elitist class of civilty hand-wringers) does not abrogate you of responsibility to follow them...or someone will block you again. I expect you'll scarcely believe me after the above--I think it's more likely you will read this as some sort of attempt to appear beneficent in order to preserve my pro-civility cred, or for some other duplicitous cause--but I hope that its the former, not the latter. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

My comment was a hasty generalization of your actions. I should not have applied one perceived shortcoming to your editing habits in general, that was wrong, and even if you don't want an apology, I am sorry for that nonetheless.

I can promise I'm not following you around. (If it gives you any more assurance, my edits to Talk:Alex Jones were over 50 edits after I had made my last comment on the AN/i, and after it had been archived.)

My main intent with my comment was to bring up that you warned MjolnirPants but did not say anything to the other third party. And that that has been my experience with you on AN/i was well (which is my only other interaction with you that I'm aware of). I hope you can see where I was coming from. ––FormalDude^(talk) 07:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I do appreciate the apology/distinction, and I do take you at word that you were not following me--both as a general matter of AGF and because my observation of you (limited though it may be) is that you are the type of person who is unlikely to lie merely to avoid scrutiny.

On a side note though, please do not make the mistake of inferring that my motivations regarding Mjolnir come from a place of mere abstract preoccupation with behavioural standards. It's true that I criticized the tone of his response because I felt it was not appropriate or helpful, but you should know that the comment was made in the context of me feeling the project is better off with his presence than without it. But I very much want it to a version of him that doesn't respond to contrary opinions with the likes of "The fuck is this!? The fuck is that?!". Because, quite aside from the fact that this is just not the way we are meant to go about discussing matters here, the version of him that does make those kinds of comments gets himself blocked every so often (sometimes for nontrivial lengths of time), or wears himself out in personal disputes, and thereby deprives us of the benefit of his industry and knowledge.

Similarly--and I hope you can believe this--my comments at the two ANIs this week were not meant to arbitrarily criticize your approach. I perceived a passionate editor who from all indicators operates from a desire to improve the project, but sometimes gets a little carried away by their sentiments on certain issues. If my feelings were otherwise, I would not have advocated that sanctions were inappropriate in both cases. But by the same token, I wouldn't be doing you any favours if I weren't blunt with you in those discussions about issues that should be addressed in your approach. Wikipedia just doesn't need more heat right now, and after years of WP:CIV being treated like the pillar policy that isn't, something seems to have turned in this last year, and the community seems to once again be erring towards stricter enforcement. Please trust that if I thought you were a net negative as a contributor, I would have provided feedback in those discussions to that effect. While I always attempt to be civil in community behavioural discussions, I'm sure it will not surprise you if I tell you that I don't mince words when I think an editor is wasting community time and resources. If I instead urge that you need to be careful about when and how (and even whether) you say certain things, please assume that I am speaking to an editor who I want to continue to see on the project. Needless to say, you are free to disregard that advice if you feel it is not on point, but please do not think I ever provide it arbitrarily or without looking into the background of the dispute or the benefits the editor(s) in question confer on the project. I take those considerations very seriously and always make an effort to look at the issues of a community discussion from the perspective of all parties. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Snow Rise thank for you for explaining your reasoning, that makes it much clearer. I greatly respect your careful weighing of context as well as your honesty to not mince words. I think your comments about me and Mjolnir are accurate. I am aiming to better encapsulate WP:CIVIL at all times. You're definitely right that context doesn't give a "get out of all criticism free" and I've sometimes foolishly been acting like it does. I appreciate you taking the time to point this matter out to me. ––FormalDude^(talk) 17:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to reconsider your view of me in light of further discussion, FormalDude. I'm sorry our association as fellow volunteers had to start under these circumstances, but I hope now that we know eachother a little better that our future has a much more easy going and pleasant aspect in store. In that light, please call me Snow: that is how I am known to my friends. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm sure it will be, Snow! You can call me Ben if you'd like–it's a little shorter. And my bad again for tagging Mjolnir, I should have kept the conversation only to what you'd brought up. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 07:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, don't worry about any further--what's done is done. And who knows, maybe in the end it is better that Mjolnir knows my full mind on my comment there. I doubt we will be in stellar agreement as to our read on the issues any time soon, but maybe there's something in the resulting discussion that I've said which will strike him as genuine and true. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Note of appreciation

Zzuuzz: I just wanted to let you know that I received your message, and that I appreciate your taking the time to send it. Given the sensitive nature of the issue, I'll leave the commentary at that, aside from the repetition of my thanks! Snow ^{let's rap} 06:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

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

Administrator changes

BusterD

Kees08 • Nickshanks • Protonk • Schissel • Ultraexactzz • Wknight94

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversighter changes

TheresNoTime

ST47

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for a comment ANI

(that's not a phrase you hear every day) you keep bringing that point up as if, merely by virtue of being an admin aware of the issue, GN somehow inherited an affirmative obligation to personally clean up every aspect of another editor's disruption to the complete satisfaction of every observer - thank you for that. I'd been trying to find the words to express that sentiment, but you hit the nail on the head there. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

My pleasure, GN: please consider it merely a due return from a community member appreciative of your willingness to act for the benefit of the community and project. I think you've really come in for a lot of unreasonable criticism there and I don't know if you had any idea what you might be signing up for when you waded into that dispute (both times), but I appreciate your willingness to act and maintain the integrity of our policies and system. As regards the half of your action that has mostly caused you the guff: as I see it, you made a tough call in a difficult situation, and exercising that discretion is exactly why we gave you the mop in the first place.

Of course, the terribly ironic thing is, I pointed out the hyperbolic criticism to the other editor not just because I thought the point was salient with regard to whether you had done anything wrong (though that would have been good reason in itself), but also as part of an effort to dial down the noise there for purposes of keeping the block from being applied again! Oh what a convoluted, silly place this can be some days! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Petition on closing an RfC

Hello, Snow Rise. I was wondering if you could close this RfC, which have been opened for more than 30 days and I think there's a decent level of consensus now. We've talked about this in the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard and you told me I could ping you after 30 days, so you could take care of the closure since you're an uninvolved editor. Remember? Ajñavidya (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ajñavidya:  Done; I hope the close is of some use in moving the discussion forward on the talk page, going forward. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Thank you. I can notice you did an effort to know the details.

Your summary is very accurate and impartial. Ajñavidya (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Ajñavidya, I missed this post in my quick pass through here yesterday. Thank you very much for that comment: I'm glad that I could provide some small degree of resolution to a contentious topic. All my best to you on your future work, on that article and elsewhere. :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2021 Cuban protests (RfC closure)

Just wanted to thank you for your RfC closure. Unfortunately, even though Wikipedia is not a democracy or about voting, most of the time, especially for politics-related articles, it is reduced to that, as you noted that I personally think that (were I providing an !vote instead of a close) I would have favoured discussing the "authoritarianism as a cause of the protests" angle only in the main b[o]dy of the article, where it could be fully attributed and contextualized, while also leaving some degree of discussion about concerns regarding civil liberties in the infobox as a clear indication of the role the perceived illiberal qualities of the [C]uban government have played in fomenting the 2021 protests. ... However, those important caveats noted (as I think they are vital to parsing the issues here) if I am doing my job as a neutral interpreter of the WP:LOCALCONSENSU[S] ... .

I think our policies and guidelines, and their respect (especially when it comes to serious issues of OR, SYNTH, and WEIGHT), should always have priority over the number of !votes, especially for politics-related article like this, which are always going to be controversial and are going to attract some users who are not going to contribute to the article but are just going to !vote because they may feel strongly about it, and this happens on any side of the spectrum. It is not a big deal, especially if we can word it in a semi sentence-like to give it some context even for the infobox, and I respect and understand what you wrote (I simply agree with your caveats, too); indeed, after all I was the one to start the additional efforts to hammer out a middleground or altenrative [sic] wording to the disputed content which both sides of the discussion can get behind; they stopped only because "as a courtesy to the poor closer who is going to have to read all of this and evaluate it, that you desist from proposing alternatives until the two RfCs that have already been started, are closed."

But as I was saying, I think some AfDs and RfCs that are closed as consensus, even with many caveats, should be closed as no consensus because our policy and guidelines, and arguments based on them, should be given priority over the number of !votes, and because it can be easy to cherry pick even a notable quantity of sources but it is much harder to prove why they still fail our policies and guidelines, as was the case here, imho, and because this is a very controversial, polarising, and more importantly too recent event; for such strong claims, especially when sources such as NBC News for Lack of civil liberties (freedom of assembly and political freedom) actually attributes it to Cuban Americans, it would be better to wait for scholarly sources to come out and help us with weight (as things stand, it is obvious the main causes are shortages, the pandemic, and the economic recession exacerbated by the pandemic, inefficiencies, and tighter sanctions; anything else is debatable, or undue). Indeed, more recent sources, which had more time to analyse the events, reported that analysts found the protests as being mainly caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and in the context of other protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than caused by authoritarianism or political factors; this was one of the weaknesses of the RfC (the other being that it was too narrow, as it was either to add or not 'authoritarianism', and nothing in between), namely that it was created when the event was still too recent and there was no clear, overwhelming analysis to support it.

It is not a big deal to me because (1) my main issue was with the one-word label, not a possible compromise that includes some clarifying context; (2) as you stated, consensus can change, and what will matter in the end will be scholarly sources and analysis in the future (the article will have to be rewritten based on them, as magazine and news sources should always come after academic books, articles, and the like; I think any good article should be based only scholarly literature to avoid any issue of OR, SYNTH, and WEIGHT, and magazine and news sources should only be used when there is no scholarly analysis yet, as in this case); and (3) because I think you did a great job. I was just afraid that the closure would simply look at the number of sources or !votes, and dismiss well-argued dissent and proclaim clear consensus.

Actually, you did such a great job that if you could also close the other RfC, which just expired, I would really appreciate that.

Sorry if I digressed but I found your closure really interesting; whenever you have time and will, I would love to hear your thoughts on the two articles I mentioned in the note above.

Davide King (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Davide and thank you for taking the time to reach out--it's always always nice to hear when someone finds value with your contributions even if they were nominally seeking a different outcome. That was, for obvious reasons (even aside from the significant length of the threads and detail of discussion) not the easiest close in the world. Indeed, as a class, I would say these are about the most difficult scenarios a closer might face in a content area, those discussions where there may be a conflict between the course of action endorsed by a clear majority and a major policy or principle of larger community consensus. It puts into tension three different community values--1) consensus is the fundamental determinant of the outcome of a discussion; 2) even though volume of support is an important indicator, consensus is not determined via straightforward voting; and 3) consensus has levels, some of which can preempt one-another--and there is not a whole lot of advice which expressly lays out the contours of how to balance these three factors. The reason I took the atypical step of voicing my own opinion in the close was to use it as a vehicle to explain how I was considering the question of the consensus in the light of those considerations. In the end, the consensus was too strong in respect to its proportional and fixed value levels of support, it's degree of support among proponents, and the degree of engagement those perspectives were developed on. Nevertheless, I found it important to make some of the compelling objections a part of the record of the close, both as regards policy and contextual interpretations of the language of sources. In the end, it was the best I could do to thread the needle for that case. I'm glad at least a couple of people have found the approach adequate. :)

Regarding your perspective that AfDs should default to a delete, there are spaces to float such changes to policy, but I would tend to be very skeptical of a change in that vein any time soon: the current procedures and the order of priorities they represent are a fairly ossified set of values at this point, I think. For better, or worse, or complicated mix. For what it is worth, I like your out-of-the-box thinking with regard to your "no consensus at AfD -> AfC -> final call" notion. Or at least I do think its an interesting proposal in the abstract. In practice, I fear it would involve too much extra procedural work, redundancy of discussion, and extra opportunities for disruption to be viable under the project's current staffing levels of longterm volunteers.

Regarding the two articles you reference, I would be happy to take a look at them and give my opinion at some point: I will say that a cursory review of the articles does highlight some issues, not all of which are small, but also, being more than passingly familiar with the subject of human rights violations in the 20th and 21st centuries, I don't doubt that there are sufficient sources to establish the notability of those topics, as independent and expressly contemplated concepts discussed in a robust literature of WP:Reliable sources: in short, as far as WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:ONUS, and any other major content policy hurdle is concerned, those are two reasonable topics on two sets of reasonably well-researched historical phenomena. Now, I gather that your own objection is more to the specific content than anything, and indeed, my eventual response to you may be substantially more nuanced, but in the broadest sense, my advice is to manage your expectations, because under the existing framework, I don't see a realistic chance of these articles being deleted, whatever the procedural history behind them, or any present issues.

Concerning the fact that there are not an comparable articles for other belief systems, I think that argument is likely to get an automatic WP:OTHERSTUFF rejoinder from many editors. While I do think that's an insufficient argument to dismiss all criticism of this sort, still other editors will point out that if there aren't as many overview articles about atrocities committed by states of other sorts collectively, it's not the editorial corps' fault if sources are uneven in this respect, perhaps particularly in English. And to be fair, it's not as if en.Wikipedia does not have articles whatsoever on human rights abuses committed by 'Christian, fascist, and Muslim' regimes: it does in fact have a wealth of such articles, just not one which unifies content under one umbrella for each of those categories. I know it is exactly that disconformity you are pointing to, but the artefact is probably found to a large degree in the sources themselves, not just profound bias in editors here: there's just a bit of a trend in the anglophone sphere towards a monolithic (and sometimes just outright oversimplified) interpretation of communism. Anyway, I will take a look at the articles when time permits, but it won't be for a week or two at the earliest, I'm afraid: the time I can spare for the project in the next few days and weeks is going to be exceptionally slim, and I am already obligated to pay some effort towards two other community matters.

Likewise, I may be able to find time to close the other talk page discussion in the next few days, if no one gets to it before me and the close is straight-forward enough that I don't have to reach too fair to summarize consensus: closing two long, contentious RfC back-to-back on the same talk page might be perceived by some as a bit of a stretch to stamp my interpretation across live issues there. So I'd like to take a closer look at the wording of that RfC again before committing myself. At the same time, I recognize there is value in bringing these discussions to a close, so the longer that situation persists, the more comfortable I am stepping in to interpret consensus, particularly if the outcome isn't that controversial. Anyway, thank you again for stopping by: I'm sure we'll be talking at least a little again soon. In the meantime, happy editing! :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all, thank you so much for your reply. I was afraid that it was too long but I should have known by your diligence to actually read the whole discussion and perfectly summarize it in the closure that we are very similar on this. Your analytical analysis is accurate and I agree with, especially (2), so I really appreciate that. If you are interested in further critical observations, go ahead in reading this. Davide King (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

RfCs

Context must be clear. It is to be understood within the context of politics and controversial articles, which is inevitable most political-related articles are going to be that way. It also must be understood that this comes from my experience from the aforementioned Communist-related articles, where they seem to be taken for granted, sources are not scrutinized as would be done elsewhere, and it gives the impression of being the exception to which several of critical and important policies and guidelines seem to not apply. In light of this, my critical analysis may be overblown, i.e. things are not actually as bad everywhere else as I describe and those Communist-related articles are the exception, but I think it still has some interesting points that are worth pointing out, which is what I am going to do here:

1. We in the first place need to see things like RfCs not as 'voting.' This is relevant to the RfC you closed because that was the argument used to close the RfC just a few days after because there were allegedly more 'yay' votes. 'Votes' are to be weighted based on the strength of the arguments, which are to be backed in our policies and guidelines, and sources given, which need to be analyzed and scrutinized to make sure they are verified and there is no other serious policy violations like cherry picking (weight) or original research (synthesis), rather than being taken at face value.
2. The other criteria to be used to determine each comment's weight is whether the user had greatly contributed to either the article or discussions. This can be helpful but is not in be-all and end-all (an user may make many edits to the article or the talk page but they may be controversial or violate our policies and guidelines, or good sense, like striking a dead horse or proving a point, so they need to take at face or statistical value but analyzed and contextualized, like everything else). Again, it is relevant to this RfC you closed because many users seemed to feel like they were 'voting', where they put up their 'vote', and then they were nowhere to be seen in the discussions or contributing to the article. If there is a new RfC about whether more recent sources which have had time to analyze the protests do not consider it due as a cause for the infobox, these same users may well be going to come back, do their duty of 'voting', and be done with. Comments that just say 'per source' or 'per user' are not to be weighted much in the closure, other than being useful in determining how many users found them convicinging and the 'numbers' for local consensus which, however, is to be contextualized and weighted per the above points. If one does not provide any new source or argument, it should not be weighted much, especially if such 'numbers' are used to claim a consensus which is not backed by rational arguments themselves backed up by reliable sources and our policies and guidelines but by 'majority voting.'
3. Early comments are important and need to be contextualized, for users who may have voted early using argument A, that same argument could be considered dated or not accurate by later comments, yet many users were convinced by argument A before considering important problems highlighted by those who propose argument B. Again, this is relevant to our RfC for this point and also the previous point of 'per sources' argument taken for granted or at face value. Once such sources were provided (it was harder for me to prove why sources do not support the unqualified addition because it was a negative one, while it is easy to find some source that may support the addition but are not weighted or compared to most reliable sources) and they were taken at face value and I was the main one to scrutinized them. As a result, many comments after that were just 'per sources' or along those lines. Then came other users (Mathglot, Aquillion, and the like) to scrutinize given sources as I did but it was too late (Mathglot explicitly expressed their view that they felt like it was too late for their comment to change anything), so the other side had the 'numerical' advantage that could be used to claim consensus but I think we gave the stronger arguments for being at least more careful about what to add.

In short, you could have gone for 'no consensus' or 'rough consensus', as you did, and still be right. Of course, I imagine that if you had gone for 'no consensus', you would have attracted criticism by the other side for being 'biased' due to personally finding more convincing our arguments, but that is not really a good argument against you, and it assumes that there is some sort of absolute 'neutrality' or 'unbiasedness.' I think my critical analysis points out that you could have gone for 'no consensus', and I would have provided a compromise solution, like not adding 'authoritarianism' but adding a note, as I did anyway. But I understand if current policies and guidelines may not support my analysis, and why you went with the closure you chose.

(3 plus) Sometimes, like in this case, I feel like it is better to go for 'no consensus', even if there may be a 'rough' or 'weak' consensus, because it gives more weight to the arguments backed by sources and policies than their numbers, and it should incentivize compromise; of course, it could also backfire, users may feel 'betrayed', and either oppose compromises in light of this, or move on, thus losing a contributor, which is always a loss. Especially if the result is a weak consensus that is hard to overturn when you are trying to prove a negative (weight) but I have faith that in the end what sources actually say and support is going to be what the article will correctly follow. In the end, I think you made a courageous choice that would have been correct either way. Davide King (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

AfDs

Again, thank you so much for your appreciation and fair criticism. I agree with what you wrote, and all I can say is to express my hope that either someone else finds a more practical way to do that or something similar, or in the future there will be some form of mechanism that would make it more practical and thus possible. I think this may apply to the controversial Communist-related article I talked about. Davide King (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Controversial Communist-related articles

I would really appreciate and find helpful your analysis, opinion, and review. Actually, your cursory review is correct and is what I argue and support. The problem is that sources on the topic are either taken at face value or are actually misrepresented. Indeed, I myself took them for granted and did not take an interest in the articles until last year. In the early years, the main arguments were about original research, sources, and synthesis, boiling down to one side saying the articles did not violate any policies and the other side saying they did, or discussed the same topic and should be merged. I think the latter were correct but they were 'negative', in the sense that they advocated deletion. Again, I think that was a correct stance but I can understand why it did not gain widespread support because it seems to be much harder to gain consensus for sources not actually supporting the topic, not saying what they are claimed to say, etc. Now the main issue is the topic itself, on which we do not actually have consensus on, which is also why I think my proposal can apply; when there is no consensus on the main topic, the article should not exist. Of course, I do not take this in absolute terms but I think for such controversial articles like those ones, where their mere existence is negative because they mislead users to think, by their mere existence, there is consensus on them and among sources; indeed, as I stated, I was one of such misled users who took them at face value and did not properly analyze or scrutinized them.

Now we are actually proposing a rewriting or restructuring because there are sources that can be used but they need to be contextualized and correctly summarized. Of course, critics can say that this is yet another attempt at deletion, just a 'stealthy' one, but I believe there is a genuine good-faith attempt in fixing the issues (the issues mentioned since the beginning that in my view are still with us after all those years) and write a neutral article that actually reflects what sources say, which is much more nuanced that the current article implies. As an example, Valentino does not connect them, does not see a link with communism, and see the same motivations in both non-Communist and Communist states, while The Black Book of Communism only presented a number of chapters on single-country studies, with no cross-cultural comparison, or discussion of mass killings; historian Andrzej Paczkowski, who gave a mainly positive review, wrote that only Courtois made the comparison between communism and Nazism, and the other sections of the book "are, in effect, narrowly focused monographs, which do not pretend to offer overarching explanations", and stated that the book is not "about communism as an ideology or even about communism as a state-building phenomenon." Even Rummel, who was not an expert on communism and held fringe views like climate denial and colonialism and fascism as forms of 'socialism' rather than capitalism, did not limit himself to Communism, and his concept of 'democide' applies to any killing by governments or state actors. In addition, Valentino, Mann, and proponents of the concept only agree that mass killings could be applied to Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia, not all Communist states or even three Communist states out of dozens and dozens (Valentino, a proponent, explicitly says that most Communist states did not engage in mass killings) but just three specific periods of three vastly different Communist states, which is what a rewriting would limit its scope on.

While Wikipedia is not a reliable source, sources used in those two articles I am going to link certainly are: Genocide studies and Mass killing. One can see how little consensus there is among scholars and how the articles, as currently structured, fail them. The other side simply says that sources support the article as currently structured and that there is no serious issue; of course, it is more complicated than they would like to admit. Even among themselves, they disagree on the main topic. Some simply want it to be a list of events about Communist states, others mainly about a Communist death toll, and others essentially as it is. Some say the connection is that they were Communist states but this is not a clear connection scholars make (even Valentino does not really connect them and his analysis is within the context of mass killing in general) but if they win out and are consistent, they ought to support similar articles about capitalist, Christian, fascist, Muslism, and the like regimes because that is such a weak connection and is not the consensus of scholars; in mine and other users' views, all this is original research and synthesis but at least there would be some consistency and no double standards. Others say that scholars posit a clear link between communism and genocide and/mass killing but most scholars write within the historical context and do not really blame everything on communism as a whole.

If you are interested and have the time to do so (you can take all the time you need), here are some useful links that summarize the dispute and our arguments. They are mainly about Mass killings under communist regimes and are a critical analysis of such article because (1) as I said, the other side simply say that sources support the article as currently structured, that there is a topic (we agree on sources that warrant an article but disagree on the main topic and its interpretation according to sources), and the article is perfectly fine as it is, and (2) in the link themselves you can read the other side's response and their arguments.

In-depth analysis of sources by me (December 2020):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes/Archive_46#Analysis_of_main_topics_and_sources

Very short summarization of topics by me:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes&diff=1037849468&oldid=1037848627

Very short summarization of topics by The Four Deuces:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes&diff=1037929005&oldid=1037887817

Very short summarization of problems by me (recent):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=1040829049&oldid=1040812318
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThePlatypusofDoom&type=revision&diff=1040763339&oldid=1040703835

Very short summarization of terminology problems by The Four Deuces (recent):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes&diff=1039328674&oldid=1039222650

More in-depth analysis by Paul Siebert (most recent):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=1040781313&oldid=1040780879
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=1040812318&oldid=1040782069

Proposed leads

• by me (here) — it is mainly a work in progress and is not definitive but it is just a good-working possible example
• by Paul Siebert (here) – ditto

A large number of mass mortality events occurred under Communist rule. They occurred as a result of (... various explanations are provided ...), the scale of each separate event was (... figures are provided ...). Some authors (author's list is provided) call that "mass killing", "democide" etc, whereas others describe them otherwise (description is presented). Some authors (author's list is presented) link those events together under a category "Communist mass killings", "Global communist death toll" etc, whereas others (a long list follows) see no direct linkage between them, or group them with other mass killing/mass mortality events (e.g. Cambodia, Indonesia, and China are grouped in a category "Genocides in East Asia, which has little in common with the events in the USSR).

P.S. A thing to be considered is that both are essentially coatrack, content POV fork articles of Communism, Crimes against humanity, Genocide, and Mass killing; the latter three do not really support most of what is written in those articles and the fact they do not really discuss them, other than passing mentions, assuming good faith that users did not find them due, likely support the point. This is why the article should have been created only after there is a section at Mass killing that discusses it, and warrants a main article to discuss it more at length. Communism takes a more accurate and neutral approach in summarizing what scholars actually say, as you can see here.

Davide King (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources

Another, relevant issue is that of primary sources. See TFD's good summarization (here and here) that support my primary sources tagging. As I wrote here:

As our policy says: "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." Changes this to "A book by Rummel about events in Communist states might be a secondary source about the events themselves, but where it includes details of the author's own interpretation of the events, it would be a primary source about those interpretations." It is the same thing. Incidentally, for Rummel we correctly cite him to Jacobs and Totten, which is why it was not tagged, so why is not the same done for all the others? Perhaps because they are undue, as they cannot be found in secondary sources. ... But we are citing their own works to do that, which are primary sources in this case, and could be original research because it is us, not experts who reviewed their work, doing that. As I said, we do that for Rummel; there is simply not a good reason to not do the same for others, unless, of course, one is trying to push a POV and give undue weight to them.

Is The Four Deuces' and mine reading of the policy correct? That is the only way to avoid original research and synthesis. This is an example of using secondary sources for what authors actually said; it is also a tertiary source, which can avoid issues of undue weight. Davide King (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion

... it's not as if en.Wikipedia does not have articles whatsoever on human rights abuses committed by 'Christian, fascist, and Muslim' regimes: it does in fact have a wealth of such articles, just not one which unifies content under one umbrella for each of those categories. I know it is exactly that disconformity you are pointing to, but the artefact is probably found to a large degree in the sources themselves, not just profound bias in editors here: there's just a bit of a trend in the anglophone sphere towards a monolithic (and sometimes just outright oversimplified) interpretation of communism.

This is an accurate and fair summary. The problem is that only for Communism the content is unified (double standard) and it is still original research and synthesis exactly because (1) sources do not actually unify them, not even The Black Book of Communism, (2) main articles about each event are generally not described as such, and indeed (3) Harff's global database of mass killings, which is the most frequently used by genocide scholars, does not include or describe most of the events as such. As you noted, this is a problem I have identified in most Communist-related articles for the reasons you outlined (I plan to write about this and other Wikipedian views I discussed here on my user page because I hope they can be interesting or considered as you very kindly and fairly did here).

My proposed solution is to have a single article about it; one such title could be Victims of Communism, which is fine by me because (1) there is a literature about it (Ghodsee 2014, Neumayer 2017, Neumayer 2020, and Dujisin 2020, among others), (2) it is descriptive and summarizing of those who propose it (they were victims of Communism), and (3) avoids the original research and synthesis on terminology (see here, Weiss-Wendt 2008, and Verdeja 2012 for the minority status of genocide studies, and Valentino et al. being a minority within a minority rather than a majority or scholarly consensus). Such an article would fix most of the issues and be neutral. Now that I think about it a bit more, the monolithic trend you talked about is more on editors who seem to take those academics views' in popular presses, where they express more monolithic, simplistic, and anti-communist responses, rather than in academic presses, where even the most anti-communist academic take a fairly nuanced view. Indeed, this is not unusual at all for academics to do but we should use books published by the academic press, which does not hold the same weight as a book written by the same author but published by the popular press.

In short, the sources do not unify the content or even make a connection about Communist states or communism, so it is original research and synthesis, which is something serious, and I do not think it can be justified because (1) those scholars like Valentino, among others, who are heavily relied on to support the article do not actually make the connection, and support what I, Siebert, and others propose, and (2) they take a much more nuanced view that is misrepresented by editors, which goes back to the primary sources issue I talked you about (editors rely on their own primary works to support their views, while I, Siebert, and others rely on secondary sources and reviews, such as Straus 2007, that show they are misrepresented and take more nuanced views that they are assumed to have taken). As you noted, this may not be enough for an outright deletion but it is more than enough for a review, restructuring, and rewriting, which is what I and others advocate for. One possibility, apart from a RfC about the main topic, is an in-depth analysis of sources to see who's reading and interpretation of the topic (which reflects the article's structure, which is the main issue) is correct to either end the diatribe once for all (if the other's side reading is considered 'correct'), or start the rewriting and restructuring process if our side's reading is favored and a rewrite has the green light. Any other possible solution is also welcome.

Finally, thank you for considering the possibility of also closing the other RfC, and again feel free to take all the time you need to reply back and further analyze the two articles (I will take a look at the articles when time permits, but it won't be for a week or two at the earliest, take all the time you need, the wait will be worth it, and honestly I have nothing to lose and it is not something that can be solved by us in little time). I really hope this is not the last time I hear from you. :)

Davide King (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Davide, forgive me: I didn't to be so rude so as to completely ignore your posts. I did read their contents in full the day you sent them and opened the reply box and began a (very basic) summary response to your concerns, but I kept letting it languish: in truth it will be a little bit before I can even give a broadstrokes response, given the scope of topics involved, but I promise it is on the to-do list. :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

• News and notes: Enough time left to vote! IP ban

• In the media: Vive la différence!

• Wikimedians of the year: Seven Wikimedians of the year

• Gallery: Our community in 20 graphs

• News from Wiki Education: Changing the face of Wikipedia

• Recent research: IP editors, inclusiveness and empathy, cyclones, and world heritage

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Days of the Year Interview

• Traffic report: Olympics, movies, and Afghanistan

• Community view: Making Olympic history on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

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

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

• Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
• A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
• A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
• A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

• The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Snow Rise,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy response

Hi Crossroads, I just wanted to let you know that I received your email. Just as a notice (and you've reminded me that I've been meaning to put this near the top of my talk page) I only really have email enabled for account security purposes--and theoretically, I guess, if I had to email sensitive information to arbcom or T&S, though thankfully I've never needed to do so in my capacity as a community member. But for all other purposes, my preference has always been to keep any discussion I have with regard to the project or the community on the site itself. I don't by any means mind when others reach out to me there, however, so long as they understand that any response (if warranted by the circumstances) would be here on the project. With that in mind, and so as not to disclose something you might have wanted to tell me in confidence, I will keep my response here vague, unless and until you tell me you don't mind continuing the discussion here. That said, I do want to note that I appreciate the update on that situation and have an eye on it. My project time is still extrememly limited right now, but I do understand your concerns and sense of urgency. I know, I know: how's that for noncommital waffling? :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you can reply here if you like. I don't mean to push you that much since the suspected sock isn't that active. And they are continuing to behave rudely, so that just works against them. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

• News and notes: New CEO, new board members, China bans

• In the media: The future of Wikipedia

• Opinion: Wikimedians of Mainland China were warned

• Op-Ed: I've been desysopped

• Disinformation report: Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages

• Discussion report: Editors discuss Wikipedia's vetting process for administrators

• Recent research: Wikipedia images for machine learning; Experiment justifies Wikipedia's high search rankings

• Community view: Is writing Wikipedia like making a quilt?

• Traffic report: Kanye, Emma Raducanu and 9/11

• News from Diff: Welcome to the first grantees of the Knowledge Equity Fund

• WikiProject report: The Random and the Beautiful

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Re:For the benefit of respondents to the above three RfCs (on Yoruba talk page)

Hello Snow Rise thanks for your effort in calling for brief summaries of the 3 RFCs on Yoruba talk page.
As you can see, both Oluwatalisman and another user Oramfe have gone ahead to keep introducing confusing and irrelevant issues in the summaries thereby defeating the purpose for the call you made. Please I would like you to advice on the next step because with the way things are on those summaries, i don't know if commenters will find it any easier than before the summaries were made. Thanks Ppdallo (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Statements need diffs, refs -Oluwatalisman (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

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

Administrator changes

Blablubbs

Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Mkdw

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
• Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

• DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

• A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
• Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
• The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

• Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
• The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere

   The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.

2. Level of scrutiny

   Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.

3. Standards needed to pass keep rising

   It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.

4. Too few candidates

   There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.

5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

6. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
   Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
7. Admin permissions and unbundling
   There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
8. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
   Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

---

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

• From the editor: Different stories, same place

• News and notes: The sockpuppet who ran for adminship and almost succeeded

• In the media: China bans, and is there intelligent life on this planet?

• Opinion: A photo on Wikipedia can ruin your life

• Discussion report: Editors brainstorm and propose changes to the Requests for adminship process

• Recent research: Welcome messages fail to improve newbie retention

• Community view: Reflections on the Chinese Wikipedia

• Traffic report: James Bond and the Giant Squid Game

• Technology report: Wikimedia Toolhub, winners of the Coolest Tool Award, and more

• Serendipity: How Wikipedia helped create a Serbian stamp

• Book review: Wikipedia and the Representation of Reality

• WikiProject report: Redirection

• Humour: A very Wiki crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

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

Administrator changes

Clpo13

Brian0918 • JDoorjam • Karanacs • MrDarcy • Mindspillage

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Dreamy Jazz • Ferret • GeneralNotability • Girth Summit • RoySmith

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz • LuK3

Guideline and policy news

• Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

ANI 15 November 2021

I wanted to respond to your comments at ANI regarding Lightburst as the discussion was closed before I had a chance to respond to any of the comments, having been occupied for most of the day after posting my original complaint. You said "This matter should have been taken to the article talk page". As I made clear in my complaint I did raise this on the article Talk Page: [[1]] Lightburst never responded there. As I said in my complaint I then reverted Lightburst's changes, Lightburst did not engage on the Talk page and just reverted my changes again saying I was edit-warring. I stopped editing the page at that point, but other Users made similar changes to mine with the result that Lightburst's changes were largely undone. Then today there has been a similar pattern on William E. Hill, where Lightburst undid changes I made reinstating irrelevant information: [2], when I reverted this: [3] it was immediately undone by Lightburst: [4] who called me disruptive. I posted on the Talk Page: [5] and Lightburst of course hasn't responded. Also there's the edit-warring with me and Indy Beetle on Theodore Johnson (Tuskegee Airman) today. Also there's Lightburst continuing to change the date of the Congressional Gold Medal on William Lee Hill and elsewhere (something I raised in the ANI also): [6] again I posted on the Talk Page: [7] and received no response. This is beyond a content dispute, this is intractable behavior as I said at the ANI. What do you suggest should be done? Mztourist (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough regarding the talk page, but nevertheless, you did participate in multiple rounds of edit warring with LightBurst. Without dismissing your concerns about their conduct off-handedly at this point, I can tell you this much for sure: you committed a procedural blunder in how you approached the whole situation. You engaged in the edit war and lowered your own ability to effectively appeal for a sanction or warning at AN3, and you (at a minimum) jumped the gun on an ANI filing asking for a TBAN for behaviour which (as the more or less uniform consensus of all seven respondents makes clear) doesn't nearly meet that threshold at this point. I agree that there are clearly issues with edit warring (though again, not unilaterally) and apparently with engagement, but I must tell you that report on those merits felt like an effort to strongarm your rhetorical opposition out of the area, on tea that was just too weak.

As to what I suggest moving foreward, I think your best approach is to get a strong consensus for your changes on the talk page. If you cannot put together a sizable consensus with those editors already engaged, RfC the issue on each article as necessary. If initial attendance from FRS respondents is low, post notices of the discussions at WP:MILHIST and other WikiProjects with memberships that might be interested in the issue. Resist the temptation to try to create one boilerplate rules in discussions on the WikiProject talk pages, since this is disallowed under WP:Advice pages. Instead, form a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for each issue on each article, if necessary, but getting (if you have the better argument and present it well) increasing buy in for your perspective. Availing yourself of each of these overlapping community engagement processes, you should soon have feedback either validating your position or perhaps even finding alternative, middle-ground, hybrid or alternative/third-way solutions. Once you have consensus, implement the changes and if LightBurst reverts at that point, report them to AN3 or to an admin you trust to be proactive {but who you also trust not to respond without favourtism or bias). If LightBurst continues to edit war against established consensus (by which I mean significantly more than a 2:1 !vote) on multiple articles, consider taking them to ANI at that point.

Above all, do not act rashly and thereby short-circuit your ability to appeal to processes which you might otherwise have in your corner, so long as you avoid looking like you are getting in the mud with the edit warring and/or adopting a battleground posture. That would be my blueprint for next steps. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. All that would be wonderful if I was dealing with someone who actually followed WP:BRD and showed a basic level of competence in their edits. I find this a major failing of WP that I get criticized because I didn't perfectly follow every procedural step while an intractable disrupter carries on what they're doing (with a slap on the wrist at worst). Fortunately in this case LB's edits have attracted the involvement of other Users, they have a COI problem and so they seem to have taken time out from WP. Mztourist (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

"Thanks for your response."

Of course. You feel the community response to the situation was not ideal and wish to be heard: I can understand that and am happy to be a sounding board. That said:

"All that would be wonderful if . . . "

Well no, not "if", because the procedures I describe above (which are really nothing less than the typical and expected dispute resolution mechanisms on this project) are specifically instructive on how you deal with this situation--even (or rather particularly) if you are certain that you are dealing with a problem editor. You asked me how you deal with the situation, and I answered that question in a fashion which would be just as applicable whether you were right (or wrong) about every assertion you make. Because if you are in fact in the right (whatever that might mean here), you threw away every advantage you had by participating in the edit warring and then immediately coming out swinging for the fences at ANI.

"I find this a major failing of WP that I get criticized because I didn't perfectly follow every procedural step while an intractable disrupter carries on what they're doing (with a slap on the wrist at worst)."

Yeah, except there is pretty firm consensus (indeed, unanimous despite significant engagement before the thread was quickly WP:SNOW closed in essence) that your report did not support the claims of 'intractable disruption' for that editor, in that area. It's not as if the resistance you were facing in that discussion can be dismissed as just hand-wringing that you didn't meet some technicalities; all seven of us who provided you with feedback seemed to be in basic agreement that 1) the issue was essentially a content dispute at this juncture, 2) that to the extent there was disruption, it was not an altogether one-way street, and 3) the proposed solution was not appropriate to the circumstances by even the longest of shots. I hate to give offense if I can avoid it, my friend, but if I am blunt, you are falling into WP:IDHT territory on all of these points, and it's only going to handicap your efforts further if you can't accept that your current strategy is a non-starter.

Try the standard approach: it works at a far more favourable rate. If you are the one acting more in good faith, and in greater fidelity with policy and the sources, you should come out on top. Is it laborious? Tedious at times? Occasionally even outright frustrating? Yes, yes, and yes. But I don't know what to tell you: that's the name of the game sometimes. But surely after your significant tenure here, this doesn't come as news to you. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It was unfortunate that after raising the complaint I had to go and do some things IRL and by the time I returned the conversation had been closed without me having the opportunity to respond to the comments by LB's friends, many of which were completely incorrect. I would have preferred that the thread had not been closed so that I could have had the opportunity to respond to each individually. Fortunately LB seems to have disappeared, hopefully for a long time. You are of course correct about the standard approach, however in my experience of intractable editors it tends to be a long and frustrating process where there to much AGF is given to obviously disruptive editors. Mztourist (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

• In the media: Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography

• WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2021

• Deletion report: What we lost, what we gained

• From a Wikipedia reader: What's Matt Amodio?

• Arbitration report: ArbCom in 2021

• Discussion report: On the brink of change – RFA reforms appear imminent

• Technology report: What does it take to upload a file?

• WikiProject report: Interview with contributors to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

• Serendipity: "Did You Know ..." featured a photo of the wrong female WWII pilot

• News from Diff: Content translation tool helps create one million Wikipedia articles

• Traffic report: Reporting ticket sales on the edge of the Wiki, if Eternals should fail

• Recent research: Vandalizing Wikipedia as rational behavior

• Humour: A very new very Wiki crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

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

Administrator changes

A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

• Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
• The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

• From the editor: Here is the news

• News and notes: Jimbo's NFT, new arbs, fixing RfA, and financial statements

• Serendipity: Born three months before her brother?

• In the media: The past is not even past

• Recent research: STEM articles judged unsuitable for undergraduates below the first paragraph

• Arbitration report: A new crew for '22

• By the numbers: Four billion words and a few numbers

• Deletion report: We laughed, we cried, we closed as "no consensus"

• Gallery: Wikicommons presents: 2021

• Traffic report: Spider-Man, football and the departed

• Crossword: Another Wiki crossword for one and all

• Humour: Buying Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

---

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)