User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/5

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

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
  • Botswana The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
  • England Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, Denmark MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hello captain, when doing new page reviewing, if you nominate an article for deletion, is the page automatically marked as “reviewed”. Secondly, during AFC draft reviewing, I see the option to “review” is present, if I may ask what does this mean? Does this mean a “draft” article can be marked as reviewed? I’m sorry if this questions may sound inane but since I’m new in operating this software I’d rather ask questions than do something I’m unsure of. Celestina007 (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, in AfC marking it under review just "claims" it so some other reviewer doesn't step in when you're working on it. You probably won't use it very much. And yes when you nominate a page for deletion at AfD using the toolbar it will automatically mark it reviewed. That is standard practice. But you should really be using Twinkle - the toolbar has some bugs with deletion which can be avoided by using Twinkle. I always welcome questions so feel free to ask them anytime. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
A follow up question would be this, if you tag an article with any CSD related tags should you still mark the page as reviewed? Or does placing a CSD tag on article also auto-mark the page as reviewed? Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Celestina007, CSD tagged articles should not be marked reviewed. Because if the tag is declined for any reason the page still needs to be patrolled. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Aye Aye Captain, you’ve been helpful. Celestina007 (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI close

Thank you for closing the ANI thread. I just have one follow up question - I would have thought that the conduct the editor who rage-quit would have been reviewable and eligible for a short term block. I don't think they're coming back, but I'm concerned of short term disruption if they do. Their conduct was clearly unacceptable, and they thought they would get blocked. I'm mostly asking because I'm still slightly frustrated my ask for a review was disrupted the way it was. What would have been a better way to handle this? SportingFlyer T·C 04:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, I don't know that there was a better way you could have handled it. I mean maybe not asking if that other editor is alright but overall I think some ANI threads just go off the rails. As for that edit, I think you're right that had the editor stuck around some sysop would have blocked for it. There is no question in my mind the content made them eligible for a block. Speaking for myself, by the time I reviewed it, it felt stale and so I wouldn't have blocked for it even if they stuck around (assuming that they had not made future inappropriate edits). But noting the edit should a future pattern emerge was important and so I left the warning on their talk page. Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, I'm more satisfied now. (My ask if they were okay was genuine but probably wasn't the best for keeping things on topic.) SportingFlyer T·C 05:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for WP:REVDEL

@Barkeep49: Since you have shown an interest in my edits at Kamala Harris, please consider WP:REVDEL of these two serious WP:BLP violations by SPA IP user 2601:647:4F00:7D:B415:EE6C:D5C6:628D that I undid today.

Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa,  Done. I am indeed watching edits surring Harris given the recent Intercept article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Credible Claim Of Significance / Importance

Captain I got a theoretical question to ask, Hypothetically speaking I run into an article that states “Mr ABC was the 42nd President of XYZ country” without any single source at all added to the article, could an A7 apply? Or am I mandated to do a WP:BEFORE to confirm this ? Even if I confirm this to be true what do I do next? Celestina007 (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Celestina007, that's definitely a claim of significance. Whether it's credible is another matter - if the article says 'Girth Summit was the 42nd president of the USA', that's not credible - you know for a fact it's not true. If it's a country that you're not sure about though, then yes, best to check - it ought to be fairly straightforward for an assertion of that nature, even for fairly small countries. If you find a supporting source, add it to the article; if you come to the conclusion that the assertion isn't true, because there are no sources at all to support the statement, it seems more likely to be a G3 hoax than an A7. GirthSummit (blether) 09:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@Girth Summit, I often come across such bold claims & often I am unsure of what course of action to take next. Thanks for the clarification. Celestina007 (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: NPP School

I noticed above that you offered to continue NPP school for a user. While I'm happy to take a wait (I have discovered a new found love in rving copyvios), I wanted to know if it would be less of a hassle and easier for you for me to leave the NPP school while you help the user during, or so I have gathered, your partial Wikibreak. I am completely fine with continuing but want to make sure it isn't a hassle for you to do so. I would like to get your opinion on the matter 😀. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Berrely, apologies. I did indeed take a break but truth be told our work had dropped off my radar before then. I take it you would like to continue? I am a bit behind in my NPP School work at the moment with two other students but will be happy to resume with you as well if you want. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Sure! If it isn't a hassle 😁 — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 07:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfair rejection of my submission Draft:Kapil Sankhla

Hi, seeking your help to understand why my draft, submitted just a couple of hours ago under AfC got rejected citing the reason - the cases do not seem important enough to justify an article. If you go through the content and the independent references, all cases that I have mentioned have made headlines in all the noteworthy tabloids at the time and were high-profile in the country, which itself proves that they were well-known. Had they not been as well-known, would I have found as many independent references? One of the cases - Gopal Goyal Kanda - is also discussed on a Wikipedia page of the same name, although they have discussed the facts and not mentioned the lawyer, something that I intended to add using my references. I feel it is unjustified, but please let me know what you can make of the matter. Thanks in advance, regards, Tycheana (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Tycheana, Please stop going to to multiple administrators and asking this question. I see you've gone to at least DGG, DESiegel, and Captain Eek. DGG actually reviewed your article so he is the right person to be talking to not any of the rest of us. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, yes I did write to multiple admins, including the reviewer and the AfC help desk, because I am admittedly a bit disconcerted by the verdict. This time I thoroughly vetted the sources and checked that they are independent and noteworthy enough to be listed on Wikipedia, and that the content also has references on other Wiki pages, so I am at a loss as to how to interpret this verdict. Thanks for the pointer anyway, best regards & stay safe, Tycheana (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Tycheana, I can understand feeling discouraged. But an attempt to work with DGG, who I know will help editors is the right first step. If you don't think you're getting the kind of help you need the Teahouse is the right next step. Going to individual sysops/reviewers is somewhat disruptive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, in that case - sincere apologies. I did write to the AfC help desk as also the reviewer, and am awaiting their replies. Meanwhile should I put it up on the Teahouse too? Sorry once again, best regards, Tycheana (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Tycheana, wait for the reply from DGG. That's your first and, given who DGG is and how he works, best place. If you don't hear from him in a couple of days then do the teahouse. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, will do as you have suggested. Many thanks for the guidance, Tycheana (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Tycheana Another editor apparently removed your post on the AfC help desk by accident -- I have restored it. I did take a quick look at your draft, and it seems to me that the draft said more about the cases and little about the lawyer, regardless of the importance of the cases. But I would lso advise waiting for DGG, who is a quite experienced and generally helpful editor. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi DESiegel, duly noted - I created the draft on the presumption that the credibility of any lawyer would be through his cases wherein he is mentioned in all news reports concerning these. That being said I will seek guidance from the reviewer as suggested and understand where I have gone awry. Many thanks & best regards, Tycheana (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
BK, thanks for the good words. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

These articles

This this editor has been creating poorly written article for a long time now, they are giving reviewers a hard time to fix their mess. I think a topic ban may be suitable, or what do you think? Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Megan, can you point to me where they've given reviewers a hard time? At least from their user talk I don't see any real attempt to work with this user, just a lot of automated messages. A genuine attempt at outreach feels needed but it's possible that's happened somewhere other than their user talk. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, here, [1], just to mention a few of the warning and personal messages on their talk page. Most of the articles have been moved to draft space but they keep bringing them back to mainspace without improvements. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I looked at their contributions. The editor has never interacted with any other editors; they just churn out (really messy) articles. Their only contributions on any Talk page were to add content as if it was the article page. There's no indication they've ever even seen the many messages on their Talk page. It might be necessary to block just long enough to get their attention and get them talking. Schazjmd (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd & Megan I am not opposed to a block to get them to start talking - I had looked at their contribs too. However, I still think one thoughtful non-automated attempt at outreach and offer of help is necessary first. If they continue to create articles after that I have no issues levying such a block. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Well on further review there was enough there to indef until communication starts and so I have blocked them. ​​Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

2600:6C58:6580:21:8162:1BAE:B3AD:C70D

Could you please block user:2600:6C58:6580:21:8162:1BAE:B3AD:C70D asap. CLCStudent (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

CLCStudent,  Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! CLCStudent (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Which Indian tabloids are regarded as noteworthy?

Hi, I wanted to seek your opinion on the Indian tabloids that are regarded as noteworthy enough to be used as sources on Wikipedia. When it comes to news reports on the current events of the day, can India Today, Business Standard, Economic Times and Financial Express be regarded as reliable and reputed sources? This is not about interviews or editorials, just news reports. Also Press Trust of India - can it be treated as a reliable source? Thanks in advance, Tycheana (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Here's what I was told: Reliable Indian sources (copied from an AfD post for Bibhusita Das): In case you are still interested: the two big news RS in India are 'The Times of India' (TOI) (except for entertainment coverage, which is for-pay spam per WBG) and The Hindu. After that you have the New Indian Express, The Economic Times, The Telegraph and the Hindustan Times. There are some decent regionals such as the Deccan Chronicle etc. I'd put Firstpost and The Business Standard on the list too, but some may not agree. —valereee (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker), I've been indexing RSN discussions about sources, including Indian ones, for a bit now. Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide#India has the most up to date assessment of enWiki's consensus on these sources, with citations to the actual discussions as well. signed, Rosguill talk 18:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Tycheana: let me just endorse Rosguill's page as a good place to turn for understandings of what are and are not RS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:, thanks - duly noted. Why I wanted to ask is that I have used precisely these sources - TOI, The Hindu, The Business Standard and Economic Times - and for some reason reviewer DGG is disregarding them as being unreliable, despite these being news reports and not interviews, editorials, blogs and so on. Can I use Rosguill's page as a reference to justify the validity of my sources to him? Many thanks, regards, Tycheana (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Tycheana, I'm going to quote from the "How to use and improve this page section" While the discussions cited in this page may be useful resources when arguing about a given source's reliability, a source's inclusion in any given category on this page should not be used as an argument in any protracted discussion over a source's reliability. Note as well that coverage needs to be significant. Assuming that this is a dispute over Draft:Kapil Sankhla, the primary issue with the few sources that I randomly looked through on that page is that they do not have significant coverage of the subject, not that the sources themselves were necessarily unreliable. So the problem isn't that The Hindu is unreliable, it's that the article you cite only briefly mentions the subject without saying anything significant about him. signed, Rosguill talk 19:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

darnit...

...they closed that discussion while I was on the road. :) Do you mind if I continue our discussion? You wrote: So your answer is that the landlord has little obligation to shrug off grumblers. I disagree. I also disagree that the housemates have no obligation in pushing back against rude grumblers. In a professional context the professional has some obligation to handle rude behavior. And that handling could be ignoring it in favor of the many comments which were not rude and asked questions or suggested reasonable things. Absolutely not. The landlord absolutely has an obligation to not just shrug off but to listen to grumblers, try to understand their side of things, and try to adjust. The landlord's reps have the same obligation as long as no one is generally treating them as if they're there voluntarily and should just put up with rudeness like the rest of us volunteers do. And absolutely we need to tell our housemates to stop behaving badly. And sorry about the misping, ugh, I tried to use the damn reply link, it broke, and I had to copy-paste, and I was on the way out the door for a daylong drive. I do know that happens to you. —valereee (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

NPP school admission request

Hi Barkeep49, hope that you are fine. I'm here to request you to accept me as your pupil in NPP training. I'm 3 months old user and has made over 3000 edits. Ping me if you agree. Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 06:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Empire AS, unfortunately I don't have capacity for another student at the moment. Sorry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you suggest me another trainer? Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 16:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Empire AS, I have worked with all the trainers and they're all good people from whom you can learn a bunch. So I would look at their user pages see who gives you a good feel and approach them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Empire AS Talk! 15:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Kevin Andrew Tan Review

Hello Barkeep49! Can I ask for your assistance with this article Draft: Kevin Andrew Tan? Can we make the review process faster in the AfC? It's quite frustrating that this article is pending for a month already. I believe this article has been disclosed already and has complied with Wikipedia's policy regarding the COI issue. I don't know why it takes so long. It would mean a lot if you would help revise the article for further improvements, if there's any and finally, moving it to the mainspace. Thank you so much. 152.32.111.24 (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't generally review things a second time. As the notice says it can take 7 weeks or more for a review to be completed. The extensive sockpuppetry is likely also a factor in slowing the review of the article. So unfortunately there isn't much you can do than wait. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Orson Scott Card/GA1

Barkeep49, just a friendly reminder that you opened this review back on June 17 and have yet to begin it, in case it slipped off your radar. Hope all is well. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ecclesia Athletic Association

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ecclesia Athletic Association you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The idiocy -- The idiocy (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Literary Barnstar
For you efforts improving Caldecott Medal to (soon to be) WP:FL status, and your many contributions to WP:CHILDLIT over the years. Keep it up! Sro23 (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

EBCDIC code pages

I noticed a number of EBCDIC code pages have recently been listed as having been slated for "transwikify and deletion". What does transwikify mean? I suppose there must have been some sort of group AfD...I never noticed any flag about AfD, despite having many of the pages on my watchlist. Could you point me to where the deletion discussion took place? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It was indeed a grouped discussion, Jacona. You can find the discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875 (it's also linked on all the talk pages). Transwikify means to move the content, including revision history, to another project. Let me know if you have any further questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! What project would it be moved to?Jacona (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Jacona, the project mentioned was Wikisource however early discussion there indicates it might end up being Wikibooks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Nice closure on this one if I may say so. If this reaches the point where nobody has moved them and deletion is imminent then please give us a ping and I'll try to pick up the Transwiki. I don't want to get involved unless I have to as I have a blank mind on this and starting from zero and probably ought to be doing something else. As a last resort I'll pick it up. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

EBCDIC deletion decision

I am having trouble understanding how 5 Keeps, 3 Delete and 3 Transwiki would result with a delete or transwiki decision. When looking at the votes I would see a no-consensus decision. There is no difference between the EBCDIC code pages and any of the other character encoding lists. I guess we can put it up on deletion review and ask for an overturn to no-consensus. Even some Transwiki administrators are asking why this is up for deletion. DavidDelaune (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

DavidDelaune, because it's not a vote and the keeps were, on the whole, weighted less because they offered fewer policy/guideline supported reasons for their position. You referenced an essay which can, at times have value (WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an essay which can have value for instance) but as it has not been accepted by the community got less weight (not no weight, just less weight). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Could you clarify something for me? Are you saying that my vote counts less? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDelaune (talk • contribs) 12:50, July 14, 2020 (UTC)
@DavidDelaune: Participation at AfD is not a vote. It is a discussion. You can read more about that idea here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
DavidDelaune, your vote doesn't count at all, it's not a ballot, even though people vote. In the end, it's someone's judgment call. From my point of view, I feel like it was a top secret AfD. Somehow, in spite of having many of the articles on my watchlist, I never saw a deletion discussion. All kinds of silly entertainers and athletes, schools and malls get articles, but the base layer of the computer age gets trashed.Jacona (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Your vote counts. The keeps failed to show that the articles were notable; a transwiki vote was in effect, an alternative to a delete vote; the nominator's vote was a seventh transwiki/delete vote. Even if I had voted keep (which I originally did, but the notability concern caused me to be not so sure), there would have been 5 keep votes and 7 transwiki/delete votes, so the result would have still been transwiki or delete. Alexlatham96 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Bearcat "asked"

I don't argue with "opposes", but I felt the need to explain. I wanted to write "admonished" but thought it too strong. And of course it's what's already been stated by the community. It expresses (what I think is) the rough consensus and codifies it in a proposal. Sorry, just overcome by OCD. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, if bearcat won't acknowledge the feedback then I think admonish is closer to where we need to end than asked. I still hope we don't get there but also understand the desire to move that discussion towards closure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the EBCDIC transwiki

Hi Barkeep49, performing the transwiki of all those pages yourself is above and beyond for a closing admin. Thank you for doing this. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Mark viking, well in fairness JackPotte did the import. I also owe a big thanks to Xover who helped make things happen when I first posted about this at Wikisource. Being able to implement closes is the expectation at AfD and so while this was a complicated one when I decided to close it I felt responsible for making sure it happened. Thanks for taking the time to write this, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually QuiteUnusual did the import before me. JackPotte (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Since this thread gives me an opening… Thanks for thinking of the smaller sisters and popping `round to talk to us. I'm an enwp expat over on enWS so I know the "noise and fury" over here makes it hard to remember that we exist, much less find the time to come talk to us. Wikisource wasn't the right transwiki target this time, but we still appreciate the effort. Good job, and always feel free to ping me if you need someone with an enWS hat on for whatever reason. --Xover (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49

Hope you are fine, You are humbly requested to please look at my contributions and logs for Newpage patroller rights on a trial basis(either for one week or two) as there is a huge backlog especially in WikiProject Bangladesh and Pakistan, hope you will consider me as a nurturing editor to reduce the backlog, as I may be fluent in Bengali, Hindi, Marathi and Urdu, I may help to reduce the backlog, looking forward for your positive reply, lots of loveMajun e Baqi (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Majun e Baqi, thanks for your interest. People asking for this user right are best served by asking for it at WP:PERM/NPR. An administrator (perhaps me) will respond within a few days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

will you kindly provide me certain prediction, as it is better to be declined on talk page rather to be declined on that particular page, It seems humiliating, kindly give the rough idea, whether I will get it or not, looking forward for your positive reply, lots of loveMajun e Baqi (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Kindly, inform me when you will finish analysing the contributions and logsMajun e Baqi (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Majun e Baqi, so what I look at when doing a review for permissions is what record do they have at AfD? What record do they have at AfC? What do their speedy deletions look like? What kinds of conversations have they had on their talk page? What kind of content have they produced (what do articles they've created look like? do they have ga/fa/dyk?)? A particularly strong content creator can have little or no experience in AfD/CSD for me but for average editors I'm looking for well rounded experience. For all editors I'm looking for signs that they will communicate positively with other editors. I also look for signs that they have read, really read, WP:NPP. I hope that lets you do a self-assessment so you can decide whether you think its a good fit for you right now or not. If not, you might consider seeing if anyone has availability at WP:NPPS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks, for making me aware of Afds and cfds criteria criterias except Afc I have various logs on cfds, Afds and draftification and a communication records on various Good Article reviews on their respective pages, so still I am confirming from you about the grant of rights, kindly reply in a yes/No mode, still I am asking the rights on trial basis either for one week or two weeks, lots of love Majun e Baqi (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Majun e Baqi, (talk page watcher) here: the requirements for new page reviewers include have been registered users of the English Wikipedia for at least 90 days, and have made at least 500 not-deleted edits to mainspace. You have been registered less than a month, so you will want to gain more experience before requesting the permission at WP:PERM. Schazjmd (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Majun - I understand the desire for feedback. It takes me, on average, 15-20 minutes to examine a candidate for NPR. That's why I gave you some ideas of what I look at. One big thing you could do, however, is read WP:NPP because that will give you some answers and ideas about what it takes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Mind.Capital

Thank you for inserting the comment to reviewers. The present version of the draft appeared to be essentially the same as the article that you deleted, so that the present version of the draft should not even be considered for acceptance. I'm satisfied and will leave the draft alone. Maybe it will go away in January. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, it is basically (or completely I didn't look carefully) the same. There might be an encyclopedic version of that topic but I am skeptical that the current editor will be able to produce it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Barkeep49 - Yes. It is more cryptocurrency crud, and the author appears to be another cryptocurrency pusher. Mostly cryptocurrency crud is only notable if a major newspaper of record reports on litigation or prosecution, and the decision on notability needs to be made by a neutral editor and then maybe the community. As far as I am concerned, cryptocurrency is mostly just another form of gambling. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, well it's certainly gambling in the way that currency speculation (and to some extent stock picking) is. What makes it nefarious to me, in a Wikipedia context, is the way that they can use our credibility to inflate the value of the cryptocurrency for profit. It's why I'm glad we have DSGS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Barkeekp49 - Yes. The difference is that with stocks and currencies, there is some inherent value behind what is being gambled on. With cryptocurrency, the value is only in the perception of the value, and therefore the need to manipulate publicity about it to create the perception. I think that we are finding different ways of saying the same thing. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Red Bluff shooting

What was the reasoning behind redirecting Red Bluff shooting? Please {{ping}} me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Jax 0677, I did leave a closing statement. Is there a part of that you were hoping for my clarity about? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Reply - It simply says "While the current consensus is to redirect", but does not say how you arrived at this conclusion. The votes appear to be somewhat evenly divided. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    Jax 0677, well first I feel compelled to point out that it's WP:NOTAVOTE. While early participation was evenly divided, as we gained some distance from the event the trend was towards delete, which supported earlier reservations participants had expressed over whether it met our guidelines for inclusion of events. This is also why I explicitly noted that the article content and history has been preserved should continued sourcing occur that demonstrates notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Re to email

Hi Barkeep49; thanks for the email that you sent me. I wanted to give you my gratitude for your feedback, although at least on my screen you don't have an "Email this user" button enabled and I didn't want to reply and send my email and real name attached to the email account - I hope you understand. I won't go into much because I don't want to expose an email publicly, but I want to reassure you that I do have a pretty good connection with WP:WikiProject Video games and an even stronger one with a group at the project's Sega task force. I've actually read the RFA you brought up and followed it as it happened, along with most of the RFAs that have happened over the last two years. I'll admit, I was skeptical of that one and was pleasantly surprised with how it turned around, and for someone who IMO thought was a good candidate. That first RFA of mine, twelve years ago, I've lived a whole 40% of my life since then - I'm much more mentally prepared now than I was then, and I know well enough not to get duped by a sockpuppet nominator like I did the first time (not Giggy, he wasn't the original nominator of that RFA). I've got a nominator in mind, and I'll reach out to that person and discuss it with them first - I wouldn't want to give too much for you to do for the flight especially when you're not so familiar with me, and the nominator I will ask is an experienced admin who I've interacted with multiple times since 2013. I'll probably consult with that admin as well on when he thinks might be best; maybe we'll go before, or during the flight still. I'll get their advice.

Again, I want to thank you for your feedback. Yours was probably the least optimistic of what I did receive, but I want you to know that I almost value it more because of that. This is something I want to be prepared for, because I do agree I have one chance to do this right, and honest feedback gives me things to be prepared for that any member of our community could bring up at an RFA. It was a pleasure interacting with you and hopefully we will have more opportunity for that in the future. Red Phoenix talk 20:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Red Phoenix, guess I forgot to re-enable email after my break so thanks for pointing that out. I do understand not wanting to reply though I do recommend you get a Wikipedia email in advance of becoming a sysop. It's hand at times. I am pretty sure I know who you have in mind as a nom and if I'm right they're who I would have recommended for you anyway. I would suggest, however, you think about a co-nom. Doesn't have to be me but get more people in your corner from the get go. And despite my notes of caution I did say I think you'll pass with the right answer to Q1 and if you're going with who I think I have every confidence you will. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

For The Umpteenth Time

I have probably asked you this a billion times but yet I still find myself needing clarification on this. Hypothetically speaking if an article on a musician is created & the artist satisfies #9 of MUSICBIO because theoretically speaking the artist finishes 3rd in a major music competition but in general fails WP:GNG, now does this singular criterion the artist fulfills from MUSICBIO overshadow WP:GNG in general? & would that be a plausible reason to !vote a keep if hypothetically speaking the article is an AFD? Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, it's a sign that they're notable if they pass criteria 9. But not a guarantee. So if you feel like you've done a very thorough BEFORE and it doesn't meet GNG you can nominate for deletion. Here is an AfD that is very similar which I closed just yesterday. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

EBCDIC 037 Chinese Wikipedia article should transwiki to Chinese Wikibooks

Please transwiki The Chinese EBCDIC 037 Wikipedia article to Chinese Wikibooks for consistency. You may need to propose this article for deletion on Chinese Wikipedia too. Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexlatham96, I cannot transwikify anything. Someone with the ability on Zh Wikibooks would have to do it (I"m guessing a global sysop) As for whether it should be delted on Zh Wikipedia that's up to them. I wouldn't be surprised if some Wikipedias considered these articles within scope. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Patrolled vs. Reviewed: followup

Hi there! hope you're well. I wanted to briefly follow up and close the loop on this thread User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/4#Patrolled vs. Reviewed - silly question from a rookie reviewer

I've been using the page curation toolbar the whole time I've been working NPP. But I couldn't understand why I didn't have any entries in my patrol log. My page curation log continually showed new pages after I marked them as reviewed. I saw other patrollers with entries in both but mine were one-sided for some reason.

I took a deeper look at your curation vs. patrol logs and saw that you had entries for the same article in both. But it wasn't until I looked at some examples of the individual pages where this was the case that I finally figured out the difference. Today I picked an article to review that had a date in the queue of February 2020 (Askoll) and the same old behavior occurred again upon marking it - one entry in the curation log but none in the patrol log. I then noticed that your entries were for pages that were actually at the recent side of the queue with creation dates in June. So I went to that side of the queue and picked out a very new article from the last 24 hours (Ryser's conjecture). Upon clicking the mark as reviewed button, I finally got an entry in my patrol log.

So it seems that the newness of the page has something to do with whether a patrol log entry gets generated. Would you happen to know if this is intentional or possibly a bug in the toolbar? Paradoxsociety 04:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Paradoxsociety, this is intentional based on patrols needing to happen for all new pages (theoretically) while reviews only happen for certain mainspace pages. You'll see that in my curation log unreviews are also noted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional insight. Glad this is all starting to make more sense! Cheers, Paradoxsociety 17:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of EBCDIC code-page pages

Hello, I noticed today 17 july 2020 that several pages conserning EBCDIC Code-Pages have been removed. I wonder why? These pages are amongst the only ones where one could find the detailed transcoding help for solving EBCDIC character translation problems. I was a fervent user of those pages. Is there any possibility to restore them? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz-Jozef.Schopp (talk • contribs) 07:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

They've been moved on Wikibooks: b:Wikibooks:Requests_for_import#Unicode_import. JackPotte (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@JackPotte Thanks for progress on this so far. Looking I can see missing templates in Category:Character set table templates. This also seems to be an intermediate location and unusable to end users. Is there a plan in place to resolve this into a permanent usable solution? (Sorry to badger .... people are doing good work here). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I didn't see anyone planning to add the missing templates and move the pages to a new book in the main namespace, but it doesn't seem very long. JackPotte (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

EBCDIC code-page Transwiki

This does not appear to have gone smoothly and has not been stood up properly. While I have offered to help, and indeed considered starting a wikibook today, end even excluding the template issue, I became aware of other issues while looking around. EBCDIC code pages are only one of the code pages sets that may be affected. I observe the raiser AfD was Fram. I recall having to defend the following AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWWR 15 which damaged me mentally. I may therefore perhaps choose to back out from this one, or maybe not, either way it will stress me. But this is surely something that should be considered at WikiProject Computing Level not merely AfD level which is ultimately disruptive. This set of code pages seem to specifically target IBM which is not great, as Microsoft pages do not appear to be affected, mind you Microsoft Matching Gifts Program is a major benefactor to WikiMedia Foundation and I am not sure IBM i. Because of this, and because the transwiki has failed from a user viewpoint, it was inappropriate to remove the pages at this point. The idea of the AfD result was surely continuous access. By the look of it Transwiki !voters did not expect these difficulties. Thankyou. 22:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

And this AfD result is inconsistent with say Windows-1252 ... for example. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Djm-leighpark: the idea that it needed better project level advertisement is an interesting one. But I'm not sure I understand the rest of what you wrote. Could you clarify? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
My head is muddled. But I always like to see the big picture and plan of where things are going so the right level of automation can be achieved and a final result placed. A single EBCDIC wikibook is (relatively easy), but if additional code pages come in hither and thither it may not be organised in a proper way. This is where WikiProject Computing or WikiProject Software should have been consulted on this, not 7 people at an AFD. From an 'admin' point of view this transiki has been a success; from an end-user viewpoint its a complete shambles; you stand up the target properly before doing the source. I'm inclined this should go to DRV mainly because implications were not thought through properly. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: My head remains muddled. But AfD is not cleanup, and AfD is not the best the place to work a a good merge, and the WP:BEFORE Criteria C#3/4 implies going to a WikiProject rather than AfD. As can be seen from this stuck in the mud of a Transwiki migration the Transwiki is somewhat tougher than merge (and a good proper merge can be tough enough). I usually like to think the first !merge voter needs to be able to take up the mantle of performing a merge themselves, unless the first mentions he is not willing/able/recuses from doing it and I'd expect the same for a transwiki into a stood-up WikiBook (and to be fair Mark viking) didn't claim he was going to do it. For a precedent AfD [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875] went through with remarkably little discussion especially as the predecessor discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBCDIC 389 was non consensus. (the latter mentions WikiSource, the '875 massive one skips that point). While my initial reaction was this looked a good result the difficulties in stand-up and further implications and failure to engage WikiProject seems like this needs to be DRV discussed unless you can resolve it. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Djm-leighpark, well that's a bit of a catch 22. Fram was told that despite a consensus to delete for one page it should not be deleted without consensus to delete everything. Fram then nominates everything. There is again consensus to delete. However, the idea of saving the content through transwikification gains appeal and fits with WP:ATD so that is how I close it. I think put in some effort to help make sure that this actually happens - that is the page content and history is preserved. So far so good. Now you are correct that transwikification has not gone perfectly - more work is needed to import other templates. If you're interested you can do that. No DRV needed.
However, I'm hearing that you want to go to DRV because the close was flawed because it wasn't properly advertised and because the close could not be implemented. The AfD not being properly advertised given its scope is one I am sympathetic to and willing to reopen the discussion so it could be advertised more widely - but where exactly do you think that would be? Is it just WP:WikiProject Computing or elsewhere in your view? If you think it needs DRV because the close couldn't be implemented well that's different. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

: I really hate re-openings. The last admin who re-opened on me rather than face a DRV ended up thrrowing vulgar slang at me which was inappropriate though I have actually tried to keep my head in articles mostly since. I dont say the close cant be implemented: but it seems to involve more effort than anticipated at the AfD, and on examination it likely has to be repeatable for other code pages also. Or perhaps not. Perhaps half code pages will end up on WikiBooks and half on English WikiPedia which looks daft. So the totality of the problem isn't scoped and that makes it difficult to determine the split of manual/automation that is appropriate. Failure to appreciate the Control Character Templates was also an issue. Probably the re-opening is appropriate .... Transwiki is sometime a reasonable outcome for some computer related stuff but we need to appreciate the effort involved and how to go about it. I appreciate your efforts, but ultimately there's the classic issue admin removing source before target fully operationally stood up and therefore not usable to the user. Yes this is a catch 22, but pragmatically I've more concerned about the precedent which could be messier and larger. I actually thing Fram was badly advised as other single code pages should perhaps have been tested at AfD first to understand the scope of the issue. If I get involved in this in detail I need to drop RL which is a problem and maybe impossible at this time of year with COVID de-lockdown issues and a raft of knock-ons left alone other stuff and having to relinquish offline library resources for other stuff. Bluntly probably with discussion notification at WikiProject Computing re-open or get transwiki stood up in a Wikibook (which should have happened before removing source articles or I'll likely raise a DRV. (Apologies as that sounds blunt but I do ramble on sometimes). Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

To state the obvious on this for my own benefit in the relevant section Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875 is the key discussion here.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Djm-leighpark, it's not my responsibility as a closing admin, to be blunt, to get it stood up in a Wikibook. My responsibility was to ensure that the article content and its attribution history were preserved. I have done that. Since you have concerns on that front and since you don't like the idea of me reopening the AfD for further discussion - something I'd be willing to do though I am skeptical that WikiProject Computing is active enough to think that notification there would draw substantial new eidotrs - it sounds like you need to go to DRV. I'm not quite sure why a previous bad experience with reopening an AfD would mean we shouldn't do it here but your call. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I actually appreciate all you've done and youve gone further than most admins would. Its been a bitof buzying head day for me today but I certainly don't fancy going to AfD if a closer is willing to re-list. The re-open also gets the pages stood up in situ which is a pre-req. for me doing any work in assisting with a transfer. I think I'll take the offer of a re-open. Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

revival of a page

revival of a page
i have more infromation on Season 46 of Saturday Night Live. I would like for the page that i created to be revived or brought back up. I messed around with the page like added in episodes just to test the how linecolor would look like. Again, i would like to have the page be revived back up. Please and thank you. Blu30Top (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Blu30Top: do you have a link? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
revival of a page
the page is Saturday Night Live (season 46) but its now redirect to the episode list page. Im just trying to reopen the page so i can edit some new information. Blu30Top (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Blu30Top: if you go to this link you'll be able to access the history, restore the old version, and add new information to it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Harassment solutions 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 20:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Detecting Copyright Violations

Hello. I noticed your name on the NPP school page (I've been studying a bit to maybe eventually apply to NPP or the school) and today started looking into identifying copyright violations. I've been looking at Earwig's Copyvio Detector and running it on some pages and came up with this result on one page > [2]. I wasn't sure what to think due to inexperience and since this is a featured and popular article I wanted to ask someone with experience what they thought before whacking a possible hornet's nest. I know you are busy and thank you for any time and feedback you can provide.   // Timothy :: talk  08:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, hi there. You're right to be skeptical. If you click through to the museum's page you will see that they took the content from us not the other way around. They do credit Wikipedia so it's broadly in compliance with our license. Reverse copyright is a real thing to pay attention to. Much less common, but a thought I had because it's a museum, is that someone releases the copyright to us. This will normally be referenced on the talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your guidance. There is a good deal of information and nuance to absorb, I hope you won't mind me dropping by and asking the occasional question. Hope this finds you well.   // Timothy :: talk  17:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Jang Yeeun

Thank you for extended-confirming the redirect to prevent throwaway accounts from sneaking an article in past review. However, maybe I should explain why I came to WP:ANI. I wasn't primarily asking about COI. I was complaining that the removal of the record of the review was a form of deliberate gaming of the system. I didn't ask about that because the response would have almost certainly been an apology with a statement that they didn't know that they shouldn't do that, and the template says right there not to remove it. I wasn't primarily complaining about COI, but about two forms of disruption, the stripping of the record, and the effort to confuse with variant romanizations. Just explaining. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thanks for that extra clarification and explanation. You did note that at the time but I clearly didn't put enough emphasis on that when reading it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ecclesia Athletic Association

The article Ecclesia Athletic Association you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ecclesia Athletic Association for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The idiocy -- The idiocy (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ecclesia Athletic Association

The article Ecclesia Athletic Association you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ecclesia Athletic Association for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The idiocy -- The idiocy (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Congrats, bk! Killiondude (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Killiondude, thanks! I appreciate your copyediting when that article first went live. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

NPP reviewer

Hi Barkeep49, Good day. One of my trainees - see here has just graduated from NPPSCHOOL. They have autopatroll right but I dont think they have applied for NPP reviewer right yet. The editor has done a truly impressive work and I highly recommend that they be granted NPP reviewer right if they editor has decided to apply it. Hope you are well and stay safe. Best. Cassiopeia(talk) 12:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, excellent! Less Unless would you like me to do a 3 month grant of NPR? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA thank you for your recommendation! Barkeep49 - Sorry for the delay, I was away for a week. I will gladly accept your offer as I wanted to apply for the rights after the exam completion. Best, Less Unless (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49 I have left an official request here. Best, Less Unless (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Less Unless, and I've granted it. Thanks for your interest in NPP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Move

Help here here, I can’t move it back, it is a technical move,it is a 6 year old article, it should not be moved to draft? Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Megan, I have done the r2 deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Shit, it was a wrong call, I actually thought the article was written in 2014 from the tags. Seems like the author made a cut and paste move from here here. Sorry for the disturbance caused. Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Megan, I'm not quite following. The page you linked to is in draftspace and was a page move made by Fisha Malik. Draft:HM College of Science and Technology had been in mainspace. After the move a cross-space redirect was left behind which is eligible for speedy deletion under r2. I'm not sure where the copy and paste move stuff comes into play. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, this confused me.The maintenance tags added to the confusion ( being that they are dated November 2014). That’s where I got the copy and paste, maybe the article was deleted and the author copied it and recreated, though not sure. Hope you understand now. Earlier I thought Malik was moving a 6 year old article to draft space ( which is not appropriate) and I wanted to move back and advice him to tag for Afd, though it was impossible since the title in mainspace wasn’t deleted yet,so it technically impossible for me (that’s why I contacted you to make the move for me), but the matter is solved now, seems like it was just a copy and paste move from a deleted article I think. Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear Barkeep49,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Paradoxsociety 08:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


Wrigley Field

Hi Barkeep49 - in addition to my above invitation (congrats on 15 years!) - I just noticed on your user page your eventual goal of getting Wrigley Field to GA status. I'm not sure when you plan to work on this but as a former Chicagoan I'd love to help out. Let me know if there's anything specific I can do here. Cheers! Paradoxsociety 08:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Paradoxsociety, I have not really been here 15 years. The most generous reading is that I've been here 7 years and I think the more accurate reading is that I've been here 3.25 years if we just count months where I had 10 or more edits. As for Wrigley Field, I'll keep that in mind. Unlike most GAs I work on where there are a few good sources and it's just about using them wisely, for Wrigley Field there are just so many good sources - including whole books - that the sheer scope of it is what keeps me from diving in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, that's fair. I felt odd joining the group myself and have even less of a consistent activity record, but in any case, membership in the society doesn't really count for much anyway. Regarding Wrigley that's definitely true. I may try to take a first pass soon but I have never intentionally participated in GA development so I'll have to read up on the "right" way to do it first. Cheers, Paradoxsociety 16:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Paradoxsociety, that's great. I haven't looked at it for a while but I'm sure you'll be able to help it. Feel free to ping me or leave a message here after you've done some work and I'll be happy to give it a read and some thoughts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for The B*tchelor

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The B*tchelor. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion primers

Thank you for replying to my message to TimothyBlue regarding links that appear automatically in a box in the upper right corner of deletion discussions. Although the essay "Help, my article was nominated for deletion" may not be pro-Keep, despite the title, it is an essay nevertheless, an opinion piece, and we shouldn't link to an opinion essay automatically whenever a deletion discussion takes place. That's regardless of whether one is pro Keep or Pro Delete, which itself is a foolish way of looking at articles, as though one were choosing a football team. Of all places, deletion discussions should be free of opinions, feelings, and desires. The sensible approach is to understand that some articles need to be deleted, some deserve to be kept, and that the criteria for determining is the rules of Wikipedia, not whether the subject is important, and certainly not whether the "creator" of articles has done a lot of work and has strong feelings about the subject. The very thing we are supposed to do here in creating a reference book about facts is to distance ourselves from our strong feelings, opinions, and biases and try hard to practice impartial judgment. If you look at my User Page, you will see I am one of v. few people without a long list titled "My work" or "My articles". That's because I'm following the criteria I just wrote about. Nothing here is mine. Being "the creator" of an article isn't worthy of a trophy room. All articles on Wikipedia are collaborations. Or at least they are supposed to be. If any one person is writing most or all of any article, I would tell that person to stop. The more work one does on a single article, the more a feeling of ownership creeps in. But there is no private property on Wikipedia. However much it grates against our nature or impulses or desires, the property here is collectivity. Wikipedia is collective effort. To say "mine" in any context here is to contradict the purposes and methods of the entire project. Do you know who put this link into deletion discussions or who I could talk to about this subject?
Vmavanti (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Reply Hi Vmavanti, just to reflect your thoughts, when you ask "Do you know who put this link into deletion discussions or who I could talk to about this subject?", because no one owns anything really there is no person to talk to about an essay/guideline/policy or how its used/interpreted, but rather the community. Perhaps the best place to discuss your concerns is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. This isn't intended short circuit anything Barkeep would add here, but just my suggestion. Best wishes.   // Timothy :: talk  14:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Vmavanti, you could go to WT:AFD. You could also go to Template:AFD Help which is where the data for that box lives. You could see its history and could have a discussion on the talk page - just like no one owns an article, there is not a person you could talk to. As for the broader point about people, like myself, who list their accomplishments I don't think having pride in creation is incompatible with collaborative editing. I could talk a lot more about that, but that's really not why you're here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both for your serious answers. The content of the essay is secondary. Primary is my conviction, which I believe to be consistent with the rules, is that we shouldn't have a link to an essay at every AfD. Essays are opinions, and you know what they say about opinions. Links to documentation and policy are OK, but not essays. Many times I have seen people treat essays as though they were policy, esp in AfDs, and this only makes it worse.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
re: "Many times I have seen people treat essays as though they were policy, esp in AfDs, and this only makes it worse." I think this is a very valid point and one I'd agree with. I've seen this used to contradict WP:N or WP:SNG when the WP:!VOTE is Keep, which I think speaks to your point about Keep bias. Sometimes this does impact closes and editors feel the need to spend time rebutting an essay and defending a guideline, both of which bother me. Even worse, I've seen this used to pile on votes from like-minded voters which reinforces the mistaken belief that responses are a vote and not an WP:!VOTE. Perhaps approach this question on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion as something like "How should essays properly be used with guidelines to evaluation notability in AfD discussions?" This way the primary point you wish discussed is the focus instead of a particular essay. The placement of the link can be discussed afterward. Thanks for clarifying. Best wishes.   // Timothy :: talk  02:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

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

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Orson Scott Card/GA1

Barkeep49, just a friendly reminder that you opened this review about a month and a half ago and haven't yet returned. I hope you'll be able to get moving on it soon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brent Miller (producer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Deadline and One Day at a Time.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft problems

I look at the recently submitted draft Draft:Chingari (app) and it's very short. I looked at the copy-vios report and it was very high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan0512 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Evan0512, indeed. It's because the text appears to be largely identical to text from here. The fact that the article is short doesn't change that it was copied. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:National Rally 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 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

recent del rev

Please consider this a friendly note: Pretending for the moment that this was something I neither knew or cared about, I would have either relisted for a new afd on the basis this was irretrievably poised by discussion of extraneous issues, or closed no consensus. Arguments about whether he met WP:PROF are relevant. Arguments that WP:PROF does not apply are arguments contrary to policy and should have been discarded. (The same could probably be said about arguments about motive, including mine. I do consider this is part of the pervasive prejudice at WP against non-standard views, but I do not know how to effectively combat it. It is probably inevitable in our ways of doing things that our content reflect our general prejudices.) DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
DGG, I don't know if you saw what I posted to Joe's talk page but while I think we do alright on NPROF coverage on the whole (not as inclusive as NSPORT, but then again what is?) but I do think that this was a surprising result given his relative level of accomplishment. But my job as closer is to evaluate the consensus reached by the participants not make my own judgement (when I think I have value to add I comment rather than close). And on that level I think the roughly 70/30 split in favor of deletion made that the clear consensus for the reasons I outlined in my close which I stand by as a fair reflection of that consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
NPROF and NSPORT are different. NSPORT is a criterion whose relationship to the GNG is disputed. It can be seen as a limitation of the GNG, or an alternative, and the inclusivity would vary very widely depending on how one sees it--and how one sees it depends not on fundamental considerations , but upon how many sports articles one thinks appropriate to WP. (personally, I have no interest in the matter, except that we should decide one way or another. ) NPROF is an alternative criterion, quite independent of the GNG, and this is well established. Again, when there is this much disagreement among long-term workers in the area about the specific notability in his particular case, I don't think any decision at an afd is really safe. (the views of people not active in the field at WP might be considered likely to be irrelevant because of lack of knowledge of the issues and background, but there was strong disagreement between those who are active here in the field).
Personally, I shall continue to maintain the notability of any taxonomist with a species to their credit, regardless of other considerations, to the extent I spot the afds.
But, as I said, the real question I want to try to figure out some way to deal with is a hyper-mainstream prejudice (I personally could be said to share this hypermainstream prejudice in most areas, most certainly about evolution, but I consider that irrelevant). SOmetimes I think it hopeless, but its too important to give up on. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
DGG, I understand that NPROF is an alternative to GNG. And even so we keep people in NSPORT who have far lower levels of relative accomplishment in their field compared to NPROF. But because NPROF is an alternative to GNG we do I think, on the whole, get coverage of people about right. The hypermainstream prejudice is an interesting concept. If you were to write an essay with a catchy title (or at least a catchy shortcut) I think you could gain some traction behind the idea. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violation guidance (round two)

Hi Barkeep, you previously helped me on learning a bit about detecting copyright vios. I found this one while looking through new page feed. [3]. The page was created 2 years 346 days ago and the article was created on August 6, 2020 as the result of a merge [4] (so the creating author was probably not aware of the problem). No mention of Wikipedia on the source page and no claim of permission on the Wikipedia page (the source is a gaming website, so I wouldn't expect one). I don't believe this is a CSD G12 because there is enough non-infringing content, so I think the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems per WP:CSD. Since the original articles have been redirected, I wasn't sure if tracking down the source of the infringement was appropriate and wanted to make sure I wasn't off base before proceeding. I appreciate any time you can spare and understand if you're busy. Hope things are well with you.   // Timothy :: talk  12:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, Because the article was formed by a merge my guess is if we go back and look at the merge articles we'll find that the nation states content was copied from one of them and so there is no COPYVIO. However, more investigation is needed and copyright investigations is not an area I spend time in. Justlettersandnumbers and Moneytrees are two sysops who specialize in this area and could likely be of assistance if you need more help as you dig into this particular potential COPYVIO. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

NPP training

Hi, I'm approaching you to ask whether you'd be able to give me some training on New Page Patrolling. I enjoyed the process of going through the CVUA training under Girth Summit, and I learned a huge amount about how things worked here, so I'm now thinking about branching our and finding additional ways to support the project. I also have served as a NPR for 3 months from 27 October 2019 to 27 January 2020. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 07:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

ZI Jony, Girth is a fantastic trainer. Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment to take on a new student. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Could you please consider me in next slot? I'll wait for your time. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 13:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
ZI Jony, so a couple questions on that front. First, why me as opposed to some other trainer? Second, training is a very time intensive process for me. I notice you have never used rollback nor Huggle - the two most common outcomes of passing CVUA. What can you do to assuage me that my investment of time in you will be time well spent? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, First, from available trainers I like you as you are most known personal for me, and I believe that you are the best for it. Second, I've used rollback but Huggle hasn't used it yet, because I use desktop view on mobile to contribute here. I believe that your investment of time will be well spent, now what can I do for your assuage. Thank you very much for your time. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 12:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

This is to inform you that I have opened a dispute resolution concerning the Kamala Harris Talk page "Attendance" item. You have made comments to Wikipedia editors about this issue. I believe that the "2019" section of the article should reflect the well-documented fact that Senator Harris missed 62 percent of Senate votes in 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Kamala_Harris Jab73 (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Jab73, thanks for using a dispute resolution mechanism. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The google search for her wiki page displays a derogatory term. It's not present on the actual page and can only been seen on google. Not sure if its a wiki issue or was done via google. Thanks in advance Asr1014 —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The google search for her wiki page displays a derogatory term. It's not present on the actual page and can only been seen on google. Not sure if its a wiki issue or was done via google. Thanks in advance Asr1014
@Asr1014: needs to get fixed on the Google end. Should happen pretty quickly just as the vandalism happened quickly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Google fixed. thanks!Asr1014 —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris suggested edit

Barkeep49,

I am not sure what happened with that edit that I suggested, it was for the Kamala Harris page strictly to update that she was the running mate. I'm not sure how the other heading was posted, and that definitely explains why it was banned for hate speech. That was not me, my only goal was to update that she is now the official democratic pick and not the presumptive. Thank you for catching whatever happened and please understand it was not me / my intentions.

Ejamartin (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Ejamartin, no worries. As far as I can tell only one editor did anything wrong. Other editors just sometimes get mixed up as we sort those things out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Attention talk page watchers: I wrote a new essay

I normally read the room and don't advertise to talk page watchers; it's always felt a little self-important and that's not my style (or I hope it's not). But since I got a really good shortcut for this new one, Don't be a hero, I thought I would advertise it here in hopes that perhaps others could help improve it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

page Mukteshwari Degree College, Monirampur

Hello, please, don't take any offence of my word. You recently deleted the page mentioned above. I know that it has a lack information sources but this doesn't mean that the college doesn't exists. In fact, the sources published on the page even clarifies that one. In a case I just found a different source from government source that even listed the college with some basic information and found that it has been deleted. Will you please review your action once again. And here is the govt site that listed the college. http://www.nubd.info/college/college.php?code=0532 Thanks. A. Shohag 07:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Also one more famous news site The Daily Star (Bangladesh) which listed the college with a different news here https://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-222176 A. Shohag 07:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
ShohagS, because I closed it as a soft delete I have relisted the AfD. You should add your reasoning there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much. A. Shohag (pingme||Talk) 14:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

FTFY

Praxidicae (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"List of Middle-earth rivers" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of Middle-earth rivers. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 14#List of Middle-earth rivers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 23:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Please help

Hi greetings, I would like to ask you a help. Recently, I declined an AfC draft (Draft:Constantine Ganosis) due to copyvio. But the creator said that (s)he is a paid editor and (s)he can only add the information as such in the website (because his/her payer advised to do that). What should I do? I humbly request you to consider this issue. It would be a great help if you could consider this. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 10:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Path slopu, you can direct them to [5] which will let them release the media. But otherwise they need to advise their client that posting copyrighted material will keep getting deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
There is a related discussion on my talk. But in general, no, OTRS doesn't really have any interest in verifying content that is not suitable for inclusion on any local project. Best case scenario here, the content is verified and gets deleted anyway G13 in a few months. The individual abundantly does not appear to be notable. If they wish to release the content under a free license for whatever unrelated purpose, they may do so without needing the involvement of any Wikimedia project volunteers. GMGtalk 15:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49 and GreenMeansGo:Thank you so much for the help and directions. I will remember this in my future edits. Thank you for your time and consideration. Hope you'll help in future also. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 03:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Mid-September RfA Flight

Did anything ever come out of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive322#Mid-September RfA Flight?

Ping JzG, Joel B. Lewis, Hobit, Tryptofish, Lee Vilenski, Nosebagbear, Levivich --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, we'll see. I have one other firm commitment. I have one nominator I've heard thirdhand is going to do it but they haven't reached out to me (if they don't soon I'll reach out to them). There are a couple nibbles of people who are maybes. So we'll see. I'm still hopeful but we'll find out in the next couple weeks whether or not this comes together. Part of the nice thing about this is that "failure" here has little negative consequence. Do you have thoughts? Leads? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If enough others are going to run at the same time I would like to be submitted for RfA as part of the "RfA Flight", preferably nominated by Guy. ("Are you nuts? Why would anyone want to go through that again?"). If there are any "too soon" squawks, a case can be made for renomination due to my cardiac arrest not allowing me to answer questions the last time. Best case (for me) would be if multiple editors decided to come to my defense this time. Best case (for everyone else involved in the mid-September RfA Flight) would be me being such an inviting target that the detractors wouldn't have time to put the other candidates through hell.
Might I suggest that we change it to "All Hallows' Eve RfA Flight" and shoot for 1 minute after midnight (UTC), October 31? I don't think Mid-September gives us enough time.
I you can get this organized, it will be interesting to see how the dynamic changes when multiple candidates all file at the same time. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The timing might be wrong. I had hoped that two months out was enough time to plan - or not. I will also admit that some of it was selfish - it was at the tail end of the time that my candidate established of when they were aiming for. I'm not sure that waiting two weeks will give us substantially more time to participate (I'm a fan of the phrase "deadlines spur action") but would definitely be open from the people you've pinged (or others) that I'm wrong. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
LOL! I think we really need to push right back to the "no big deal" days and away from "Requests for Sainthood". It is clear to me that both you and Levivich should be admins - you both have a decent case for need fo the tools (both watching areas where tweaking protection is common, for example), and much as we don't do badge collecting, the mop adds weight to the opinion of serious and clueful users like yourselves.
I recognise that this may be Quixotic. But at its simplest level it's really not. The question should be: do I trust this person? We disagree on many things, but I absolutely do trust you. I trust your judgment, I trust you not to fuck up, and I trust you to add a perspective that is in somewhat short supply among admins. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
So listen, one and all is welcome to join the RfA flight. And the thing I believe, above all, about RfA is that no one truly knows anything about serious candidates. That said after sleeping on this, I have to say I find the plan not quixotic, which conveys a certain romantic heroic nature, but rather simply ill conceived.
In order to show that RfA is no big deal, ultimately the person running it needs to be successful. Running a second RfA ~6 months after the first in 2020 (rather than 2006) does not seem like it's going to set Guy up for success; even absent cardiac arrest I don't think that RfA 1 was going to be successful. What sunk RfA 1 was not a lack of this or need for more experience in that. It was concern over temperament and I am quite confident that there will be fresh diffs to show that those concerns haven't gone away. I also wonder if some of what support there was will melt away because the candidacy will seem more POINTY than noble.
There are a whole slew of things where an RfA candidate who is willing to say F It and act against their own interests while standing up for larger points could be of service to the community. But in order for that example to hold water ultimately it needs to be "Look X didn't do Y and they still passed.
As I said one and all are welcome to join the flight. I'd be happy to have Guy. I just don't think that this is the right strategy to actually "add a perspective that is in somewhat short supply among admins." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Minor correction: Mid September is more than 6 months after 5 March 2020. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Hence my use of ~ as "approximately" :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
A flight of beer. Some you'll like, some you won't, but it will definitely be a good time. – bradv🍁 13:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The meaning of the word flight

  • Just noting, I keep seeing this pop up on my watchlist, and for the record, an "RfA flight" ... in the English meaning of "flight" as "to escape"... I just keep imagining the HMS RfA on fire with people yelling "women and children first" and jumping into the ocean. GMGtalk 13:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    The joys of English and its use of the same word to mean different things. GMG imagines a burning ship, bradv imagines beer, and I might think of people schlepping themselves up stairs... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    I imagine a flock of geese flying south for the winter. Lev!vich 14:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    Lol. Someone announces they're going to nominate a bunch of RfAs, and wait...where did everyone run off to?. GMGtalk 14:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    Yes I was try to make a funny but Lev's meaning is actually more of the image I had in mind; I actually don't believe I was the first to use the phrase RfA flight. I just, in the grand tradition of Wikipedia, started using it (though clearly I have not done a good job of attribution...). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    Ah, so you also imagined a bunch of birdbrains squawking loudly and pooping all over everything? :-D Lev!vich 21:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to Wiknic Midwest 2020!

Hi Barkeep49! Thanks for attending the Wiknic Midwest breakout session today! I hope you enjoyed it, and if you're interested in continuing to chat with others about local Wikimedia organizing across the US, look no farther than Wikimedians Active in Local Regions of the United States (WALRUS). WALRUS has calls twice a month – to get the invitations, shoot a message to Pharos. And, of course, always feel free to leave me a note if I can be any help. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2020 (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 01:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

He won't reply you cuz he's just a troll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B011:8009:15C4:7C01:88A:37EC:291D (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
[at the Kenosha page] Seeing through a mess of brigading is one thing, but actually taking the step to snip a little red tape in order to sensibly reduce drama is harder. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Echo this sentiment. Well done. Neutralitytalk 17:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Understanding of community

This is a general comment on the idea that some editors may have a better understanding of what a community tolerates than some administrators, so I'm replying here rather than elsewhere. If you are basing this on a failure to reach consensus to impose sanctions on an editor, I feel there is a simpler explanation: consensus doesn't scale up. A small, vocal group opposed to sanctions can easily prevent them, because most people are seeking a true consensus and so are trying to find a solution that will satisfy the most vocal commenters. For better or worse, it's a dynamic that exists in any group: cliques form, and the viewpoints of outspoken cliques can overshadow those of others. I don't think there is any better response we can give to volunteers who, for whatever reason, don't get along. It happens, and like in the real world, it's hard to force people to change. You either learn to live with it or avoid each other. isaacl (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, thanks for sharing. I always appreciate your insights into our consensus based process. FWIW I think respecting intensity preferences from a minority is part of a consensus based process. But I completely agree with your analysis, here and elsewhere, with the troubles of trying to scale consensus to a project the size of Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Intensity can be a factor, but I think it has an outsized influence in Wikipedia. As a result there is an incentive to be recalcitrant, which is demotivating for those who are trying to work towards a true consensus solution. As I've written about before, knowing that any edit can be turned into an interminable discussion sucks all the joy out of editing. isaacl (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing about intensity: there are many editors looking for a consensus solution who deliberately hold back on demonstrating intensity. They don't use flamboyant expressions, or make intemperate outbursts, because they know it won't help matters. And while they understand why others call for leniency regarding displays of frustration, it's also frustrating to know that their good will is being taken advantage of. isaacl (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Isaacl, I think there are ways of showing intensity preferences without flamboyant expressions or intemperate outbursts. I definitely feel strongly about some issues but try not to fall into those realms. Good will being abused by bad actors is a problem. Only issue is that some part of the time there's not consensus - for all the reasons you point out - about who has the good will and who the bad actors are. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I do agree there are other ways of showing intensity; those were just two examples. Nonetheless, there are editors who deliberately avoid pushing their own preferred approach with greater intensity in order to facilitate finding common ground. Each time they see editors less willing to work towards an agreement being accommodated, their good will gets used up. isaacl (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Isaacl, stumbled across this section, and while I don't know the context, I can relate to knowing that any edit can be turned into an interminable discussion sucks all the joy out of editing. Pretty sure this isn't what you're referring to, but an issue imo is that any edit (mainly the uncontroversial, on a low-profile page type) can be thoughtlessly filibustered into a week long protracted discussion (or worse, a month RfC over a small change, ending with minimal participation). Regardless of outcome of said discussion, knowing that you'll spend substantial time debating on talk pages (often over uncontroversial stuff, or issues that could've been resolved by thoughtful iterative improvement rather than mindless stalling) seems to suck the joy out of actually editing. At some point it just makes editing the mainspace exhausting, draining, and honestly just sad. That's all fine if it's all a bunch of editors with an honest disagreement engaging collaboratively to resolve it, but the specific cases I'm getting at aren't that, they're more akin to driveby reverting, a fetish for bureaucracy, or sometimes just trolling. Personal experience: the template namespace is 1000x more enjoyable than mainspace; there's still disagreements, but practically every template editor I've come across engages collaboratively & the outcomes are better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, if you followed the link I included, that's exactly what I'm talking about. The most innocuous edit can trigger a protracted discussion, and if the page at hand doesn't have a lot of watchers or active related WikiProjects, it may never get resolved. I understand why there is a tradition of working extensively with editors to try to get them to follow English Wikipedia norms, but as a result, there is an incentive for poor behaviour, and it's manyfold more work to follow the rules assiduously. isaacl (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarification

So with this TBAN, can you please clarify exactly what it is I can't do? So nothing related to Northern Ireland between 1973 and 1998? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The C of E, that's included because that relates to the Troubles which is one element of the topic ban. You are also topic banned from Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland. All of these are broadly construed. So looking at your talk page, Seal of Zion, Illinois and Northern Rhodesia Regiment would both clearly be outside this topic ban, as an example of the kind of topic you can do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I get that but I have autism (not something I like to state openly), so I need specific examples please. For example Fermanagh County Council (currently on DYK), would I be allowed to do that as it's mostly a functional former local government organisation but indulged in irish nationalist behaviour in the past. Likewise, Rosemary Barton (politician) or Gerry Mullan (politician), both post-Troubles politicians but lived during it, are they allowed? I would like clarification please. Plus I would like to ask, is there any way I can appeal against that or if there is any way (in time) I can get this lifted somehow? What could I do to prove that burden? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
The C of E, for me the politicians are easy nos under broadly construed. Fermanagh County Council is ends up being a no as well because it clearly relates to Irish Nationalism. The Irish Nationalism and British nationalism in relation to Ireland is not confined to the period of the Troubles but also include times before and after then. The easiest way to avoid trouble is to avoid Ireland and Northern Ireland as topics. Most British topics are going be be OK, as in the Northern Rhodesia Regiment, but not if it relates to Ireland/NI. Is that more helpful? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, though I doubt I'll get much chance to do much of anything given there are some people out there who want to see me crucified on WP:AN after I've already been knocked down. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
The C of E, I understand that the events of the last few days are disorienting and upsetting (or at least that's how I think I would feel if I were you). Have you read Wikipedia:ANI advice? It contains some good tips for someone in your position even though it was written for people filing a thread. I will also add that I think any sort of indef is unlikely to happen from what I see so far. So there will continue to be a place for you in Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for dispensation

G'day Barkeep49, I hope you are well. I am about to post a report on AE and wondered if I might have a dispensation for a 700-word "Additional comments by editor filing complaint". The behaviour is ARBEE long-term POV pushing going back to 2012, of someone who has already been subjected to DS, and there is a lot to unpack. Your consideration would be appreciated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, are you asking for 700 words or 1200 words? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
The "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" would be less than 700 words. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, let's call it 850 so you have some leeway if you need to respond to questions/other comments. I was a bit surprised to get this request. Was it because I closed the most recent AE thread or some other reason you came my way? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I just prefer to ask a currently active sysop on AE for any word dispensation before I file a report, it is a bad way to start off a report by being open to accusations you are taking the piss with length. Really just chose you at random among the admins working there on current reports, but I know your work. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi Barkeep49, question, Ten Pound Hammer edited my comment in a significant way here [6], they removed the heading. Have you ever seen this done at ANI before?

I left a comment about it in a new Boomerang request, but wasn't sure if I should directly ping admins about it or just let them notice it. I figured since you were already in the conversation, it would do no harm to ask you.

Thanks, best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  02:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, pointing out the removal was the right way to handle it. You should not directly ping admins (or anyone) about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
TimothyBlue, I just finished reading the thread. I was recently damned with feint praise for being idealistic, which I think is true, but also think I can be rather realpolitik in my approach to Wikipedia. And this is my realpolitik assessment.
The boomerang section is "c'est pire qu'un crime; c'est une faute". You are looking for some kind of validation that your approach to AfD is right and TPH (and friends) is wrong. ANI will not give you that validation. You're either going to get it at AfD or not at all. And if AfD repeatedly disagrees with you, the lesson to take from that is "here's a place where my feelings about how it should be and the Wikipedia consensus diverge". You can have minority opinions. You can work to make your minority opinions majority opinions. But hoping that if only more people weigh in they'll see how right I am is a recipe for Wikipedia heartache, even if it's true that if more people weighed in they'd agree with you.
The best outcome for you with that ANI thread was for it to go nowhere. At a certain point for it to go nowhere you need to just be quiet because you don't yet have the social capital that is necessary for someone to quickly shutdown the discussion because of who you are. Letting the discussion just play out, in what is/was going to be your favor following your initial reply to the accusations, is the thing that's hard as a human to do and also, from my outside perspective, your clear best course of action.
And beyond all that here's what I think you should learn from that ANI. A 64% match rate on noms is poor. You should be aspiring to a much higher percentage. 64 should not lead you to any kind of sanction given the quality of the work you put in, but it also should be a flag that maybe you need to adjust what you're taking to AfD (or how you're taking it but in your case I don't think that's it since your noms and participation are on the whole strong). Also I think you should pay attention to the FAIT feedback. Not because it's right, honestly I'd have to look at the timing more than I have, but because even when you do go slow you'll be accused of going fast. Individually being BOLD is good. Mass BOLDNESS needs to be done incredibly carefully. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
hoping that if only more people weigh in they'll see how right I am is a recipe for Wikipedia heartache - I wish someone explained that to me when I first got here. Lev!vich 04:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Barkeep49:: thanks for the advice, I'll accept it. Working to change minority opinions majority opinions will bear long term fruit whereas you are correct this is going nowhere. I was being idealistic in my hopes, thanks for the realpolitik to ground them in reality.   // Timothy :: talk  04:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
    TimothyBlue, not to pile on, but I do want to say mind that you don't overwhelm the queue. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers/Article alerts#AfD right now, I count 23 from the last two weeks, 22 of which are your noms. You're asking a lot from uninvolved closers (and participants)... more than one BEFORE search and more than one close per day, to be exact... someone else wanting to nominate an article may not want to add more to the queue, and may wait for the queue to die down, but if you keep noming articles, that other nominator won't get a chance. Back when I nominated AFDs, I tried not to have more than two or three noms in any one DELSORT queue (eg WP:DELSORT/MALLS) at any one time, which basically equates to two or three per week, spread out, e.g., one every three days or so, at max rate. That was just my rule of thumb to prevent other editors from complaining (spoiler alert: other editors still complained), YMMV. Lev!vich 04:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
    TimothyBlue, there's no way anyone is going to take you serious when you have lots of noms in the AfD, the majority of people here will see it as disruptive and what you'll be getting is keep !votes, with lots of them questioning if you even performed a WP:BEFORE search. I noticed you're always pissed when your AfD nom is closed as keep and the mistake you're making is thinking that every article you nominate at AfD must be deleted. I'll advise you to slow down or even stay away from the AfD for a while, because this is not a place where attaching feelings to everything you do will help you, rather it might lead into trouble. Best, —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 14:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
    I think this isn't quite right. I respect Timothy's willingness to change their minds over the course of a discussion. Now they might still get too upset in the cases where it doesn't go that way and a good dose of self-imposed chill is a helpful trait for productive longterm Wikipedia editing, but I think they're generally a very open minded editor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

  • Free Hong Kong Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
  • IndonesiaHaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
  • England Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't ping me again

Thanks. I have no desire to participate any further at that report. I replied to you, this time, out of courtesy; any more pings will be ignored. Cheers. CassiantoTalk 06:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to not ping you at that discussion again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor contributions that should be reviewed

Hello, I was wondering if you might have time to review this editor's [7] contributions. They seem to have an agenda and don't understand WP:NPOV. Their edit summaries seem to indicate they know what they are doing and are trying to conceal it. These edits [8], [9], are what got my attention, then I saw the edits related to Eastern Europe/Russia/Ukraine. Thanks, hope you're well,   // Timothy :: talk  02:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, I agree there's some troubling stuff. I also see they're now in conversation with you. That's good as it was what was needed given that you'd left them DS awarness and also warned them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
TimothyBlue, I checked back in on that editor a couple of times and they've not edited since the post to your talk page. If disruption resumes let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I replied to them. I think (hope) that they are just emotionally attached to a subject (boy do I know how that goes lol) rather than trying to be disruptive (although the Watts Riots post gives me pause). Hopefully we can find a way to get any due information they want written without pov language.
I replied belatedly due to all the mall stuff, which is a lesson for me about priorities (one I already knew but didn't heed) and another reason to drop that in favor of something meaningful. Thanks for your patience,   // Timothy :: talk  21:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Australian Unemployed Workers' Union 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, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

AE

"Despite HAL having more overall comments, I find their edits less disruptive". That's because you're only looking at that one page. His continual pushing for an IB at both Kubrick—one of which discussions you closed—[10], [11] and his stalking and his constant pushing at Sinatra have been utterly ignored. Perhaps you should look a little wider at his disruption? – 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:E098:D91C:954F:98A7 (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

To be honest with you, lots of people participated at Kubrick. I remember my close but not the individual participants (though I'm unsurprised HAL participated at Kubrick and indeed I see he started the RfC I closed). I only looked at Sinatra because that's where the diffs were provided. Your providing diffs of further disruption are helpful. But also why I suggested that AE was not a great forum for this dispute; it is indeed sprawling and looking at it through the microcosm of one RfC on one talk page about one editor seems prone to missing the forest for a single tree. I will take a look at the rabbit hole that your diffs here provide and see if I come to a different conclusion (I can see early on from the stalking thread that I might given El C's comments) but might not have time for that until later today. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't have the inclination to go through the log to drag up the individual episodes of each and every interaction, but (as you identify below), there is a distinct pattern in the speed Hal333 arrives at a discussion (enough to hear the duck quacking). I'm out now and will leave you to look over it; I can't comment elsewhere as I can't log in - this isn't specifically to do with the IB debates, but just the general crap, stupidity, passive-aggressive posturing and ongoing soft-canvassing whispering campaigns I see in too many places across WP every day (again, this isn't to do with the IB debate, just generally; increasing numbers of people 'play' WP as some sort of zero-sum game and I'm too tired to bother dealing with it constantly). - 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:E098:D91C:954F:98A7 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think my actions there constiute "constant pushing". I first arrived there with a comment in an aged rfc in March 2020. After Cassianto kept closing it, I didn't feel like fighting and just left. I then returned to participate (the full extent was four comments) in an mid-August discussion. Then I participated in the rfc. I haven't opened a single discussion regarding IB's there; I have a self imposed restriction barring me from opening an IB rfc. I should also note that that Kubrick discussion was two years ago and I was just starting to edit so I was not fully familiar with the rules and guidelines. ~ HAL333 17:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
HAL333, I am still wading through (as time permits) the diffs above. But from looking at the editor interaction tool I am surprised at how quick you are after Schrocat and Cassianto at times. Like I'm responding quickly here because I get an audible ping with the edit summary when someone leaves a message here. How is it that you arrive at places they've been so quickly? I know you promised in early August not to do anything that would look like edit stalking but I would still like to hear more about it. And it might be helpful to reply to this question at AE rather than my talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I really don't see how that would help the discussion over there; it's just way beyond the scope of infoboxes. It's also already been addressed. However, if you really want me to, I can address it, but it'll take a while to compose. ~ HAL333 17:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
HAL333, I mean I'm not sure I really (to copy your emphasis) want you to. But absent an explanation I can wrap my mind around, and unless I see something different as I explore the diffs, I would move towards supporting sanctions on you. I do, however, want to give you a chance to respond. It is of course up to you whether that's worth it or not. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done (Partly) ~ HAL333 18:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, why is it that while HAL333 and Mclay1 face sanctions for asking too many civil questions in an RfC, Cassianto is permitted to make personal attacks (i.e. calling me a "chief agitator") without facing any consequences? You've read the statements at the AE report and you can just how blatantly Cass/SchroCat have behaved. Ikjbagl's statement underscores just how serious the problem has become. Or take a gander at this thread where SchroCat persuaded the community to unblock Cassianto for suggesting that Levivich was as happy as a pig in muck. Almost everyone ignored another part of the comment in which Cassianto called Levivich WP's most dramah loving editor. That slur sounds similar to Cassianto calling me 'chief agitator'. Why in the word is this okay? What is it going to take for somebody to do something about this blatant bullying? Maybe I'm being a pest about this (and if I am, I frankly don't care), but I subscribe to the theory that I should be able to participate in these discussions without being subjected to unwarranted slurs. I'm basing that theory on a policy that is enforced with chronic inconsistency, but in this case it should be readily apparent that the incivility needs to be dealt with. So, why isn't it ever dealt with? Is it because he writes a lot of articles or has too many influential friends or what? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    Lepricavark, it looks to me like a full TBAN is being mooted for Cassianto. So, at least with-in the infobox arena it seems like it is being addressed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    P.S. Lepricavark, this probably would have more of an impact at AE than on my talk page, as I am but one administrator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    Within the past month, I have been attacked by SchroCat at ANI and Cassianto at AN. Despite my protestations at the noticeboards, I couldn't get a single admin to even acknowledge that anything had happened. If you check my section at the AE thread, you'll note that I've repeatedly tried to draw attention to the fact that Cassianto is violating NPA by refusing to substantiate his slur against me. I've come to believe that noticeboards are all but useless for dealing with personal attacks by an established editor. At least I was able to get a reply by bringing it here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    Note that Cassianto is now making thinly-veiled jabs at me for "crying" over his personal attacks, even while he continues to hyperventilate over being called a boomer. He can dish out incivility and condescension all day long, but now he is throwing a tantrum because somebody was mildly unkind to him. I'll give you 10-to-1 odds that the thread eventually closes with no action against him and none of his personal attacks against me or anyone else being struck. But if I said anything more about it at AE, I'd run the risk of being sanctioned for bludgeoning. This is what he and SchroCat have been doing for a long time. They attack and belittle anyone who disagrees with them and then gaslight the commuity with false assertions that they are the victims. Is it any wonder that I-82-I scrambled their password and left and that HAL333 (a distinguished content creator, not that it should make a difference) is considering leaving. I realize it's probably not fair to bring this to your page, but hopefully you can see that fairness is generally not an aspect of dealings with Cassianto. I won't say anything more about it here unless you ask me follow-up questions, but I had to get that off my chest somehow. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    Lepricavark, civility in ArbCom related forums is something of an on going discussion but there has generally been a tolerance for some behavior there that might not be tolerated elsewhere. I write that partly as a note about Cass and what might or might not be made OK there. But also to say that now that you have gotten it off your chest, you should probably strike some of it because my user talk, as lovely as it is, doesn't really have the same safe harbor in this situation. If you ever need someone to listen my email inbox is open - I can't promise to do anything other than listen but I do promise that much. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    Of course. In other words, rules for me but not for him. Thanks for listening anyway. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin question from dummy (or Non-admin Dummies 101)

Barkeep, am I correct that this is an example of an area where we could use more medical admins? See this discussion. I may have the whole thing wrong since I remain willfully ignorant of many admin tasks. We have what appears to be an article that was incorrectly merged and re-named to the less common alternate name several years ago, and consensus from multiple editors that the article should have stayed at primary ovarian insufficiency. But it was merged to premature ovarian failure four years ago based on negligible discussion (and we now have a new ob/gyn on board at WPMED). Am I correct that now, for technical reasons, we can't just move it back, because a redirect already exists, so we are forced to go to WP:RM? Am I further correct that this is something that could be accomplished by any admin, eg, if we had more medical admins, we could post this problem to WT:MED and not have to bother others at WP:RM, since it appears uncontroversial at this stage? We need more medical admins ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, it would not surprise me, based on admittedly my limited experience in the medical area, that we could use a few more admin with specialized knowledge in the topic. We've both discussed some potential candidates and hopefully one of them will run soon. As for the specific instance here, you are correct you need permissions but in this case you would only need someone with page mover. Having looked over the discussion I agree this move should be made and so following my reply here I will go ahead and perform it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you User:Barkeep49 and SandyGeorgia! SandyGeorgia give me a few days to work on the body before you make changes unless I do something wrong. Memdmarti (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Barkeep ... not to worry, Memdmarti ... you have enough experience now that I think you can take it from here :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

New sporcle quiz

Feeling a bit sapped I got sucked into Sporcle tonight. And then I decided to make my own Wikipedia themed quiz. Can you tell the fake (and obsolete) from the real speedy deletion reasons? I share it here for your enjoyment (or not). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Getting reintegrated

Hey Barkeep, I wanted to pop in and let you know that I plan on getting back into editing after my impromptu hiatus. However, I do not feel comfortable getting into the thick of things again without at least having some type of refresher, and/or prerequisites tasks. With that being said, do you think you would be able to assist me? I think my understanding of AfC/NPP is still fine, but I know I'm going to be rusty, so it would be great if you could give me some advice about what I should be doing. Thanks for understanding, Utopes (talk / cont) 18:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969 had a much longer break than you and has been posting to WT:NPR. I think posting questions there is great since it helps others too. You are of course welcome to come here to ask (or even pop onto IRC to ask - #wikimedia-npp connect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Sticking my nose in... Utopes - I hear you about being rusty. The first week or so it was like, what? Where do I look that up? But I would skip over those things which made me pause, and focus on the stuff which I still retained (like reverting cut and paste moves, or totally uncited articles). Then I would go back and look at some of the articles I had issues with, and familiarize myself with specific SN's. When I still have an issue, I reach out for the friendly support at NPP (and would do so at AfC if I become active there again). It took me about 2 weeks to decide to come back fully, but you'll find support in the groups where you do your WP work. Onel5969 TT me 02:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

IP's behaviour at Talk:Kiev

I see you re-allowed 73.75.115.5 to edit again at Talk:Kiev because of their vague comment stating that An example of a disruptive editing on my part on Talk:Kiev was being uncivil through casting an unnecessary aspiration on User:Beyond My Ken. In terms of specifics of how I plan to avoid it: I plan on engaging enwiki community on Talk:Kiev (and elsewhere) through a constructive dialogue that is void of any uncivil language. I see an issue there with the block having been lifted without the acknowledgment that aspersions were casted upon me as well, but it'd have been fine for me if the IP had kept on their word. The issue? They have went again at editing others' comments, such as removing this collapsible box that had been added in agreement with El_C. No "constructive dialogue" there, just their own unilateral action. This, without considering that since being unblocked they've gone mad again at editing the talk page, which they seemingly think is theirs to reign upon. Not sure if this was what was intended with the unblock, but I can't see how it's being helpful to the discussion. Impru20talk 16:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Aaand it looks like they have come again at resorting to personal accusations. Seriously, the discussion was calm and constructive from 31 August to 5 September. From the IP's return on 5 September, it has again become a battleground at Talk:Kiev#Provisional move moratorium, part of which comes precisely because of the circumstances around their unblocking and the IP's mismanagement of it (they have seemingly removed your discussion with them from their talk page while leaving the block notice there ([12]), and when addressed about this they just removed the comment with no explanation). Impru20talk 16:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Impru20, I have explained at length my reasoning behind uncollapsing the entire discussion under "General discussion" section here (diff), and I assure you that my intentions in uncollapsing that discussions were purely to aid future contributors in that discussion in understanding why it is important to only post one vote as a separate paragraph with a * and any future separate voting paragraphs with a * should instead be posted under "General discussion" (and not "Survey") section; i.e., without that whole discussion under "General discussion" being uncollapsed, a typical editor would likely find it hard to understand that - hence why I collapsed it. p.s. Regarding your comment without the acknowledgment that aspersions were casted upon me as well - I apologize for any aspirations I might have cast upon you and hope you could forgive me for that and move on (so we could all contribute to a productive discussion on Talk:Kiev). I have nothing but respect for you Impru20, as you have provided a large number of very valid points on Talk:Kiev page discussions, so really hope we could put any past enmities behind and engage in a constructive and friendly discussions on Talk:Kiev. Thank you,--73.75.115.5 (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
p.p.s. User:Impru20 regarding your comment of because of the circumstances around their unblocking and the IP's mismanagement of it - I apologize if there was any confusion on anyone's part, but I did not remove anything from my talk page - I merely archived that discussion and moved it to my archive (diff). The reason I did not move the official notice about my block to archive, is because it is an official notice from an enwiki sysop and as such WP guidelines ask editors to not remove such notices (as that could be viewed as an example of WP:Bad faith-editing); I do not remember the exact enwiki guidelines that say that - but if you ask, I can search to try and find it.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Bad-faith editing is to archive only that specific discussion immediately after it happened, while being aware of the official notice being left there. You did not archive the rest of your talk page, and by archiving only that discussion you deprived the notice from its context. You were addressed about this key fact both in your talk page and at Talk:Kiev#Provisional move moratorium by other users, and you didn't and still don't care: you moved TaivoLinguist's comment from your main talk page to the discussion and left it there without even caring to reply to it. Then you went to Talk:Kiev and disparaged Taivo's legitimate claim on your behaviour ([13]), as if it should be all obvious to everyone. Well, no. Uninvolved users that go to your talk page will see that you are blocked from editing at Talk:Kiev, yet you are editing there. That's misleading. And you just seem to ignore users when they raise such claims at your talk page. This despite how you promised that you were to engage in "constructive dialogue" (I seriously don't wish to check what the disruptive version would be). Considering how you handled the issue and your previous misconducts, then there's either a genuine bad-faith there or just an outright lack of competence to edit Wikipedia. Your call.
Notwithstanding the fact that you seem to be all too concerned that someone reads that discussion (where you admit to your own disruptive behaviour) to the point of you insisting on archiving it, but then somehow don't want for a collapsed section (that's still on-view and is uncollapsible) to remain collapsed in the RM discussion, despite it being an off-topic barrage aimed at discrediting two users participating there and providing nothing to the RM at hand. How's this? Is it you who come to decide who speaks, who doesn't and what should be said and when? Hell, I got myself out of the RM discussion the other day, thinking that the behavioural and aspersion issues had been dealt with, and was forced to come back today when I found out your unilateral edits (which you didn't even care to notice anywhere). Again. This is appaling. Impru20talk 17:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Impru20, I re-iterate that I apologize if there was any confusion on anyone's part about my unblock - archiving the discussion to my archive page seemed trivial to me, I still fail to understand what the big deal about it is. Regardless, since I have been accused of WP:Bad faith twice now for archiving that discussion by two separate editors, I have un-archived it now diff (as I wish we could stop talking about it, and instead all engage in a constructive discussion/editing of enwiki). Thank you,--73.75.115.5 (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@73.75.115.5: I hadn't spotted this. I just have no words.
You are the no-mi-na-tor. You are nothing close to being uninvolved, and you were warned before your block to not do this. By multiple users. This is an outright violation of WP:TALKO, and it comes as insulting to me considering the whole spectacle you started before your block just because I posted a bolded "comment" within the Survey section. You should be barred from editing Talk:Kiev any more. You're bringing nothing constructive there. Impru20talk 18:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Impru20, to do clerking duties on a talk page discussion one does not need to be an uninvolved editor. In fact, User:Kahastok was a hihgly involved editor in Talk:Kiev discussion and that did not prevent him from taking the clerking duties. I strongly refute any accusation of violation of WP:TPG from you or anyone else that my clerking editing diff to uncollapse User:Mzajac's vote was anything but constructive (I am frankly even surprised Kahastok has not done it themselves, after User:Coffeeandcrumbs and I have repeatedly asked them to do so). I have asked for an opinion about my clerking from sysop Mzajac (diff), so let's wait for his reply on this.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
"Clerking" does not mean owning a talk page. You were sufficiently warned in the past to not do this or to at least seek permission to do this first, specially considering that you are the nominator, you are a heavily involved party and you got yourself in trouble with other users because of unfounded WP:GAME acussations you made to them. It's non-consecuential whether you ended up asking Mzajac later on, you should have asked him first. Is there any need for you to be the one refactoring the whole page the way you see it? Is there any need for you not to ask for permission before doing any of it? This is reckless and disgusting. Impru20talk 18:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Since this discussion is here, I will note:

  • My clerking thus far has been limited to marking editors with {{spa}} and {{canvassed}}. Because of my involvement I am wary of doing any more than that. I expressed this view in this comment.
  • User:Coffeeandcrumbs asked for the comment to be unhidden once, apparently under the misunderstanding that I was the one who hid it (where in fact it had been collapsed for several weeks). I replied noting the circumstances, with a ping to User:Mzajac. Mzajac has been active on the page since then.
  • In my view it is well beyond the accepted role of a clerk - even an uninvolved clerk - to unilaterally unhide a weeks-old comment by an active editor. I expressed this view here and here.
  • I find it difficult to understand how the IP might have genuinely not understood that their edit would be seen as problematic, given all those comments and other objections to their restructuring of the talk page.
  • I would reiterate that if Mzajac chooses to unhide his edit, then I (of course) have no objection to that. But that should be his choice, and not anybody else's.

Kahastok talk 19:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Kahastok when User:Mzajac made their voting comment they were very explicit in saying that it was intended to be included in the Survey section (and not anywhere else), and the only reason that this voting comment did not get added to the Survey section, was because of, quote edit conflict that [User:El_C] caused when they shut down the requested move (diff). I reiterate that I strongly refute your accusation of a breach of WP:TPG by me for merely doing clerking duties on this talk page. p.s. I think it is a speculative statement that User:Coffeeandcrumbs did not know that it was El_C who originally collapsed Mzajac's voting comment (as you said User:Coffeeandcrumbs asked for the comment to be unhidden once, apparently under the misunderstanding that I was the one who hid it (where in fact it had been collapsed for several weeks)) - I think User:Coffeeandcrumbs knew very well that it was El_C who originally collapsed Mzajac's vote (and not you, User:Kahastok), and that is precisely why they asked you to uncollapse it; to remove any doubt about User:Coffeeandcrumbs's understanding or misunderstanding of who collapsed Mzajac's vote and whetehr they indeed asked you User:Kahastok to uncollapse it, I have asked Coffeeandcrumbs on their TP to comment about it and clarify this, so let's wait and hear from Coffeeandcrumbs themselves. --73.75.115.5 (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
(ec) I was fully aware when I asked for the vote to be unhidden that it was El_C who hid it. A clarification in timeline needs to be made. Mzajac made the !voted at 15:20 (UTC) on 2 July 2020 (UTC) but El_C had stopped the discussion at 15:12, 2 July 2020. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that Mzajac intended it as a !vote but there was an edit conflict between the two admins. In fact, Mzajac writes this was ... my resolution for my edit conflict that you caused when you shut down the requested move. The IP user did nothing wrong. I am not sure why Mzajac won't please save us from this moot point now that the RM has swung widely in the other direction.
Please stop barraging the IP user just because the consensus is going against you. It is time to let things be and bow out. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
"Please stop barraging the IP user just because the consensus is going against you. It is time to let things be and bow out". I believe you objected when I used similar verbiage on the main page and El_C slapped my hand. So you don't consider yourself to be under the same restriction and have rejected WP:AGF? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, I would hope we can all stop barraging each other. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
So, obvious next question. Why did you accuse me of clerking the vote out of sight if you knew that I hadn't done anything with it? You struck the accusation, sure, but why did you make it in the first place given that you now say that you knew it was false? Kahastok talk 20:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Because you double hid it. I consider as incompetence. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Care to prove that? Kahastok talk 20:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I just checked and I was wrong. I apologize. Goes to show that collapsings should always be signed. Lesson learned. I am truly sorry for any offense I have caused! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
That does not mean the IP did anything wrong. If not the letter, they followed the spirit of El_C's comment that When the RM discussion resumes, you may refactor. Until then, my clerking against discussing the views for or against the move in this section are to be expected. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright clearly a lot is going on here. Just acknowledging that I am busy offwiki today and so might not be able to really read and react to what is happening here for several more hours. Best, 20:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkeep49 (talk • contribs)

So I think I'm caught up. 30 plus edits, huh? Phew. Let me see if I have this right. There was concern by a couple editors that 73.75.115.5's user talk was misleading because it had the block but not unblock notice. I agree that was confusing. The IP has now restored the unblock discussion but even when it was confusing it wasn't disruptive. Like that seems to be a substantial part of the upset on the talk page that I could find. However, there is also concern over 73.75 unhiding some participation before the RM suspension by Mzajac. Coffeeandcrumbs seem to be in favor of this action and they have asked Kahastok, who has been adding spa and canvassed tags as appropriate, to do it. Kahastok has wisely declined. That is not the kind of clerking that goes down well when done by an involved editor. We can see this with how upset Impru20 got when 73.75 did it. I think Impru was maybe a little more outraged about this then the situation called for, but is ultimately right that it was not a good decision. Mzajac is perfectly able to make their own decision about whether they want to be involved in the RM or not now that it's been unsuspended and attempting to clerk around it is disruptive. Have I gotten the general outline of the dispute right (even though I know some of you will disagree with my response to it)?

73.75.115.5: I have to say wasn't terribly excited about accepting your unblock request because I wasn't sure you got it. This attempt around clerking about the comment continues my concern. However, it's not quite enough for me to restore the block. But you need to cut out any attempts to clerk that page. Period. At this point I'm not sure what you really need to say on anything. You've made your voice heard on the RfC and on the moratorium. Barring some new issue I would advise great caution about replying there. And even if there is a new issue, please ask yourself if you have substantial value to add, or not, before posting. You're not the only who this advice should apply to, which I acknowledge, but it does apply to you. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49 understood - there will not be any more clerking from me on Talk:Kiev (in full transparency, never in my wildest dreams would I imagine that my clerking would be perceived as contentious, but there has already been walls of text written about it by me, so I will not re-iterate that; suffice to repeat that I have undertood you User:Barkeep49 and that there will not going to be any more clerking from me on Talk:Kiev).--73.75.115.5 (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49, with all due respect, I find this kind of pointless personal harassment on the part of the anon IP to be unacceptable and nothing more than a continuation and escalation of his battleground mentality. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist, I wouldn't call it harrassment. But it does needlessly call you out in a way that is not collaborative. I have asked them to adjust it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Yet despite your warnings about disruptive behavior, with the RM winding down and what will probably be judged as a consensus for move, the IP starts another line of attack, not on the merits of the move, but an attack on the editors who have opposed the move. That "thin ice" that you mentioned to the IP seems to be exceedingly thick. I have also noted that the "changes" the IP made at Talk:Kiev weren't substantial and simply changed my username to "one editor" and "that editor". It's hardly difficult for any other editor to still identify the utterly needless attack as directed at me, especially since he posted a self-congratulatory edit about my self-deleted comment. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
This gloating, arrogant, hypocritical comment should not be allowed. I posted, regretted, and quickly deleted my comment. This anon IP has simply been emboldened in his disruptive behavior by being released from a legitimate block simply by saying not much more than "I'm sorry". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, I agree that latest edit is, in its totality, not OK and have reinstated the block. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist I apologize to you for this comment (although I Hope you could understand that I am also just a human and have emotions and the post diff you made (which btw I saw before you deleted) got me emotional, hence why I posted my reply).--73.75.115.5 (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2020 (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 11:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Your contributions to AFD (closing, voting, relisting, etc.) that I've seen have been 'on point' lately! Thanks for all you do and keep up the good work! Eddie891 Talk Work 18:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


Contact request

Sir, contact me please on goryushkiin@gmail.com. I would like to ask you a few questions. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.176.9.249 (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Assad Al Hanini:Requests for undeletion

Hello Sir, the page was reviewed and approved a while ago, and then got a request for deletion due to lack of knowledge of MMA in the middle east, and the companies there although this fighter fought in Cage Warriors which is a top tier organization in the UK, alongside with two of the biggest companies in the middle east, and also being one of the pioneers of Mixed Martial Arts in the region, and a lot of arguments were made in the talk page from different people, while the latest argument being with no response, and then got deleted as an article due to the time of the request, I ask you to please restore the page as I intend to work on it and improve some points and some citations so that it would be fully up to the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramongonsalis123 (talk • contribs) 16:23, September 13, 2020 (UTC)

Ramongonsalis123, the discussion included people whose standards for inclusion, what we call notability. You made this argument at the AfD and a consensus of editors disagreed. It happens. However, I have put the article in your userspace. Please do not move it back to article space without consensus from deletion review or without new information and a substantial amount of time having elapsed (i.e. at least 6 months but even better 12+ months). Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes Sir, I have a question, after a substantial amount of time having elapsed, how do I request for the page to be put up again, and also I would like to ask you if you have any suggestions for improving it, I would appreciate that and gladly work on them.

Ramongonsalis123 the page was deleted because of what it's about not because of the style. So proving that he meets notability is how you can improve the page. If a substantial amount of time has elapsed and you've added new information and sources, you could try moving the page back. But really the first thing to do is try to understand what we mean by notability better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Checking if you saw the message on my TP

Hi Barkeep49, checking if you saw the message on my TP - not sure if the {{ping}} template worked. Thanks!--73.75.115.5 (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Checking if you saw the message on my TP 2

Assuming that my {{ping}} on my TP did not work again, messaging you here to let you know that I responded to your notice on my TP.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Checking if you saw the message on my TP 3

Again assuming that my {{ping}} on my TP did not work again, hence my ping here. Kind regards,--73.75.115.5 (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Seeking advice on WP:NPA

Hi, Barkeep. The RM discussion at Talk:Kyiv (which has been finally moved) has reached its natural end, hopefully for good. However, I'm concerned on several unfair accusations that were made on myself and that, even if the discussion is over, have been left there for anyone to come and see.

This has to do mostly with the unwarranted accusation in this comment (where it's hinted that I'm engaging in some form of "national discrimination", as well as of "overt anti-Ukrainian bias" in the edit summary; I should note that the user was not even involved in the discussion at hand until I had jumped in to make a minor consideration to another one's arguments). I swiftly denied those claims and called for them to be withdrawn; instead, those were further expanded and maintained in this reply (Literal quote: "we sure must not discriminate without any rational basis against national and other identifiable groups. Normalizing this is a step towards bigotry and racism, and I will not let your comment go unchallenged"; while the edit summary said that "Impru20, discriminating against “works by Ukrainian authors”". So far, the user has refused to withdraw those claims—despite constituting an overt personal attack, unwarranted aspersions and an outright breach of WP:AGF that was also pointed out by a further two users: diff diff—even after I told them to back them up with evidence in the proper venue if they really wanted to "challenge" my alleged racial discrimination (diff), and despite my numerous calls against I in any way discriminating anyone (diff diff). Even these, however, do not seem to have been enough for the user to acknowledge their own fault and to withdraw those, despite the onus being on them to prove such a serious accusation (rather, they seem to have backed down on their initial "I will not let your comment go unchallenged"-stance by assuring they did not call me "bigot and racist", while leaving their previous comments unedited).

My concern is that those comments are left there unstricken, unredacted or without any kind of action being taken, since that would give the impression to some occasional readers that I was indeed racially discriminating anyone in some way, which is outrightly false and an insult to my own beliefs and principles. If minor, I would normally leave as is any issue revolving personal attacks, but the scale and repercussion of the accusation in this case (i.e. hinting at me somehow supporting or normalizing "bigotry and racism" for no reason and without any evidence, in what constitutes one of the most re-visited talk page discussions in Wikipedia) is just too significant to ignore.

WP:RPA sets out that Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. However, there is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. While this is a clear personal attack, I've refrained from conducting any direct action myself because the text is directed against me, so as to prevent any potential, unwarranted editing conflicts (specially considering the refactoring crisis in that talk page during the previous week). Thus, as an admin who has dealt with some issues in that page, I'm first bringing the issue to you in case you are able give some advice on how to handle the issue or take any action about it; or, if not, to counsel me on whether this should be brought to WP:ANI to seek further action (considering that, as was pointed out by another editor, this user is a sysop himself, meaning that a different behaviour than resorting to such serious accusations to attempt to win an argument should have been expected from them). Cheers and thanks in advance for the attention. Impru20talk 11:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Impru20, I have read the first paragraph above (including appropriate diffs) and skimmed over the rest. If you want to pursue sanction, my advice to you would be to chop this message in about half and then follow the steps at WP:AE. Arbitration Enforcement is the appropriate venue for handingly potential misconduct, even of admins, in an area like this. But I would also ask you to consider whether such action would be helpful. With the combination of the move and the moratorium, will this conflict area (even if not specifically Kyiv) remain an area of conflict for you and the other user or will you both continue on largely independent of each other? Feeling poorly done is not a good feeling - I get it. However, the process of seeking sanctions is itself a stressful/difficult situation and should be weighed against the benefit you expect to get. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not too concerned about sanctions, really, but mostly on getting the attack either struck or removed as per WP:RPA. I'm not a racist, nor do I have discriminated anyone, nor do I have attempted to normalize bigotry in any way, yet the attacks were kept ongoing even after I explicitly condemned them, and have not been removed. There was even an implicit threat that my "discrimination" "was not going to be left unchallenged", yet it was never materialized (in what looked more like an attempt to expel me from the discussion through bad ways rather than a sincere denounce of any actual discrimination). Yup, it's unlikely that any of us will encounter ourselves that much in discussions considering what our editing-areas are, but having that chunk of text there unchallenged and unwithdrawn, where I am being depicted as somehow accepting or actively participating in discrimination, is just disgusting. Impru20talk 15:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Impru20, thanks for your thoughtful reply and clarifying that you are concerned about the wording sitting there rather than looking for sanctions. I have good news and bad news for you and it's actually the same news: I don't think what you've linked to is a personal attack. As I read it, the discussion is about the topic in general as much or more than it is about you and anything bad you might have done. It's good news in that hopefully you can rest assured knowing you are not going to look bad if that writing remains there. It's bad news because it is clear that the response has upset you and I'm not sure my reassurance that you look OK is sufficient. I hate seeing thoughtful editors upset by others and wish I had more to offer than empathy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Order at RFA

Did I get the order wrong at RFA? I put newer on top, where I see you put newer on bottom ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, no I got it wrong. I have fixed it :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute resolution toolbox

Last year you had expressed some interest in what I've written on content dispute resolution (I continued the discussion at User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/2 § Content dispute resolution; I forget which project page it started on). Back then I said I was working on a proposal. I've finally written down some of my ideas on User:Isaacl/Community/Content dispute resolution toolbox for techniques to help mitigate difficulties with content dispute discussions. Just an fyi! isaacl (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, This is some good stuff. I wonder what buy-in would be needed to make it work. Would it have to be 3PO/DRN style where parties agree or could a moderator say "this is the way we're doing it" and make it stick (perhaps by hatting those who participate in other ways)? What do you think of as your next step? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I think round-robin discussion is a good fit when discussion is in an exploratory phase. This could be a brainstorming session, or perhaps when an issue is brought in front of one or more third parties and it is desirable to slow down any back-and-forth bickering. For exploratory discussions, I think the person setting it up could manage a round-robin discussion phase. Generally people are pretty good at following a structure that is set up from the start. Unfortunately if a few people object, it would be hard to stick to, since even the structure of discussions is subject to consensus decision making.
I've long encouraged the use of pros and cons summaries to make decisions, rather than the typical straw poll format where each person's net opinion is rolled up into a support/oppose statement. (I appreciate some people feel that many English Wikipedia discussions are not closed on the basis of a straw poll, but it's undeniable many discussions are formatted as straw polls.) I have seen some people try to generate pros and cons lists in discussions, but can't remember their being kept up-to-date very well or having a central role in evaluating consensus. Of course, I've only seen a tiny sliver of all the discussions out there. I suspect it would be hard to get people to adopt this, because most people seem content with just expressing their net opinion ("Option A") and getting out, thus minimizing their engagement. I think in the long run breaking the discussion down into pros and cons saves overall time, but the tragedy of the commons problem is hard to overcome.
I think having more discussion closures include a revisit respite period could be possible, given that it's mostly a formalization of what happens on an informal basis today. The closer might get tired of being polled constantly, which is partly why I suggested allowing the responsibility to be delegated. On the other hand, people might see it as undue overhead.
I don't know yet what the next step should be. I'll see if any feedback is received from anyone still following the Fostering collaborative behaviour page. English Wikipedia's tradition of allowing everything to be open to a consensus discussion means it's really hard to do something other than what people are already used to, or what they want to do. This is part of the reason why I decided to frame my ideas as a toolbox of techniques: people can pick and choose something they think will fit their current case. Whether a proposal can catch on is a bit of a lightning in a bottle situation. isaacl (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Isaacl, I agree use by skill moderators in appropriate situations is the best hope. Might be useful to see if any of the admin who regularly work DS/GS might be interested as they are frequently overseeing complex discussions and have, thanks to DS/GS, some bit of authority to impose the use of the tools. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Got your point

I will try to reduce to 250 words.But I was just trying to explain what the admins has not noticed.Since scottwang was a closing admin I wanted to inform him that he might done that with a misinterpretation. Other article of same similiarity and not even enough notability of that if the deleted one even exist in wikipedia. So according to wp:otherstuffexist

  • If y is notable (meriting an article in Wikipedia), then x is also notable.
  • If x is not notable, then y is also not notable (meaning that both the article on x and the article on y must be deleted).

So I just want an admin to take action regarding this. Shahoodu (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Shahoodu, I think you might want to readotherstuff exists again because that is not its message. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I just copies the rule from the page.I think its notability comparison test Shahoodu (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Issues raised by Citation bot

In your closure you wrote that «This decision should be made on an article by article basis». Where did this come from? I can't find a single editor making this argument in the discussion, let alone a consensus. Do you realise this would mean opening a discussion on something like 100k talk pages? Nemo 06:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Nemo bis, in most cases nothing needs to happen. But I got the article basis from standard Wikipedia processes. If there isn't a global consensus, and for that there wasn't beyond what I noted, there can only be a local one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
If it's "standard process", then you don't need to include it in the closure. As for "in most cases nothing needs to happen", I'm not sure what you mean and whether it's your personal opinion or what else. In general, it could be useful to revise your closure and get your personal commentary out of it. Nemo 06:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Nemo bis, I have no personal commentary outside the initial sentence where I explain how I approached the close. What is there is all reflected in the discussion by the participants. The reason I make explicit that there's no global consensus is so that I could then include the questions to be asked which reflect the wide range of considerations people thought needed to be weighed when making a decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: NPP School

Apologies for taking so long, I had some personal matters I had to take care off, I have finished my latest NPP School assignment (User:Berrely/NPP School). Feel free to mark it whenever you want. :D — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 09:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Berrely, Thanks, I did see your ping. I will most likely get there either later today or tomorrow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Wayman Mitchell restore from deletion

Please examine the undeletion of this page. I am willing to edit the page so that it meets requirements and will survive future deletion attempts.

Additional sources turned up during the deletion discussion, which showed that the topic met GNG. He has recently passed away and was the founder and head of a movement of over 2,700 churches in 125 nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcwarren (talk • contribs) 17:27, September 21, 2020 (UTC)

@Wcwarren:, the deletion was from April. If some new coverage came up after he died I would recommend starting fresh with that, rather than based on the content that had been there before. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: OK shall start again, thanks.

Is this a proper AFD no consensus close?

Is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornwall, Missouri a proper NAC no-consensus close? It was closed by the same user who had the iffy NAC of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masters, Missouri, although this one had my nom and one keep !vote. I'm not sure that If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable from WP:RELIST was quite met there, but I'm fine with the no-consensus close if it was correct, although I rather strongly feel this should have been a relist. Although, what do I know? I'd be one of the last users to be described as generally competent. Hog Farm Bacon 16:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, I think Joe has nabbed some other troubling ones judging by the ping I got from ANI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Orson Scott Card/GA1

Barkeep49, you opened this review page over three months ago, yet have not started the actual review. If you are planning on doing so, it would be great to get it started. If not, then with the next GAN backlog drive starting in a week, perhaps you should let it go so it's available. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions closed and archived

Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions has been closed and archived. The archived amendment request can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rex Chapman

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rex Chapman you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rex Chapman

The article Rex Chapman you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Rex Chapman for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I had a question. I have created an article (about a book) at Set the Night on Fire: L.A. in the Sixties. Under Synopsis you will see a blockquote from a secondary source. It's a very poignant quote, but it does contain two racial slurs when quoting primary sources. I have redacted the slurs, but I am wondering if WP has a normal way of handling this situation? Should they be redacted or should the full actual quote be used including the slurs? Thanks,   // Timothy :: talk  17:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, guidelines say to just quote it as it is in the source unredacted - see WP:BOWDLERIZE. In general I think you've got too much direct quoting going on with that article as you have that extended quote, another one to end that section and several other in the reception section so I'd encourage you to think about where you can cutback and paraphrase instead. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful feedback. Hope you are well.   // Timothy :: talk  02:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
TimothyBlue, always happy to give feedback around articles about books - my specialty :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, That's good to know. I think you're quote advice applies to several articles I've written while working out my shopping mall psychosis. I've been waiting for my mind to reset before going back in to ce them and will also work on the quotes.   // Timothy :: talk  03:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Part 2

Since kindly offered advice, I'll take advantage of it. I reworked Set the Night on Fire: L.A. in the Sixties and think your suggestion made it better. I also combined to Reception and Reviews sections into a single section and think it looks better. Comparing it with the way I was setting it up in Pacific Crucible, what are you're thoughts? I'm just starting to work on editing this trilogy. As always, many thanks,   // Timothy :: talk  04:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, So the reception section should be prose. Just paraphrased with short snippets of text for some reviews. You can take your pick of examples from non-fiction GAs to see. This is/was something I do when editing in a new topic area - look at some of the existing GAs on the topic as a guide (preferably ones that passed more recently since older GAs might not reflect current norms). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

BARC

When you followed the links WTT gave you, you would not have realised that the proposal was actually my idea and the RFC my creation. I wanted WTT to be be involved in it because I was well aware that he too was (and still is) very concerned about the overall state of the entire RfA-Adminship-Arbcom circus. WTT crossed some essential Ts and dotted some important Is before we unleashed it on the community. For anyone who has the time and the inclination, especially if they are interested in taking Adminship/Arbcom reform a stage further, the debate is essential reading - all of it - because unsurprisingly, whichever way the participants voted, 99.9% of the comments are just as valid 5 years later and some of the more vociferous commenters are still saying the same things today. One voter did actually twig that what we were basically doing was throwing ideas at the wall and seeing what part of them would stick. We never expected it to pass, but it was a close and extremely revealing result. One throw off was Biblioworm's partly successful set of reforms in December 2015 which I supported, but they didn't actually change much or bring about any significant improvements, but kudos for trying - AFAIK no one else has tried so hard since. (I hear he 's making a sudden comeback after having been almost totally absent for the best part of the last 4 years - he's probably not even aware that I got stripped of the bit and have retired from doing anything useful for Wikipedia. Nice to see him back anyway). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung, I always considered it a joint proposal, and that I did slightly more than dot some i's
Between that and RFA2011, I always felt we made massive in roads into RfA reform, together. It is a crying shame that nothing really changed long term. WormTT(talk) 18:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Kudpung, it's been a while since I read that page. When I had read it you're right that a lot of it was still true years later. It's part of the reason I've come to the conclusion that no RfA Reform has consensus because when people say things are wrong with RfA they're really not in agreement about what the problem is in the first place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Dave , to give you due credit, you did a lot of work to tighten up the texts and to create a nice overview table and timeline and your comments during the debate were indispensable. My apologises for my lapse of memory. What we finally came up with was indeed very much a joint proposal and your being part of it lent it even more credence. However, I did start that project myself a good two years previously 7 years, 3 months, 15 days ago and it was actually launched a full two years later. The earliest comments on its talk page from 2013 while it was still in my user space are also very very good background, as are the continuation of the talk during the actual debate two years later. There should be no need for Barkeep to duplicate the work, and the feeback that was gained from it is important, but if he has any new ideas that could eventually lead to a new proposal for something, maybe you could get your heads together. I certainly won't be getting involved - my days of doing anything for Wikipedia are over. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
when people say things are wrong with RfA they're really not in agreement about what the problem is in the first place: this is the conundrum. It is in fact prefectly clear what the problem is, but no one except me and Jimbo Wales has ever actually dared to spell it out. The problem is those who participate - their often silly and/or inappropriate questions under the excuse that the candidate should be able to demonstrate how they handle such stuff, their often ridiculously high criteria, their frequent oppose votes that are without any meaningful content, and finally, the overall behaviour that maintains RfA as the one playground where users are allowed to be as nasty as they like with total impunity. WP:RFA2011 was another project I started and coaxed along with the help of WTT, Scottywong and a few others nearly 10 years ago; just some of the research needs to be rerun and updated. The names will have changed but the rest still rings true today. As I have said umpteen times: 'Fix the voters and RfA will fix itself'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Article review

Hello, Barkeep49! Would you be able to review the article on Victor Han that I recently published? I'm contacting you since you were a great help reviewing one of my articles a couple of years ago and helped it to go on google search. :) Thanks in advance! Joh582 (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Joh582, I don't normally review articles on request. The good news is the new page queue is decreasing and so hopefully a reviewer will see your article soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Got it! Thanks for the reply!Joh582 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker), @Joh582, To be honest, the article as it is, is definitely G11 borderline eligible. For starters, you may want to remove the promotional wordings used throughout the article. Celestina007 (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

User: John from Idegon

Dear Barkeep49, What is a holding category? Is it a category that no pages besides categories are to be in, or is it something else? Also, I checked the block log. John is indef blocked. Caleb M1 (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Caleb M1, yes some categories are meant to be empty except for sub-categories. The indef blocked editor is one such category and so it is not necessary, and indeed I would suggest it's unhelpful, to add John or other such "run of the mill" indef blocked editors to it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just making sure that is what it meant. Caleb M1 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
John M Wolfson, and replied to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Pretty Nose

Why did you take this on when User:DGG had already started a close discussion? I do not agree with your decision as the page does not satisfy WP:GNG, lacking SIGCOV in multiple RS and lacking even the most basic biographical details. Many of the Keep votes were arguments/allegations of cultural bias rather than establishing notability. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see my comment on the AfD talk page. If we have the article, what I'm concerned about is that it be accurate. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
User:DGG thanks, I didn't see that discussion. I certainly agree with the closing possibilities that you set out there as I do not believe that the Keep decision was correct. In accordance with WP:AFD I will see what Barkeep49 has to say before taking this to WP:DRV. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Mztourist, I thought about DRV, but I decided it was not the best way to proceed. I strongly advise not taking it to DRV. The best you are likely to get from DRV is a relisting or non-consensus. The likely result of a relisting or another AfD is continued acrimony.--and, as I tell people thinking about DRV, if you fail to delete it in another try, it will be considered pointy to raise the question again for several years. I have a considerable list of articles that I think ought to be deleted, but never will be. It would not help if I kept trying to do so. I'm not sure of what attitude I would take at a DRV on this one but I think it would be not to overturn, but improve, Here's why:
WP does and should cover the world, even if we need to adapt a little. We should not want to discourage people writing in a NPOV fashion about the Indigenous people of anywhere, and we should strongly want to encourage the proper use of oral and other non-standard sourcing. The way to do this is not to reject their work flat out, or to reject such sources, but to develop ways of wrtiing about these subjects and of properly using such sources. We should take every possible advantage of enthusiasm, but make sure the final result is an acceptable WP article.
Please, Mztourist, take a look at the changes I made this night in the article. I think the important thing is to defend the quality of the article, and not remove it. I could very much use your help, and also Barkeep's help, in trying to remove material with particularly weak sourcing ,ajnd in explaining the exact nature of the nonconventional sources that do exist. Barkeep, there is only one real mistake I think you made here, (aside form losing patience with me, but I'm enough of a procrastinator that I am sort of used to that ) which is to imply that there with verification for some of the claims made. Normally I think it a little absurd to argue over two words in a lede, but here there really is a principle. The arguments in the afd went way beyond the sources into completely irrational territory. I think I made a fair change, but I could not defend it by myself, even if I wanted to revisit the article. DGG ( talk ) 10:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Mztourist, as DGG noted I did raise the issue on the talk page. Essentially the closing had been there for 6 days when I raised the issue and 9 days total by the time I closed it. I indicated on that talk page why I felt it shouldn't wait longer for DGG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for the merciful closing Barkeep49. I was watching that closing template for days. It was a tough call and you made it. Respect. Lightburst (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Ditto what Lightburst said. Merciful is the right word. Thank you, too, for being so communicative. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pretty Nose

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pretty Nose. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mztourist (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Mztourist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

219.88.225.193

Can user:219.88.225.193 please be blocked ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

CLCStudent, done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Please unban

Please unban me. I think I have come up with fair conditions. I will lay them out for you again here:

  • For all endorsements, I will add the source to the talk page first and see what others think before addition to an article

I think this seems fair. It gives me the opportunity to continue to delete any endorsements which I often do (twitter, unsourced, vandalism, youtube, etc). But I will agree to let the community tell me what’s acceptable or not. The only obvious exception would be if a newspaper’s official website listed an endorsement. But for all other endorsements, I will ask for a second opinion before adding. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, I'm sorry as I know you sincerely want to edit these articles with good intentions, but while I might agree to end the topic ban early - depending on how post-election stuff shakes out - I am not amenable to a bespoke sanction in this instance. You have the ability to formally file an appeal, as described in the template I left you, but as Euryalus indicated I don't think it's outside of the standard range of responses given these facts. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I think I’m a little confused. Did you place the ban? If so, couldn’t you undo it? If so again, please do so under the agreement that I will discuss on the talk page for every single addition to endorsement pages. Or if there are other conditions you’d rather place, please tell me. But being banned for good fairy editing and learning from my mistakes I find to be completely against what Wikipedia is about Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Lima Bean Farmer, I did place the ban and yes I am able to undo it. However, I am not agreeable to do it using a customized sanction like you propose. This is why I highlighted your other options for appeal. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
So basically you don’t want me to edit for three months. This is truly ridiculous and what I believe is against what Wikipedia stands for. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I understand that this action is distressing for you. I do it not to punish you, but to try and reduce disruption in a contentious area during a particularly charged time. I'd love for you to edit productively. Editing productively would be a sign that the topic ban should be ended early. Wikipedia is a big place and there are many options; since you're into elections, New Zealand has one going on now, as one possibility. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Understood, however you could do this by unbanning me. I see you won’t do this though. If I make no controversial edits, would you agree on lifting the ban by the end of next week? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Lima Bean Farmer, I've written about what I'm willing to do above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sack Trick

How exactly did you arrive at delete instead of redirect for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sack Trick? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Jax 0677, because a consensus of the delete !voters seemed to indicate that the potential redirect target was a bad one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sack Trick

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sack Trick. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jax 0677 (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rex Chapman

The article Rex Chapman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rex Chapman for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Pages about authors

Hi Barkeep. Sorry to bother, but maybe you could help me. In between my maintenance of pages, I'm trying to create articles on notable authors of children's books, unfortunately I seem to be incapable of finding good sources. For example, today I've created Juna's Jar, which has plenty of sources, but I couldn't find anything on its author, Jane Bahk (except for a subscription only piece on the New York Times).

This has happened a couple times before, and it's annoying me, as I don't know if there are sources out there and I'm simply not searching in the correct places. Am I missing anything or is it common for authors to have so few articles written about them, even when there are plenty sources for their books? Thanks. Isabelle 🔔 16:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Isabelle Belato, great question. It is quite typical for authors to receive little coverage until they hit it fairly big. This is one reason I tend to focus on books rather than authors. That said when I'm searching for information I tend to do so using Name + interview and Name + profile as my search terms. Frequently there are interviews out there which, while not ideal, do give us verifiable information with which to write a biography. And please don't feel like a bother. I am pleased to help you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Barkeep. I did manage to find some useful information about the book in a video interview, although nothing much else on the author. I'll probably focus more on the books instead of the authors, instead of the other way around. And don't worry, I'm sure I'll bother you some more in the future! Thanks again. Isabelle 🔔 20:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Looking forward to it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Crede Bailey

Surprised you no consensused this one. Thought it would be ripe for a relist, especially since I thought I demonstrated pretty clearly he hasn't had any significant coverage, and all of the !votes after that were delete. SportingFlyer T·C 11:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, that's a fair point. However, the point was also contested by GeoSwan. In weighing what to do it was "what will more likely produce consensus?" for me: another week continuing the discussion or waiting several months and having a fresh look? I went with the latter option because the chances of "this is what GNG means" "no this is what GNG means" felt higher, given both the number of participants and the volume of their comments, than a swing towards either keep or delete and because some distance from the NEWS element of it all might help gain clarity on what the COVID related coverage really means/meant. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your response - it's fair, and I'm not going to contest the close, but did want to ask. Just a bit frustrating on my end considering the BLP concern, but can always renominate in a couple months. SportingFlyer T·C 17:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
SportingFlyer, while you're here, I just did a search of your archives for RfA only to discovered that I had written about that very topic in July of last year. I said then that I wasn't in a position to weigh in on your ORCP. Obviously, given the number of nominations I've done, I feel differently now. Do you still have some interest? If so I'll do my assessment and email you my thoughts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Which archives were you searching? I haven't been as active of late and am trying not to get stuck back in, but while I feel like I'm at the point where having some extra tools might be helpful, but I'm not keen to run a RfA gauntlet at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 17:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
SportingFlyer, I went ahead and email you my thoughts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Injector pen

Thanks for fixing the tag on it - I had it on my todo list mentally but with a full ICU that's spilling into the IMCU and pulling rooms out of mothball to handle more admits than normal right now... this week has been as hectic as it gets. I wasn't quite sure how to fix it really so I was going to have to research it. Hope you are well - just wanted to thank you for that small fix. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, glad that was of some help. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I Find This Perplexing

Hello captain, It’s times like this that really get me worked up & frustrated, due to the unrest & impending civil war in Nigeria I haven’t been as active as I used to be, so today I come online to see what has been going on since my departure from Wikipedia related activities only to discover that two articles I created before getting Autopatrol rights have been unreviewed by DannyS712 & justifiably so because unfortunately they were marked as patrolled by a UPE editor @Lapablo to be precise, the two articles are Kelvin Ikeduba & Frederick Leonard (Nigerian actor), what’s more demoralizing is that optimizing the copyvio detector, they mark both articles as a 94% copyvio but this isn’t so, as the websites publications were after I had created the article meaning the websites copied the Wikipedia articles verbatim but the copyvio detector cannot tell the difference. I’m a tad bit distraught today as my work place was burnt today by the #ENDSARS protesters in Nigeria so forgive me if what I’m saying might sound incoherent to you but I do hope you understand what I’m saying. What I do not want is some editor who hasn’t performed due diligence tagging both articles as a G12 when they clearly aren’t. Jeez I’m overwhelmed at this juncture, it’s too many things happening at the same time & I have been scatter brained for a while now. I just thought to bring this to your Notice. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007,frustrating indeed. I was so disappointed to see Lapablo turn out to do UPE. I see that Rosguill and Onel have already repatrolled your articles - NPP working the way it should as clearly this was a case of reverse copyright. Sorry for your frustration but glad this turned out to have not caused any actual problems with the articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Please do stay safe. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Captain, thanks to you both my good friends @Rosguill & Onel5969. In these dark times all we have is each-other. You all please stay safe as well. Celestina007 (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Celestina007, I noticed this when I was replying above, my prayers/thoughts for you're strength and safety.   // Timothy :: talk  05:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@TimothyBlue, thanks for your prayers my friend. Celestina007 (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Geronimo Stilton books

Hi Barkeep, hope all is well. I've been eyeing the Geronimo Stilton page for some time now, as it seems an important topic, but with quite a messy article, as it's basically a list of characters, books and adaptations. Instead of erasing most of it, I've decided to split the list of books into its own page, which I've started to do here: User:Isabelle Belato/List of Geronimo Stilton books. This will be quite a gargantuan task (there are almost 300 books in total), but I think it has the potential of a featured/good topic, I'd like to ask for some advices:

  • What kind of information should I provide in the list besides what's already there?
  • Does each book need a citation, or are the ISBN enough?
  • Should I bother with the original date of publication and Italian title, or focus only on the English publication?

Feel free to make any suggestions you might find pertinent as well. Thanks! Isabelle 🔔 19:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Isabelle Belato, splitting the books into a list is a great solution, though the excessive details of the characters needs to go. A sourced, prose, character section would be appropriate though, but not this endless fancruft list. You should definitely bother with both the Italian publication - it's the original and needs recognition. Otherwise I think the elements of your table are complete. As for sourcing, ideally you would have something that references all the books - does Scholastic have a complete listing for instance? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I still don't know what to do with regards to the characters. I haven't created or edited articles of that type and from what I've seen they are mostly fancruft, so that's something I will look over later on (though my instinct is to axe everything but the main character). Concerning the sources, that's a good point. I will keep looking, since the only thing I've found was a spreadsheet by the publishers with books upwards to 2013.
Thanks as always for the help! Isabelle 🔔 02:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
Really, thanks a lot for nomming me for adminship. I didn't know if another barnstar was more appropriate, so take this classic one. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer rights

Hello! You have granted me with temporary new page reviewer rights for 3 months after graduation from NPP Academy. The 3 month are almost over (27 October) and I would like to continue. Could you change it for temporary? I'm not sure what is the procedure, so if there's an official request needed - I will post it. But you mentioned contacting you in case I would like to keep on reviewing. I would also be grateful for some feedback on my activity in this field. Thank you! Less Unless (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, took a look at your reviews. Looks good overall. Could you talk me through your review process on Roger Black (graphic designer) and Regina Scheer? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi! First of all I'd like to thank you for your time - I really appreciate you took a look at my work and made me think once again on those 2 cases – a very useful practice. Those two cases were borderline for me, I was thinking to skip them and review something more obviously notable/unnotable, but then I decided to be bold and face my fears so to say).

I’ll guide you through my decision-making process:

Roger Black (graphic designer)

My analysis of the sources available in the article: 1. This – A lifetime Achievement Award by the society of News Design shows the subject has had an impact on the sphere big enough to receive this type of award. Moreover the article is fully dedicated to the subject. 2. This can’t be considered an IRS as it’s an event agency. 3. This can’t be used as it’s rather a passing mention. 4. This the article is fully dedicated to the subject, but he used to work in NYMagazine, so it’s not independent. 5. This is fully dedicated to the subject, but the source doesn’t seem reliable and it’s an interview. 6. This doesn’t mention the subject at all. 7. This is not independent. 8. This is about his farther, not him.

When I googled him, I’ve found some more coverage, that can be used: 1. 1 this is a reputable magazine in the field, the article has at least 3 paragraphs dedicated to the subject. 2. 2 several paragraphs about the subject, but I am not sure about the reliability. 3. 3 fully dedicated to the subject, can be used (except for the interview part) 4. 4 interview, so can’t be used. 5. 5 rather a passing mention, but can be used to support at least 1 fact. 6. 6 can be used to support several facts.


So if we take a look at the sources, the subject might not pass WP:GNG (if we are very strict, which I am trying to be), however, what made me doubt is:

1) Many other designers called him a legend, master, etc, meaning he is a significant figure in his field. He has done graphic design for basically all the biggest outlets. Therefore he meets WP:CREATIVE, crit.1, 2. And WP:ANYBIO crit.1 2) I think there might be more IRS which are niche, but still can be considered reliable so I have marked the article with more citations needed. Therefore I have come to a conclusion that the subject is eligible to have an article.


Regina Scheer

While doing WP:BEFORE I have found 3 references that were not mentioned in the article, but are IRS namely: 1-2. This and This which are two big radio stations working since 2003 and 1994 respectively. The articles mention couple of facts, but what’s more important the author was invited to the station’s culture programs, which shows some level of her notability. 3. This which is an article dedicated to the subject by a IRS.

The following were in the articles (both en and de)

4. This – although it’s rather a short bio, the online magazine is reliable (the biggest on German market, awarded the prestigious Grimme Award for online journalism). 5. This which is a German magazine (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horch_und_Guck) (ISSN – 1437-6164) founded in 1992 (now under a different name). 6. She has a record in German National Library here and Library of Congress here.

7. Also there’s a bunch of minor mentions, which can be omitted, because some are not independent or reliable, but I’ll list them just in case – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5


Another fact that pushed me more towards approving the article was the 2 awards she received: “Ver.di-Literaturpreis Berlin-Brandenburg” which is rather local, but also “Mara-Cassens-Preis” which was founded in 1970 and is considered significant in Germany (I’ve even found a book about this award – here)

So taking everything into consideration, I have come to decision that the subject passes WP:GNG (there are 3 clear IRS) and may pass WP:ANYBIO crit 1. As an author the subject doesn’t meet the WP:AUTHOR however as general notability guidelines are met, the subject can be considered notable. This was a difficult one, but I believe the guidelines are met.


I will also add the refs I’ve found to both articles (honestly, I don’t remember why I haven’t done so while reviewing – usually I try to fill all the gaps so to say – you might have seen it in other articles I’ve reviewed).

Thank you again. Best, Less Unless (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Less Unless: there is a fair amount of reviewer discretion when doing NPP. I therefore picked these two procisely because they were not clear cut and gave the opportunity for me to understand your thought process.
Looking at Black. First, the concept of awards can be a great indicator of notability. However, when the award itself is not notable, it offers far less value on its own. So it will be necessary, as you do here, to consider it in the context of the whole. You're correct that Wired (source 3) is not significant but Wired is a reliable source and it referring to Black as famed magazine designer is, like the award, a datapoint to remember. He had not worked for New York magazine for over a decade when the profile was published so, while some skepticism is warranted I would actually count that as an independent source. You are correct that interviews are not independent, however, regardless of the reliability otherwise (which a wordpress blog is rarely going to be). In the end I agree with your assessment that there is verifiable information and that there is ample reliable sourcing to suggest that because of the esteem he holds in his field he meets NCREATIVE #1. ANYBIO criteria 1 requires a whole different level of achievement than this - some fields, with magazine design among them, probably don't qualify anyone in ANYBIO ultimately. So good patrol and good thought process here.
As for Scheer, as noted above interviews don't establish notability so https://www.rbb-online.de/'s interview isn't helpful for us. The review by deutschlandfunk is far more promising. For an author this is probably our first ask - are her works reviewed. The second is, are there reliable sources about her? If the answer to both these questions is yes than we have notability. Literature and books are my main area of wiki editing and I can't recall a literary author (as opposed to a more political provocateur), which Sheer is, who qualifies under GNG but not NAUTHOR. It would be astounding. So putting aside your GNG claim for a moment, from` German Wikipedia I see a book has won de:Mara Cassens Prize which claims to be the biggest endowed literary prize in Germany - more research would be needed but that's a promising claim to notability at least as equivalent to Black's award. The de:Ver.di Literature Prize Berlin-Brandenburg is far less promising as a notable award. After getting the German word for "book review" I do a search for that and her name and without too much trouble find several reviews (e.g. [14], [15], which is not itself a RS but which houses a radio program which appears to be) in addition to the funk review above. All this adds up to notability for me under NAUTHOR. So I think you got to the right destination here, and indeed I agree with your individual reasoning but not necessarily how you piece it all together.
That said I think you're clearly asking the right questions and have a good sense of the policies and guidelines at hand. So I'm going to go ahead and grant the PERM. There is a lot of specialized knowledge with NPP and some of it you can only discover by trying and making some mistakes. That said you should also not hesitate to ask questions either of me (I welcome them - see my discussion with a reviewer above) or to the NPP community more generally at WP:NPR. Thanks for your work to date and thanks, in advance, for the contributions to come. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reasoning concerning those 2 articles - it has really cleared up some important nuances for me. I'm glad there's a community which can help and support and I will definitely resort to your help. If I can be in any way helpful - please drop me a message, I'll be glad to be of use. Best, Less Unless (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

New mail

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

--Majash2020 (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Growth team updates #15

Welcome to the fifteenth newsletter from the Growth team!

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

Variants C and D deployed

Variant D in Portuguese Wikipedia

Variants C and D are two new arrangements of the newcomer homepage. We hope they will increase the number of users using suggested edits. They both make suggested edits the clear place where newcomers should get started on the page. They have some differences in their workflows, because we want to test which design is better. We deployed these variants on October 19; half of newcomers get each variant. After about 5 weeks, we will analyze the data from the tests. The goal is to determine which variant is helping more newcomers to make more suggested edits. We will identify the better variant and then use it with all newcomers.

Structured tasks: add a link

Concept A for add a link.

As we discussed in previous newsletters, the team is working on our first "structured task": the "add a link" task. After community discussion on design ideas, we ran user tests on the mobile designs. We decided on the design concept we want to use moving forward: Concept A. We're now engineering the backend for this feature. Next, we will be running user tests for desktop designs.

Learn more about the findings.

Community news

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

10:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 November newsletter

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is England Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by England Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. Botswana The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with New York (state) Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were Gondor Hog Farm (submissions), Indonesia HaEr48 (submissions), Somerset Harrias (submissions) and Free Hong Kong Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

What Is This Called

Can’t for the life of me remember what it is called when, for example an editor A, creates an article(usually non-notable) for a man, then creates another article for his spouse, then creates an article for their business, then creates an article for their kids, then proceeds to link all of them together. I think it’s an essay & I have been trying all week long to recollect the name of the essay that discusses this but for the life of me I just cannot remember. Can you help me out here? Celestina007 (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Walled garden?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
@Celestina007 yes I took was going to say Walled Garden. Thanks Ponyo. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Ponyo & Barkeep49, exactly! I knew it predominantly as “WP:WALL” thanks for aiding me to remember, nothing more annoying than forgetting something you used to know. Celestina007 (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Requesting to be adopted

Information icon Hello, I am ChuksJD, I want to enroll into the NPP Academy and I wish that you become my adopter. 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐤𝐬𝐉𝐃 ❑❑❑❑ (talk) (contribs) 09:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@ChuksJD:, New Page Patrol rights are generally given to fairly experienced Wikipedians so that's probably not the right place for your at the moment. Tell me more about what you'd want out of an adoption? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Urggh More Questions For You Captain

Hello Captain, I’ve got two questions here, the first is; what is the communities decision on notable articles created by proven UPE editors? Do I mark as reviewed or just indefinitely draftify the article even though the article is a clearly on a notable subject? The second is, when I do page curation & tag an article with the {{Notability}} tag, it automatically marks the page as reviewed but I always manually unreview/un-mark the page, my question Is, is this the right course of action or do I just leave the article as marked/reviewed after affixing the notability tag. I desperately need clarification on the aforementioned scenarios. Celestina007 (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: in terms of adding the tag, it depends. Sometimes you want to add the tag and leave it for another reviewer to consider. So in that case it's appropriate to unreview. in other circumstances you want to mark it as reviewed but note that it's borderline and so you want to leave the tag and leave it reviewed. As for UPE it might be helpful to give a specific example you're wondering about rather than talk in generalities. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the notability tag & it’s intricacies, as for the UPE, that was hypothetical & I thought the community might have reached a decision pertaining to that so I thought it wise to ask from you, I was just generally asking. Cheers captain. Celestina007 (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The thing is that there's not a hard and fast rule as it depends on who the UPE is and what the state of the article is. So DRAFTIFY can be a correct solution but not in all situations. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Yup!!! duly noted. Celestina007 (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

your version on the notability page

[16] Notice how your version still ignores the fact that many things are notable for the encyclopedia without any coverage every likely to be found, as examples given in the discussion. Also certain people already argue nonstop they can keep nominating something for deletion even if it meets a subject specific guideline. Need to be perfectly clear to avoid problems, and just point out what's listed at the top of the Notability page and has been for years, that its notable if it meets one or the other, never has to do both. Dream Focus 00:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: You write ignores the fact that many things are notable for the encyclopedia without any coverage every likely to be found. I'm confused. Are you suggesting things which are not verifiable can be included in Wikipedia? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
There is coverage verifying them, just not "significant coverage". Many species articles just list a few stats about them, there no significant coverage of them. Dream Focus 01:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Then I agree that some topics can, under our current guidelines and current practice, be notable even without significant coverage, as long as it remains verifiable. If you want to delete that either in-depth, independent sourcing likely exists for that topic but may take time and effort to locate (such as print works in libraries local to the topic), or that sourcing will likely be written for the topic in the future due to the strength of accomplishment (such as winning a Nobel prize). I would not revert you as my goal was to see if we could agree on explaining that SNGs exist without getting into the rather complicated and contentious area of how they convey notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I did so but then someone else reverted me who hasn't participated in the discussion yet. Oh well. Dream Focus 01:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
And my attempt was reverted as well. Double oh well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Wrong about Zamora

Hi! At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebeca Flores you state that the bundling of Zamora was not correct. I am 99% sure that it was totally correct, and participants stated delete both. It was this nomination where Zamora's nomination was incomplete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susana Rivadeneira. Now, on the other hand, after I duly renominated Zamora and consensus was to delete, can you please delete it? Geschichte (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Geschichte I can understand your frustration here. I am being a stickler for the rules, because deletion is such a major action for an article. But you didn't use the la template for Zamora so it didn't look like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Today's Railways UK, for instance, which is a successful bundle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mango (Saturday Night Live) (2nd nomination). What do you think of my improvements to the article? Right cite (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite: I actually don't look at articles before I close the AfD. My job as closer is to evaluate the consensus reached by the participants of the discussion. If I look at the article I might substitute my own view for that of the participants (and if I have a view I should be participating and not closing the discussion). But judging by the conversation it did make a difference, so that's something to be proud of (I know I am proud when I "save" an article that's at AfD). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, well, having had a chance post close, what do you think of the article improvements? Right cite (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@Right cite: I have had a chance to look at the article. You did some impressive research there. You would probably be close to GA. If anything the page might be overly detailed right now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Right cite (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review

Hello, a while ago you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 and it is now being used as a precedent for deleting a similar article 1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle and with others to come. I was hoping to relist the discussion to form a clearer consensus since it is being used as a precedent. You know I respect your judgment, value your counsel, and mean no disrespect.   // Timothy :: talk  14:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

good close & explanation at Del Rev. -- DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:José Arechabala

Hello, Barkeep49. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "José Arechabala".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This is confusing to me because it looks like you moved this draft to main space but you were still listed as the page creator of this draft so this notice was posted to your talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
This kind of stuff happens with some regularity so I'm not too surprised or confused. Hope you're doing well, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Casey_Trees

Thank you. In the meanwhile, I asked off-wiki a person whom I know with significant experience in the NFP world of DC and he wrote to me, that "it is well known and reputable." Bearian (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bearian: thanks for sharing. When I get a ping with an AfD for the topic my first thought is "oh no, someone is unhappy with a close." Glad that wasn't the case here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Teach me your dark magick

This edit is tagged "Reply", but I thought the Reply Tool was not yet available on enwiki, even as a beta. What spell did you recite to perform this magick? Lev!vich 00:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich:, if ( $( '#ca-addsection' ).length ) mw.loader.using( 'ext.discussionTools.init' ); is what you seek. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I can already feel my power growing! Lev!vich 00:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Question about Gentrification in the United States

Hello, I was writing a note to the article author about drafting Gentrification in the United States and noticed WilyD reverted the draft. Given the content forking and copied material from Gentrification [17], I thought Draft was the best place for it to be worked on.

I thought Draft was correct, but the revert was from an experienced admin that said "Draftication was obviously inappropriate". How should I have handled this?

WilyD: Barkeep49 has been mentoring me at NPP, which is why I left the question here, but any feedback that you can provide me would be welcome and helpful.

Best wishes,   // Timothy :: talk  11:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  • If copying is done within Wikipedia, you can use a dummy edit to the page to add a note about the copying; that'll resolve the licensing issues. Otherwise, I can't begin to guess why you draftified it; it seems very unlikely to me the current version, as is, would've been deleted at AfD. Certainly not by any speedy deletion criterion. WilyD 12:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi WilyD, the report in the NPP panel [18] indicated it was 75% (4,526 words) copied from Gentrification. If it was a minor amount I would have used the null edit instead of draft, but 75% seemed like it was not ready for mainspace and Draft was a good ATD since the author indicated they would return (but obviously there could be no guarantee). The combination of the fork and the duplicate content along with a new editor seems like it will require some time to work on and draft is less discouraging to a new editor than AfD. It does seem like it could be a great summary style split, so AfD might be hasty given the potential. So I thought drafting and an encouraging note to the author would have been best. Thank you for your time helping me understand situations such as this.   // Timothy :: talk  13:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Gentrification is over 100kB of readable prose, so it should be spun out into smaller articles, which the author indicated they were doing in the edit summary. Sending an article to draft space is very discouraging for a new editor, it sends a clear signal that they're not wanted, and if the author wasn't required to do this for a course, you'd have probably already driven them off. Of course, when the only possible alternative is deletion, draftification is a slightly less hostile choice. But the page is question isn't eligible for speedy deletion, and it's very unlikely it'd be deleted at AfD. WilyD 13:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

advice/feedback

So I've reread ANI advice. I've made a revised proposal, and I'm wondering if what I should have done in the first place was just have made that as a standalone, easy-read post like this:

Proposing one-month block with a six-month ban on commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at ANI. This has already achieved a level of consensus in this discussion which was followed by a very clear final warning here that blocks of increasing length would follow the next incident.

Is that what ANI advice is saying I should have done? Thanks for any advice. (And, yes, I walk away after this. I've done my best. Not my monkeys.) —valereee (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I think that would have met with more success than what you did. I think dropping the names of the admin who had been involved in this was helpful in that it shows it's not just you. I would have tried something like
Sample ANI wording
Pasdecomplot has been warned multiple times over months by Usedtobecool (diff), Cullen (diff), me (diff), and GirthSummit about making accusations of bad faith, both at talk pages and in edit summaries (example (diff1), (diff2), (diff3) but there are many more).
I am proposing one-month block with a six-month ban on commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at ANI. This has already achieved a level of consensus in this discussion which was followed by a very clear final warning here that blocks of increasing length would follow the next incident.
Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thank you! Even if nothing comes of it, at least I managed to learn a few things. So that's a win. :) —valereee (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
lol, sorry to ping you to your own talk —valereee (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Checking in

Hello, I've done some NPP and decided to check in with you to see if you have any advice for improvement before I get too far in. No rush and hope things are well.   // Timothy :: talk  15:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue:, happy for you to stop by. Here's what I see.

So overall definitely on the right track. Couple of places where some follow-up discussion might be useful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Timmy Allen: The sources in the article from The Salt Lake Tribune, The Arizona Republic, Associated Press, Deseret News, come close to meeting GNG. When the first point about multiple sources under BASIC is considered, I think they cross the mark. Since the article met this I didn't consider NBASKETBALL because of the Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Applicable policies and guidelines second paragraph. Plus anyone with the root name "Tim" is always notable.
  • That's a fair enough interpretation. Whether NSPORT is inclusive or exclusive is an ongoing debate. I don't think you actually did this wrong per se I just wanted to raise college athletes as a controversial area to be particularly thoughtful while patrolling. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • A Kalabanda Ate My Homework: I admit this was an article I personally wanted to keep. Based purely on GNG, its in a grey area as far as sources go. I think this is when SNGs become helpful; rather than use SNGs as an excuse to keep an article when SIGCOV is absent, they help evaluate an article when SIGCOV is questionable. Based on point 3 under WP:NFO, I think the awards it has won make it notable and indicate more sources could be found. I looked into the awards listed and added one award I found [19].
  • Hoo boy do I get a bit scared when we patrol by working backwards from the outcome we want. We're volunteers so you're under no obligation to do an action you don't want but that can often mean it's better to skip an article than to patrol it. Now there's nothing wrong with doing some research, finding information that better establishes notability, and improving the article. I don't know a ton about Ugandan cinema but I am very skeptical that the Film Festival Award on its own meets NFILM criteria 3. But the two awards together are a good sign of notability and make sense to me. So I agree with your endpoint but caution you about the route you took to get there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Gerlach (company): Sometimes when I'm considering an article for AfD, I bookmark it and come back to it later with a fresh perspective; I wish I had done that with this article. I've changed my mind about it half a dozen times since I started working on it. I put weight on Piotrus opinion/sources because of their experience at AfD and Polish topics. There could be local language sources I'm missing and I could be misinterpreting coverage as promo when it is actually a sign it is well known, but then fame does not mean notability. Ulimately I lost confidence in the AfD and I think when that happens, a withdrawl or a changed !vote is important. Because I've gone back and forth on this, I should have marked the article as unreviewed, so another set of eyes could look at it (I did mark it unreviewed now).
  • Knowing when to leave an article to another reviewer is a key NPP skill. Speaking personally if I was able to verify that a company in a non-english speaking country had been around since 1760 and I couldn't find evidence of notability I would just leave it alone, assuming my ability to search that language (polish in this case) was just insufficient. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  // Timothy :: talk  21:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@TimothyBlue: see my comments inline above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Reply: "Knowing when to leave an article to another reviewer is a key NPP skill." That's the main lesson I'm taking away. Knowing in general when to leave something (anything, NPP, AfD, RCP, ANI, plain editing) for someone else seems to be a golden rule for a happy wikilife. // Agree on the Hoo boy; guilt for breaking a cardinal rule drove me to confession, the means are just as important as the end.   // Timothy :: talk  05:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Check in

Hello :) Its been about 3 weeks of NPP, so I thought I would check in for a review.

  • I was clearly outside the consensus on Gun serial number (I still think I am correct, but I accept I'm clearly outside the consensus). I'd be interested in hearing what you think of this article and the AfD rationale (AfD is clearly going to be a keep, just wanting feedback from you on WWIN)
  • HBCU Buzz gave me some issues I decided to leave it for someone else.
  • I think a really solid article at Song-Xia wars resulted from a merge suggestion on a series of new articles.
  • Alexander Grigoriev (artist) was an article I was interested in, but I was careful not to work backwards.
  • I merged two articles Luba Royal Mausoleum, Pulau Chermin Royal Cemetery into Bandar Seri Begawan. I figured these could be split if there was enough for stand alone articles, I think this was a good merge, but interested in a second opinion.
I think the major take away from the last two weeks is to think more about possible merges as WP:ATD.
When I first started NPP, I assumed it would be extremely similar to AfD; in this I was wrong, but pleasantly so. I can't put my fingers on the write words to explain why, but its more involved, deeper, than AfD. But perhaps this means the way I have been doing AfDs needs adjustment. Either way NPP will improve my AfDs.
This weekend I'm going to finish a couple of articles I've been writing, so I might be slow in responding. Again thank you for your time and best wishes   // Timothy :: talk  09:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
PS Question: re: Template:Drafts moved from mainspace it appears that User:JJMC89 bot runs and tags with this automatically. Should we depend on that or should we be manually tagging Draftify articles? 12:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Always good to hear from you. Here are my thoughts:
  • There's always a "what is this harming" element to deciding whether to go to AfD or not. BLPs that are inadequate are harmful. Articles that give legitimacy to topics that might struggle for them (i.e. certain cryptocurrencies) can be harmful. An uncommon but verifiable food dish? No harm at all. Gun serial number basically falls into this last category.
  • HBCU Buzz: I wondered about UPE but in the end I don't think it is UPE. I'm a little skeptical about notability but media publications in general are tricky to ascertain notability. "newspapers of records" for a big enough area are going to be notable regardless of traditional indicators, in my experience. This is more of a specialty publication which counts against it.
  • Song: Not sure what it took to get there but I agree that is a nice article. More on merges below
  • Grigoriev: I think that needs a cleanup tag (I applied) but I agree that he is a notable topic
  • So these topics need coverage. I think BOLD editing is fine. If this was challenged and put up to discussion my gut tells me consensus would go against you. However, if no one challenges and it stands for a while well that's meaningful too. I say that less for this particular situation and more about how you should perhaps approach this in the future. An essay I'll probably write some day is "Out on a limb" which is basically the BOLDer the action the more willing you need to be to let it be undone when challenged. And in this case I think you're out there. I truly believe in BOLD editing so nothing wrong with that just needing to know what to do if challenged.
And yes I think NPP can be an immensely rewarding task. You're getting to help nudge the encyclopedia in really great directions at an important time - the creation of new material. I'm glad you're enjoying it and finding it's helping you as an editor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Check in 2

Hi Barkeep. Its the end of the month for my trial NPP, so I thought I would check in for a review. Hope things are well.   // Timothy :: talk  03:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue it would probably be good to get some fresh eyes and thoughts. I'd encourage you to post at PERM/NPR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Adminship

I can make a pitch that being an admin is a pretty cushy position that carries benefits that aren't always appreciated (both by non-admins and by admins who've just grown used to them and don't notice them any more). I'd be curious to see that pitch - wait until you've been an admin a bit longer, particularly if you continue (as I did) to be highly visible. You were only recently 'promoted' (which I supported, and not lightly[20][21]) and I hope you last as long as I did - if you do, I probably won't be around to see it though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I can only hope to be around long enough to have improved the project as much as you did. The core of my pitch, which I've made onwiki in various places so I don't mind making it here, is that admin get less pushback for equivalent actions than other editors. For instance, in the #Kiev thread, whoever closed that RfC was going to get some comment from someone unahppy. I suspect that if a non-admin had done it, the pushback would have been more forceful (and might not have had the added benefit of a talk page watcher chiming in for extra support). Some admins perform numerically more controversial actions so they get numerically more pushback - even if at a reduced rate - so it doesn't always seem like that. And some admin can, of course, attract longterm harassers because of their admin work. But it is my contention that it is possible to be a low-visibility active admin and if that's what you are you get a whole lot of social capital (which can include benefits in non-admin ways like low-grade content disputes - the community endorsed your understanding of PAG after all) which helps insulate the admin from criticism and thus makes it a pretty cushy position. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

according to the protected article

I added the new sources for Amber Martinez but someone deleted that, the sources was reliable and independed can you please review that? 212.47.220.173 (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

My page protection was not because of the sources - to be honest I did not look at them and cannot say if they were reliable and appropriate or not. My page protection was about the removal of the tags and about the external links being added. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Kiev

In my comment, I pointed out that the proposal sets the rules that are different from what our guidelines and policy recommend. In connection to that I am wondering why this my opinion was not taken into account. A local consensus cannot overrule policy. The policy (WP:UCRN) says that recognizable names are preferred. so the decisions of some authorities cannot affect Wikipedia directly, only through reliable secondary sources. In addition, a decision of the Ukrainian commission is a primary source, so the local consensus is questionable from the point of view of another core policy, NOR. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: your comments were taken into account and I agree that a local consensus cannot overrule policy. I had been getting ready to close the RfC but waited more time after your November 2nd comment to see if it would attract any further comments. It did not. Your comments in both that thread, and elsewhere including the comment above, suggest you are attempting to relitigate the outcome of the RfC itself, which was not a local consensus (for instance it was listed at WP:CENT). I'm sorry you weren't around for the RfC itself and that you are frustrated with its result but that does not change the considered consensus of the Wikipedia community for at least a year. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The last RM (I was not participating in) was about a change of a single article (Kiev). The current RfC was about expansion of the result of that consensus on the whole category, and setting some date, which is OR. These are totally different things, and the policy explicitly says that if one name has changed, other articles do not necessarily change their names, so everything is depends on context. Therefore, my failure to participate in the last RM is irrelevant here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There's nothing OR about the suggested dates as they're merely suggestions, not the final word on article content. Closing comments like that are just rough outlines of likely outcomes given the community's perspective on a given point. There's a general, if possibly sour, consensus that Kyiv is appropriate for the modern city, and this most recent RfC established that editors generally oppose renaming historical uses of the city name to the new spelling. The suggested cutoff dates merely make legible which dates are relevant to the updated spelling convention, so that editors not intimately familiar with Eastern European history can get a sense of what changes are likely to be contested. signed, Rosguill talk 01:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, it is quite correct that editors generally oppose renaming historical uses of the city name: that is just what the policy says. That means the JzG's #2 just reiterates the policy, and, therefore, it is redundant. JgZ's #3 is also quite non-controverisal, because it just reiterates our policy. That means ##2&3 could not face any opposition from the community, because we all respect our policy. However, JzG's #1 is questionable, because the last RM related to the name of one concrete article, not about all articles related to Kiev. The last JzG's proposal sets some threshold based on a primary source (official document), and it is not based on the analysis of secondary sources, as our policy requires. Therefore, this RfC propose users to support the rule that contradicts to our policies (the name policy and NOR). --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Your need to drop the stick about the name is relevant; you have suggested re-opening the RM elsewhere on that talk page and I am considering the entirety of your comments when replying. As for the dates, several editors agreed with you about them, and this is why I separated them out in my close, unlike in the original RfC. Rule of thumb was the best phrase I could come up with for "here's an idea but you don't have to stick to it". If you have a better phrase/word I would be open to that suggestion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Take a look at the questions again:
  • For unambiguously current / ongoing topics (e.g. Kyiv Metro), Kyiv is preferred
Keeping in mind the word "preferred", it is just a recommendation, which is totally toothless, because RfC is recommended in each questionable case (see below);
  • For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content
Indisputable, but non needed, for that is what WP:TITLECHANGES says.
  • For any edge cases, or in case of doubt or dispute, an RfC or move request debate is recommended;
That is recommended by our policy, and there is no need to reiterate it;
  • In all cases, name changes must follow the WP:BRD cycle.
Why not to add that we must avoid personal attacks or other self-evident things?
Therefore, all of that could not face any opposition, does not add anything sufficient to already existing rules, and is totally redundant.
The only meaningful proposal is the proposal about a threshold date. Both dates are proposed based on some official documents, and they are not supplemented by any analysis of secondary sources, which is required by our policy. Therefore, the whole RfC is partially redundant, and partially it aimed to affirm some proposal that is against our naming policy and NOR/NPOV.
My major objection is that the RfC mixed totally obvious and non-controversial proposals, which were not expected to face any opposition, and some very questionable one, which contradicts to our policies. In my opinion, that is a flawed approach.
With regard to better phrase, I cannot propose anything, because I see no need in that RfC. I suspect it was dictated by the desire to stop wholesale renaming of Kiev related articles, but a simple reference to our policy would be sufficient. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbert_Rietbroek

Hi Barkeep49, in the recent AfD discussion for subject Robbert Rietbroek the argument is made that subject is a "notable CEO". Upon review of all available information in the public domain including references listed on the page the determination can be made that subject is in fact the General Manager and SVP of the Quaker Oats company, which does not have its own CEO, as it is a division of PepsiCo. The latter has a different CEO. Subject as such might not meet WP:N and WP:BASIC guidelines. Would you consider to reopen the AfD discussion based on this information.

It was a marginal close already and since it only had 2 relists, I've gone ahead and relisted the discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)do

Do it

Do the thing where you run. I liked that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I liked that too. CThomas3 (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@Amorymeltzer, @Cthomas3: hopefully you like what I'm doing. If you do, would you mind leaving some kind words for others to read? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Clarifications on NPOL

Hello captain, could you clarify this for me; Per NPOL, Politicians are presumed notable, (with emphasis on the word presumed) if they satisfy the criteria listed there, but I ran into a problem sometime back when the politician did satisfy a criterion but a before search barely turned up any three RS of value to GNG. My question is this, with the word “presumed” used in NPOL, is NPOL in itself an SNG for politicians or does it merely point to GNG? Celestina007 (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007 this is a source of great debate at the moment at Wikipedia talk:Notability. How confident are you that offline sources don't exist? It's possible to challenge npol but like anytime you challenge an sng you need to make sure your case is very strong and be prepared for pushback and disappointment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I was indeed disappointed because my case was indeed a strong one as a before search majorly discussed the woman’s father & she very briefly without SIGCOV, which is required by GNG. I pointed this out severally but the editors in the AFD clearly refused to take into account that the word “presumed” & “certified” are not synonymous, to them in so far as she satisfied a criterion from NPOL it was automatic notability I doubt if they even bothered to google the definition of the words “presumed notable” which in my own understanding of the English language means “is/are supposed to be notable” “supposed to be” & not “are notable” & in that case the subject of the article honestly wasn’t. Perhaps to avoid such confusion in future, is there a way NPOL can be made into an official SNG as PROF currently is? & the word “presumed” removed so that “are notable” remains so like I said this sort of confusion be eradicated completely? Thanks for your time captain. Celestina007 (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) "Presumed" in the WP:NPOL sense means "we are able to write an article on this person since the sources almost certainly exist." At AfD, you have to make a reasonable showing sources showing significant coverage don't exist, which is not the easiest hurdle. It's also contextual - I recently !voted keep on a legislator from the 19th century who received some coverage in the press of the day but would have failed SIGCOV had we required 21st century-quality sources. I would not support removing the word "presumed" since it implies that "you are notable, unless we really can't find sources." SportingFlyer T·C 15:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
NPOL has had a bunch of recent discussion because of the recent US election. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Theresa_Greenfield for more on this. I wouldn't be surprised if that SNG gets changed though I don't believe there has been anything concrete proposed yet. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for D. S. Bradford

An editor has asked for a deletion review of D. S. Bradford. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. THBAO (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

NPP School

Hi, I wanted to enroll for NPP School. Can i be your student? :) - Tatupiplu'talk 13:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tatupiplu: I'm not sure how much time I'll have and will have a better sense in a few days of what my capacity is. Can you tell me more about why you're interested in New Page Patrol and NPP School? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I'm actively contributing to AFC, and AFD and I wanted to also help with NPP. I've gone through the guidelines. But I'll be happy if I join NPP school and learn more about it from you. :) - Tatupiplu'talk 17:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Tatupiplu: so that thing where I said I didn't know how much time I'd have? Well that was me knowing I might run for ArbCom, which I have now decided to do. As such I won't have capacity to take on any new NPP students at this time. Sorry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

since I was mentioned

FWIW, no objection to reopening the ANI on PDC and allowing them to respond, though they were indeed notified by EdJohnston moments before I realized I'd better do it myself (and for which I thanked them); PDC responded at length to that notification of the reopening. No objection also to marking both RfMs as to remain open for another month. —valereee (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee I have replied there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Telemedicine service providers

Hello, I saw your comment on the deletion discussion and decided to go ahead with publishing the merged list article. Seems like a good idea to set up the redirect. I noticed a few others in the list were deleted, so those might be worth setting up redirects for as well (Medic Mobile, MDLIVE, and Doctify) if you think that would be appropriate. Thanks! --Spicypumpkin (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Well done @Spicypumpkin. Do you actually need me to restore doxy (I shouldn't really restore the others) or do you just need to make the redirect? If you've never made a redirect before here are the instructions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I can figure out the redirect. If you want to go ahead and restore I can make sure I wasn't missing any refs or information since it's not available anymore. Thanks! --Spicypumpkin (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Spicypumpkin, done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! --Spicypumpkin (talk)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I know you will be best administrator in future. 🇮🇳DRCNSINDIA (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks DRCNSINDIA. I hope that I am a good administrator now :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Question

I have a question about my restrictions. Am I able to edit Gaelic Athletic Association related articles? I ask as I believe they count as sport articles and not political ones but I would like clarification just to be sure I don't accidentally breach my current restrictions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@The C of E:, I am not a subject area expert on the Gaelic Athletic Association but their article says (complete with in-line citation) The association has, since its inception, been closely associated with Irish nationalism, and this has continued to the present, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland so that would be a no. Obviously many Irish sporting topics would be fine, as long as they don't touch on The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Very well, thank you for the clarification. I had a feeling that might be the case. I'm hoping that come 6 months that these handcuffs can be loosened to allow for such wriggle room on vague topics. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The C of E, just noting that your DYK and your TBan are two separate restrictions with only the DYK having a 6 month minimum appeal time. You could appeal them together at AN but don't have to. I'm sure your DS appeal would be successful at this time but just want you to be clear on your options. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
So I can appeal the Troubles/Irish nationalism restriction now if I wanted to? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@The C of E correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Appeal at ARCA

Hi Barkeep49. I wanted to let you know that The C of E is appealing at ARCA a topic ban imposed by you following a consensus of administrators at AE. The ARCA request is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_The_Troubles. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Elections

Good luck in the Arb elections. I hope you get in. You should get in. You will be a useful member of the Committee with your balanced, thoughtful views. SilkTork (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @SilkTork. That means a lot coming from you because you are a model for me about how to communicate to the community as an arb. Would you mind posting something to my discussion page? I'm guessing I've got the "watchers of User talk:Barkeep49" vote pretty well down but am guessing that some number of editors who've never heard of me will go to the discussion page and you might be someone they've heard of and who a nice word would be meaningful. Either way thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"WikiProject Children's literature" at Talk:Kinflicks?

@Barkeep49, The Earwig, and Rosiestep: While the story arc starts with main character's High School days, it isn't what I would think of as something "written for children". Shirt58 (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Shirt58: It was tagged because of its categorization in a subcat of Category:Young adult novels (via Category:1970s young adult novel stubs, now removed). I don't usually run these types of tagging jobs anymore precisely because of this issue: they result in too many false positives due to miscategorization. You're welcome to remove the banner if it seems inappropriate. — Earwig talk 14:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Shirt58:, I support removal of Children's Lit banner. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
No objections here either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49, The Earwig, and Rosiestep:I think a little confession here is appropriate. I read Kinflicks as an adult - scan of my second-hand paperback copy now up for speedy deletion - because it was compared to Fear of Flying... which I did read when I in my late teens. It has all kinds of naughty words and concepts, and looking back, I'm quite surprised the Glenorchy regional library let me borrow the book. This is just between all of us, OK? I wouldn't want my book-reading history to be on any kind of public record.... --Shirt58 (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Response to questions

Hi, I recently attempted a serious discussion on the Arbitration noticeboard dealing with one of the theories, but was ignored except for one who rejected it. In contrast, over the last few days I've gotten a good and serious response about the theory from one of the candidates. That was my first major discussion here, and it hit a light bulb with me, thinking that just maybe now is the time to break into new topics.

I am hoping that the various candidates and significant personalities on the website are reading the answers. I have a strong belief that Wikipedia can gain from relying outside theories rather than trying to re-invent the wheel. On the whole I think the existing question-range is too narrow and am trying to fix the problem. I think that by raising a variety of topics I can spur people to think about them. I do not expect to influence voting enough to matter; but rather I see the elections as when ArbCom members are most likely to listen.

The purpose of the (original) Dolly Parton challenge is to get people thinking about the ways they pretend to be different from who they really are online. I once completed a written Dolly Parton challenge on an online webforum and it was received well. I wrote up how I would respond on four different webforums. I do not necessarily think that you pretend to be different on Wikipedia; but gave the question more or less on random; had you responded it would have gotten people thinking about the ways they pretend. That said, if you had been aggrieved by it I understand because it forces you to take yourself less seriously. (I don't think you actually were aggrieved.)

I have been fascinated with the IAR rule; it seems straight out of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (or was it some other work). During the ban of Fram there were various calls to "start breaking stuff" that seemed congruous with this. Yet the Floquenbeam incident (I had forgotten!) was a perfect example of the opposite theory; one that has been especially adopted by non-Hegelians or pre-Hegelians. Overall, the question gauges how important authority is. (The collective epistemology of hard-science majors tends to grant greater importance to authority, while soft-science majors disagree.) Asked of a conservative, this question could be a litmus test of whether the conservative is a neo- or paleo- conservative. Asked of anyone at all, it indicates which column the person stands in this table.

As for dreaming; I have dreamt of Wikipedia. I wondered if really serious Wikipedia users also dream of Wikipedia and figured that the candidates here are a subset of really serious users. (It was an easy question to answer, so I don't have to feel bad about wasting the candidate's time on a triviality.)

I know you are busy right now, so don't feel like you must respond.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover I'm not surprised to hear you've got some real pedagogy and background behind all this. Your erudition in these matters is clear. I certainly understand the attempt at whimsy which reveals behind the Parton challenge. I think where you missed the mark was the fact that you gave the question more or less on random. If you'd given that question to every candidate it plays out differently. You still get people like me who go "sorry can't help" but I bet you get a response or two. Or even better still if you'd given the topic but given me the choice of what forums to choose, I probably would have gotten into it and given you something interesting (for instance I think the me that's on IRC is very much the same me that's here but there is a difference in style and to a lesser degree tone - for instance I'm willing to crack jokes where as I tend to play it pretty straight onwiki). So you ask one of the questions I'm labeling whimsical to all the candidates and one of the questions that's more philosophical questions you'd have gotten more of what you want.
And I write that knowing that part of what you want is just to be taken seriously. The first "big name" editor who took me seriously was TonyBallioni and I remember how much that meant to me. For a long time I just put my ideas out there and it felt like shouting into the void a lot of the time because no one responded, good or bad. Then after a while I started getting people to react. I had built up enough of a reputation for that to happen. But it was slow going and for a while my best chance of getting someone to engage was not by putting my own ideas out there but by engaging directly with people who'd already said something I could latch onto.
I hope that's of some help and know that I do appreciate hearing the background and thinking behind the questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I've had recent suspicions I'm shooting myself in the foot by damaging my credibility. It is some help, especially knowing you understand having been through similar experiences. I looked at Gerda's voting guide--it got me thinking about how a strict goal-oriented response can get results. I would not be surprised if the next ArbCom is sympathetic to her position on infoboxes.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I have a reputation for being pretty independent and not going along with groupthink, so maybe I’m the exception here, but single issue questions or guides have no influence on me. Without discussing anyone in particular; most of those of us who are running for ArbCom have a pretty good sense of the political landscape of Wikipedia. A question or guide from someone who very strongly believes that all railway stations are inherently notable and that ArbCom should support that point isn’t going to make me sympathetic to it. Presenting solid arguments and being willing to compromise, rather than having single issues that are bright lines, tends to get you far here.
On Barkeep’s (much nicer) response to you: I took you for trolling at worst and time wasting at best, and I don’t tend to humour trolls and timewasters. Reading the above, this wasn’t your intent, but something important on Wikipedia as well as real life is being able to read a room :) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
On the matter of voter guides. I have analysed them in past years, and it appears that they have no influence at all on the voting. They don't get a strong readership - except for other guide writers and some of the newer candidates. And those guides which are clearly bent on a single issue, particularly any issue which the community as a whole has little interest in - such as a desire for Train station to be named Railway station, would likely be read the least. I've not examined the guides this year, but I have noted in the past that there is a tendency in some to have a possibly vague aim to create a Committee they feel would be sympathetic to their own desires/aims. Such guides have tended to urge readers to vote tactically. SilkTork (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I have also looked at them and reached an similar conclusion. There is an argument to be made that consensus among the guides, either support or oppose, does end up reflecting community consensus but that's about it. Arbcom elections are won and lost by hundreds of editors who generally maintain low profile sign and don't show up to project space. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I just went and wrote a guide. Had I read your comments (from TonyBallioni on down) I might not have.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Epiphyllumlover, FWIW, the vast majority of the current 1,292 votes were cast within less than 48 hours of the poll opening. Many of the more well known and/or industrious users cast their votes within 6 hours or so. I wrote a detailed guide as soon as the nominations were closed and my questions, which I posed equally early, had been answered. I asked each candidate the same questions. The guide has been viewed 1344 times. Whether it has had any impact or not is of less interest and it does not indicate whom I voted for, but it does, as in previous years, raise a question as to the merits of asking questions or publishing guides after the election is well underway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
It's funny, I always read all of the guides and vote on the last day. The guides are very idiosyncratic and individual. I mainly use them to see which candidates are at the extremes, very high marks or very low marks. They don't determine who I vote for but if someone whom I haven't interacted with is rated highly across guides, that would probably influence whether or not I supported them. But for the candidates I have an opinion about, I take these evaluations with a grain of salt. Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mushroom effect

I had not read Wikipedia:Mushroom effect before my attention was drawn to it by your recent comment at Wikipedia talk:Administrators. (Why do I even have that on the watch list?) I do not think that do not act any differently now than you did six months or a year ago is sound advice for new admins. Once you are an admin, everything you say and do is viewed through that lens. Even the faintest inadvertent whiff of a hint of a block will be pounced on. Maybe you might not be acting more boldly than before, but ever action will be interpreted that way intentional or not. Moreover, desysops over the last few years seem to indicate that if your natural disposition is crusty, cranky or curmudgeonly, the wisest course of action would be to adopt a new persona on Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  • This metaphor demonstrates the extent to which Wikipedia is considered a videogame rather than an encyclopedia. I have never played a Mario game and so, when this section title popped up on my watchlist, I supposed that it was a reference to mushroom management. As the main function of admins is to treat people badly rather than to get anything done, that metaphor works too.
I supported both Barkeep and Hawkeye7 in the current arbcom election and it's good to see you discussing such issues. Good luck!
Andrew🐉(talk) 11:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Well I intentionally choose something that could tie into the [[WP:SME|Super Mario effect] but also the idea of someone's ego mushrooming after RfA. I hadn't read the idea of mushroom management before. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7:, I agree that once you are an admin everything is viewed through that lens. As for recent sysops because of people being crusty, cranky or curmudgeonly, well the essay is written for newly minted sysops. If you're already crusty, cranky, and crumdgeonly before you pass RfA then sure keep being it after :). As you note, however, it's really about the boldness and authority with which I have seen some new sysops act. Appreciate the comments! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Hawkeye7: I think the essay actually has good advice for new admins, even the crusty/cranky/curmudgeonly ones. In fact, I would posit that its advice is not at all dissimilar to yours. Anyone seriously considering RfA is almost assuredly going to be on their best behavior for many months prior; the essay's point is to keep doing that, not immediately decide that the gloves can come off because there is no longer an impending judgment of your actions. You're right that the judgment most definitely continues, and perhaps even intensifies. CThomas3 (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 DRV Close

Yeah, that's the documentation I was thinking of (I think) as far as not undeleting. DRVs closed as no consensus don't result in the deletion being reversed (but they do for speedies - an aside). If there was a suggestion that a relist might help, you can do it, but I don't think that's at all applicable here - a relist would just cycle the same arguments. There was a lot of discussion that some kind of re-working/merging/re-organisation could result in a suitable article, but I couldn't find much of a consensus for what that would be, so I can't unilaterally implement it as the closing admin. The rest isn't particular to that DRV or DRVs in general; any admin can provide anyone with copies of deleted articles (except G12s, and shouldn't do G10s or other BLP ... again, aside), which they can work on in their sandbox or the draft space to create a new article that doesn't fall under the purview of the old deletion reason (i.e., isn't CSD#G4-able); I was just reminding people who thought the article could be salvaged how they could do so. WilyD 15:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP question

I'm considering reverting this edit since I don't think WP:BLP applies - the article's about an exceptionally well-covered band that has existed in this state for over a decade and while it needs to be better sourced, it doesn't seem to fit WP:BLP. However, I wanted a second opinion - thoughts? Thanks in advance. SportingFlyer T·C 00:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: arguably some of that content would fall under BLP but the band itself clearly does not qualify for BLP protection and most of that content is clearly about the band and not people so the fact that it's unsourced is a typical content problem rather than a BLP violation laying in wait, imo. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I've reverted and started sourcing the article, but wanted to confirm with someone before I was bold on something which could turn into an edit war. It's appreciated. SportingFlyer T·C 09:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

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

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Orson Scott Card/GA1

Hi Barkeep, re: the above, I want to make sure you're aware of the concern about Rachel editing this article extensively because of her COI. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Brigham Young University. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin I was not. Thanks for the link Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones in 2006

Barkeep49, consider history merging Tropical cyclones in 2006/version 2 into Tropical cyclones in 2006. There is a long history behind this article, and merge the revisions up to revision 976830274 at 16:38, 5 September 2020 by Shhhnotsoloud. SMB99thx my edits! 02:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@SMB99thx if Anthony Appleyard, the expert on histmerges, has declined to do it you can safely assume it doesn't need to be done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do some editors use the ....

“but subject of the article has a Wikipedia article in a different language” as an argument to !vote a keep in AFD’s of individuals that clearly fall below the notability threshold? Is that even a valid argument? Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It's one of those "kind of" valid reasons. Different projects have different standards for notability and often much lower standards than us. But there can be good sources in other languages that can be useful at AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense. Celestina007 (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Growth team updates #16

Welcome to the sixteenth newsletter from the Growth team!

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

Growth features show impact

Newcomer task experiments results

The team recently published our analysis of the impact of newcomer tasks. We are happy to announce that we found that the Growth features, and particularly newcomer tasks, lead to increased editing from newcomers.

In November 2019, the Growth team added the "newcomer tasks" feature to the newcomer homepage. After six months, we collected data from Arabic, Vietnamese, Czech, and Korean Wikipedias. We analyzed the overall impact of the Growth features, including newcomer tasks.

This analysis finds that the Growth features lead to increases in:

  • the probability that newcomers make their first article edit (+11.6%)
  • the probability that they are retained as editors
  • the number of edits they make during their first couple of weeks on the wiki (+22%)

We also find that the quality of their edits, as measured by revert rate, is comparable to that of a control group.

  • The number of suggested edits completed by each wiki each week, going from December 2019 to November 2020, with a line for the total.
    The number of suggested edits completed by each wiki each week, going from December 2019 to November 2020, with a line for the total.
  • The number of distinct users completing suggested edits by each wiki each week, going from December 2019 to November 2020.
    The number of distinct users completing suggested edits by each wiki each week, going from December 2019 to November 2020.

Because of these results, we think all Wikipedias should consider implementing these features. Learn more about how to get them.

You can find more details about this experiment on the report page. Please post any feedback or questions on the talk page

General metrics

As of November 2020, across all wikis where the features have been deployed:

  • more than 5,000 newcomers have made more than 40,000 edits using Newcomer tasks.
  • more than 14,000 questions have been sent to volunteer mentors by more than 11,000 users.
  • more than 2,000 questions have been asked on help desks by more than 1,500 users.

Learn more about Growth results here, and please post any feedback or questions on the talk page.

Variants C and D

Variants C and D are two new arrangements of the newcomer homepage. We deployed them in October. After six weeks of these variants being deployed, we can see that they have led to increased interactions with newcomer tasks. Next, we will determine which variant is best and use that for all newcomers.

News for mentors

A separate list for workshops hosts

During workshops organized by education programs through the communities, workshops hosts like to mentor people they train on wiki. Several wikis requested to have a way to claim their mentees without having other newcomers being randomly being assigned to them. To address this need, a separate list can be created on wiki, for mentors that wish to claim mentees, but prefer not to have random mentees being assigned to them. Learn more about this feature.

Claiming multiple mentees at once

Mentors can use Special:ClaimMentee to claim a newcomer as their mentee. The feature now allows mentors to claim multiple newcomers at once.

Community news

The help panel allows people to post a message to the local help desk while editing. Previously, the tool always posted messages to the bottom of help desks. Wikis are now able to configure it to display new messages at the top of the help desk page. T261714


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

14:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Small heads up

See WP:COSDAY. It's very preliminary (and assumes a close in favour of a trial), but if you're closing, you might want to keep an eye on that page to assuage those that think BAG will approve silly bots and not involve the community in the trials. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've closed the RfC and put your page on my watchlist for now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom candidate questions

I recently added two questions for you at:

I welcome your response.

You may find my comments here relevant: Too many questions (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my questions. I read them before I voted, and you got my vote of support. I appreciate that you and others see the concern about Discretionary Sanctions potentially causing problems with WP:NPOV. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Barkeep49/Archives,

A chart of the 2020 New Page Patrol Queue

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation
8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation
9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation
10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation
Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

November

November

Thank you for being ready to serve on arbcom, - good luck! - I still have yesterday's good top story to offer, - and a little below is my vision for 2020. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt thanks for the good wishes and for sharing that very pretty picture. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! - today's DYK: to be sung "happily" - I read the below about my "user guide" with some amusement, - it's not a guide at all, of course. I haven't voted yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
In case you want to look at a an article related to "my question": L'ange de Nisida, - mentioned under #Donizetti on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
That one resolved, what do you think of Hippolyte et Aricie? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
You know I'm generally pretty responsive to stuff but just haven't had a lot to say about infoboxes beyond what I've already said. So I should probably say that rather than just continuing to let this be here unresponded to (even if it was also written to every other candidate). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, may I ask you to just tell me what you think about the top right corner which is NOT an infobox, and a new design? - You are the one candidate who might have changed my vote, and I silently hoped you would. 10 minutes to midnight, and I'm tired. So, you can leave it as it is. I bet you'll be elected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean this edit? Looks like the sort of infobox I do when I add infoboxes to articles (but about an opera rather than children's books). I've felt a bit surprised that I couldn't give you what you were looking for from me at ACE (both this year and last year) given our good interaction in other contexts. It seems you've felt the same way about me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't mean that edit, I mean what you see now. - My problem this year: I have good interactions with all candidates, - see precious, and all gave me more or less what I wanted to hear, and when I began to dig a bit deeper, clerks told me that's not allowed this year, - but I want to vote for seven. You are now one - changed my mind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate your support and look forward to seeing you around soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Still curious if you think that what we see now, which I assume was meant to be a good compromise, is that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I mean, honestly, I'm not a huge fan of side navbars. But I'm also a live and let live sorta guy so sure. One thing that I could have mentioned, but didn't, is that infoboxes will become progressively less important as more and more of our readers access us through mobile which doesn't render them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I am also not a great fan of a side navbox, and in the deletion discussions (example Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 5#Template:Gounod operas), it was said that while infoboxes show to mobile users, the image of a side navbox doesn't. That prompted me to add an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I just double checked and I definitely don't see any infobox on mobile. First non-text bit is the bust. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the support. That thing is not an infobox. What do you see here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Sure enough there's the infobox :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
And then what? I understand that what we have is meant as a compromise, but would actually prefer a plain image + the existing navbox at the bottom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes that's how I generally layout article as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Lucky you. So do I in "my" articles. Here, however, in an article I didn't create, I am the bold intruder, in the very question the almighty arbcom restricted me for, calling it battleground behaviour. So, per my New Year's resolution, I don't revert nor discuss. Look at the other, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you see now when you look at the two? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Castor et Pollux and its equivalent at Das Liebesverbot seem of the kind that I would make when I include an infobox. As I stated before I find it hard to get too excited about infoboxes either including or not which is one reason I've thought myself appropriately uninvolved in these conflicts. Obviously I work in a very different content arena than operas (see the thread below by Melanie where one of the all time most popular children's book, with millions of copies sold, doesn't even have an article). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Barkeep49. I'm just posting to let you know that Caldecott Medal – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for January 1, 2021. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 23:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep, I saw your message on my talk page. You're in luck, because Mondays and Fridays are the dates that TFL runs on the Main Page and January 25 is a Monday. I'll be happy to move the date back for you. This will be taken care off the next time I schedule a list, which will probably be on Friday. I will notify you when I finish moving the blurb. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Giants2008 how lucky indeed. Thanks! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
All right, the process of moving the Caldecott Medal TFL back should be complete. It's now scheduled for the 25th, and the blurb is here in case you want to tweak anything. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Goodrich Community Primary School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Goodrich Community Primary School, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodrich Community Primary School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have a favour to ask and a question to you

Hello Barkeep49, I am a German Wikipedian and have already written three or four articles on the English Wikipedia. I have also linked a lot of articles to the book by a German science historian and civil engineer, Karl-Eugen Kurrer. Could you please read these two messages Citation Spamming 1 and Citation Spamming 2 and tell me what you think about it. I will stick to your judgment. greetings from Germany --Nixnubix (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Need some advice

Hi, Barkeep! A question for you. I remember your affection for children’s books, and I was wondering if you might consider advising or helping me with a classic children’s book that doesn’t have an article here. Maybe it didn’t win the right prizes? According to Publisher's Weekly it is the fifteenth best selling children's book of all time; [22] is that enough for an article?

The book is The Littlest Angel, by Charles Tazewell, illustrated by Katherine Evans, 1946, Children's Press Inc. Reissued in 1962, illustrated by Sergio Leone, Children's Press Inc. It was also adapted into a 1969 Hallmark movie [23] and a 2011 animated version [24], but only IMdB for sources. Apparently it was also made into a song, sung by Bing Crosby, but only youtube for a source.[25] The book is mentioned at the Charles Tazewell article, but no usable sources are provided there either.

Searching online I find tons of places selling the book - it is a beloved story - but no Reliable Sources actually ABOUT it. If I'm going to do it I'd like it to be a real article, not a stub. Any advice? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) Do you have newspapers.com access through Wikipedia? A number of reliable sources pop up instantaneously in a search such as this article - unfortunately I'm working on changing my user name at that site at the moment so I haven't clipped the article for you, but the book would definitely pass notability guidelines if you wanted to start the article (maybe starting as a draft would be best if you can't access these sources immediately - we can add them in and then move it to mainspace.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    I'm still researching but agree without a doubt the book is notable. And it's unsurprising that it doesn't have an article because many children's books, even classics like this, are uncovered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, very helpful! And very encouraging! I will work my notes into a userspace draft and see where we can go from there. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Other possible sources: [26] [27] [28] [29] Seems to have a very interesting history! SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    I can find an School Library Journal of a version with updated illustrations and a couple things on Google Scholar but given its huge sales it has nowhere near the academic research/writing of other children's books of similar longevity/sales (like I know there's tons more out there about books 16-20 on that best sellers list from PW). Anyhow you can get the SLJ review at ebsco through the Wikipedia Library (I'm never sure how well those link so I try to avoid doing it). I'm not surprised there's more in newspapers and am glad SportingFlyer found some stuff that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I will work with this stuff - if I can't see some of these sources I may ask you guys to help. In fact I invite you all to come to the draft and help write it if you want! The draft is at User:MelanieN/The Littlest Angel. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Barkeep and SportingFlyer, this is all great! I have incorporated your links into the article (and signed up for a "free trial" of newspapers.com in the process). One thing I still need is an actual, bibliographic reference for the book - complete with ISBN and all that good stuff. And I need to find more about the various film productions, but enough for one night. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Newspapers.com has some availability through Wikipedia Library FYI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, I have moved it to mainspace. Any additions or improvements appreciated. Do either of you know how to make the title italic? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC) P.S. Never mind, somebody already did. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

...and it's going to be a DYK item for Christmas Day! -- MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Nice MelanieN! Well done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

pign

ping Enterprisey (talk!) — Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Unsure what postinfectious glomerulonephritis has to do with anything... CThomas3 (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Explanation of deaths RfC closure

What do you mean by "there is enough of a consensus to create an explanatory supplement to the Article title policy using the revised flow chart as a basis"?

Does that mean I can go to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) and add a section about this? Not using the flowchart but using words?

What is your conclusion on the next step to resolve this conflict? What do you mean by "an explanatory supplement"? Can you give an example of one? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Explanatory supplements are, literally speaking at least, equivalent to essays, for example WP:LOWPROFILE. See WP:SUPPLEMENTAL. I was involved but I don't feel this reflects the discussion -- multiple opposers made clear that they'd totally misunderstood the point of the proposal, and others failed to grasp its applicability. Discounting those, I think the proposal had support to be added to a guideline. Nevertheless, perhaps it's worth trying it out and seeing if a supplement resolves the issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlike a content RfC, a proposal for a new guideline is going to have minimal weighting (the only time would be if it seemed to contradict a policy in some way which did not apply here). When discussing the formation of a new guideline, as this proposed, it's incumbent on the people doing the proposing to explain and convince. After all if it gains consensus all editors are going to be expected to follow it, in most circumstances (being a guideline). In reading through the discussion I did not get the sense that people were so ill informed (suggesting they had not read/considered the idea) as to discount their opposition. Establishing new guidelines is a challenging process and it's not a surprise that we don't do it very often. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs hopefully PR's explanation of what an explanatory supplement is makes sense but I'm happy to clarify further if it didn't. WP:DRAFTS is an explanatory supplement you might not have realized is one. In terms of next steps its creating the actual wikipage for this area. An example of an explanatory supplement around Article Titles is Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, can the explanatory supplement include the flowchart? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Of course. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
In that case, would you consider making the following modification to your closure statement (where underline means add text):
While it (missing word) is not the level of support that is necessary to create a guideline (i.e. officially a no consensus outcome to elevate to a guideline), there is enough of a consensus to create an explanatory supplement (add link to WP:SUPPLEMENTAL) to the Article title policy using the revised flow chart as a basis which includes the revised flowchart with additional explanatory text.
Currently, the closure reads like an almost complete rejection of the flowchart and, since this has been highly controversial, I think it is necessary to be very explicit in the closure. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I've added an explicit statement confirming that the flowchart would be appropriate to use. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven 250 years

Beethoven in 1803

The birthday display! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

250 is a big one. He was my favorite classical composer as a kid (some for the music some for the audio recording of Beethoven Lives Upstairs). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
same for me, Elise my dad's favourite on the piano. Did you click on Beethoven below the pic for moar DYK? Interesting discussion and close in Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven/Archive 6. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit summary revdel on Kibbeh

Howdy! Thank you for blocking that IP (2A02:ED0:6D5F:4200:8D14:5CEF:4E61:17B3) spewing gibberish into Middle Eastern food articles. You might want to consider revdelling one of his edit summaries that will be obvious from the recent Kibbeh history. Thanks again! Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima good thought and done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you think

Captain, I was thinking of creating a List of Nigerian occultists but I’m not so sure now seeing that we already have a List of occultists, in your opinion would that be a wise thing to do or would that be counter productive/ counter intuitive? Celestina007 (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007:, seems like it might be worth starting by adding Nigerians to the general list and then, when there is a good grouping of them, possibly splitting them into their own article, presuming of course that there is coverage of the type that would support WP:LISTN. If the reason they're not on the general list is because they're not notable, but you think deserve coverage I would be careful. What criteria, if not notability, would you use to decide who gets inclusion and to ensure that your neighbor down the way doesn't merit a place? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Following what’s outlined in LISTN, the occultists I intend to add to the list have not been discussed as a group & I presume that is a problem now, but if I may optimize LISTCRITERIA, I think I can add Nigerian occultists who already have Wikipedia articles on them to the list then add inline citations adjacent the entries. Finally, I intend to try as much as can be to use the notability criteria as yardstick for any entry I intend to add to the list.Celestina007 (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Two Questions

Hey there, I need clarification on two things, the first is; what’s the communities stance on clearly notable articles created by UPE editors? The second may not really be a question but i need help all the same, Sometime last year I came across an essay or policy that stated a proven autobiographical article be A7 tagged, please could you remind me the name of the essay or policy that states that? If none do then it means I misread or misinterpreted what I saw/read on that day. Celestina007 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007 yes I recall we had the quesition about autobiographies when we were doing npp school (scenario 15). I don't think any such community endorsed policy exists there. There might be an essay to that effect but I am not aware of it.
As for the stance on clearly notable articles created by UPE, the community does not act consistently. The options tend to be Draftify but if that doesn't stick for whatever reason you can try AfD but more often than not that won't be accepted there and so most notable topics created even by clear UPE ends up getting tagged but sticking around. There is a whole strand of thought that we should ignore the editors and focus on the content when it comes to UPE and I admit that doesn't sit so well with me. So here we are. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that doesn’t sit well with me either. So i guess it’s safe to say the community is indecisive about that, thanks for the clarification captain. As for the A7 on autobiographies, I probably misread that I’m not so sure now. Celestina007 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Celestina007, I usually go through, unpeacock the article, check the sources, tag it for cn/better source needed every place I reasonably can, and then tag the article for UPE/COI and ping the paid editor to talk, telling them the tags stays on until they disclose both at their user and the article talk and agree to stop directly editing, and that further direct editing by them or another UPE/COI will make the tag permanent. Most paying clients don't want those big ugly tags on "their" articles. It's annoying to have to spend my volunteer time doing that, but if the subject is notable...okay, fine. :D —valereee (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, That’s actually not a bad idea, it sounds quite strenuous though but it’s definitely a noble approach. I decided yesterday to use draftifying approach since the community was indecisive about that. But having read your own approach, it’s worth trying out.Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline?

Your decline was posted as I was replying. Wouldn't it have been less involved for another administrator to have decided? And, have you read his talk responses? Am I to understand this pattern will continue unabattedly? Pasdecomplot (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pasdecomplot I replied because I was specifically pinged for allegations that you had violated your editing restriction. As I am one of the better equipped administrators to respond to that - which you'll note I did backing you up - I chose to action the AN3 report. As multiple other editors have told you, I remain UNINVOLVED and editors don't get to pick what administrator responds to a report. So no it wouldn't have been less involved for another administrator to respond. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
We're now beyond the ANI closing, and your role as an unofficial admin acting as an editor. You are now the admin on the ban, and the admin that accused me of violating the ban once already, an accusation which involved correctly describing actions undertaken by Chuckie. Which does make you appear as an involved admin now, since it's the same issue. Obviously, I didn't ping you at AN3, Chuckie did. And the decline again favors what remains as unabatted edit warring. Clearly, it's still a problem. Pasdecomplot (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@Pasdecomplot: Here is the entirety of the INVOLVED section:

In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.

In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.

I have put into bold the parts that support my contention that I am not involved (the other formatting is in the orginal). Could you quote what you feel supports your assertion that I am involved as it would help me to understand your point of view better. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, here after Chuckie enters the discussion [30]. Pasdecomplot (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Who's Chuckie? Vasyl Ivanchuk? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you call CaradhrasAiguo "Chuckie" and I'm not sure how my telling him that I am not going to revoke your talk page access makes me involved. I am going to continue to act as an uninvolved administrator in regards to you and this conflict at this time. I am not going to particularly seek it out, for instance I didn't put Nyingchi on my watchlist, but I am also not going to stop administrative action. You are welcome to seek input from the community or otherwise seek remedy as outlined in our administrator policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barkeep49/Archives/5&oldid=1113398595"