Biografix
Welcome! edit
Hi, Biografix. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . PureRED (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
October 2017 edit
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Michael Rigas. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Biografix, I think you need to take a second look at the Tony Tooke article and try to rewrite it in your own words... or at least add attribution to it as Diannaa added above for a separate issue. I don't see any attribution for the article as of this post. Right now there is a 65.4% possible violation in the article. Thanks, Corky 20:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- It was reduced to 39.8% violation unlikely.--Biografix (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Happy holidays! edit
Marquardtika (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Greetings to you. Kindly rework your article above as article in Wikipedia is not an essay and make the article more encyclopedic, writing in neutral point of view (as formal as possible, state the facts) - see WP:NPOV and Information style and tone of writing. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you edit
Hi Biografix, and thank you for your contributions! I noticed your article Bob Paduchik and I think it’s a good candidate for Did You Know. DYK is the easiest and funnest way to get your creation on to the Main Page and in front of the eyeballs of 17 million people. Learn all about it here "DYK for Newbies." I'd like to take this opportunity to invite you to join other people who enjoy editing conservatism-related articles at WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where you can can meet new colleagues and get answers to burning questions. I hope to see you there! – Lionel(talk) 08:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Discrectionary sanctions alerts edit
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.TonyBallioni (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.TonyBallioni (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Biografix! Questions about the above “Alert”? I wrote a quick & dirty FAQ—check it out here. If you have any questions about policies or editing or anything else just ask me on my talk page :-) – Lionel(talk) 05:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Alexander B. Gray for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexander B. Gray is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander B. Gray until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism! We are a friendly and fun group of editors dedicated to improving articles related to conservatism. Here's how you can get involved:
And once again - Welcome! |
You should consider nominating your articles for DYK. See "DYK_For_Newbies". – Lionel(talk) 10:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of John Ullyot edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on John Ullyot, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Biografix and American civil servants and political appointees. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Conflict of interest in Wikipedia edit
Hi Biografix. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. As has been pointed out in the COIN thread of which you were given notice above, Your edits to date have a clear focus and are somewhat promotional. Lots of people come to Wikipedia with some sort of conflict of interest and are not aware of how we manage it. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.
Hello, Biografix. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
Comments and requests edit
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.
As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).
Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with the subjects about which you have edited, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency, a political party, a PAC, or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it, and if you are editing for pay or the expectation of being paid, you must disclose that. Please note that we rely on the good faith of editors to answer the question in the spirit it was asked. For example if you are a contract worker hired by a person who works for a PAC (just to take one example), we are looking for you to disclose all that; it is the connections that matter, here in WP.
After you respond (and you can just reply below), if it is relevant I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Jytdog, many thanks for your message. As for my person, I'm a conservative with a general interested in US politics and people involved but I without any links to GOP, PR, PACs, etc.
- Many of the articles I've published were inspired by the article Political appointments by Donald Trump and its numerous red links. It was my mistake to think that all people listed in the article would be notable due to the fact that they’ve been presidential appointees. Sorry for that. I've also started to publish other GOP-related articles, e.g. on state chairs. As far as I understand these chairs are notable. But I am not sure anymore, so I will publish my latest article on Wyoming's state chair in my sandbox. Please review and let me know your thoughts. Thank you!--Biografix (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent. Not that that's all cleared up, perhaps you should think about adding some sources to your articles listed at deletion AFD. No need to bother Jytdog about your state chair article. I'll review it for you. Ping me when it's ready :-)))) – Lionel(talk) 13:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and blocked you then as you seem content to lie and violate our terms of use. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keeping in mind I'm no COIN expert, @TonyBallioni: to me it appears that the editor was asked if they have a COI and/or a paid COI, and they replied in the negative. You called them a liar and blocked for paid editing. I looked at WP:COIN. I may be mistaken, but you imply that the editor was blocked because their their first edit suggests that they are an experienced editor. Well, isn't that a different question? In other words, they were asked if they had a COI. They were not asked if they had previous experience at Wikipedia. I'm just a little confused.– Lionel(talk) 00:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Lionelt: when someone creates an SEO optimized article in one edit without any errors of a mid-level appointee as their initial edit, and continued this process for other similar officials and even produces G11-able articles, the answer they gave above simply doesn’t pass the smell test. I hate doing UPE blocks and not making it a spam-only block under local policy, but in this case it is the only option I see and I think it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. The deleted articles also contain some other indicators of UPE. That I’d rather not discuss per BEANS. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keeping in mind I'm no COIN expert, @TonyBallioni: to me it appears that the editor was asked if they have a COI and/or a paid COI, and they replied in the negative. You called them a liar and blocked for paid editing. I looked at WP:COIN. I may be mistaken, but you imply that the editor was blocked because their their first edit suggests that they are an experienced editor. Well, isn't that a different question? In other words, they were asked if they had a COI. They were not asked if they had previous experience at Wikipedia. I'm just a little confused.– Lionel(talk) 00:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Linda Capuano edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Linda Capuano, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Linda Capuano for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Linda Capuano is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Capuano until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Michael Rigas for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Rigas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Rigas until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The Right Stuff June 2018 edit
By Lionelt
Fellow members, I'm pleased to announce the return of the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. And considering the recent downsizing at The Signpost the timing could not be better. The Right Stuff will help keep you apprised of what's happening in conservatism at Wikipedia and in the world. The Right Stuff welcomes submissions including position pieces, instructional articles, or short essays addressing important conservatism-related issues. Post submissions here.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the latest updates at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
After a series of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and admin Andrevan was the subject of an Arbitration case for conduct unbecoming. Prior to the case getting underway Andrevan resigned as bureaucrat and admin. A widely discussed incident was when he suggested that some editors he described as "pro-Trump" were paid Russian agents. This resulted in a number of editors from varied quarters denouncing the allegations and voicing support for veteran editors including Winkelvi and the notorious MONGO.
Editors who faced Enforcement action include SPECIFICO (no action), Factchecker atyourservice (three month topic ban ARBAPDS), Netoholic (no action) and Anythingyouwant (indef topic ban ARBAPDS). (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Breitbart News, in response to Facebook's decision to use Wikipedia as a source to fight fake news, has declared war on our beloved pedia. The article in Haaretz describes the Facebook arrangement as Wikipedia's "greatest test in years" as well as a "massive threat" to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Breitbart's targeting of Wikipedia has resulted in an "epic battle" with respect to editing at the Breitbart article. The article has also recently experienced a dramatic increase in traffic with 50,000 visitors according to Haaretz. There is no love lost between Breitbart and Wikipedia where editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have criticized the news websites unreliability and have compared it to The Daily Mail. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
- There is an RFC regarding Liberty University and its relationship to President Trump; see discussion
- Activist and commentator Avi Yemini is listed at AFD; see discussion
Delivered: 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Jason Klitenic for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jason Klitenic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Klitenic until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Richard J. Baum for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard J. Baum is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard J. Baum until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Eathorne edit
IMHO this isn't ready. Please see WP:BASIC. You need "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources." I use three sources as a rule-of-thumb. So, the Republican Party is not independent. OTOH Gillette is independent however Eathorne only receives a mention--not significant. Get the idea?
Note this applies to your articles at AFD. They need additional indepdendant sources with significant coverage. One of your options is to "draftify" the article which means you can move them into your "private" userspace and add sources at your leisure. When ready you can move them to mainspace. See Wikipedia:Drafts#As_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion. – Lionel(talk) 05:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
June 2018 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Biografix (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm a conservative, and with some experience in ancient HTML (from early websites) I started working on biographic articles of appointees from the list Political appointments by Donald Trump. With erroneous belief that all people mentioned there would qualify for an article in Wikipedia. Today I know that was wrong. Of course, my aim was to create good and positive articles presenting all information available, and I wrote about these people as I would like to write others about myself. In the beginning I also took some wording from sources which violated copy rights (as soon I realized my mistake I rewrote corresponding parts). My style of writing was seen as promotional. I realized that when some of my articles were discussed at Articles for deletion. Help also came from Lionel. Therefore, I started working on the article of Linda Capuano to cut out this promotional content. The article has been deleted since then, and I was blocked because of false accusations that I would get money for my edits. I put a lot of emphasis on the articles' correct markup. In fact, I spent so much time on the markup (also by copying from other articles) that at least one article was already outdated at the time of its publication: in early 2018, my article on Linda Capuano presented her as appointee without confirmation and therefore missed out her confirmation by US Senate a few days before. I just realized that yesterday and added the confirmation shortly before the article's deletion. No one would pay for outdated articles or at least insist on immediate updates, I guess. As far as I understand, I was blocked by TonyBallioni also for the markup of my first article. But I never was asked about so I could tell about my previous HTML experiences (in the ages of V.32 and V.34). In the end, wiki markup isn't rocket science. There are millions of articles to copy from. Now I hope that my explanation is clear enough. And as for the name BiograFIX, you may guess my favorite series of comics (little hint: it's French and starts with an "A"). In case my journey with Wikipedia ends here, at least my wife will be happy with me spending less time on the computer. Biografix (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Upon reviewing your edits, I must concur with TonyBallioni. I saw the same pattern as he did(you creating an article and then an SPA editing it, with at least one declaring they were doing so as part of their job). I think that in order to be unblocked you will need to better explain what is happening here, and/or agree to not edit or create articles about U.S. government officials. I am declining this request. I would further add that your political views are not relevant. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@TonyBallioni: as stated I'm no COI expert, that said this sounds plausible to me. – Lionel(talk) 10:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, it really doesn’t. It also doesn’t explain how on three randomly selected articles I just went through, each one was visited by SPAs to update after the initial article was created. This is entirely consistent with hiring someone to create an initial article for you and then updating it yourself/having one of your employees do it and is something we see pretty frequently in this area. I’m sorry, but his editing just doesn’t pass the smell test, and I really couldn’t care less what his political beliefs are. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: Hi 333dot, many thanks for your review and the details on the SPA editing. As far as I can see, this digital media analyst tried to wipe out the entire Bruce D. Jette article. Why should Jette first pay for his article and later instruct someone to delete its content? As many of the appointees don't qualify for articles, I would skip them in the future, and also other U.S. government officials, if you want me to. And I only mentioned my political views as these explain my edits.--Biografix (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Deletion discussion about Nazakhtar Nikakhtar edit
Hello, Biografix,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Nazakhtar Nikakhtar should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazakhtar Nikakhtar .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks,
Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: July 2018 edit
By Lionelt
WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.
At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."
Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to Neveselbert. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by Zarasophos
 | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey . The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a "boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:
- 53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
- "Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
- "Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."
In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here.
(Discuss this story)Delivered: 09:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Bruce D. Jette for deletion edit
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce D. Jette (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Clarityfiend (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)