User talk:Snow Rise/Archive 22

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

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023[edit]

Hello Snow Rise,

New Page Review queue December 2022
Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Administrator changes

added
readded Stephen
removed

Interface administrator changes

removed Nihiltres

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel 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 10:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by * M.Kalita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMF funding question[edit]

TPS: I think your WMF funding question to Yn could probably be answered by DanCherek. [4] I still don't understand why we have to go to Meta to have discussions, which puts en.wikipedians at a disadvantage, when we have WP:VPW. If you start a discussion somewhere, would you mind letting me know ? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SandyGeorgia. I've looked into the matter a little further through multiple movement spaces and come to a better understanding of what is going on here. I do have concerns that I think need to be vetted by the community at some juncture, but my time for such an involved exercise is limited in the short term. But per your request, I can certainly let you know when I do raise the matter. SnowRise let's rap 00:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks ... as I said somewhere, SlimVirgin chased down the financial parts when all of these matters first surfaced (sample). I was more focused on how much our medical content was being damaged. While Colin has more command of the overall, big picture (except he forgot to mention the severe edit warring). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:ANO 2011 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 10:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Advice going forward on WikiProject Years[edit]

I thought I'd reach out to you directly because you were the only person that really focused on the P&G development aspects of the WikiProject Years issue. To make a long story short, it seems the year articles were never codified with the rest of Wikipedia when things like WP:WEIGHT, WP:PROSE, and WP:SUMMARY became standardized and widely applied, and the ownership issue has prevented any meaningful changes or updates since then. I don't expect any one user to have the answer, but where and how should a community-wide discussion about this start? You could probably tell from looking at the WikiProject talk page that there are a lot of really different ideas about how these articles should be written and organized without any coherent direction, and some would essentially rebuild a lot of articles from the ground up. I tried to create such a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Create Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Years, but it was unfocused, and it predictably turned into a long discussion about conduct. Once the ANI discussion is resolved, what's the next step to figure out what the community consensus actually is on a question so broad and open-ended? User:Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: You know, if I had seen that discussion a week earlier and you had asked me this same question, I might have said "I'm, not sure we need such a discussion." I just read through much the discussion you opened at VPP and I agree in the strongest possible terms with the feedback Levivich gives in regard to the root issue here: these are en.Wikipedia articles at the end of the day, and whatever their unique format and considerations, they are governed by the same content policies as any other user-facing content in article space, vis-a-vis WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV generally. Inclusion should be judged on an objective metric of coverage in sources--precisely the analytical element the two users being considered for censure want to minimize the influence of. I feel confident in saying this is unlikely to be adopted into any guideline vetted by the larger community: the entire reason we have an objective, WEIGHT-based standard is to prevent the idiosyncratic perceptions of the "importance" of a topic (as judged directly by members of our editorial corps) is to prevent not just bias in our content, but also the introduction of insurmountable discord into the process of consensus building when such a subjective standard is utilized. I almost said as much in response to TheShaggy in my last post at the ANI thread, but I had already commented at length there, and I didn't want to enable the deviation into what were mostly content matters that he was raising at that point. But suffice it to say, I think that fundamentally what he, and apparently a cohort including he and Jim, if I read the subtext of the issues you raised in your OP, want is incompatible with existing polices--and very basic, vital content policies no less.
All of which is to say, my perception is that this is primarily a behavioural issue. Not a simple one, given the number of editors involved in those high-traffic articles, or the open-ended nature of the articles, but still a problem that will, at least in terms of short-term stabilization, depend mostly upon addressing those behavioural concerns: removing the most egregious policy-violators if necessary, reforming the approach of those amenable to comporting with policy once they are educated better about consensus processes and inclusion criteria here, and making sure the users at the WikiProject understand how to advance proposals and form consensus moving forward. Orrrr....so I would have said a week ago. But as it happens, the discussion about subjective assessments and personal opinions invading inclusion determinations in contexts that deviate slightly from the typical article (if there is such a thing) played out in front of me twice this last week. Because I also looked in (for the first time in a decent while) beneath the hood of ITN this week, and was blown away by how out of control the situation is there in a very similar way. Indeed, the concerns were almost identical there to what I have seen in the years articles when the FRS has brought me into those talk pages: large numbers of editors voting their idiosyncratic takes on importance--albeit dressed up in (self-)misleading euphemisms that make the hot takes sound more predicated in an objective standard--of this or that proposed bit of content. The situation is identical even down to the same made-up "international coverage/significance" being the one endorsed in the majority of problematic perspectives.
And I know you actually !voted in a different direction from me in the one thread I decided to voice my concerns in, and I don't meant to make this awkward for you. I appreciate that in both cases (years articles and ITN) you seem to be working hard to try to forge some kind of middle ground which both comports with broader community consensus and policy and also addresses the concerns about particular complexities in both those contexts. Afterall, there's not nothing to the argument that absent some more explicit standards, the amount of content that might get added would become potentially unwieldy for editors and readers alike. But I am certain that any solution has to be based on our existing RS/WEIGHT standards. It's simply the only approach that can be adopted on this project without the gears constantly locking up beyond our ability to repair. I know these users who want to correct for media bias are well-intentioned, but their arguments are, at a minimum, WP:RGW-adjacent, and the idea that we should use the idiosyncratic assessments of our editors to correct for those biases by redirecting focus in our content is problematic in the extreme. It would not really correct the potential for bias: it would only make any existing bias far worse, by untethering our process from an objective standard and inviting our editors to do what they presently are disallowed from doing: basing content on their own assessments of what is actually "important" enough for this project to present to the reader.
So it's clear that this situation really could benefit from community attention, if only to save regular editors from having the address these spaces and issues piecemeal. I actually think you probably raised the discussion in the right place, but maybe just not at the right time and in the right way. I think a key to success here might be to have more focus in the term of options proposed from the outset, rather than inviting more open-ended input: because the veteran editors are unlikely to understand what the issue is here and write-off anyone questioning something as fundamental as WP:NPOV as naivete of inexperienced editors, if they aren't aware that the substantial issues arising out of these spaces are predicated in reasonable concerns, even if the ad-hoc solutions that have been raised so far are clearly not workable and the way they have been pushed looks like (and sometimes is) textbook disruption. I think Levivich gave you a second piece of feedback that is on point in that thread: MoS is not the right place for any decision to be codified, because the issues here concern verification, weight, and the core substance of our content, not mere style.
At the same time, I don't think a new guideline is necessary here. That's certainly an option, and in that case, VPP would remain the right place to house the WP:PROPOSAL, but whoever advances it would do well to dial it in before bringing it to the community. But what I think is the sweet spot here would be to cultivate and then add language somewhere to WP:WEIGHT and/or other policies which tries to find some sort of cogent test for testing weight in cases of content spaces with somewhat more open-ended parameters. Such language could at least partially meet the concerns of those advancing concerns about the amount of context in such spaces, while stopping editors who want to enforce their personal perspectives (even as cure for their perception of "media bias") in their tracks. Because while in the larger world those views are sympathetic, anyone on this project consistently railing about "the media" might want to reconsider if this is the right place for them to volunteer, because more often than not, the RS that we are meant to be taking our lead from are in some sense part of the modern media ecosystem, and here we are not meant to be attempting to compensate for the shortcomings we perceive in their work. We're a tertiary source, who, for better and for worse, are meant to be summarizing what RS say, not editorializing upon or curing their perspectives, no matter how problematic we might feel they are in a particular case.
I think rooting any limited-in-scope adjustment to policy that we bring in to keep certain spaces from growing without restraint should be rooted in our guidelines that define weight and neutrality, not just because it will help keep any changes consistent with existing community/project priorities, but also because it will simultaneously probably be the path of least resistance to getting those changes approved (indeed, I think it might be the only way the community will allow them, as there would be no end to debate on a separate policy page if there was a perception it would in some substantial way abrogate WEIGHT. Therefor I would propose a three-step process for you or any collection of editors looking to thread that needle:
1) Figure out what the objective, WEIGHT-based standard limiting content in these spaces should look like (also maybe defining what spaces we are talking about along the way). I know that sounds like quite a task for a limited number of editors to undertake in the first place, and thus begging the question/putting the cart before the horse, but remember, whatever is developed before the larger community discussion can, should, and almost certainly will be adjusted immensely in that larger discussion. And at least this way, you give the respondents/community somewhere to start, keeping the resulting discussion more focused and less likely to be distracted by side-issues, like behavioural distractions.
2) Determine the best home for any addition(s) in existing policy and host the WP:PROPOSAL on that policy's talk page.
3) Publicize the discussion at WP:VP, WP:VPP, and WP:CD at a minimum. This is something the whole community has a stake in, and even though these adjustments come to address concerns in certain niche content spaces, there are possible knock-on effects for countless other articles and contexts.
There's also the question about whether this should be done before or after the much needed changes regarding WP:Advice pages that we discussed in the ANI thread. I'm honestly not sure about that question. We are about a decade past when that policy language should have been moved somewhere a little more visible and since it's literally been on my to do list for the better part of a decade, I suppose I might as well be the one to bite the bullet and lead that effort. But realistically I can't do it this month, and even next month will be a stretch: my time is not my own right now. But obviously these two complexes of editorial issues flow into one another in certain contexts, such as the one you brought to ANI and a solution to one will somewhat help alleviate the issues with the other. I'll keep you in the loop as to my plans for any related proposals, since you have shown an interest.
That's about all I can think to recommend here. I hope this wall of text has been of some use to you: I know I took a long while to work myself up to any concrete suggestions, and they weren't exactly fulsome when I got there, but to some extent your inquiry put me more in mind of what the solution should not consist of than particulars of what it must look like, and hopefully that's at least of some utility to you in figuring out how you want to proceed from here. Best of luck to you, if you decide to try to spearhead the effort here. I will be around sporadically in the coming weeks if you think I can be of any assistance to you. In the meanwhile, I wish you a pleasant day! SnowRise let's rap 05:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is incredibly helpful. I'll be thinking on these things, and I'll probably come back to this just to read it over again and use it as a reference tool in the future. I broadly agree with the main ideas here, and some of them cleanly present ideas I've been trying to get into words. I'm also unhappy with how ITN is structured, but I participate because something that posts to the main page needs a lot more quality control than it has (which is why I oppose a lot more than I support in ITN discussions). My intention with a new guideline or MOS page was to address both the weight and the formatting issues that have come up with the year articles, but I agree that it's not the best approach if the weight issue is this systemic; it has to be addressed first, at least to the point where there's something workable. I understand that even a small change regarding how weight is evaluated is going to be slow and difficult if it's going to be of any consequence, but it's great to have some idea of a direction. I don't think it matters too much about the order between weight and advice page, however, because like you said, both will support the other.
I am interested to hear if you have any other thoughts about how WP:ADVICEPAGE should be reformed. Where would it fall between policy and guideline, both in its own page and in the pages that reference it? Would it just be linked to in WP:CONSENSUS, or should the WP:CONLEVEL section be totally rewritten to incorporate it as a major aspect? Similar questions should be asked about its relationship to other major policies as well, since it would essentially be instructions about the application of policy. Obviously these are questions that would be looked at more closely if presented to the community, but like you said, it's good to have a starting point, and I just wanted to know if you've already given it thought. And just so it doesn't get overlooked, I think one major weakness of WP:ADVICEPAGE as it stands is that it only addresses concrete, codified advice pages, not pseudo-consensus or unspoken local consensus, which goes back to whether WP:CONLEVEL needs work as well. There was also this attempt at a loophole when I quoted WP:ADVICEPAGE a few days before the ANI thread. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking about those questions the other day after the topic arose at ANI, and actually, I came to a conclusion on a course of action not dissimilar to that which I just gave you in the context of that prospective proposal: specifically, the more I thought about it, the more I realized a new, dedicated namespace with links in connected policies might not be the ideal solution. Instead what I think we need is a section within WP:consensus--I was thinking of using WP:CONVENUE as the internal link, but turns out we already have an essay there; perhaps we can convince SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) to get behind passing the link to us, since this WP:PROPOSAL would actually codify more or less the precise thrust of that essay, as it happens. But in a pinch WP:ADVISORYCON would do. WP:Advice pages (and the language there) should be left where it is, because it serves an important function even just as a reminder in that space.
But putting the question of the piping/link to the side, I imagine additional language of three sentences on the smaller side or up to two paragraphs, and realistically probably closer to the latter. It might well be combined with WP:CONLEVEL, which principle it clearly interfaces with, but probably makes even better sense as a separate section between CONLEVEL and NOCON. It would include a slightly more fleshed out reading of what current appears in Advice Page, ideally with some concise additional language to explain how WikiProjects can still be used to seek consensus while simultaneously avoiding violating the longstanding ArbCom/broader community consensus vis-as-vis Advice Pages. The only additional policy we might need to tie in at that point would be WP:PROPOSAL, and any language there could be as brief as a single well-structured sentence.
On the tangential issue of the diffed argument, I honestly don't think it even justifies a response from anyone, but to assuage your concerns, that is clearly just another hot-take based on superficial mental association, but presented as fact, of precisely the sort that presently seems about to get that user topic or community banned. There is absolutely nothing in the related ArbCom cases or subsequent community discussions or the present-day wording of Advice Pages that suggests this over-arching principle of consensus (or the associated rules of conduct) applies only to the discussions about format or style. It has always clearly been about keeping groups of editors from forming walled guardians and constructing their own parallel guidelines outside of the WP:PROPOSAL and WP:CONLEVEL processes, as a general matter. Since it goes to the heart of our decision-making process, it clearly touches upon the substance of our content, its style and presentation, and even behavioural and methodological conclusion. Basically this rule exists to say "no discrete group of editors gets to make and enforce rules outside of established process, and thereby sidestep the normal community vetting of proposed guidelines." If anything, that rule becomes more important in the context of rules about substantive content (vs. style), not less. You did a good turn for the project by bringing that situation to the attention of the community, and you handled the organization and presentation of facts very capably. But at this point, I'd stop worrying too much about every additional instance of invented consensus. The one particular user in question is quite busy burying themself, with a TBAN being the minimum result I think can be expected at this point. You clearly have constructive ideas to share that are the best use of your attention at this juncture. SnowRise let's rap 14:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONLEVEL currently touches on some of these ideas. It mentions that WikiProjects cannot ignore P&G, and it mentions the WP:PROPOSAL process. In my opinion, the relevant question right now is what isn't being said at WP:CONLEVEL, but should be. I suspect that the essay at WP:CONVENUE might actually be helpful in that regard in addition to the content at WP:ADVICEPAGE. Once that question is answered, I think the answers to where and how should come more naturally. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And I agree strongly with "I am certain that any solution has to be based on our existing RS/WEIGHT standards. It's simply the only approach that can be adopted on this project without the gears constantly locking up beyond our ability to repair." Anyway, should we get something new at the guideline/policy level, I have no issue with the CONVENUE shortcut being usurped.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, SMC--I'll keep you in the loop about any proposal. SnowRise let's rap 07:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In my opinion, the relevant question right now is what isn't being said at WP:CONLEVEL, but should be.
Yes, in essence the WP:Advice pages prohibition exists precisely because parallel consensus formed at a WikiProject (or any space that violates the proposal process) essentially sidesteps CONLEVEL, eviscerating both the local consensus and community consensus processes and the distinction between, short-circuiting the way the two are meant to mediate one-another. On the one hand, local consensus should almost always comport with policy (i.e. community consensus). In very rare cases a very strong local consensus might find an IAR basis for making an exception to clear rule laid out in a PAG, if there is good cause, but such cases are not just few and far between, but also are more likely to come under a stronger degree of community review. On the other hand, community consensus requires much broader review from the outset, allowing vetting by the community at large before it gets this quasi-dispositive authority over local determinations.
This system also makes sure there is just one stream of decision making for community guidelines. One of the chief reasons you clearly cannot have WikiProjects creating their own rules outside of the uniform process is that no single article falls under the potential perceived purview of just one project (most articles will in fact be of interest to a large number of projects), and such a system would set up large numbers of editors to bicker about whose idiosyncratic rules should prevail. Indeed, we saw some of this (and just WikiProject members throwing around their weight relative to other article talk page participants, sometimes in wIt must be made on a sitewide forum. It should also seek input from several places by notifying relevant WikiProjects and noticeboards of the discussion. Failure to seek wide input may weaken the final consensus. ays that make even the current case at ArbCom pale by comparison) in the situations that elicited the rule from ArbCom and the community in the first place. Much of this is captured by the current wording of Advice Pages, but some of it is express and some a little more implicit. It also has the benefit of already having community consensus and refinement behind it. So while it clearly needs some expanding for our proposed purposes here (maybe some history, certainly some clarification and express integration with CONLEVEL and PROPOSAL, and probably some caveats to explain how WikiProjects can still be useful for problem solving without the need to violate the normal community guideline-formation process) the existing language at Advice Pages is still where I think the drafting ought to start. SnowRise let's rap 07:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've written up a rough draft of what a fleshed out WP:CONLEVEL might look like at my sandbox. It retains all of the policy points at WP:CONLEVEL, including some of the same text, but it also elaborates on how the consensus process applies at different levels. Any thoughts? Also, I'm not going to ask you to go digging them all up, but any pointers on where I can find ARBCOM decisions relating to this issue? (nevermind, I found them) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alien: forgive me, but any detailed feedback will have to wait a few days: I am rushing around putting out fires in both my professional and non-work life. For some very superficial initial thoughts, I would say that it is mostly a fair summary of policy and process in this area--incidentally, you have a very cogent prose style for this sort of thing--but there are a handful of statements which do not quite comport with the community standards and which are likely to get the community's hackles up if proposed as written. To pluck one example just so I'm not being too vague here, when you say...
"It must be made on a sitewide forum. It should also seek input from several places by notifying relevant WikiProjects and noticeboards of the discussion. Failure to seek wide input may weaken the final consensus."
I would say you have the priority swapped. The critical piece here is the community notification, and location secondary, if still highly relevant. For example, occasionally when ADVICEPAGES is mentioned at a Wikiproject as being an obstacle to a content guideline being determined there, I have seen participants propose that, if there's an RfC (which of course involves the FRS), and the discussion is promoted in major and relevant policy and community spaces, the results should have some degree respectable binding influence across reasonably affected articles, at least where 1) they don't conflict with existing PAGs and 2) they don't actually propose a change to a PAG directly. Personally, I think that approach is less than ideal, because it still leaves open the possibility of multiple Projects playing host to contradictory standards potentially oblivious to one-another until parties try to apply them both to the same content. But I do think it's the type of thing the community has never expressly disallowed, and which I suspect it would like to keep a fuzzy area for now. Remember, the community is trying to walk a tightrope between maintaining flexibility in our decision making processes while also providing a reliable body of documentation reflecting the resulting body of consensus.
But, what really matters is how well the overall approach is calculated to involve the community outside of a localized content area and facilitate broad exposure. For example, discussion about changes to existing policies often don't strictly speaking have to involve notices at VPP or such if they are hosted on the associated talk page, because it is presumed that is one place where the community has a reasonable ability to notice and react to such proposals--though certainly the more central the policy and/or significant the change, the more advisable or necessary any broader community promotion. But you can begin to see why it is somewhat a matter of context with some push and pull between particular factors, but an overall need to make sure changes happen in the view of the fuller community, and do not just reflect the perspectives of a select group of editors operating in a discrete content area. There are actually about a half dozen occurances of that sort in the current wording where I would say the tone is slightly too absolute about a given standard, or the prescribed approach a little too rigid, both in terms of how it reflects the level of certainty of the position in the wider community and in how well it is likely to play when the change in language is proposed. There are some changes I would propose that are nuanced, but still significant enough to be advisable.
My broadest concern though is that it is just quite a lot. This would significantly rework a critical section of one our most central policies, so as a purely practical matter, I think it might be inviting resistance by virtue of the overall amount of verbiage. There are definitely things that I think could be paired down here and there--and believe me, I know when it comes to this sort of thing, that is a tough argument to swallow without detailed discussion, because we always try to write with economy from the start, and this is afterall, a complicated little intersection of multiple important policies and points of community consensus. But I do think it could be tightened a little. For that matter, the more I look at this issue and consider the likely form of any discussion around changing the language of this policy, the more I begin to think a separate section to introduce the much of new language (while using a very light touch to the existing language of CONLEVEL, but making some changes there as well) is likely to go over better, purely as a matter of presentation of the changes. But we can always debate that later, provided you are in no hurry to advance this.
Anyway, despite the above nitpicking, I do think the bones of your proposed wording are a very good start. Would you have any objection to my editing the sandbox directly to propose adjustments, when I have the time? It wouldn't be until towards the end of the week at the earliest. SnowRise let's rap 08:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, edit away. And time isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned; this has waited 20 years, I'm sure it can wait at least a few more days. As far as the "politics" of this, I see your point. I might make a few edits here and there in the meantime. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I just made some minor adjustments to my above comments before I realized you were in the process of responding, fyi. SnowRise let's rap 08:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:David Johnston and Talk:2022 Italian general election on "Politics, government, and law" request for comments, and at Talk:Lia Thomas on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment[edit]

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 04:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on InedibleHulk's talk page[edit]

I don't think you have an accurate perception of IH's actions that lead to his block. Did you read the entire AE report and its discussion? You said "But nowhere (that I am aware of, anyway) has this community ever endorsed the rule that disagreeing about someone's gender in goodfaith on a talk page is per se disruptive behaviour, as it was treated here." IH, however, was intentionally misgendering someone on the talk page. He was told over and over the issues with this, and continued to do it anyways. Even if he didn't want to use the correct pronouns, he could have easily just referred to them as "Hale". Furthermore, his block was not given because of this issue alone, though it was the catalyst. It is IH's pattern of having a poor attitude and editing disruptively in contentious topic areas that caused this block. Arbitration enforcement is a wide community forum watched by hundreds of experienced editors, and you should place more trust in its processes. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FormalDude. That was rather a wordy wall of text that I posted (found here for the benefit of anyone curious about what we are talking about), so I can't really fault you if you missed some of the perspectives that I shared. But that said, you really do seem to have mostly skimmed it and missed some critical points and the general thrust of my comments, because everything you state above I either a) already said myself in that post (and more vociferously, if anything), or b) I addressed in presenting my conflicted feelings on the topic. Except I suppose your last sentence there about AE, which I don't think really in any way invalidates my thoughts. Taking it point by point:
"IH, however, was intentionally misgendering someone on the talk page. He was told over and over the issues with this, and continued to do it anyways. Even if he didn't want to use the correct pronouns, he could have easily just referred to them as "Hale".(quoting you, above)
I agree. As I stated at length, I personally found that behaviour objectionable. But here's the problem: what he did is not prohibited by any behavioural policy of this project, that I am aware of. WP:GID, as a part of the MoS and thus a sort of content policy, mandates that the content of our articles reflect the embraced gender identity of a subject. And if someone violates that content policy, especially against consensus, they are being WP:disruptive. And if someone is being disruptive in a WP:general sanctions area, such as WP:GENSEX, they are subject to sanctions without additional express warning.
However, nothing anywhere in policy (or elsewhere in broadly adopted community consensus that I am aware of) says that if he disagrees with such an assessment that he cannot say as much in project/talk space. You and I might agree that doing so is discourteous, and possibly even amoral. But it isn't against policy. Nor am I certain that I want it to be. I have very mixed feelings about that, as I reflected in the original post. Putting aside for the moment that I don't think it's particularly helpful to try to force someone to join with the moral majority (even if its on an issue I personally align with and believe is the right thing to do), there's also a WP:RGW concern here: we need to preserve the ability to communicate frankly in talk and project spaces, sometimes to the consternation of our own ethical outlooks on broader societal issues.
I don't know, as I said, maybe if the community held a discussion about prohibiting misgendering in talk spaces, my concerns for inclusion would outweigh my concerns for stifling dissenting perspectives. It would a difficult decision for me to make. The point is, the community has not yet had that discussion, so I don't see what basis there was for sanctioning Hulk in this particular instance. Doing so was administrative overreach, which attempts to establish a rule that really ought to be instituted only under the broader community's purview, is my feeling. And even if we do agree to such a rule moving forward, it didn't exist at the time IH took those actions, so I find the ban to be inappropriate. Even though...
"Furthermore, his block was not given because of this issue alone, though it was the catalyst. It is IH's pattern of having a poor attitude and editing disruptively in contentious topic areas that caused this block."(quoting you, above)
Yeah, I mean, you must have missed entire paragraphs of my post, like the following partial quote:
"I don't recall that you and I have ever directly interacted, though I may be mistaken about that. Nevertheless, as someone who responds to a lot of RfCs and occasionally weighs in at community oversight and administrative spaces, including AN/I, I've gotten a vague impression of your conduct around contentious topics, particularly those touching upon ARBAP and culture war topics. And while that impression is admitedly glancing, I will do you credit to your intelligence by being blunt with you and saying that it has often seemed to me that your involvement in these areas can become problematic and disruptive at a minimum, and possibly going as far as NOTHERE/SOAPBOX/RGW territory on a nontrivial number of occasions. I don't think that the reaction you received in this instance can be entirely divorced from the extent of your block log or the footprint you have built for yourself in this community, and I think that is worth your considering. Indeed, in this specific situation, I also strongly disagree with your rationale for whether it was the right thing to do (in a broader social sense) to refer to that disturbed young person's identity as you did." (quoting myself, in the post on IH's page, emphasis added by bolding)
So, yeah, you're very much preaching to the choir on that. Though I have never personally been involved in an editorial dispute with IH, their record on this project is far from lost on me: I've seen them at enough RfCs and as subject to enough ANI discussion to know their approach and to have misgivings about it. I pretty much told them bluntly that in almost any other circumstances, I would not have blinked an eye at their being banned. But while their history might have contributed to the administrative decision to act aggressively on a sanction here, the fact of the matter is, I don't see a behaviour here that justified their being taken to AE in the first place. Furthermore, the admins were clear that the misgendering of the subject was the major cause for the block and its length. I just don't think that's appropriate here: Hulk didn't violate a policy by editing the content of the article, they merely shared an unpopular opinion, on the talk page. Which policy allows, even if consensus is against them. Again, I personally find the behaviour objectionable, even distasteful. But disruptive or sanctionable under our policies? Not as they currently read. And it's not the place of admins to create that policy, absent a community mandate.
I do suspect that discussion is coming, but it hasn't happened yet, and the rule shouldn't be promulgated by administrative fiat. I feel very strongly about that, no matter how I ultimately end up coming down on the issue when the community does ultimately have that discussion. Much as I respect some of the admins who participated in that outcome (the ones I am familiar with anyway), that was simply not the right call. As for hundreds of experienced editors having that space watchlisted, the discussion was up for little more than a day. That's just not thorough community input. Nor is AE the space to WP:PROPOSE policy. SnowRise let's rap 04:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any misunderstandings I had of your original message.
As to weather it is against our policy, however, it seems you're indicating that because it was on a talk page, it's not actionable. That is not the case though, as WP:GENSEX states "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." (emphasis mine). It also states "Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender."
So, pretty clearly a violation of arbitration case remedy. I'd also add that intentional misgendering is not merely an "unpopular opinion". ––FormalDude (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to disagree with your interpretation: I read that same policy/administrative language as clearly relating to article space content. And as someone who has closely followed our community discussions on the topic as our GID standards evolved over the last decade, as well as the relevant ArbCom cases and discourse, I am fairly confident that the community never meant to create a rule where you can't debate what someone's gender identity is, on the talk page, once a certain number of people are certain they have the right end of the stick. Because that would be a completely unworkable standard. Consensus can change as to what the sources say, and for that matter, there will be a certain number of subjects who decide to embrace different gender identities over the course of time.
So creating a rule where someone can be sanctioned merely for having a different take on what the sources say on that subject, as in this case, is impractical and would create traps where no one can make good faith efforts to update content or correct an erroneous conclusion reached by a consensus early in discussion. It's not like this article had been live for years and repeatedly community consensus had held the subject's identity to be male, and IH was simply refusing to comply to make a social statement. I think his argument was very flawed, and I'm glad he got pushback, but I'm also convinced he was arguing in good faith about what the WP:WEIGHT of the sources said. And no matter how sensitive the subject, we have to keep dialogue for those kinds of disagreements open on the talk page.
So yes, if someone tries to force in a gender identity for an article subject that is not consistent with consensus on what the sources say into an actual article, that's disruption, because of the interaction between the GID as a content policy and GENSEX as a general sanctions area. Likewise, if they repeatedly and knowingly misgender another editor, that is also disruption, because it is a brightline violation of WP:CIV (in my opinion anyway). But if they disagree in a talk space about what the sources actually say about a person's gender identity and share their honest impressions about what a given person's gender identity is, that is not disruption, at least not under our current policies. And in my opinion, we would have to think very carefully about whether we wanted to make that change, because of the editorial impacts that would have, as discussed above. Regardless, the community needs to make that call collectively, not a half dozen admins at AE in a discussion lasting little more than a day. SnowRise let's rap 20:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FormalDude is correct, it's not an article space only sanction. GENSEX applies to all edits, on any page, anywhere on Enwiki. It's in fact quite rare for a CTOP to be an article space only sanction as unless they explicitly state otherwise they are considered to be broadly construed. Please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Contentious topic restrictions, which states Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic. and the footnote on that paragraph which states This procedure applies to edits and pages in all namespaces. When considering whether edits fall within the scope of a contentious topic, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that GENSEX applies to all spaces. What I disagree with is that quoted language creates a rule that people cannot disagree as to what the sources say about a person's gender identity, once a rough consensus has been formed. We can't go around sanctioning people on impulse for good faith disagreements as to what the sources actually say on a subject, no matter how emotionally loaded the topic. Again, it's not as if there was even a formal consensus here: I'm not looking to back up IH conduct in specific here, I'm looking to the insane knock-on effects that such a rule would create. Sometimes people do get sanctioned for refusing the WP:DROPTHESTICK on any subject (CTOP/GS or otherwise) once a firm, formal, and longstanding consensus is reached and they just can't let it go and continue to bludgeon the discussion over a long period of time. But that's not what happened here. This was a year long block implemented not as a true community CBAN, but by a small group of admins discussing the matter over a short period of time and relating to edits which also took place over a short period of time.
There's a reason I went out of my way to explain that I see the problem's with IH's behaviour over the longterm, probably thereby insulting him (something I generally don't like to do, no matter how I feel about someone). I did it to contrast with his behaviour in this instance, which I genuinely believe was conducted as a good faith disagreement as the facts. The conclusion he reached is objectionable to some, myself included, but I'm convinced he wasn't doing it to troll. He disagreed as to what the sources had to say, and unless he is bludgeoning the discussion or refusing to drop the stick, or otherwise being disruptive, he should be free to do that. Every editor needs to be free to do that for articles to evolve and improve. And again, I'm very familiar with the discussions that led to the current reading of GENSEX and GID (and the recent formulation of CTOP for that matter), and I am certain this is not the situation the community had in mind when it promulgated those standards. I won't lose sleep over anyone getting blocked for refusing to agree with consensus about a subject's chosen gender identity, nor for knowingly trolling another editor over theirs. But this? An instantaneous, year long ban for disagreeing with a developing consensus as to the facts? That's a problem. SnowRise let's rap 21:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was a year long block implemented not as a true community CBAN, but by a small group of admins discussing the matter over a short period of time and relating to edits which also took place over a short period of time. That's how WP:AE has worked for years. Some discussions and topic areas get more admin comments than others, but even then I've never seen more than a half dozen or so admins contributing to GENSEX AE cases. If you want to make the point that the quorum of AE admins who are willing to contribute to GENSEX cases is too low, I would not disagree. We badly need more active admins who are familiar with the general source materials in this content area, as it sees a lot of ongoing disruption from all manner of editors.
The problem with IH's contributions were not a case of respectful differing of opinion on sources. Nor was the application of a topic ban instantaneous. There had been a talk page consensus from 28 March to refer to Hale as Aiden and use he/him pronouns, it was mentioned in the FAQ at the top of the talk page, and IH had been asked by multiple editors in the two week period between 28 March and the AE filing on 12 April to stop referring to Hale as a woman with she/her pronouns. Regardless of whether or not IH's contributions were in good faith, for whatever reason, IH did not respond to those requests to stop misgendering Hale. And that's where it became a behavioural issue that warranted an AE case. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Article patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
  • There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hearst Castle[edit]

Not a canvass, but I'm not sure the auto-ping has fired properly. Certainly I can't see it above. This morning's discussion has been restarted/reproduced at Talk:Hearst Castle. KJP1 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:OffSec on a "Economy, trade, and companies" 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, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edited comment at Talk:Scientific racism[edit]

Hello! Obviously, I essentially never edit another user's comment, but, in case I was too presumptuous, I wanted to give you a heads up that I had edited yours (diff). In my browser, at least, your previous comment wasn't rendering correctly: The collapse box extended well beyond the right border of the page (as in, I had to scroll right in order to see the end of it), and the first paragraph was not indented—rather, it rendered "::Looking first ...", while the subsequent paragraphs were properly indented. Here's an image of what it looked like. I'm using Safari web browser on a laptop, which might be niche enough that, if you weren't seeing those problems, it might be worth reverting me, but I suspect the issue occurs across browsers—that starting a template with indentation (::) doesn't work, for some reason. Apologies if I'm mistaken!--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jerome, that's fine--no worries. The indentation was formatting fine for me, and I hope for the majority of users, and I used that particular combination of markup and template parameters because it is the only way (that I know of anyway) to use the template and still get the bullet to render outside the collapse box and line up with the other sequential points. But I don't object to your good faith effort to fix what appeared to be a problem on your end. If/when I come back for the follow up discussion, I'll see if I can figure out a way to make the template render as I intended for Safari as well (heads up for a new(ish) user: in my experience, it does tend to be the most finicky of browsers for working with en.Wiipedia, just in case you have multiple browsers and want to experiment). Or probably I won't bother, actually: its not a big deal either way. I just get a little anal sometimes about justification of elements looking just right, but sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good in these little situations. :) SnowRise let's rap 18:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, I'm sorry! I so rarely have display issues with Safari that I didn't bother to download another browser and check; and, yeah, I'm unfortunately a bit too new to the project (or at least, to talk pages) to have noticed many formatting issues—although I had noticed the collapse template issue when I tried to use like you did, but I just assumed what I said above—that I couldn't start a parameter with an indent ... so who knows how often I've run into issues and made wrong assumptions. I'll absolutely look into switching! I appreciate the grace.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all Jerome: our markup can be...quirky to say the least. It's all a matter of building up a mental repertoire of workarounds for specific situations. And the changes were trivial in any event. I appreciate the head's up, and for what it's worth, I'm happy to help if you have questions about formatting in the future--I'm far from the most knowledgeable community member in that respect, but I've built up a serviceable base of knowledge and collection of tricks, and such well-mannered inquiries are always welcome here. :) SnowRise let's rap 03:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Frank Disciple, I wanted to wish you luck on the Bar Exam. UBE? In any event, I think you are making the right decision by compartmentalizing yourself away from the project for now: now is not the time for dividing your focus, and Wikipedia will be here in a year or so when you are (I hope) licensed and established in your first post-embarment position. That said, I also will echo what others have said to you: it would be a shame if you did not return at some point. While you can be a little gung-ho at times, I think you show great potential as an editor and member of the community. You seek to understand and work within our consensus framework (not unsurprising for a future attorney), you approach your fellow community members with civility and decorum, and you are not too stubborn or proud to admit when you have erred or to consider that you might want to consider a new perspective or approach. Notwithstanding your current frustrations with the project, and your need for the present time to place your energies elsewhere in any event, these are qualities which often define those who have the capacity to be with us for the long haul, and are traits we could always stand to see more of. In the meantime, I wish you luck against the Bar beast and in everything else the coming months have in store for you. :) SnowRise let's rap 12:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to commend you...[edit]

The Original Barnstar
...for your extraordinary patience and lucid new-editor pedagogy at Talk:Scientific racism. That's the kind of work that truly builds an encyclopedia. You are seen and appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, that's so thoughtful, GR--thank you! I guess I just thought if he was going to be forced off of his first attempts at process, he ought to get a robust (if also blunt) answer to his questions, and so long as no one was taking exception to a few walls of text, I was happy to do it. Anyway, putting aside the editorial considerations and talking purely abstractly about his OR, I certainly don't agree with every element of what he proposed (or even the ultimate thesis), but he did bring some details about Malthus to bear which I was previously unfamiliar with, and people who open new light on old subjects go into my brain as "can't be that bad" by default. :D Speaking of the noggin', now I just have to access the right memory circuits to think of some proper examples to respond to his request for good discussions that engaged with the meaning of synth. I'm sure I've seen 400 if I've seen one in my tenure here, but I'll be damned if I can think of a particularly emblematic, instructive example. Maybe after some sleep later tonight! Anywhoo...thanks again: really very kind of you to take the time. :) SnowRise let's rap 10:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is it that time again? Thank you, Gerda! :) Always good to see you: I hope you've been well? SnowRise let's rap 10:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TRM discussion at ANI[edit]

Hi, I'm taking this discussion here to get it out of the way of the main noticeboard.

The primary driver for closing the thread is that it was starting to get out of hand, with several sections already hatted, and uncivil comments such as "seeing as how the TRM Booster Club is out in full force" led me to conclude the best thing for the community was to try and close the discussion gracefully, so everyone could focus on something else.

I didn't do a specific head count, but looked at the arguments presented, and the most persuasive one of all came from Serial Number 51429, explaining that a lot of the time, when discussions like ITN get out of hand it can be six of one, and half a dozen of the other. When combined with TRM removing the content that generated the original complaint, after Amakuru (who also opposed the ITN ban) made a constructive suggestion, it appeared to me that a ban was not the right answer at this time.

For what it's worth, I have also previously complained about TRM at ANI.

I hope that all makes sense, and if you have any other questions, feel free to let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"it appeared to me that a ban was not the right answer at this time."
With all respect due to you by your clearly goodfaith motivation to seek a positive outcome here, it is simply not the closer's (even an admin closer's) place in a WP:CBAN discussion to supplant the community's prerogative with their own hand-picked optimal solution. The community clearly assessed a great deal of both the present context and the historical concerns with this contributor and unambiguously endorsed a path forward. I very much understand where you are coming from in saying you wanted to stem any further disruption from a heated debate, but that is simply insufficient reasoning to subvert such a clear consensus. I'm not going to comment further there if no one else feels powerfully enough about the matter to speak up, but I have to tell you bluntly, while I applaud the sentiment that drove you here, this was the wrong call and an abuse of process, and I think you might end up eating crow over it. SnowRise let's rap 11:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If another user objects to the closure (whether here, on my talk page, at ANI or another venue where I can be pinged into it), I will re-open the discussion. If no other user does, you may to have accept you have a minority view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me: thanks for your time, it is genuinely appreciated. SnowRise let's rap 11:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Imamate of Aussa on a "History and geography" 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, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility of list styling[edit]

Hi Snow Rise. With regard to your post at the Roxy the dog ANI, I wanted to quickly bring to your attention the guidance at MOS:INDENTMIX. It's purely for future reference – I've already taken the liberty of tweaking your post (along with those of several other users) to bring them into compliance so there's nothing to worry about. Thanks. XAM2175 (T) 14:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, The Gnome, if I'm honest, the most relevant thing I can think of in relation to the number of Johnson's children is the fact that we are likely to end up with the most frizzy-haired political dynasty in history. Seriously, I can't shake a vision of generations of MPs making every question time look like an episode of Fraggle Rock. SnowRise let's rap 10:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Am I in the right place here, or is this a mistaken ping?) Greetings. Mendelian biology will probably take care of the fuzzy-hair bit; past record indicates that parliamentary family-dynasties fare no better than royal ones. And, in the final charge, our better angels shall prevail. -The Gnome (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A genuine ping, Gnome: just wanted to interject some levity into the proceedings, to keep everything in perspective! SnowRise let's rap 00:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll[edit]

Hello. I think it's time to complete the straw poll. It's been about nine days since it opened. And the last Ivote was about seven days ago (maybe six?). So, what do you think? You're welcome to emcee the occasion if you wish. Will this be black tie? (:>) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Steve: heheh, my formal wear is at the cleaners, but I can be relied upon to bring the expected pomposity, I suppose. I'm too involved by this point to formally close, of course, but I do have an !vote that I think might push the formal consensus into one column for the moment. I actually composed this several days ago, but it was far, far too long to enter into a survey, and I haven't found time to make it more workable. However, for the moment I will share my unfiltered thoughts with you:
  • Partial merge and temporary redirect. I've really gone back and forth on this, being as there are compelling arguments on either side of the independent article issue. And I don't know that this !vote is going to do much to shift consensus here, positioned as it is somewhere so close to the middle that you might consider it effectively neutral in terms of formulating a consensus from all the perspectives presented here. Nevertheless, this is what I think the ideal solution (and arguably the only feasible one, longterm) might be.
First off, while the discussion has thankfully been nuanced on the whole, there are some extreme versions of the core arguments that have been advanced at points above (and at the ANI that brought some of us in as additional voices) that I think are worth repudiating. For example, the suggestion that psuedo-scientific topics should not receive their own articles whenever those topics have not benefited from discussion in serious scientific scholarship is not just contrary to community consensus as recorded in the core policies of relevance here WP:N and WP:FRINGE, it is also just a very poorly-considered notion. Much of the world of pseudoscience or junk science does not benefit from the scrutiny of experts from the over-arching fields these faux concepts camouflage themselves within, because those experts have limited time and resources, and frankly, better things to do with their time. That does not, however, mean that the topics in question are transmuted into something to which out base notability and inclusion criteria do not apply.
So I would like to be clear that I think there clearly is a legitimate potential article here. There's sufficient sourcing (I think that has been demonstrated even to the satisfaction of most of the initial skeptics at this point) and no fundamental reason why we can't discuss the subject while still contextualizing it for the reader as something that comes from outside scholarship or empirical research. That said, notability and theoretical feasability are not the end of the analysis on whether we have a standalone article on a topic: there is also the matter of WP:PAGEDECIDE considerations. I don't think any of the editors who have supported a redirect here have expressly framed their objections in those terms, but I think it is helpful to do so, so I will:
To be quite blunt, the article as originally written was (not just because of its reliance on primary sourcing, but because of the choices made in its construction) completely unacceptable as neutral encyclopedic content. Looking through the edit history over the years, it is pretty clear that most of the authors that produced this content had a hagiographic impression of Leary and the work and thus completely fail to note obvious context, such as the fact that this "model" is more a product of mystcicism that apes scientific terminology than of anything remotely based in actual scientific research or legitimately debated frameworks.
To focus for the moment on just one of many serious shortfallings in presenting this topic neutrally, the article has long buried the lead with regard to where the concepts originate: that is to say, with a man coming down from a decade of heavy psychedelic usage, held in solitary confinement. That's about as far as you can get from anything that can be legitimately called valid scientific process, and yet looking through the edit history, most versions of the article, including the very recent ones, either did not include that vital information, or mentioned it briefly in passing towards the end of the article. That's context that should be foregrounded early: almost certainly it belongs in the lead, but it at least needs to be introduced well before a thorough description of the content of the theory in its own terms.
And that's just part of the problem with how the subject is contextualized. Throughout both historical and recent versions of the article, you can find all manner of omissions and misrepresentations that frame the Eight Circuit Model as conventional science that empirically interweaves legitimate research from psychology, neuroscience, theoretical physics, biochemistry, mathematics, and quantum mechanics (to name just a fraction of the disciplines name-checked in various versions of the article). And that's just not what this model is. It's unambigously (and I'm talking here in terms of both common sense and the sourcing) new age mysticism that occasionally appropriates isolated terminology from those fields, but has nothing to do with serious research (or serious academics) within those fields.
Let me be clear that these issues definitely did not start with Randy. In fact, from the looks of things, he made a significant number of changes to improve the article's readability. Nevertheless, it does seem that he does believe the model is legitimate science, and he has argued for the preservation of a version of the article that happens to sell that notion hard. It is this problem which I believe the other editors here object to and which has led to what is, in my opinion, an over-focusing on the use of primary sourcing (which use is a concern, but one that wouldn't be as pronounced if not for the way in which those primary sources are being utilized).
So what we are left with at the end here is a situation where the theoretical best approach under policy and the practical best way forward are somewhat in tension. Yes, this is a valid and WP:Notable topic under our policies. But we don't have anyone here with both the impetus and perspective to actually write the policy-consistent, neutral version of the article we would need. And in fact, the amount of pushback against clearly significant concerns voiced about the historical approach to the topic just puts the final nail in the coffin for now. Yes, there should be an article on the Eight Circuit Model, but in terms of our obligation to provide neutral coverage, having no article is clearly better than presenting the article we had, or anything remotely like it. I'd ideally like to see a middle ground solution, but the gap between the two sides and the overall intractability involved in the recent discussions make me feel I have to choose the less problematic option, which for the moment is to redirect the namespace until a reasonable compromise version of the article's content is agreed to.
So that is basically where I land on the issues, but I will need to find a way to render that down. Or I suppose I could just do a quick paragraph, but there's plenty in there that ideally I think both "sides" could benefit from hearing so there's a better chance that this works towards a stable consensus rather than just kicking the can down the road. If you're eager to get this done in the next day, I'll go with the concise option though, because I don't know that I have the remaining time today to pare this monster post down to something talk page acceptable. SnowRise let's rap 23:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your ivote and above response. I will request a closer after about seven days from now if no one else ivotes. Otherwise, I will request a closer seven days after the last ivote. I also prefer an uninvolved closer now that you bring it up. I personally don't want the headache of someone protesting my close because I was a participant. And if that happens I would be compelled to request an uninvolved closer anyway. So, why not save a step. Right?
Regards, ----Steve Quinn (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Quinn, precisely my thinking as well. Coming into the discussion late as I did, and by virtue of the ANI, I may have been somewhat less involved than others, but in the time I was there, I staked out enough opinions on the editorial issues, that I was definitely at least partially involved by the end of the straw poll. And sometimes you can still make a close in those circumstances if the dispute has been a light and all around collaborative one, but it's not like all parties are taking a light touch to this particular discussion, so I wouldn't expect a laissez-faire response if I tried to formally summarize the consensus--so, as you said, hitting the nail on the head, why add another step if it's almost certain someone will invoke their interest to procedurally object anyway?
That said, I hope my !vote does at least push us into firm consensus territory. With at least six days left before you ask for a closer, I shouldn't have difficulty finding time to render the above into two or three paragraphs to add some extra emphasis. *desperately looks around for some wood to knock on*. I am kind of curious to see if fiveby will take a firm stance one way or the other by then, since they were the one other middle-ground/wait-and-see/swing !vote. That could make the difference to a closer if my final perspective isn't enough to tip it into firm consensus. SnowRise let's rap 00:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Quinn, in light of what was either a very disingenuous response to my offer to support an alternative solution, or else just a healthy dollop of WP:IDHT as to the concerns raised repeatedly by the consensus of editors on that talk page, I'd support your not letting the grass grow under your feet on requesting that close: waiting the week you intended would still not be the worst thing in the world, but then again, I doubt it's going to change anything for the consensus and I think we've cleared the threshold were stonewalling is starting to feel like disruption. In fact, I almost have the impression the entire point of that edit (other than reintroducing content they unambiguously knew had been rejected by consensus) was to create an excuse to ping in another user who contributed to the contested and previously removed content, since they are otherwise one against the world on that talk page. It's too much of a grey area for me to call out WP:CANVAS, but you know, there's been an immense amount of patience and willingness to explore compromise territory there while still meeting the requirements of basic content guidelines and it has resulted in no real progress towards an acceptable version of the article. I can now see why this ended up at ANI in the first place, and I would have been less equanimious in my responses to the original thread there if I had known how much more protracted this would get.
Anyway, long story short, I do think a more than reasonable amount of time and energy has been expended in pursuing alternatives (mostly by me, I know: the rest of you saw the writing on the wall much sooner!), and it's time to just adopt the approach agreed to by the clear consensus, much though I view it as a non-deal result. Sometimes on this project it's just a matter of adopting the lesser of two poor options. Whether in a week or sooner, feel free to let me know when you request the close, because I don't have plans to return to the talk page for further discussion otherwise, since it really isn't going anywhere. SnowRise let's rap 00:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, technically speaking, I don't think you even need a formal close: it wasn't an RfC (and not even those require a formal close in cases of obvious consensus), and the result is pretty straight-forward, so you could easily just apply the redirect. Still, a formal close might be the best approach to avoid further disruption and unceasing litigation over the result. I'll leave it to you to decide the best step forward and will offer my support if you get pushback, but otherwise, I'll leave it to those of you had less qualms about shutting down the fringe content in the first place: having stepped in to the discussion in the hope of threading the needle and finding a compromise solution, I'm stepping out since I'm not seeing enough movement from one side to make that possible. A shame, really: there certainly is an encyclopedic topic here: a shame we couldn't reflect it, short of presenting it like empirical research, as it clearly isn't. SnowRise let's rap 00:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow,
I appreciate your support. And I'm sorry there has been so much trouble for you. I will try to come up with the best way to move forward. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, despite the way it has panned out, no trouble Steve: I would rather make the effort to find a solution everyone could live with and have it fail than not try at all. Ironically, the person I am most concerned for from here is Randy: just as that ANI thread was about to be archived for lack of activity, and weeks after anyone was recommending action against him, it has been revived. I'm really hoping it doesn't lead to more tussle and trouble for him, because his decision to retire from the matter should have been respected. I can't see how it is likely to blow that way, but with discussion revived there now, who knows. As to the talk page, I'm going to do my best not to comment immediately. With others engaged, and me no longer standing in the way as a psuedo-partition, consensus should be clear. I'll make my position known if there are any further inflection points in the discussion or if Raven makes the ill-advised decision to push matters further at ANI, but otherwise I think I've said all I can say on the editorial matter. You can always ping me if absolutely necessary, but otherwise I think I'm tapped. Best of luck to you guys in resolving it with a minimum of additional disruption. SnowRise let's rap 03:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Quinn, it occurs to me that in light of the previous conversation here, you might have felt blindsided by my choice to try to pursue one more chance at a compromise version on the talk page. Had I not been so sleep deprived there yesterday, I might have thought to give you a heads up here. The decision to open a sandbox was somewhat in response to the feedback of fiveby and other comments at the ANI. That and it occurred to me we should have pinged back those editors previously involved in the topic in earlier discussions much sooner. I honestly wasn't sure which side they would land on, and if pressed to guess, probably would have thought they would support the direct, based on their previous opinions, so I was surprised they !voted more for a straightforward keep, but that's neither here nor there. In any event, it's clear even if the redirect doesn't happen because of the new !votes, these are editors who are also motivated to avoid violations of WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE, and that's to the better of the longterm stability and appropriateness of the article anyway, so I hope you will not be nonplussed.
That said, as I just made clear in the ANI, there's still a lot of disruption going on at this juncture that is keeping good faith from prevailing, even with this interjection of opinions from experienced editors. I've just told Raven under no uncertain terms that I'm considering proposing a page ban against them myself, nevermind that we are on the same side of the core question of whether an article should exist there. The bludgeoning has got to stop. That said, JoelleJay could stand to stop empowering them with constant responses. Those two are really on extreme diametric corners on relevant policy issues, with neither comporting particularly strongly with community or local consensus: Joelle seems to want to torch down anything that remotely touches on FRINGE, and Raven is convinced the policy doesn't even apply to the article--neither of which is a tenable position in my opinion. I welcome the range of ideas, but it's no surprise they don't see eye to eye, and the protracted hyper-detailed sparring on every last syllable of WP:FRINGE has got to stop. Raven's issues go beyond that, no doubt, but Joelle's enabling is not helping, imo. I'm going to be unable to be super involved for a few days, so hopefully my comments at the ANI are sufficient to convince them to retire to their corners for a bit.
Anyway, I'm rambling now. Point is: sorry if I protracted the close further. but as I said on the talk page, I'm not going to belabor this attempt at sandboxing. If it's not going anywhere in a couple of days, I'm done trying to mediate a compromise, I'm just going to repeat my stance on what should and should not be in that article, and I'm done. SnowRise let's rap 17:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

You may have inadvertently led us to the precipice at the end of the world as your combined use of bold and underline could conceivably be responsible for driving a copy editor somewhere on the planet to violate the two drink rule of the inebriati in anger. Joking, my friend; I appreciate your levelheaded comment in that discussion. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL: is it just me or do the Mitchell and Webb crew very much seem to embrace a bit of the method acting approach for any scene involving booze? The performances in those bits always seem just a little too too good, especially considering their usual sincerity-adjacent tone in their sketches. I'm not wrong, right? [5], [6], [7], [8]. Anyhow, thanks Vir, I'm glad if I've been any help in resolving the matter: for what it's worth, your coming over from the Leary article and quickly constructing that article on the principle work itself was the real turning point in breaking up the loggerhead on what to do with the content. Hopefully the consensus is strong enough to resolve the matter for now, and bring everyone to the table with more of a mind towards flexibility and a reasonable compromise version when it does come time to resurrect the article. If so, I hope you're involved--not just because you've been helpful in navigating the policy issues, but because I meant what I said before: I really was impressed by the quality of your prose and editing in putting that article together so well in such a short span.
By the way, as coincidence would have it, just before I ran into you at the 8CMC article, I happened to peek in at Talk:Carnism. It seems there are still some occasional disputes as to tone there, and I was thinking about commenting about how to thread the needle (to make the concepts a little more accessible without changing the meaning, so that maybe the misconceptions about the ideas contained therein are a little less likely to happen), when I can find the time. As I recall, you were somewhat involved with assisting FourViolas in refining her original draft of that article, weren't you? Would you care to receive a ping if a discussion gets underway there? Anyhow, please stop by my talk page any time; you can bring a Peep Show clip next time. ;) SnowRise let's rap 07:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sheesh, just double-checked and realized you were already participating as of the last discussion. So much for my middle-term memory these days--you'd think I was a charter member of the Knights Tippler! :D SnowRise let's rap 08:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and thanks, ever so much. I was behind Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, which is carnism-adjacent (I'm using that ironically). The late, great SlimVirgin was the one who helped FourViolas with carnism, IIRC. I have things to say about the Leary discussion, but I'm working on a few other things at the moment. Your calm demeanor may be needed elsewhere, so I may be calling on you again soon. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, another coincidence: I've been missing Sarah (and FlyerReborn) every time I get sucked into the orbit of a reproductive health topic of late. I actually went looking to see if Halo was still on the project the other day to tell him that I still see an old comment on a talk page from his sister every once in a while that makes me realize all over again what a loss it was to our work in certain difficult areas when she passed--and to see if there was anything I could help him with. Unfortunately, it seems he didn't have the willingness to persist here long after he informed us of what had transpired... I tell you, not to be all doom and gloom, but the ranks of stalwart, reliable, straight-shooting editors in MEDRS areas are feeling a wee bit thin, relative to the work, of late... So, on that note, and in response to your comment, please, whenever I can be of help in any area, don't hesitate to reach out. :) SnowRise let's rap 08:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023[edit]

Hello Snow Rise,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Suriname 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 07:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol needs your help![edit]

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Snow Rise,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snow_Rise/Archive_22&oldid=1217689526"