User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/3

Active discussions

Request

Hey Barkeep, I would like to request that my AFC reviewer rights be restored, I know I didn't use it properly the last time because I didn't know about many guidelines. I've read WP:AFCR and all the notability guidelines and I feel I could use it properly. Andrew Base (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Base, I've been thinking about your request. I am of mixed opinion. On the one hand, I'm glad you've now read what you've read. That's a real good start. On the other hand, it's only been a week. If you were doing this after a month it would be a clear decision for me. But right now it's hard for me to tell if you've truly learned something from the mistakes or are just trying to say the right things. I'd like you to take Wikipedia just a beat slower in general. So if you think you're truly ready for AfC again I would encourage you to put your name on the request list at WP:AFCP. I'll post a quick version of what happened and what I've just written and some other sysop can make the decision. I still think the best advice is to just put your head down and do good work with the tools you have now for a couple months. This will blow over in a way that asking so soon stops from happening. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

September drive

Hi Barkeep49, sorry for the delay, been meaning to discuss the drive (which went great), and how the barnstars are being given out. What is happening with the old reviews? I took the liberty of quickly tallying the scores:

  • 1.02 editor - 4 reviews / 2 old
  • AhmadLX - 1 review / 1 still on hold
  • AmericanAir88 - 5 reviews / 2 old
  • Amitchell125 - 10 reviews / 4 old / 1 on hold
  • Bobbychan193 - 1 review / 1 on hold
  • Bryan Rutherford - 3 reviews / 2 on hold
  • Canada Hky - 4 reviews / 3 old
  • ComplexRational - 3 reviews / 3 old
  • CPA-5 - 23 reviews / 2 old / 8 on hold
  • DannyS712 - 2 reviews
  • David Fuchs - 4 reviews / 2 on hold
  • Femke Nijsse - 2 reviews / 1 old
  • Ganesha811 - 7 reviews / 6 old
  • Gog the Mild - 7 reviews / 2 old
  • Harrias - 9 reviews / 4 old / 1 on hold
  • Haukurth - 1 review / 1 on hold / 1 old
  • J Milburn - 4 reviews / 3 old / 2 on hold
  • JerrySa1 - 1 review / 1 old
  • Kges1901 - 3 reviews
  • Kingsif - 37 reviews / 2 on hold / 23 old
  • Kosack - 10 reviews / 8 old
  • Lee Vilenski - 10 reviews / 4 old
  • Llywrch - 2 reviews / 4 on hold / 2 old
  • MJL - 1 review / 1 old / 2 on hold
  • MrLinkinPark333 - 4 reviews / 4 old
  • Mujinga - 5 reviews / 2 old
  • MX - 10 reviews / 8 old
  • starsandwhales - 2 reviews
  • Sturmvogel 66 - 4 reviews / 1 old
  • Tea with toast - 1 on hold
  • ToThAc - 1 review / 2 on hold
  • TRM - 53 reviews / 23 old (wow)
  • Vanamonde - 14 reviews / 2 on hold / 10 old

Are we giving two reviews for old completed reviews, or was this more of a tiebreaker? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, have you updated with any reviews that started before the deadline but hadn't finished? I had thought it was a firmer deadline but that's not how the rules were written and so I'd held off giving any barnstars yet. I think we just ended on special recognition for older reviews. The idea really was the backlog more than the competition aspect per se though I'm surprised to see Sturm steal it away from TRM. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Just what's been posted on the page. (sturmvogel 66 is the username. They did 4 reviews.) I agree. I don't think it is super important, but I do think we should get the Barnstars out soon. If you are ok, I'll start doing it from tomorrow. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 23:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, I'd prefer to do them all things considered. It (along with a general lack of time) is why I didn't participate. I was set to do them last weekend but then was convinced to wait so people could finish up. I'll take a closer look tomorrow and see if it's ready and if it is start getting them out. An embarrassed at his inability to read, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that there are a handful of completed reviews which still need approving, or not. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Can you decide if Ganesh should get credit for Belknap and Gog for A Big Mooncake? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:PCSI

  You are invited to join the discussion at WP:PCSI. Please see this page. PATH SLOPU 01:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Path slopu, I think your suggestion is a good one but for now we don't have an easy pathway towards getting changes for the Page Curation Tool. This itself is an ongoing frustration and one I hope we can change at the earliest possible moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the comment. I shall wait. Regards. PATH SLOPU 01:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Chang Yi Wang wiki

Hi, I was blocked just after you gave me the message, and I want to thank you for your message for me. I'm wondering if I could start to edit the Chang Yi Wang wiki again follow the wiki rule that each sentence has been good resourced? Thank you for your advice again in advance.Cmhu (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)User:Cmhu

@Cmhu: What is your connection to her? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: An Employee of one subsidiary company of her. Cmhu (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Cmhu
@Cmhu: that's helpful. Your next step is to disclose this. The instructions are at that link but if you have questions about how to do it I can help you. After that you discuss on the talk page the edits you'd like to do. Make sure things you're suggesting have appropriate citations. And be ready to respect editors who say that certain edits are too promotional and need to be rewritten. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:I sincerely appreciate your help! I will try to understand how to do it in a few hours later since it's my mid-night now!Cmhu (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)User:Cmhu
@Barkeep49:Hi, I need to ask for your help!

I think I should know how to make suitable source citation edit now, but I still don't know how to make COI labeling. Could you please teach me that?

For example, In 2018, the Brain Mapping Foundation presented Dr. Wang with the Pioneer in Technology Award[1][2]. (Putting COI where?)
Am I free to directly make edition on the original item content now? Cmhu (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)User:Cmhu

@Cmhu: The example is fine. You just want to stick {{request edit}} above it.
In order to properly disclose your conflict click here and add {{UserboxCOI|1=Chang Yi Wang}}. Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "Pioneer in Technology Award". www.worldbrainmapping.org. Retrieved 2019-10-07.
  2. ^ "Brain_Mapping_Foundation". en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2019-10-07.


@Barkeep49:Thank you! I added COI information on my user page.

I still have question that when I put "request edit" above my editing, where should I put the editing content? Directly put on post edit page or somewhere else? Thanks for your help gain! Cmhu (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Cmhu, you should put it on Talk:Chang Yi Wang. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Thank you for your instruction!
Cmhu, I would wait to see if you get a response. After a week or so if you didn't get a response you can assume that the silence is a yes, do the edit, and see if it sticks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:, Noted with appreciation! Cmhu (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering after post my edition on the talk page and discussions made, could I post my edition myself to the post or I can only wait for others to make my edition request for me? Best, Cmhu (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Cmhu, right now you engage in discussion. You are doing the right thing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Thanks for the kindly reply!

I know through talk page can turn my sentence better for post, but I need to confirm if I could try to post myself or there was still any obvious violation to forbid my edition onto the post? I just want to try to post some NPOV content with reliable source. Best, Cmhu (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

 
Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Wug·a·po·des​ 14:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gold digger

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gold digger. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

please ...

... don't file a stalking report on me. :-) — Ched (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ched, please accept my gratitude for helping communicate and get the page ready for restoration when I didn't do so :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute on Jaaruma

Good morning Barkeep49, thank you for your attention to the article Jaaruma and every other article that doesn't seem just right for what we hold Wikipedia for. Thanks for tempering DGG too. Having the time to read through a third nation article is not expected and the western bias is hurting volunteer editors. The article it was only a good faith attempt to bridge the female gap of local Wikipedia articles. I usually write articles in full circle of what I can find on them so they don't look like stubs hence it looking promotion. I don't promote the series dead notable people I have covered on Wikipedia or any of the living. I do it because someone else could. I would appreciate if you could consider sparing a bit of your time to show me the problematic corners so I may fix it.

Sincerely, Danidamiobi (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Danidamiobi, I have seen my fair share of promotional articles from Nigeria and other African countries but it is nice when I can find one that isn't. My guess is that DGG did some BEFORE and found it not-notable and decided to to see if it was promotional enough to get G11. In this case it could still end up deleted if he or someone else nominates it for formal deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49, I'm a 22 year old graduate and if I sounded too politely, pardon me. The Western bias still happens here. You've not had your fair share of promotional articles from America, from Europe, from Asia, awwww bad Africa. I can't deny the African ip has wrecked havoc on administrators time and others have been affected but a subconscious bias could be controlled. What I aimed to drive at was to thank you for being neutral about the article and to point what parts of the article is not right sir. I had also asked user:DGG the same. Thanks

Danidamiobi (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Danidamiobi, please don't get me wrong. I agree 100% with you that there is a structural disadvantage for topics from many countries. This does mean that when we have a notable topic from a geographic area that is underrepresented on Wikipedia that efforts should be made to keep them. However it is is also tricky for me. We created the structures which create disadvantage certain countries for good reasons and changing them would create different kinds of problems, problems that might make the encyclopedia worse overall. There is no good answer for how we balance this and it will be something the community should continue to discuss and try to find ways of doing better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Danidamiobi, Peoples and organizations in all countries try to do promotionalism in Wikipedia. Just as the majority of contribution here are about the US, so the majority of promotional articles are from the US. The problem is not geographic, but that looking at a long string of articles most of which are promotional induces a mind-set to promotion. The solution is not to do too many at once.
And this is why we try not to delete single - handed. I make about 5% errors in screening articles, and drafts and I do not think anyone does enormously better than that. But by two people looking , we can reduce the errors to about 0.25 % , only one in every 400 %. There may .be a few admins who try to do it single handed, but it is not good practice. My error , just as Barkeep says, is due to the marginal notability. He's right it isn't a speedy, but marginal notability + promotionalism can make a case for deletion at AfD, tho I do not plan to nominate it. DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
And, fwiw, I try to be a little more flexible for Africa and some other regions. DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
DGG, I agree 100% with you that having two pairs of eyes look at an article before deleting helps to reduce the error rate and the model of you and other sysops who continue to place tags has inspired me to continue doing so since I became a sysop myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmm. There's really more work for administrators than writers than I had supposed. I sincerely understand. Thanks for taking out time to regard my conversation. The community will get better with checks, balances and diversity. Danidamiobi (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

But Sir, The topic of article was labelled as it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. I cited reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provided significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. I don't have any personal affiliations with my articles other than that I want them to be as spotfree as I ensure others are and want to cover as many gaps as possible. I respect your advise in pain. Danidamiobi (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Western articles have 5 to 3 references to explain that they are cited on reliable sources and they (Laura Berman, Jack Drescher, Heino Meyer-Bahlburg ) are considered notable against third nation equivalents. The sources I quoted are the NYT, WP and Guardian of this geo location. :( We keep this geo of Wikipedia with the global standards Danidamiobi (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Danidamiobi, I have left it on there until a New Page Patroller has a chance to look at the article and mark it reviewed. Once that has happened it's a good sign that notability is OK and the tag could be removed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, whoever patrols a page with a wrong tag.I feel like a bug around here. Let me just let it be :( Danidamiobi (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Danidamiobi, I know you've met a lot of road blocks along the way. I'm glad to see you persevering. I think the tag belongs on it (for now). However, if you were to remove it again I would not attempt to put it back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Danidamiobi: I see that Onel, an experienced new page patroller, has marked the page as reviewed. Congrats! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Good morning Sir, I appreciate your time and attention to vetting the article. Do you suggest I remove the tag myself? I thought you wanted to untag it yourself.Danidamiobi (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Danidamiobi, yes you are welcome to remove the tag :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Advice on first GA nomination - Mary van Kleeck

Hi! I've been working on the article for Mary van Kleeck for a little while and I think it'd be great to nominate it for GA status. Before I do so, I'd love to get your advice on whether, at a glance, there's anything major that needs to be done to the article before it should be nominated. I had a look through the criteria again, and by my lights the article is in pretty good shape, but I understand I'm biased in this case! Thank you for your help. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - the article is suitable for nomination in my eyes. The lead is probably the weakest part, and could do with an expansion (watch out for WP:SEAOFBLUE) and the quote might need work. Only a quick glance though Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 23:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Those are my two comments as well - for the lead see MOS:INTRO. I see nothing to indicate a normal GA review wouldn't lead to a successful outcome. Good work so far Ganesha811 and best of luck to come. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Lee Vilenski, thank you both for your feedback! I've made some changes and expanded the lead, and nominated the article. Appreciate the help. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

NPP newsletter

Hi there. I had a peak at the newsletter due out in November. For the 2 reviews a day initiative, I would suggest giving a date? Maybe something like "only 2 reviews a day, starting from (date) November". How does that sounds. I say this because the initiative and the userbox (the userbox looks really good, by the way) seem a little unfocused without a date to work around. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Seth Rollins

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Seth Rollins. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you review this?

Hi Barkeep49, can you review and CE my article Swami Chakrapani. I want to submit it for DYK after it will be reviewed. Can you please do it as you get time? Regards,— Harshil want to talk? 13:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Harshil169. Your article definitely needs a copy edit. You should request one from someone at the Guide of Copy Editors. Copy editing is not my strength. My kind of review is about notablity. This review does not need to happen before a DYK. So I would get someone to help you with the copy edit and then start DYK. Someone from new page patrol will get to it but that's not urgent right now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for kind response. Can you check notability however? — Harshil want to talk? 15:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Harshil169, in general outside of very clear passes I tend to not do NPP on request. This particular article would take some digging by me to ascertain notability and there might be someone else with more skills who can do a better job. If questions come up during DYK you can feel free to ping me and I'd be happy to spend some time on it at that point if no other NPP has done so. In better news, AntiCompositeNumber was kind enough to respond to a call I put out to do a copy edit of the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I will request it. Though, I had submitted it for DYK. -- Harshil want to talk? 14:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Harshil169, glad to hear you submitted it for DYK. Good luck! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

New Reviewer Mentorship

Hi greetings, have a nice day. I have seen so many new changes happened to NPP after you became the coordinator. I'd like to become a mentee under you to enhance my quality of patrolling as a part of New Reviewer Mentorship in NPPSchool. Hope you'll consider this. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 11:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Path slopu, absolutely. Glad to take you on. I've setup a space for us at User:Barkeep49/NPP/Path slopu. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! PATH SLOPU 14:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Sinatra: Undeniable

If the votes were evenly split bewtween keep, redirect and delete, then Young Sinatra: Undeniable should be redirected with history. Can you please elaborate on your verdict? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Jax 0677, there was no affirmative case made for keeping and so the consensus was not evenly split between keep, redirect, and delete. Even your own contribution (and it's important to remember that AfD is not a vote) was keep or merge and when asked about keep your response was, - I am not adamant about keeping the article, hence the reason I said "Keep or merge" which fits the pattern of people saying keep but not really explaining why based on notability it should be kept. On the other hand those offering delete !votes (read not votes) offered reasons for their positions based on the policy and guidelines. This lead to the delete consensus but with an acknowledgment that a redirect could be appropriate and made. I hope that helps but please know if you have further questions I would be happy to answer further. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Young Sinatra: Undeniable

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Young Sinatra: Undeniable. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jax 0677 (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

another forum?

re: ARC/ARCA/AE (or some other appropriate Arbitration forum I've forgotten) .. RFAR? :-) — Ched (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Ched, I mean that just collects the three of them and isn't really it's own forum. Yeah that's what I'm going to say :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

  I would just like to thank you for your work since getting the mop. It quite amazing the grip newer admins get on things and often understand them better than some of us oldies who have had the bit for years! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Well I still feel like I have a ton of stuff to learn from veteran sysops and obviously our thinking at places like PERM run quite close to each other which is no doubt due to the example you've set. Thanks for the kind words, they're appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

NPR

I've just made a call here for more reviewers. Let's see what it brings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung,thanks. We could always use more reviewers especially from countries like India. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russia national football team

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russia national football team. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:TemplateMonster

Hi Barkeep49, thanks for leaving the comment regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TemplateMonster. I made all the changes requested by the previous reviewer and would like the article to be reviewed again. Could you please help with this? Desquark (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Desquark, I have a policy of not reviewing AfC articles on request so I will leave it to another person. However, I will tell you that it is still promotional and also I do not think you should that the company is notable - the two comments left by previous reviewers. Have you read Writing your First Article? It has some advice that would be helpful for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Barkeep49, I'll be looking forward to the regular AFC review then. I followed the recommendations and re-wrote the article several times before, making it more neutral and removing anything that can look like a promotion. If you or any other reviewer could point out the specific facts that do not comply with the requirements, I would really appreciate that.Desquark (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Desquark, phrases like "Taking into account the huge success of multipurpose Wordpress themes" are what I was thinking about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Barkeep49, I see now. I changed that part and a couple of other paragraphs, that could include some emotional colouring, in my opinion.Desquark (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

95 Fantomo.svg  Boo! Android Emoji 1f47b.svg

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

Perfect Day (company)

The history merge that you did from the draft page didn't work correctly. There were edits at the draft page that are lost in the current version in mainspace. That's because editors were making edits at the draft page after the copy-paste happened. If you can refund/undelete the draft for me, I think I can fix it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish, done. Sorry about that - it was my first hist merge and I attempted to do everything correctly but clearly did something wrong along the way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, and no worries! I've heard repeatedly that hist merges are very difficult. All's well that ends well.   --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again, and I think I've gotten it fixed. At your convenience, you can now delete the draft again as a CSD G13. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Your AfD closing

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of conspiracy theories.

I think this is particularly problematic as you closed it as "no consensus" even as discussion was ongoing and momentum was building towards deletion according to the people who are expert in this kind of editorial approach (those who monitor the WP:FTN). The impugning you did of the original filer, to boot, indicates to me that you don't quite understand the issues involved well enough to be making this decision to cut off debate. Please re-open the discussion and allow another administrator to make this decision.

jps (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ජපස, I think you are probably not going about this the best way. If a AfD has already been relisted, a user can close it at any time. Rather than demanding a AfD be reopened, a fair dialogue should first take place with the closer and if then the parties do not agree, the next step is WP:DELREV as you have suggested. The task that befalls the closer is to measure a rough consensus which does not imply that the closer should have any specific topic knowledge or should wait any longer for a clearer consensus to emerge, and when, as you suggest, the closer ' [does not] quite understand the issues involved well enough' the closure can hardly be a supervote and 'no consensus' might well be the solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The close happened rather rapidly and insulted FTN poster directly. I think that's a supervote. jps (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@ජපස: thanks for sharing your thoughts about this AfD close. I will admit that I gave a lot of thought to this close and it was not an easy one. I ended up replying at FTN to part of what you ask about here as I was prepping this response. However, I want to address the totality of your question. To do so I need to understand something better - where do you see ongoing momentum building towards deletion? What I saw was 5 delete !votes (and a comment asking a question suggesting lack of notability) and 6 keep votes following the posting to FTN. In fact 6 of the last 7 !votes were keep. What am I missing about a building momentum towards deletion? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@ජපස: my previous comment was neutrally worded. I will now add that I endorse Barkep's closure and given his comments above and here, please see WP:NHC, and WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, and if you still have concerns, please take the issue as you yourself have suggested several times, to WP:DELREV where I will also comment. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your support Kudpung. Perhaps ජපස no longer had concerns. If they do, I think there's more a bit more discussion to be had - starting with me getting an answer to the question I posed above about what I am missing about momentum building towards deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
It's up to you. They are claiming you made a supervote. I don't see where you are missing anything. Your closure was very detailed and perfectly civil, while their opening post here while not directly uncivil, is not very polite or conducive to dialogue. It seems to me they just don't like the way the AfD went. It certainly wasn't an easy one but I would also have closed it with 'no consensus', and you can be sure that if I did not concur with your close I would have offered you a (friendly) opinion as to why. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Although it didn't go the way I !voted, I endorse this close as being a good summary of the consensus, and I reject the claim that this was in any way a supervote. I have seen several supervotes in the past, and this wasn't one of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Barkeep49/Archives,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 709 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.


To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

New message from Kudpung

Hello, Barkeep49. You have new messages at Primefac's talk page.
Message added 16:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

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

  Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

NPP backlog question

Hi Barkeep, do you know if the NPP backlog stats only include unpatroled articles or does it includes other classes of pages such as redirects and disambiguation pages? Wug·a·po·des​ 00:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Wugapodes, it includes articles, disambiguation pages (as the software doesn't know that these exist), and redirects nominated for deletion (for technical reasons that aren't worth fixing). Redirects are not included. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

NPR patroller awards

There is no need to start a poll in order to confer these awards. As I conceived them, they are awarded on a straight numerical basis to be assessed by the coordinator, which avoids any unnecessary debate, and published at the end of the year. But I am now only a voice of the past - it's your call... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, well according to the rules that were written down it either needed to be awarded by two coordinators (and there's only one of me) or by the NPP community. While I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelid if I'd just awarded it, especially as I wanted to recognize someone who wasn't at the top spot I decided to throw it out there. The other awards - which I will get around to bestowing, are obviously numerically based. But it's good to know the history of how that got to be there - I'll feel less bad presuming I'm coordinator in a year of just giving it out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I absolutely understand what a lot of work coordinating NPR is - I did it myself for a decade. I wrote all the rules, so if there is in there that requires the support of a second coord, don't forget I'm the 'emeritus' coord. Otherwise, I have every confidence in what you are doing. Maybe if Insertcleverphrasehere is more available now after his relocation to the UK, he might wish to be a second coord. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Meeanaya. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Ethan Smallwood, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Meeanaya (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Meeanaya, can I ask why? Procedurally we mark articles at AfD reviewed because their notability will be established one way or another by that discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Permissions for AfC

Hey Barkeep49, can I be part of Articles for creation? I’ve good grasp on deletion policy (71% in AfD, including old votes) and my CSD log is here. I want to take more part in accepting articles so that backlogs can be reduced and I can do new page patrolling. Can you guide me how to do?— Harshil want to talk? 09:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Harshil169, I do not have the capacity to guide you on AfC at the moment - sorry. There might be others who would be willing to be a sounding board for you. Bigger picture, do you feel like you have have read and understood WP:AFCR? If so, I would encourage you to post your request for access to WP:AFCP - I believe in these things generally going down at public places for reasons of accountability and transparency. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

NPP cohort

Hey, I was reading through the cohort proposal again in preparation for assigning people to cohorts, and I'm a bit confused by the wording. Is the idea that each participant is paired individually with two other participants, or that the participants are clustered into groups of three that collectively go through over each other's work? Also, is the idea that people volunteer reviews from their own history, or that participants check over their partner's histories? signed, Rosguill talk 23:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, I think for the second question it's your show. I actually think that for the first question too but that one I did have a vision and do have an opinion I'll lay it out. Essentially it would be to assign everyone a number and they review the two numbers higher than them. So 1 reviews 2 & 3, 2 reviews 3 & 4, and so on. But again I think you should feel free to set it up in a way that makes sense and feels right to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Your suggestion sounds reasonable, I'll go with that. I'm thinking that for the choice of articles to review, maybe 50/50 works? Although I feel a bit bad for whoever has to go through my review history and try to find actual article reviews amidst all the redirects...maybe I'll give them a heads up of a good date-range to look through. signed, Rosguill talk 23:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, yeah that would probably be helpful :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I've got a rubric for the cohort set up here. Any thoughts on how I should publish the page (e.g. move to WP space, move to WT:NPR, don't move it and just ping participants/announce it on WT:NPR)? signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, I think moving it somewhere in NPP space makes sense. Could be a sub-page of Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School. Looks good BTW. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Tips for new page patrol

I want to resume doing my new page patrol, but I'd like to do it efficiently. Which is the most useful way to patrol:

  • oldest first (FIFO) — they've been waiting longest
  • newest first (LIFO) — "speedy trial"
  • shortest first — can get through more
  • longest first — greater need for review
  • IP users first — they're more likely to come up wanting

or some other system? If this is documented somewhere, just point me to it. In the meantime, I'll work on a FIFO basis. Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Ubiquity, Glad to have you resume NPP - biggest change is that there aren't really IP users anymore. I think FIFO is the right way but I would suggest that you use the Date range filters to limit to stuff from August or newer. Many of the very old stuff is actually "new" whereas stuff from August has probably been sitting there a while. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

OK. And if I'm reviewing an article which looks OK, but could use a little help (e.g., grammar or spelling), is it OK to make the change? Or does that complicate things? ubiquity (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Ubiquity, please do make the change. In general if I am marking it as reviewed I'll make any number of changes to improve an article. These are all great questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This is fun! I brought us up four days to 12 August. I'll try to keep up that pace. ubiquity (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Ubiquity, I agree NPP can definitely be fun. Glad you're enjoying it. A little a day from all of us makes a big difference. Thanks for spending some time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Your signature

I saw this conservation you were having with Andrew Base. In your second comment, I feel that using the word "best" in your signature was inappropriate for the situation. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Interstellarity (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity, thanks for the feedback. Best used to literally be a part of my signature and I have taken it out because it clearly plays out inappropriately in some contexts now. Even in difficult conversations I do wish people the best. However, you are correct that in some situations it's not doing what's intended. I will give careful thought before using it in a similar situation the next time. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Another new page problem

The article Za'aba Spelling seems OK to me, except that it has an enormous copyvio notice on it. Two things are odd about this:

  1. Copyvio issues are supposed to be resolved within a week, while this has been going on (with no apparent progress) since August.
  2. There doesn't really seem to be a problem: the DupDetector score is zero, and Copyvios report shows 38% (violation unlikely).

I checked out the discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 August 17 and found nothing. How can I get this article out of limbo? ubiquity (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by with the question Ubiquity. Copy patrol is a specialized form of copyright work. Frequently the problems with those articles go deeper than just deleting the COPYVIO. In this case it looks like Justlettersandnumbers (who is a sysop who works extensively in this area) felt there were more problems. Resolving an article tagged by copy patrol requires editors with these specialized skills and like many areas there is a backlog. It's OK to simply leave this tagged for now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Barkeep – and congrats on the new status! Ubiquity, I declined a G12 speedy delete on that page because some of the earlier copyvio had been removed. What's needed now is for the article to be rewritten without what remains of that original copyvio]. It'd be great if you felt like doing that (and, if necessary, I'm available to advise on how to go about it). Otherwise it will probably be turned into a brief stub. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but that article looks pretty specialized, I really don't feel up to revising it. I will just ignore it. ubiquity (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

requests for administrative privilege

Regarding this edit: instead of "winning", can I suggest using "passing" or "being approved"? In the spirit of "a medium deal, but not a huge deal", I think it is better to not refer to administrator status as a prize or promotion. Thanks for your consideration. isaacl (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Isaacl, you're absolutely correct. Pass is my normal verb and I can only explain (and not excuse) that with ACE on my mind (where win is the right verb) that I slipped. Again you are correct that pass is a much better verb. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #11

15:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Meeanaya. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Scoffable, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Meeanaya (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Meeanaya. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Scoffable, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Meeanaya (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Consensus

Regarding your answer to the question from Cassianto: you said "consensus for inclusion of an infobox could turn into consensus to remove it". Right: "could turn", that's diplomatic. However, do you know of any discussion to remove an infobox that resulted in a removal? Because I don't. I remember one such discussion, result was to have an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The removal of an infobox is always the "R" in WP:BRD. That's why the removal is not discussed. CassiantoTalk 10:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I think here we are exactly at the core of the problem, which - according to your question - arbs should examine.
My understanding: BRD means three steps, a bold edit, which another editor doesn't agree with, so reverts, but offers to discuss on the talk page.
Your understanding seems to be that somehow the second step comes before the first, or what do I miss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, For the one doing the R, starting a D is optional, only an explanation in editsum is mandatory if the B was a good-faith one. Once Red, it's on the Bing editor to start the discussion to convince others why their B was actually an improvement that needs restoring. In case of infoboxes, B would be adding an infobox to an article (since they don't come with one by default) and R would be the act of removing it. Usedtobecool TALK  11:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't need so much bold ;) - For my understanding, a bold edit is an unexpected edit that changes a stable condition, not one way yes, the other no. When I add an infobox to an article that had none, I expect someone to revert and am willing to discuss. (It happened for Georg Katzer, the only case in 2019 I recall.) I expect the same courtsey from someone who removes an infobox that had been in an article for years: when that is reverted, discuss and seek consensus for the removal. But - see beginning - that is not what I see happening. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree that removing an infobox from an already stable article would count as B, so the D would have to be for removal rather than inclusion. My comment was mostly only about whose obligation it is to start a D in BRD (first editor does B and then D in response to R by a second editor). I don't know the history of the infowars, so I'll stop now. Usedtobecool TALK  12:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I am not but I also am not super plugged into the infobox debate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Do you follow me or Cassianto in the interpretation of BRD? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't see infoboxes get removed so I don't know if it's happening because someone is upsetting the established status quo adding them (Cassianto's suggestion) or because someone is upsetting the status quo removing them (your position). FWIW I normally include infoboxes when I write a new article, but I think books are conducive to infoboxes so that could just reflect the topic I work in more than anything else. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not clear. When I explained my view on how I understand BRD, I didn't mention infoboxes, - it's about the very general understanding of the concept. I understand it this way, and Cassianto understands it a different way, and that causes a conflict no matter if about infoboxes or a different topic. So, please, can you follow my explanation above (key: "a bold edit is an unexpected edit that changes a stable condition"), and if not, please explain. I could have misunderstood the concept all the time, and am ready to learn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you in the sense of a bold edit being a substantial change to an article that changes a stable condition. Assuming we you write "see beginning" you're talking about Kubrick. Is that right? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I said "see beginning" to Usedtobecool, explaining that I don't see discussions before removing an infobox, be it Kubrick or the others I'm not supposed to mention because that could mean attracting looks into the situations. I dare to mention Kubrick because Cassianto did in his questions to some arb candidates (but not Worm that Turned and David Fuchs, the arbs who wrote WP:ARBINFOBOX). I see the argument that these reverts don't need a discussion because they only remove what had been "boldly" added - 10 years earlier. I don't agree to the argument. It would be nice to discuss before removing a stable infobox, - and imagine: the problem would be solved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, there's no requirement that an editor discuss before removing an infobox. It can be a collegial thing to do but is not required in policy or practice. If an infobox removal sticks for some period of time - this is where things get hazy - it then becomes the stable version. If an infobox removal is undone (the infobox is added back) then discussion is required before it should be removed again. A person may BOLDLY change the stable article, another may revert back to stability, and then discussion should ensue if the BOLD person still feels there should be a change. Does that make more sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense, but tell Cassianto that a person who removes a stable infobox is the BOLD who, when reverted, should discuss, not me ;) - I was asked so many times to discuss before I add an infobox that I got confused in the last comment. But actually: if we'd make such a rule, the problem would be solved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Nobody has to tell me anything, Gerda. I formulate my own opinions and my opinion on this is that you are wrong. All infoboxes are bold; any removal of them is as the terms suggests (how can you revert/remove something that is not there), and the discussion is started by those who object to the removal. You seem to have a problem understanding this. CassiantoTalk 16:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
It's exactly what I said: that we differ. A ten-year-old infobox is not bold, bold is its silent removal. Be happy about the moratorium, I don't care as said in the RfC, but please don't call those disruptive who just ask what happened there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
So it is now you who thinks that somehow the second step comes before the first. It was boldly added ten years ago; the fact ten years has since passed is irrelevant and it can be reverted whenever. Or maybe you support the moronic and bullshit view that there was a "silent consensus" in place? I forget which idiot said this, but I'm sure you're only too willing to find the diff. CassiantoTalk 19:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for illustrating my point, Cassianto. I tried to talk to Barkeep49. Sad, for other reasons. - Barkeep49, try to understand Reger and Katzer, if you want to look at the problem beyond the surface. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Then don't ping me. CassiantoTalk 22:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
November
 
Cassia javanica, Torremolinos
... with thanks from QAI
I pinged you to not talk behind your back. - Barkeep49, did you know that I invented the "2 comments per thread" restriction? They then applied it, to me ;) - It's great, saves you some time. If only it was applied more evenly. - Beautiful TFA today, no infobox, no quarrel (I hope). - In celebratary mood today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Cassianto I know you're really here because of Gerda and not for my thoughts but since it's my talk page here are my two cents. At some point an addition becomes part of the article. That point is longer than 1 day but is definitely shorter than 10 years. When it becomes part of the article - part of the stable version - than changing this is a new bold action. This works in either direction (adding or removing an infobox). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
In your opinion. CassiantoTalk 22:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Cassianto In the opinion of pretty much everyone. That is the whole definition of 'stable state' of an article. If you want a personal definition that is different to everyone else about how the BRD cycle works, expect it to constantly cause friction in your dealings with other editors. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 18:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
You have quite an ironic username, wouldn't you say? CassiantoTalk 19:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Question to Cassianto

Barkeep49, say when we abuse your talk, - I'd just like to continue the discussion where it started, not on Cassianto's page nor mine. Above, we see that things can be looked at from different angles. I don't mind SK without infobox, I like when those who improve an article are happy (ah well, Reger and Katzer ...), but what I mind is that people who simply miss an infobox they were used to see for years, or a user who patiently waited with an RfC until the time given after the previous one had elapsed, are thrown in the same "disruptive" pot. Could you please think about that, and perhaps rephrase your questions to candidates? - As for the underlying disagreement about BRD - which I really think is the core of the matter - let's wait for the new committee to form, and then go for clarification. - Thank you, Cassianto, for speaking up for Giano, but I guess WP:Great Dismal Swamp is a hopeless place to receive a fair view for pointy edits out of despair. I said on Eric's talk that the blanking of his achievements hurts. No response, not in hours. Giano got the wanted response. I hate to see him blocked for that by those following teh rulez. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

With Laser brain gone, and the powers that be not liking The Rambling Man, I have only dismal predictions for how the new committee will look, Gerda. At least one of the nominees at the 2019 nominations do not follow the rules; Eric was called a "troll", despite the fact he was unable to defend himself. And these people are supposed to arbitrate? I don't think so. Please feel free to use my talk; Barkeep must be sick of this topic now. CassiantoTalk 16:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
If Barkeep can't take this much, he is not fit for arbcom ;) - I said all I wanted to. When I was young "disruptive" had a positive quality, breaking crusts. - I was ready to vote for Laser brain, - sad to hear that he dropped out. My minimum requirement is In dubio pro reo, and I fear those who don't give that to Fram, or Giano, won't give it to you and me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK, sad:

 

Kurdish civil engineer and politician
Hevrin Khalaf,
who worked for tolerance
among Christians, Arabs, and Kurds,
was killed
in the 2019 Turkish offensive into Syria?

On such background, really, what are our little differences? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

NPP follow-up

Hello Barkeep49, I requested to join the New Page Patrollers on Oct 15 and you asked me to follow-up with you after another month of AfC. [1] I'm not the most prodigious reviewer but I hope I can contribute some value. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

AugusteBlanqui, your AfC work looks good. Go ahead and put up another request at PERM (I like these things to be transparent) and I'll grant you a 3 month go with reviewer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

About the NPR right

The reason why I requested new page patroller rights was to actually use the page curation toolbar, but the only thing I've been using was the script. Cheers! CentralTime301 01:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

CentralTime301, are you thinking about Articles for Creation which has a script that is used to accept drafts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
CentralTime301, The AfC process has a live feed at Special:NewPagesFeed, but the Curation tool for new mainspace articles is exclusively for the use of New Page Reviewers only. The AfC list in that feed provides rapid access to submitted drafts. Use of the AfC Helper Script can be requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

NPR backlog

(And Insertcleverphrasehere). I know you guys do not agree that the fake number of 750 reviewers is misleading, and I get shot down in flames every time I mention it, but I do contend it leads people to believe we have enough users doing the work - but the backlogs keeps rising. I came across one who makes half a million minor edits a year but has only used the Page Curation tool 24 times. Draw your own conclusions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, I do agree that the 750 reviewers is misleading. I just don't think the way to get more active reviewers to cause bad will by removing it from people who are active on wiki and who aren't using the permission. We're all volunteers - and can choose what we do with it. I would love if more people chose to do NPP - and I'm working towards making that happen. I just don't think removing it from some of those 750 gets us enough benefit for the downsides it causes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
This is where our opinions differ. Primefac operartes a system where reviewers are removed from AfC if they haven't reviewed for 6 months. I think that's perfectly legitimate, and has never harmed anyone. Possibly because AfC is not recognised as a PERM so the hat collectors are not too worried about losing it. People regard NPR however as a promotion and especially the hat collectors react indignantly to having their stripes torn off. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, precisely because AfC isn't a formal PERM people don't notice its removal in the same way they would NPP (which would show up as a notification). So yes I think the cost/benefit scenario is different for AfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Support

Hey guy, What's up

Wanna cite that I supported at elections.

Regards:

SHISHIR DUA (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Baseless relisting

Hi Barkeep -- I just wanted to ask for your help because as you saw with Banu al-Akhdari the editor unfortunately relisted articles proposed for deletion when the consensus was clear. I am requesting your assistance with some articles, including one that I have worked on, that he may have also erroneously re-listed. If you could please have a look, thanks.

- Akira Komatsu

- Perfect Master (Meher Baba)

- Nicholas Alahverdian (I have helped to make this article meet WP:N and WP:GNG standards, and am not convinced that this needs relisting as another senior editor User:MB made improvements and edits to it as well)

- Gina Iniong

- Amrinder Singh (disambiguation)

- Vix Lowthion

... and others from the same editor whose name I can't seem to link to.

Thanks. SVUKnight (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there any procedure to have the relisting reviewed? Nicholas Alahverdian has over 70 sources and clearly passes WP:N and WP:GNG. Can you please have a look? Any information would be helpful. Regards. SVUKnight (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
SVUKnight, I have been dealing with another issue and haven't had a chance to look into this. The rest of my day is quite busy and so I might not be able to circle back until much later. Just wanted to acknowledge that I've seen this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
SVUKnight, just noting that Akira Komatsu and Perfect Master (Meher Baba) do not seem to have been relisted by the editor of the rest. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I have been opposed to non-sysop relisting and closures at AfD (outside of those articles speedy deleted or where it was a speedy keep) since long before I became a sysop. So that's my mindsetOk let's take a look at these relists SVUKnight:

So all in all not great but the one you were most concerned about, Nicholas Alahverdian, is not so outrageous to me that it needs to be undone. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Yo dawg

Hello, Barkeep49. You have new messages at Meeanaya's talk page.
Message added 17:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Barkeep, I love you; but you just sent Meeanaya the practically the same message 45+ times now. –MJLTalk 17:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
MJL, that's because Meeanaya has been blocked for UPE and abuse of multiple accounts. UPE (let alone socking) is incompatiable with New Page Patrolling. I did a complete audit of their NPP work and chose to unreview anything which fell in a topic of common paid editing and for which there was not a clear SNG/GNG keep. These need time and attention from an impartial reviewer. If there had been a way to avoid leaving this message 45 times I would have and if there had been a way to just leave a message for Meeanaya and not also the page's creator (who has likely done nothing wrong) I would have. But given softwfare limitations, I ended up spamming their talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
[Thank you for the ping] I just authored a task request on Phab to prevent this situation in the the future. Maybe it's something DannyS712 can look at? Idk, but either way it kinda is a terrible feature of the software not to give users the option to send that specific message. What could be done in the meantime is that you fully protect the page temporarily while another user (such as myself) clicks unreview a predetermined set of pages that need to be mass-unreviewed. It's not as convenient, but it should be guaranteed to not spam the user. [Also, just to note that it doesn't send a message to the page creator to my knowledge. The only person that gets a message is the person who previously marked a page as reviewed.] –MJLTalk 18:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
MJL, you phab task had been requested at the time and was deemed out of scope by WMF. If a volunteer developer like Danny wants to do it, great. My review of Meeanaya's patrols are done so no page protecting or the like is necessary at this point. What I was talking about in terms o fmessage is that there used to be a way, when unreviewing, to send a message to the person who you were unreviewing. Now when you unreview the message is sent to both the NPP and to the page creator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Huh, weird... Either way, it's a stupid bug that needs to be fixed. >:/ –MJLTalk 18:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I recently saw this exact issue cause problems elsewhere. Levivich 18:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, I am unsurprised that people bristled at this new formula and said that very thing would happen as soon as I understand the new behavior the WMF had programed. *sigh* Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Amend the bylaws, § 3 to provide for all Trustees to be elected annually by editors. Then we can elect trustees who will reallocate the budget so we stop spending $40 million per year on travel and start spending it on software development instead. I voted for you so if you're elected I expect you to get this done by the end of your term. Ok? Levivich 20:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
If elected, I certainly hope to push the Foundation where I can but somehow I just don't think I'm going to be able to get the board of trustees to radically recompose themselves in two years. I know, I know this just shows my failings not only as a sysop and Wikipedian but as a human being :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche

Hi, I would be truly grateful if you could check the references i have used on Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche and advise if they would work. Previously i had used a set of references, which I was told were promotional, so I deleted all of them except the University degree, and found some new ones today when I looked around a little after more than a month. I came online to cast my vote, so decided to take a look at this too and made some changes. Some guidance would be truly helpful, thanks in advance Vinvibes (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Vinvibes: The sources are definitely improved. I have not checked to really determine if those sources are reliable and independent but they do definitely discuss him in significant detail and might be acceptable. I would say it's 50/50 whether Ezekwueche is notable right now and your draft would be accepted. It's worth pointing out that some people can be well known and not notable (as Wikipedia defines it). Ezekwueche might be such a person. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Barkeep49:, thanks for checking - so should I go ahead and re-submit or look for more sources, if I find any over the next week probably? And voted for you since you have always helped me out, and come across as being balanced and positive. Also informing that I changed my username, and am now Tycheana, the Greek Goddess of positivism. Thanks & regards, Tycheana (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Look at that spiffy new name Tycheana. I appreciate your support but also appreciate the thoughts and time those choosing to oppose me have given my candidacy. As for the draft, if you can find another source or two that is as high quality (or even higher quality) than what you've added it wouldn't hurt. It also might not help - Ezekwueche may not be notable at the moment which would mean no article could be written. I would suggest resubmitting and if you have time to find some good sources to add before it gets reviewed (the backlog is long right now so it could be a while) great. But even with your improvements that article may be declined again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, @Barkeep49: LOL...thanks; in fact I did go through the ethos of some of the candidates and while a few did come across as logical, there were some that were totally spoofy. The draft - the one source that am doubtful about because it has an insta address - I will remove and then submit. Meanwhile if I find more credible sources, will add. Beyond that I guess it would be better to wait and watch. This problem of credible sources am facing with many of these African names - they are getting coverage in African mags etc but not beyond that. Thanks for your time and help, regards & best wishes, Tycheana (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Not for Women Only article

Hi Barkeep49 - I noticed you marked the article Not for Women Only as unreviewed after Meeanaya marked is as reviewed on November 18. Was there a reason for this?

Thanks, extabulis (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

(passerby here) Extabulis, Meeanaya was recently blocked for activities violating the Wikipedia terms of use. So, articles previously marked as reviewed by them, were marked unreviewed in bulk, as a precautionary measure so that another independent reviewer can have a look in turn. It is nothing to do with the article being unreviewed, the article is just being put back in the queue for review by someone else who still has the confidence of the community. Regards! Usedtobecool TALK  20:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Usedtobecool, I appreciate the explanation! extabulis (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Extabulis:, Usedtobecool is correct. This was done as a precaution. I will note that local TV shows are frequently not notable under our standards for television shows. Given Walters prominence it's definitely possible this one is notable, but the links ot her autobiography are great sources but don't help show notability. If you have any questions about this please do follow-up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Barkeep49. While the show originated as a local TV show, once Walters took over it was syndicated across 80 cities and served as a forerunner to later talk shows like The View. I'll look for additional sources to cite! extabulis (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Martin Urbanec, do you have examples of tasks from last year so I can get a better idea of whether I would make a good mentor and this would be a good fit for me? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, sure, thanks for asking! You can browse Wikimedia last year tasks at [2]. An example of a documentation-related task is Analyze the user documentation of Wikidata and propose improvements or Twinkle: Write documentation for Twinkle's Protect (RPP) module. Let me know if you have any further questions! --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Request removal of NPR

Hi Barkeep, I'm reaching out to you since WP:PERM suggests reaching out to an administrator to request removal of permissions and you're pretty active at WP:PERM/NPR. Could you please remove my NPR user right? I intended to use it when I first requested it but I didn't find the NPP system very intuitive and I never got around to learning how it works, so I haven't used it at all. Thanks for your help. 97198 (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

97198, I am able to do this but I can't say I'm happy to do it because you seem like someone with the skills to be a good reviewer even if you only do it occasionally. Could I try to help you master the NPP system rather than give up the PERM? If the answer is no I really will remove it but I wanted to make a pitch first. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it, but I don't really have the time or the motivation right now. If I change my mind I'll definitely get in touch to take you up on that offer. 97198 (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  Done Barkeep49 (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Hard Luck/GA1

Barkeep49, this review has been open for quite some time. Do you think you could return to it and see whether you can provide the nominator with what they need to continue, or take whatever next reviewer steps you think are necessary? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Request

Hello! I was wondering if you could take me on as a NPP school student. I have read WP:NPP (and the articles that are suggested in there) already, and I am familiar with Twinkle through counter vandalism work. I have graduated from a CVUA course with Girth Summit, and am now interested in expanding my area of interest on Wikipedia. Thanks for considering this, Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 20:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, I am currently unable to accept any new students. If I am not elected to Arbcom, I will be able to then. Please feel free to ask me again after results are announced in December. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that's fine, I'll just ask a different trainer. There is another one in my time zone, so it's no big deal. Thanks though! Yours - Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 15:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Update: I am now going to be trained by Rosguill. Thank you for considering my request though! Cordially - Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 19:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

NPP by user

Hi Barkeep,

I used to use User:Rentier/NPP/Unreviewed articles by user to identify mass article creation patterns which sped up the review process a little bit if the articles in question were formulaic. However, the maintainer of the tool appears to be inactive and the version on labs isn't working. Can you think of a way to get the output at the page linked above regularly updated? I have a feeling it could be done in Quarry but maybe I'm deluding myself...

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

StraussInTheHouse, I believe the best way to get that information is from a Quarry. My SQL are normally such that with enough time and effort I can get information like this. However, I can tell you I will not have the time to put in the effort. Let me noodle if I can think of other ways of accomplishing this. In the meantime maybe you can try WP:RAQ? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Weird NPR?

I just declined a user asking for PGM, but they mentioned they oversee an Ed program. I'm a little concerned that they're both at AFC (done by me) and NPR (which you approved), and could potentially push through sub-par content without any independent verification. In a quick look at their move history this might be the case for AfC, but I haven't looked to verify the quality of those drafts (and if they're related to their course). You think it's worth starting a discussion with them about the issue in general? Primefac (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, I think gaining a better understanding of their work supporting educational students would be good. There is definitely an uneven playing field in the support academic classes in North America get through the Wiki Ed foundation and classes in other parts of the world get. So supporting a user who is interested in filling this gap on a volunteer basis seems noble. However, if that's the role they're playing it would be good to setup some best practices, using the way Wiki Ed coordinators act as a guideline. For instance several of them (maybe even all of them) have NPR on their personal accounts but they leave patrolling to other editors.
Of course if he is just a volunteer he can choose what articles to take an interest in. For instance I will sometimes run across a class and start following the work of other students in that class. Helping students who don't know better create notable articles through use of AfC and NPP doesn't have to be an abuse of anything. Wiki Ed, for instance, does extensive training to help students avoid AfC all together and this has never bothered me. if an editor is poorly using AfC or NPP tools (such by regularly accepting non-notable topics or rejecting notable ones) that needs to be the issue more than what subset of articles an editor chooses to focus on. So yes I think it worthy of discussion but the end result, at least from my perspective, might not be more than "carry on the good work". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you/question

Thank you for your above help earlier (please note I am now Dr42). Just a quick query: does a relisted deletion discussion have to remain active for 7 entire days or can it be ended earlier if the consensus for keep or delete is clear (or clearer)? Just a question that I can't seem to find the answer to and thought you may be of assistance. Thanks. Dr42 (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Should go for the full week. A day or two longer won't break anything. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
@Dr42: I will disagree with the esteemed Primefac. Most relists customarily go a full 7 or longer after being relisted but policy does allow it to be closed at any time when consensus is clear, "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days." I would just wait and this will get closed in due course. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

Note about autopatrolled redirects RfC

Hi. Since you participated in the preliminary discussions, I thought I should let you know that I've opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Redirect autopatrol#RfC on autopatrolling redirects. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

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

  Administrator changes

  EvergreenFirToBeFree
  AkhilleusAthaenaraJohn VandenbergMelchoirMichaelQSchmidtNeilNYoungamerican😂

  CheckUser changes

  Beeblebrox
  Deskana

  Interface administrator changes

  Evad37

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Redirect autopatrol

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Redirect autopatrol. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Draft:NAS4lite

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:NAS4lite. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Review at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Draft:NAS4lite. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

wow

We had a ~20% decrease in participation from last year. .. I'm honestly surprised. In general I expect to see numbers drop to some extent, but I honestly thought the whole WMF/Fram thing would bring voters out of the woodwork this year. Oh well. — Ched (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Ched, well it was interesting because voting was way up early on. There was definitely a subset of very motivated voters. Without being able to sort out how much of the drop-off was due to changing suffrage requirements I don't know what to make of the drop-off. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

2019-20 Kansas City Comets season

I was curious on why you deleted to 2019-20 Kansas City Comets season. There were plenty of sources per the amount of material there was on the page. All the information came directly from the team's website and was cited accordingly. Why is this an issue? Gatorinator (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Gatorinator, I was acting on this Articles for Deletion discussion. I was merely acting on the consensus of participating editors with this close and the consensus seems to be that it doesn't pass our standards for notability including for specific sports seasons. Information may be verifiable - such as citations to a team website - and still not notable. Hope that helps explain. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, What would you suggest I do so that when I update the draft I may be able to have the page not be deleted in the future? Thanks, Gatorinator (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Gatorinator, I would make sure to include secondary sources which discuss the season as a whole (whether in preview, in progress, or in review). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, The season is about three weeks in and I had actually added several secondary sources into the article that I lost when it was deleted. For the team, they post articles written by employees on their main website and that was where I was pulling their information from for the team. Which is what I do for sever other sports teams in the united states and I have never had this many issues with it before. There is a secondary website that I pay attention to that posts articles about the team that are written by civilians about events happening with the team including signings, match previews/summaries, and other inquiries regarding the team. Should I pull more information from that website and include more sources from there? Thanks, Gatorinator (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Gatorinator, team sponsored journalists are a tricky thing but will have trouble because at some level they are not independent. The fact that you've been able to use this style successfully in other articles and not here is no doubt frustrating. I would recommend starting a discussion over at WP:WikiProject Football where you will find some subject area experts (at least one of whom participated in the AfD) who can offer your specific guidance here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please undo your redirect for IBM Watson Health

Hello,

Please undo your redirect edit for the IBM Watson Health article. I assure you it is worthy of article status. I created it because I was shocked there wasn't an article for it already. It is an extremely important division of IBM that is doing leading-edge work in artificial intelligence and computational medicine. So PLEASE undo your redirect edit. Thank you very much for all your hard work and dedication. Have a nice day. LearnMore (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

LearnMore each part of a company needs to be shown to be independently notable (see more at WP:INHERITORG). I had not seen any evidence of that from the version of the article I redirect. In fact, the information on that page was less developed than the section I redirected to and in fact was general information about IBM. I understand you may still be building your article. In that case, feel free to develop further in a sandbox and then recreate the article. If I still don't think it's notable I will leave it to another new page reviewer to examine and will not restore the redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response. I appreciate your dedication to this encyclopedia. I am currently working on many other articles and so it will be a while before I can devote time and energy to expand IBM Watson Health. However, I feel that it already has more content than many other stub articles out there. I think if you undo your redirect many editors will come along and expand it. 60 Minutes did an in-depth look at Watson Health last year and I was awestruck by the artificial intelligence that was being developed. So again, please reconsider. Give it a month and see what happens. Thanks! LearnMore (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
LearnMore, I certainly respect that position (and definitely understand having other editing priorities). I certainly don't own the article. However, I do think that the redirect target is what best serves our readers (it has lots of good information from my skim) so I don't plan to undo my redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for explaining your position and reasons for your redirect. I appreciate all your time and dedication. LearnMore (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

A request for closure if possible

Hi... could you do me a favor? We have been waiting on a closure at Talk:ITS launch vehicle#Merger proposal for quite some time. I don't really care one way or the other how it gets closed, but we need to get on with it. I had a look and have seen that you have not edited either page. If you are uninvolved, could you please review and close the discussion? Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 23:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I saw your post at ANRFC and put it on to review. I'll give it a read later and if I think I'm the right person to close it will do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere, there's enough picayune technical detail located over two talk pages that I can't work up the motivation to master. I would suggest per Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Which_discussions_need_to_be_closed this doesn't need a formal close as consensus (at least as I understand it) is clear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I also think the consensus is relatively clear, but people seem reluctant to continue with it and take action without a formal close. Everyone wants to move forward, but there were some accusations from both sides early on that 'proper procedure' wasn't being followed, which resulted in a formal discussion that people seem intent on seeing run it's course before taking action. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 02:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islanders–Rangers rivalry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islanders–Rangers rivalry. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

NPP school

The backlog is rapidly going higher everyday and enough is not being done.

6361 total unreviewed pages.

1851 pages reviewed this week.

As you suggested in [3], I've asked CASSIOPEIA to take me up as their NPP school student, I hope that they grant this request, to teach and prepare me on how to be a good new page reviewer. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Nnadigoodluck, good luck with that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Nnadigoodluck, in reviewing your rights log I see that Yunshui removed autopatrol from you due to suspected paid editing. Paid editing would also make you essentially inelgible for the reviewer right and as such not a good candidate for NPP School. As such I don't think - at least for six months and perhaps longer - that NPP and AfC would be a good fit for your time and skills on Wikipedia. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I was suspected of paid editing, which I'm not involved in. You can go through all the articles that I created and see for yourself. I only create articles that are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia and nothing more, I don't see how that is paid editing. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Nnadigoodluck I am limited by our policies by what I can say. However I saw the evidence before it was submitted to Yunshui (a fact I had forgotten when I replied to you earlier) and it suggested that you were attempting to engage in UPE in the future not that you had done it on older articles. This evidence is enough to suggest for me that New Page Patrol would not be a good fit at this time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind reply. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Banking section without a RfC closure

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=prev&oldid=929892499

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FMedicine-related_articles&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=929893003&oldid=929892742

There was a discussion back in October. Changes made without a RfC may be against the closure at AN/I. There was a consensus among editors back in October for a rewrite. Should this be reported to AN/I or would you like to handle this? QuackGuru (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the consensus from ANI was that no new articles should have pricing information included so information in the MOS doesn't matter right now. The locus of this dispute is about whether, and how, there should be pricing information. While you and the other editors did nothing wrong in adding it in October once it became clear it was a bigger disagreement than just a couple of editors its removal (given that the MOS is a guideline page) pending consensus at RfC seems appropriate to me. As such I have fully protected, in-line with WP:PP#Content disputes without the section as the stable version, in my discretion, is without that section. It does also seem designed to inflame the situation and I will remind the editor responsible for kicking this off about that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The MOS does matter right now because editors would have to gain consensus to change it. QuackGuru (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, if I understand you correctly this is about what happens if the RfC closes no consensus? I thought about that too. I would hope and expect that the closer(s) (I would expect it to be a panel but obviously this isn't assured) would explain what version of the MOS is in effect should the RfC indeed close as no consensus. Of course, hopefully, consensus can be found instead. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
If it closes as no consensus then the previous consensus wording should be restored. This will be more confusing for the closer or closers when the section is blanked. QuackGuru (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, it is my assessment that the previous consensus wording is without mention of pricing altogether - back in September before this began. The consensus that support its inclusion in October was appropriate, per our policy on consensus about guidelines to insert it into the MOS. However, when that was challenged we default back to other means of consensus here - namely an RfC which is what is about to be underway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
When an editor or editors want to blank a section they should gain consensus such as an RfC rather than blank a section. This is not what happened. The default would be consensus such as an RfC to change the wording. Before an RfC was started the section was blanked. That's a violation of the previous consensus. The close at AN/I was to start a RfC. There was also content about pricing well before October. QuackGuru (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, indeed there is a sentence there - that would, to my eye, appear to be the stable version. If an editor wanted to blank a section from that version they would need consensus, in the same way that consensus is needed to add a section. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
You wrote "The consensus that support its inclusion in October was appropriate, per our policy on consensus about guidelines to insert it into the MOS."
You also wrote "QuackGuru, indeed there is a sentence there - that would, to my eye, appear to be the stable version."
Twice now you have acknowledged content in the page has consensus. I expect you to restore the content from the October version because it has consensus. When there is a new disagreement editors should establish a consensus. The agreement at AN/I was an RfC rather than blank content and start an RfC. When that content was challenged we don't default to blanking. We go by other means which was the agreement for an RfC which is being discussed on how to move forward. QuackGuru (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for any confusion. Let's see if I can make things clearer. I have acknowledged twice that there was adequate discussion to include the new section on pricing. If it had stuck for some period of time and become the stable version there would have been consensus for it. However, it did not become the stable version and there has not been consensus for it. That is why there is the disagreement that is ongoing. Hopefully the RfC will make what the community as a whole, including the many wonderful editors of the Medicine WikiProject, feels about the topic.
As for the sentence I was referring to, it was "Economics may include prices of medications or cost of procedures if covered by reliable sources." (see here). However, I was mistaken. I had thought this was a longtime sentence but more careful examination shows that it was added September 30 (in the diff above) and thus never part of consensus. I apologize for this error on the facts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ping

Sorry about the pinging problem; I am never sure why they go awry. I responded here; I am really unsure how one handles a situation like this, so any guidance is appreciated. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I was sorry to read about your loss. Know that I am sending you nothing but my best wishes in this difficult time. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks so much-- a dear friend is losing his wife, unexpectedly. At the very same time as his father's funeral. So, while we had planned only to attend the father's wake, we suddenly have to attend both wake and funeral and visit the extended family. Very sad, as the wife is our age and a dear friend. Thanks for the thoughts, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia how sad indeed. Your dear friend is lucky to have you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
How kind of you … and I should bake him some chicken pot pies as well, as his wife is going in to hospice right during his father's funeral and he will need friends to bring food. We got the word this morning, and are quite shocked. But I will stay up with the page as I can, even if from my phone … we are making progress! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi Barkeep49, I have a small problem with a new editor who is familiar with rules but is quoting them selectively and pushing his POV. One of the articles in question is Vladimir Beara. The man lived and worked in Yugoslavia, but that fact was repeatedly removed and deleted. Source from a local tabloid ( an interview with propaganda like wording) was introduced to prove his alleged self-identification. Other article edited by the same user is a far darker story: intro on the article on chief ideologue of Ustashe, who murdered hundreds of thousands of people and ran only children camps in WW2 Europe, is being whitewashed and total of 6 RS removed! Please take a look at Ante Starčević. In my mind the case is pretty clear but I wanted to ask for a second opinion and seek help/mediation before going for a report. thank you kindly Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Sadko there's a bunch going on. First a reminder that when you need to communicate with another editor the best way to do this is through talk page discussion not edit summaries. Sometimes edit summaries are enough but in this case that doesn't appear to be true. That said my pinion from looking into a few of these articles is that they understand some Wikipedia policies but not others. Both of you have been engaging in a bit of slow motion edit warring about things which isn't great, however from what I can tell (as a non-expert on the content) your edits appear supported by policy. The topic of national/ethnic identity is one that has a lot of problems. As you might have already seen I placed an alert on both your talk pages about special sanctions that are in effect for this area because of problems that have been experienced at lots of articles. As it says this doesn't mean you've done anything wrong, but just letting you know that these exist. Hope this helped. If not please ask more questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

language templates

Hey, Barkeep! Would you be willing to take a look at Makiyakinabe? I'm reviewing it for GA, and yesterday the nom added some language templates in, and on my machine the result is very weird -- the font is smaller, the italics look different -- and to me it's distracting. I've already asked the nom to find another solution, but then I wondered if maybe I'm being too nitpicky. --valereee (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, yeah it's definitely not rendering correctly. My guess is because it's roman letters for a Japanese word and the template is expecting Japanese characters. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
(watching:) try to give the template |italic=no - the language templates used to leave formatting alone, but then were switched to automatic italics. I hate it, and it's not a word I use often. It makes every look at older versions awful, on top of the unfinished work of having to add the italic=no to the - at least where I work - many more occurrences of no italics, + remove the italics from the others ... - peace ... - but I still hate it. Never change a running system , and for what? Holy consistency? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Valereee, I think this could be a question for Trappist the monk – perhaps the (relatively) recent changes to Module:Lang have caused that anomalous display, or perhaps this has been happening for ages and no-one has noticed? Either way, I think he'll know. Changing to {{transl}}, which should be right for a transliteration, does not seem to solve it. It's not the same problem Gerda is talking about, an undiscussed change which broke the display on thousands (tens of thousands?) of pages, many of which still have not been fixed. Hi, Barkeep! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Justlettersandnumbers & Gerda Arendt for their thoughts. I very much welcome talk page watchers chiming in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Justlettersandnumbers & Gerda Arendt, pinging Kamakou just to let them know this is being discussed and will hopefully get some resolution! --valereee (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all for clearing things up with this, the text was acting up on my browser too, but I added -Latn to all of the templates and now it looks good for me. Kamako (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
It's a browser thing. Your browser is doing exactly as it was instructed to do. When you write:
{{lang|ja|nigirizushi}}
your browser gets:
<i lang="ja" title="Japanese language text">nigirizushi</i>
In that, your browser sees that the text is Japanese (lang="ja") so uses a font specifically designed for Japanese scripts:
nigirizushi
Because this example text is written with Latin characters, you should tell the browser that it is Japanese-language text that is written using Latin script:
{{Lang|ja-Latn|nigirizushi}}
your browser gets:
<i lang="ja-Latn" title="Japanese language text">nigirizushi</i>
Here, the language-script pair tells your browser that the text is Japanese written with the Latin script (lang="ja-Latn") so your browser uses a font specifically designed for Latin script:
nigirizushi
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Trappist the monk, so I think what you're saying is that with my browser, this will look different than with another browser? Shouldn't we be using something that will look the way we intend on every browser? Why is everyone laughing? Is there some way to handle this that doesn't have this problem? --valereee (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
May do. The purpose of {{lang}} and the {{lang-??}} templates is to provide correct language information to your browser, my browser, everybody's browser. Different browser vendors may choose to use different fonts to render different languages so a Chrome rendering may look different from a Firefox rendering which may look different from an Opera rendering ... I suspect that browser vendors render Japanese written with Latin script using the same font that they would render any of the Latin-script languages (French, Italian, English, ...) because it is just easier to do that than to have a special font for each language.
We have absolutely no control over how any browser renders anything. Because we adhere to the standards that govern html, we hope that that browser vendors will also adhere to those same standards (internet exploder was notorious for flaunting the standards). Nor do we have control over the age of a reader's browser. Old versions of browsers running on old operating systems will likely not render the same way that up-to-date systems do. So we do the best we can by emitting pages that are correct-to-the-current-standards.
I'm not sure that I understand your question: Is there some way to handle this that doesn't have this problem? I don't see that there is a problem except that what needs doing is to change {{lang|ja|...}} to {{lang|ja-Latn|...}} where ... is Japanese text written with Latin script. What am I not understanding about your question?
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Trappist the monk, hm...I guess what I'm asking is maybe instead of using these language templates, should we just italicize foreign words? What does the template do for us? --valereee (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
As Trappist the monk said, it allows the browser to select an appropriate font to display the language (most notably, not all fonts will have the Chinese-Japanese-Korean characters), as well as rendering right-to-left text appropriately within English text. From a non-display point of view, it allows apps that process the text to know the language of the text. So screen readers would be able to use different pronunciation rules, and translators would know the source language of the text, for example. isaacl (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
The templates tell browsers and screen readers how to render and speak the words on the screen. Simply adding italic markup conveys no real semantic information to the renderer other than: this-text-shall-be-displayed-with-a-slanted-font-style.
The html standards provide a mechanism to specify languages. For example, in the html source for this page, the second line is:
<html class="client-nojs" lang="en" dir="ltr"> – right-click, View source; this line may be different for different readers according to their settings, logged in / out, etc
The important parts of that for this discussion are the lang="en" and dir="ltr" attributes which tell everyone's browsers that the language used on this page is English and that the text direction is left-to-right. When it is necessary to deviate from that, as for the Japanese text above, it is necessary to tell the browser / screen reader that 'this' text is Japanese, treat it differently from the English in the rest of the page. Were we having this discussion about Hebrew instead of Japanese, text direction becomes very important because that language is written right-to-left (but digits are written right-to-left). We handle all of these cases in a standardized way through {{lang}} and the {{lang-??}} templates.
Did I answer your question?
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Trappist the monk, I'm sorry, I'm being dense. Why do we need more that italicizing (which indicates it's a foreign language) -- if I scroll over the bizarrely-rendered italics, and they don't say "this is Japanese" or anything. What is using the template doing for anyone other than making the article hard to read? It's italicized. What does the template do to help the average reader? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse. I just honestly am not seeing anything except a tiny little italicization instead of a normal-sized italicization, until I actually look at the markup and go, "Oh, it's japanese!" --valereee (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)NM, nom fixed the template, so it's moot lol! That's dumb, this'll come up again --valereee (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Do these both look the same to you?
  1. nigirizushi
  2. nigirizushi
When you hover your mouse pointer over 'nigirizushi' in the above, you should get a tool tip that reads 'Japanese language text'. For wikilinked text inside a {{lang}} template, the tooltip is overridden by MediaWiki's tooltip telling you where the link goes:
{{Lang|ja-Latn|[[nigirizushi]]}}nigirizushi
What is dumb?
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Trappist the monk, shouldn't the {{transl}} template understand by default that the script is Latin? And right-to-left too, for that matter? Since those are immutable characteristics of a transliteration into Western script? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
It does:
{{transl|ja|nigirizushi}}<i lang="ja-Latn" title="Japanese-language romanization">nigirizushi</i>nigirizushi
Are you see some case where it does not?
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Trappist the monk, ah, I hadn't been hovering long enough -- it takes a while, on my machine, and when I'd hovered for a second and seen nothing I assumed nothing was there. 'Dumb' was referring to an earlier edit striking out the question as moot because the nom had fixed the template to add -Latin, but it's good to finally get to the answer so I unstruck. Okay, so the template allows this hovering to identify the language, and as long as you add the -Latin you won't get weird rendering. That'll work! Thanks for the help! --valereee (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Trappist the monk, I tested it in the article, and it did not solve the problem. In your example immediately above, the Japanese word is over-sized in relation to the rest of the text; it is larger than this: nigirizushi, and may perhaps be in a different font, I'm not sure. Also, your two examples with and without |ja-Latn look exactly the same, and both produce over-sized text (and the tooltip). The Japanese words in the Makiyakinabe article are still over-sized in relation to the rest of the text, even though they now have the |ja-Latn parameter. Safari 13.0.3, Vector skin. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Same when you are logged out? If not then something about your settings (css and / or javascript) is changing something. If same logged out / logged in then you may be proving my point that:
Different browser vendors may choose to use different fonts to render different languages so a Chrome rendering may look different from a Firefox rendering which may look different from an Opera rendering ...
...which may look different from a Safari rendering ...
though it still may be possible that you have some browser setting (outside of Wikipedia) that changes how Japanese text is rendered.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sports in the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sports in the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7  23:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

John Finucane (Sinn Féin politician)

John Finucane (Sinn Féin politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) As he was elected as an MP could you restore the history of this please? The article is currently at John Finucane (Sinn Féin) with the previous title redirecting to that. I assume some kind of history merge might be needed also. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

FDW777, I believe I have done this correct. I have, in any event done it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me, thank you. FDW777 (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Assistance Required

Hello, I’m in a fix and seek your assistance or advice. The problem is this; I had been doing new page patrol duties (I don’t have this as a user right) but I engage in this as a way to assist the NPP by requesting speedy deletes, nominating non notable articles for deletion, welcoming and commending new editors and editors who did a good piece on an article, and finally moving undersourced BLP articles (who are possibly notable but undersourced or not sourced at all) back to the users draft space so they could include more sources before moving the articles back to Mainspace. I had been doing this duties successfully but encountered a mystery today. I moved this article Robin Millar (politician) created by a different user back to their draft-space and the user objected this move and moved the page back to Mainspace. Now the problem is when the editor moved it back to mainspace it became listed as “my article” i am now receiving notifications on the article and now when I checked the Number Of Live Articles Created By Me it read 32 but should be 31 and i can see the aforementioned article listed as one I created which isn’t correct. I have created 31 BLP’s in sum total not 32. This has never happened to me before is this a glitch in the system or as a result of an error made by me? Please do assist me here.Celestina007 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Celestina007, good news. The always wonderful Bradv fixed this before I could. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Celestina007 Sorry for the double ping but I just realized I focused too much on the problem and not enough on the other things you wrote. Thank you for your efforts at patrolling new pages. Having all editors contribute through tagging, nominating for speedy deletion, and other tasks is how the formal new page patrol got started. So thank you for that and please don't hesitate to drop-by here at anytime when you have issues. Please know that draftifying articles can be controversial and so, until you hold the NPP userright, I would urge a bit of caution in helping out in that way. I see from your new articles that you're interested in Nigeria and Nigerian BLPs. We certainly need more editors working in those areas so thank you as well for those efforts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49 & Bradv Thank you both so much. I’d definitely keep off draftifying articles for now. I appreciate you both helping me out here. Thanks.Celestina007 (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice job

Congrats on getting over 60% support in the ArbCom elections! I was hoping you would be in the top 11, but 12th place with majority support is no small achievement. Thanks for volunteering! Wug·a·po·des​ 02:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

+1 SQLQuery me! 02:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Wugapodes. I too was hoping I would finish in the top 11 :). However, how gratifying is it that I, someone who was nobody 6 months ago, would be entrusted with among the most important responsibilities Wikipedia has to offer by so may. I'm truly honored that 60+% would put so much faith in me. I am appreciative that you did so and that you took the time to come here and say such nice things. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. SQL snuck in there while I was typing my reply but same for him. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you <3

Hey Barkeep, congrats on your well-run, responsive, honorable ACE campaign. I know this result wasn't the one you wanted, but I wanted you to know I am so very proud of you and I'm glad you were in this race. A few months out from RfA, you achieved a level of community support that very few Wikipedians have ever received, within a hair of the Committee and beyond what was necessary for election in several recent years. You, Barkeep, are one of the most dedicated and hardworking people I have had the honor to get to know, and I'm grateful for your presence and your energy and your devotion. None of that, I know, takes the sting out of it--which is completely fine and understandable. Certainly take as much time as you need following the results. When you get a chance, I hope you get the opportunity to immerse yourself again in the things that attracted you to Wikipedia in the first place--certainly doesn't have to be the administrative crap, which I know has been a greater priority for you lately. I hope you have a wonderful holiday season and I would absolutely love to catch up again soon! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

L235, thank you so much for your kind words and for taking the time to right such a heartfelt note. It's so gratifying to know that I have friends like you around. How luck is English Wikipedia to have such thoughtful people like you contributing to it (answer: incredibly). I ran because I wished to have the opportunity to serve. The good news is that I am going to have the opportunity to serve - serve by continuing to work at AfD, continuing to serve by participating in next year's WIkiCup, continuing to serve by again taking students in my NPP school. There is so much work for us all to do and I just am hopeful that I can continue to do my bit in creating the greatest knowledge repository the English language world has ever seen (and in making that available for free). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Request feedback

Hello again! Just wanted to thank you for your feedback after my New Page Reviewer application. I am still trying to find my place here, and encouragement is much appreciated. Hope to see you around in future. Thank you, PK650 (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

PK650, I'm sorry to read that you're having trouble finding your place. Wikipedia can, unfortunately, be a bit hard to break into. As I said your content work feels good. A path you might consider pursuing would be Did you Know which can get new articles on the main page. If you're feeling a bit more ambitious you might also consider taking one of your articles to Good Article status. Finally, a good community can make Wikipedia a much better place. Perhaps there is an active WikiProject you could join? Getting involved there lets you build rapport through good work with other editors. Thanks for coming here and sharing the impact of my feedback - I work hard to remember there's a person on the otherside reading what I write - and appreciate knowing that my impact in this case was positive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, ha, I didn't mean it like that! I'm having a good time, don't get me wrong...it's just that one doesn't always land precisely where they "belong". I did join WiR months ago, and my work there was indeed rewarding, but it also made me want to branch out. I will continue to create content about computer scientists, and particularly women, but I would also like to learn new things and participate outside my comfort zone. I'll engage in AfD and elsewhere with NPP in sight, as I think there's so much opportunity there! There aren't many places where content is modified and discussed in such a systematic fashion. I also liked your DYK suggestion: some of the biographies I've worked in do fit that niche quite nicely! I won't take more of your time! Best, PK650 (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh and if/when you have the time please let me know if I'm on the right track, as I've been going through old-new articles today, and have nominated some for deletion. I started doing it by hand but was very glad to discover twinkle. Copying templates was quite some work! :) PK650 (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
PK650, I just did a quick scan through your work there today (so glad you found Twinkle, it makes so much on Wikipedia easier) and without commenting on the merits (as I might end up closing some of those discussions) your statements all seem to be the kinds of statements encouraged by policy with your nominations showing that you've attempted to do a WP:BEFORE. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. I've found this work very instructive, as it makes you find out all kinds of stuff both about Wikipedia and facts in general. I've already seen unreviewed articles from months ago that I would've positively reviewed. But all in due time! Is there a place where one can see all of one's AfD nominations? Best, PK650 (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
PK650, here's a tool for just that purpose (this is showing all participation, you can run a new search with just your nominations). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Is it proper/accepted procedure to use PROD, and if the notice is removed then resort to AfD, or should PROD only be used for certain cases? I've been using AfD for all but one of my nominations, and in that case it was because the article was moved from draftspace even though the AfC reviewer had declined it. But since then I've seen many instances of PROD use and that made me think... especially since WP:PRD claims it is an "easier method of removing articles or files than the articles for deletion (AfD) or files for discussion (FfD) processes". What are your thought on this? Best, PK650 (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    PK650, PROD is absolutely appropriate to use when you anticipate deletion will be uncontroversial. If it proves controversial it is appropriate to then take it to AfD. Many new pages are bound to be controversial when nominated so I don't personally use PROD a lot when doing NPP but that's a personal preference and many other people who look at new pages do use PROD. Have you read WP:PROD to find out more about it? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you for your thoughts. Yes, I have. But on the other hand I've seen many instances of it and it's hard to find a clear pattern. I also understand that to a page's creator, deletion will usually feel controversial, even though the subject of the article might be clearly non-notable for Wikipedia as we editors see it. A lot of tags are removed for this reason, I found, and so many PRODs do end up at AfD anyway. So yeah, I guess it's as you say, at the discretion of a reviewer's sense and good judgment. But when it works, it's a useful tool. PK650 (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    PK650, all that is why I find PROD far more useful when there's an older page that isn't notable than with a new article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Sad

that you missed it by one spot, but the downsides are hardly bad either!   WBGconverse 12:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, thanks for your support. It was obviously very close and I do wish I had finished in the top 11 rather than being the first runner-up but I have so much to be thankful for in this election. I look forward to how I can serve the community in other ways. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it's a darn good showing considering multiple candidates had been arbs previously --valereee (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Valereee but while we're on the topic of sad, I will state that virtually every time I've seen you around this last monthy I would read what you'd write and I was sad that you weren't on the ballot... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Barkeep. I really gave it a TON of thought, even wrote out a statement. I waffled literally until the last possible few hours, then decided the fact I was still waffling with literally hours to go was perhaps a reason not to. I'm not ruling out a run. Maybe next year. --valereee (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Valereee, I had second-hand word you'd been giving it serious thought and I'm glad to hear you say maybe next year. I really think you'd be as fine of an arb as they come. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Joining the sad group, you'd have been great - but a positive sign for the future, so long as you don't wise up enough to choose against being an arb change your mind! Nosebagbear (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    Nosebagbear, gosh I hope the people who decide to get on arbcom are wise enough for the responsibility. If the only people wise enough to be on ArbCom are also wise enough not to run then we're all in trouble. Fortunately I think there are plenty of wise people on there this year. But also thank you for the kind words. A year is a long time, who knows what the future holds, and for now I am focused on serving the community in other ways. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    We've got a pretty good set (interesting break down of voting percentages too). But. In a much more important vein, I read below you do holiday baking - what tasty treats are your speciality? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sad, but this is the context. I didn't vote for you - although flattered by you telling me that you always enjoy my thinking - because I found 13 arbs closer to how much I want in dubio pro reo followed, and wanted to vote only for 11. Perhaps you could use some of the time you now don't have to spend on arbcom by seeking clarification of the question "is the revert of an infobox which has been stable for years a bold edit or not", on which the whole socalled infobox wars rest, the last "battleground", so to speak. The opera field (the topic of the arbcase of 2013) was settled long ago, and the template is now in 1072 operas. The classical composers' field was never settled, but Worm That Turned installed the community consensus in 2015. - Beethoven's birthday today - as far as we know, to be celebrated all over 2020 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    Gerda Arendt, I have no idea where my interests will turn over this next year beyond pretty firm plans to participate in the WikiCup again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • +1 to the group that wishes the outcome had been different. — Ched (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks Ched. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
+1 to the above. I've been offline over the last week (Christmas, primary schools, plus some personal stuff that needed seeing to) and missed the outcome of this, but needless to say you had my complete trust and I'd hoped that your run would be successful. Also needless to say that many other areas of the project, like NPP school and indeed NPP itself, will doubtless benefit from the time that might otherwise have been eaten up with arbing; thank you for giving as much as you always do, in the way that you always do it. GirthSummit (blether) 22:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit, thanks. Many of us around here, including you, give lots of themselves and deserve thanks for what they do. So thanks for the nice words but also all the stuff you thanked me for? Thanks to you for all that too. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you please check my latest draft?

Hi, recently created another draft - Draft:Yasmeen Al Maimani - and have ensured just about every aspect that I could think of. Whenever you have time, can you please check and make suggestions as to how I could improve on it further? Thanks in advance, Tycheana (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Tycheana, the writing looks reasonable and written in an encyclopedic manner. The biggest question is the sourcing. I have not examined it at all but from the name alone I wonder if "About her" is a reliable source. Making sure all your information is from reliable independent secondary sources will be important to showing her notability. Best of luck, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, in fact the lay in question has been extensively covered on the Internet, but most of them are blogs, interviews and have her quotes. So I sifted through till I found some authority sites like GACA, Arab News, Vogue and so on, and About Her also turned out to be a women's mag of the Middle East. From what I checked all these sources are independent and reputed publications in the Middle East, and so I used these to prove her notability.
Tell me something...what if a username in Wikipedia appears in green? Is it an indication of some sort? This user in green is persuading me to move the draft into article space. Literally pushing....and i dont even know them. Said he/she came across this particular draft and traced it back to me and that I should move it to the article space. What do you think? Thanks & regards, Tycheana (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Tycheana, Green must be some userscript you have turned on. Normally usernames are blue (has a user page) or red (no user page). So without knowing what Green means I can't advise you how to respond. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Tycheana, it's just the color that the editor chose for their signature (like mine is kind of violet), doesn't mean anything. Schazjmd (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Schazjmd, thanks - I realized that they are using the span code to color their name green. But why this insistence in moving my draft to the article space? For that matter do you feel that my draft is ready for the article space and will survive there without being recommended for speedy deletion? Thanks again, regards, Tycheana (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Tycheana, that editor is inexperienced and eager to become an article reviewer so I suspect they're just trying to get involved in any way that they can. I think your caution, and requesting experienced editors to look at your draft, is a smart way to go. Schazjmd (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Schazjmd, thanks for interjecting and solving the issue. I would really like some suggestions from experienced editors and if you happen to be one, please do take a look and provide an opinion. Thanks again, Tycheana (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Schazjmd for providing the answer I could not. I have been busy doing holiday baking all day and didn't have time to do more than a casual look for the interaction Tycheana referenced. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
And thanks Schazjmd & Barkeep49, am grateful for the guidance. My draft got rejected saying that one source is reliable, the others need to be replaced, but they have not told me which is reliable and which need to be replaced. So, I have asked them to point out so that I can retain that source and change the rest. Thanks again, Tycheana (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Schazjmd & Barkeep49, some newspaper sources on the subject wherein the newspapers mentioned below themselves have a Wikipedia page, so am assuming that they would be noteworthy by themselves - Harper's Bazaar - https://www.harpersbazaararabia.com/people/news/yasmeen-al-maimani-is-saudi-arabias-first-female-commercial-pilot; Saudi Gazette - http://saudigazette.com.sa/article/568936; the national.ae - https://www.thenational.ae/lifestyle/travel/saudi-arabia-s-first-female-commercial-pilot-wants-others-to-soar-in-her-flight-path-1.875903; Bahrain This Week - https://www.bahrainthisweek.com/to-the-heights-yasmeen-al-maimani-the-first-female-saudi-commercial-pilot/; Will these work as independent and reliable? I could look for Arabic newspapers too, but if these work then, will use them first. Thanks & regards, Tycheana (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Tycheana, I'm not the expert that Barkeep49 is, but I consider those good sources. Schazjmd (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Tycheana, I don't generally review articles on request here, but I would agree that they are all RS. Harpers also helps establish notability and Saudi Gazette probably does too - the others are too interview oriented to be considered independent in my opinion. Based on what I've seen now I would accept the draft. Cass, who declined the draft before, is sometimes around this talk page so perhaps they'll even see it here. Otherwise I would incorporate those sources and resubmit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, in fact I have been interacting with Cassiopeia all morning and they rejected these saying that - Female beaty/fashion magazines are not good sources and they would subject to challenge - their words. So I came up with more sources, and the 2 they approved are Gulf News - https://gulfnews.com/world/gulf/saudi/saudia-offers-pilot-training-scholarships-to-women-1.2097443; and https://www.arabianaerospace.aero/captains-fantastic.html. So one of these I have incorporated, the 2nd one am yet to, will do so now. Harper's Bazaar and Saudi Gazette even i felt would be good because both are reputed, but then when Cassiopeia expressed doubts I started looking around further. Then the GACA source I took permission and shifted it under External Links. Thanks for all the help, truly appreciate, and sincere apologies for troubling like this, just that identifying sources is a truly maze-like experience. Regards & best wishes, Tycheana (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
No trouble at all Tycheana. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, the draft got approved, and to as a gesture of gratitude I would like to gift you a barnstar -

  The Guidance Barnstar
Thank You for providing guidance whenever I have needed it, truly appreciate


Thanks & regards, Tycheana (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

  Thanks for the role!
Thank you for giving me the pending changes role. I'm going to spend the next few months reviewing diffs on pending-changes protected articles, and also being a little more active at AFD so that I can apply for new page reviewer next time. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 13:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Grand Canyon (book)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Grand Canyon (book) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiff's Treats

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiff's Treats. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Coffee312 (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for not notifying you first before posting the DRV. In my review of the appeals process, it was not clear that I should have initially reached out to you. Either way, I see your point about consensus, but I would submit that the consensus was comprised of a very limited number of editors.Coffee312 (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Coffee312, no worries - I did appreciate the ping. This was probably not a situation where I was going to convince you of my assessment of consensus nor were you going to convince me I made a mistake. As an FYI, in case you ever need to file another DRV, it looks like you missed step 5 of the instructions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Grand Canyon (book)

The article Grand Canyon (book) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Grand Canyon (book) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grand Canyon (book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Die cutting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

  Merry Christmas, Barkeep49/Archives!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 

Happy holidays

NPP advice: Ram Prakash Dwivedi

Hi Barkeep49, I hope you don't mind if I ask for advice here rather than NPP talk (I don't want to add items that are easily resolvable). If you don't mind I just want to check that I am following procedure with Ram Prakash Dwivedi. Academic notability would be an area I know well and as written this article does not indicate it. A database search to establish the impact of his research in the field I did provides inconclusive results. However, it might be the case that the author of the article or someone with better access to Indian sources could update the article to satisfy a different criteria of academic notability, perhaps WP:NACADEMIC #2--I'm not sure. I added the PROD template based on the lack of secondary sources, the promotional tone, and the failure to clearly indicate academic notability. Should I have just nominated it straight for deletion instead? Or is it ok to use PROD with feedback to give an editor time for a major rewrite? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

AugusteBlanqui, I always welcome questions especially as sometimes other talk page watchers who might have expertise to lend will chime in as well. Working backwards, I think editors should always choose the least disruptive deletion method and so there is nothing wrong with PROD'ing an article you believe, in good faith, not to be notable. If you think the likelihood of sources existing that you can't access is high enough then you should go to AfD but I don't think that's the case in this scenario. That said one small quibble - if you're PROD'ing (or CSD'ing) something it shouldn't be marked as reviewed (but it should be if you're going to AfD).
I think NACADEMIC #2 is generally pretty easy to find and it's more likely someone will claim an accomplishment satisfies that when it doesn't than it being excluded altogether. NACADEMIC is my least favorite SNG (give me a good FOOTY one any day instead) and I'm appreciative of people like you who patrol it. I see no indication that you got this wrong and think you took the right steps to evaluate notability. There is a margin of error in my evaluation as well but I think you should feel good about your process here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Barkeep49, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,

PATH SLOPU 14:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Deletion of Devlin Waugh

You didn't give any reasons for deletion when you closed the AfD debate. Aren't you supposed to? Also you included another AfD debate in the closure template, which implies that you didn't know it was there, which further implies that you didn't read to the end. So how can I fairly conclude that you closed it in good faith? Richard75 (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Seconded. I'm a bit stunned given how poor the AFD closing appears, with not only the claim that there were no sources provided during the AFD, when 3 sources were provided in 3 separate comments, and two of them weren't refuted during the AFD. How isn't this a relist, if not an outright overturn? Did you read my comments before closing the DRV? Nfitz (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Richard75, deletion review is not Articles for Deletion. In this instance, there had already been a deletion discussion about Devlin Waugh. You then appealed the close of this discussion to deletion review. At deletion review, the question is "were there errors in the process". A consensus of editors contributing suggested, no there were not and the original AfD close should be endorsed. Now if I made errors in my formatting I would love to fix those. I can tell you that I did indeed the to the end. Multiple times in fact and even considered how to weight the participation of how those who had contributed to the original discussion and those who were contributing for the first time at deletion review. I'm sorry you feel questions about the good faith of my close and other than assuring you I approached this with an open mind all I can offer are my answers to your questions above and others you might have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Nfitz: yes I did indeed see your overturn sentiment at DRV. Despite that I still saw a consensus endorsing the AfD closure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Why no closing statement? How did you have the time to read it, let alone Multiple times in fact and even considered how to weight the participation of how those who had contributed to the original discussion and those who were contributing for the first time at deletion review given you closed the discussion 1 minutes after I posted my comment? Also, DRV isn't AFD - yet reading the AFD, there were two uncontested sources - and the one that people didn't agree was good, was undiscussed, and appears to be the best one. There maybe be problems with one of those sources, that people seemed to accept in the AFD, but that's not the AFD consensus. Nfitz (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Nfitz, I had begun to close the AfD when your first response came in. I then modified the template at which time your response had been edited so I read it again to see what had changed before my edit went through. If it is helpful for me to add a short closing statement to the DRV I would be happy to do so and will do that after finishing this reply. As for the AfD itself I was not a participant in the AfD. Or the DRV. As a closer it is my responsibility to reflect the consensus of the participants in the discussion at DRV not to weigh in on what happened or didn't happen at AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
There was only one minute between my comment, and my edit - which means at best you had 2 minutes to read my comment, and consider it. Surely, if you are validating the closure - and the basis of the closure is that no sources were cited - when in actuality three sources were cited in 3 different comments during the AFD - and it's put forward (unchallenged!) that in the DRV that the closure is invalid because clearly whoever closed the AFD couldn't have read the AFD properly, given they missed all 3 comments pointing out sources - then you have to weigh in on what happened in the AfD! Nfitz (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Nfitz, we both agree your comment came close to my close. I say I read it, twice because of edit conflicts. You write that I had 2 minutes at best to read your comment and consider it. These seem not to be in conflict with each other. If you're actually saying I didn't read your comment (or maybe didn't consider it) I can only tell you I did read it and did consider it. I agree with you as well that there is a consensus that the closing statement was incorrectly worded. That does not mean that Sandstein incorrectly closed the AfD. Indeed there is a consensus at DRV that he did not judge the AfD as a whole incorrectly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Even when there's no disagreement that they could never have properly read the AFD? Ignoring that, I'm not convinced there is consensus here ... it's 6-5 (not that it's a vote) ... looking at the endorse comments, two only discuss the quality of the sources, rather than the AFD or the close itself, while two other focus on the sources. One says "not a supervote" ... uh, ok, but is it a valid close? The other merely references an irrelevant regional law principle - reversible error without noting why completely missing 3 different comments with sources isn't reversible. I suppose the outcome of no consensus rather than endorse isn't really any different - but I'm not sure appropriate time was given for anyone else to consider my comment. Nfitz (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

  The Barnstar of Integrity
Thanks for standing up and participating as a candidate in the recent Arbcom elections. I know I encouraged you to consider doing so, and I was very happy to see your name on the list. I still hold that you are a solid candidate, and I hope you'll consider running again in the future. Risker (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Risker. I appreciate your thoughts throughout this process and look forward to our having a chance to collaborate sometime in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Barkeep49, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,

★Trekker (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas!


Happy Holidays

  Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays

  Merry Christmas, Barkeep49/Archives!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 

Merry Christmas

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Barkeep49, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,

Kingsif (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

 

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Be well at Christmas

  Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear

Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

2 more sleeps!

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme Talk 📧 17:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

NPPSchool graduated userbox

Hi Barkeep49, Good day. I would like to propose NPPSCHOOL graduate user box and a NPPSCHOOL logo/graphic logo (like that of CUVA). Kindly give me your thoughts. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I think it's a great idea. If you feel up to designing it, great. Otherwise I'd be happy to give it a go when I have a bit more time on my hands. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Good to know. I might not able to them it a the moment as I need to get the software set up and my only laptop is about to break into two (there is a huge crack between my screen and the CPU and I cant even close the screen - dont think it will last very long as it has been in such condition for 2 weeks now - need to get a new one :( ) plus I need to move back to AUS soon as I currently resides in SEA thus I will be a little busy looking for place to settle down. Just ping me when you have started so we dont both do the same thing :). Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I manage to find a software program which I would do some graphic work and have a few draft on the NPP SCHOOL and NPP reveiwer user boxes. I placed them at the very bottom NPP material page. Kindly have a look and let me know your thoughts. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 18:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, I have done another NPP school and reviewer user box - let me know your thoughts - you can find them my sandbox - here. thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, I like the work. I am not a huge fan of the blue and red but everything else is great. My personal favorite is npp round logo but it like all the work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, I have changed to blue and dark blue, let me know which one you prefer or you can just change the color as you see fit. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, I like the dark blue better. Question, though. Does it make sense, for the rights boxes, to use your new ones or adjust the existing one? I would think we should change that one rather than make an alternative template. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, I have created 3 NPP School version using the original template with slight adjustments. Let me know of your thoughts. Thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, I went ooh when i saw them - those are very attractive too. I'm kind of agnostic about whether we should keep the modified wiki logo or your new logo. I definitely like the blue on blue graduate boxes you made in this latest revision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, It is up to you. The modified version would be the extension from the original reviewer version and it would be in the same design family and association. The new one would be, well... new I guess. Let me know. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, Just want to check with you regarding the NPPSchool userbox status as one of my trainee would be graduate from the program soon. Kindly let me know. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, I think we should go for it. Pick your favorite at this point though I would suggest, based on the feedback we received, to go with perhaps the one at the top that uses the traditional logo. Congrats on graduating a student. I look forward to seeing their application at PERM. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, OK and thank you. The student had already granted the patroller user right and enrolled to the program because they are new to the task and would like to gain more knowledge on reviewing new articles. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


Hi Barkeep49, G'day. One of my students has just graduate from NPPSCHOOL and just wonder would the new NPPSCHOOL - see thumb|NPPS Cross Dark Blue &Light Blue be subsituted the current logo at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School (very top of the page on the left). I also created the cat for the NPPSCHOOL graduate template. template doc and cats - see Template:User NPPSCHOOL/Graduate, Template:User NPPSCHOOL/Graduate/doc, and. However, the
 This user has graduated from the NPPSCHOOL.
doesn't turn up right where by "program by graduate" should not be there but somehow it appears on the NPPSCHOOL graduate user box. I am not technical and tried many times to correct it but failed to do so, wonder if you could help and if not, could you point me to template editor who might be kindly enough to lend a hand. Thanks in advance and MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR to you Barkeep49!!!. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, I changed the logo at NPPS, however I'm not sure what your second question was. Can you try reasking? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: What do you picture the userbox looking like? You can just describe it, no wikicode needed   Kevin ;(aka L235 · t · c) 19:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep 49, thank you for changing the logo at NPPS.
L235 and Barkeep49. I think the red colour text "graduate" is for sub and it will turn "blue color" once it is done - see User:Interstellarity. Since the userbox right side is blue in colour, the user name cant be since. Could we change it to either (1) just "This user has graduated from the NPPSCHOOL program" and link WP:NPPSHOOL but in white colour or (2) keep the all the text "This user has graduated from the NPPSCHOOL program by graduate." and link WP:NPPSCHOOL and graduate in white colour. I am not sure what I say above is more confusing to guys or more clearer of what I want and hope is the later. Suggestions are welcome. Kindly help. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, gotcha. What do you think of just going with the version I've just made? Alternatively, wouldn't we want the instructor's name in the template not the graduate's name? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Good to know you get what I meant. Either way is fine. The student who has just graduated from my program sub it with the instructor name (my user name). My take is to be consistent, so all the NPPS userbox is the same here on. Your thoughts? CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

NPP

Hi. Except for the infernal and unabating backlog, I'm really pleased about the way the leadership of NPR is working out for you. I do realise however, that it's a huge task and big responsibility for one person. I did it single-handedly for nearly a decade and it's amazing how much time I have for other things now that I'm able to step back. You're almost certainly going to need some help and I was wondering that with Rosguill now having been granted the bit, if the two of you would consider sharing some of the work, with Rosguill as co-coord, and with ICPH as another. Most big projects have several coords. Anyway, it's really none of my business now, and it's entirely up to you.

May I take this opportunity to thank you for all you have done and and are still doing for NPP, and wish you all the best for the festivities (whichever you celebrate, if any) and happiness and good health for the New Year :) Chris (Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC))

Kudpung, thanks for the kind words. I'd actually had a conversation with ICPH about officially being a coordinator with me and they indicated that it wasn't a good fit for them. When Ros went to RfA I thought about that too but have been busy with other bits and haven't given it full consideration. I hope you're having a great Christmas. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Templar Trail

Hi there, After receiving your comments, I edited the Templar Trail piece and added more outside references. I also changed my login name. Hope this works better. If not, please help me edit it to make it work. Thanks. ~~pilgrimstales~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.189.57.11 (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Alpiner123 the biggest problem was that the text came from a copyrighted source. If you are the owner of that text you may learn how to give permission for its use on Wikipedia here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

happy holidays!

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

Joyous Season


Happy Christmas from Australia!

(Adapted from Template:Season's Greetings1)

Happy Boxing Day

 
This has something to do with Boxing Day...
I guess?
I have don't know anything about this holiday. For whatever reason it's a thing. I have to imagine there is some backstory there or whatever. People do what they do after all.

Cool.. Alright. Yeah, cool. Sure, I guess.

Do people do anything special on Boxing Day? I would not know. This has never come up in my real life except as a passing joke on some TV shows once or twice.

I hope your Boxing Day is... whatever it's supposed to be like.

     Cheers.

MJLTalk🤶 03:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 
The famous Boxing Day tree.

Merry Christmas

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Barkeep49, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,

Thanks for some real help this year, it truly was appreciated. It seemed to go well for you too, but to an even better 2020!

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talkcontribs) 14:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7  14:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@Buster7: You already gave this message to Barkeep49 before. Interstellarity (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy New Year Barkeep49!

 
Happy New Year!
Hello Barkeep49:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

Notice

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

Celestina007 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Help!

Hi there - I wonder whether you've ever had this happen to you. I was reviewing Jeff J Hunter, and nominated to AfD, while I was filling in the paperwork Thjarkur draftified it. I'm content with draftification as an outcome, but need to undo my AfD nom - is there an easy way to do that, or do I need to go through manually reverting myself at AfD and all the various lists of deletion discussions? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah - speedy work, thanks! I've manually reverted at the various deletion discussions - thought I'd better tidy up quickly before other people edited them. For future reference, is there a quick/safe procedure to follow for this kind of situation? GirthSummit (blether) 17:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit seemed like the easiest thing was just to close the AfD rather than revert it. But that is a new edit conflict for me. See something new everyday on the Wikipedias :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Request feedback

Hello Barkeep49. I’m writing to ask why did you delete the page Sprout Social I’ve created recently? Why did it look like an advertisement for you? Recently I created the article about Roger Souvereyns and it was published. I’m a new editor here so I’m just learning how everything works. I want to improve editing skills and would be glad if you could tell me the reason for the deletion. Thanks. --Alishka93 (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Alishka93, hi there. Thanks for your question and welcome to Wikipedia. I've no doubt that it was frustrating for your new article to be deleted and appreciate your coming here with such a learner's mindset. So the the person who tagged the article originally did indeed tag it for promotional material. I probably would not have deleted it on those criteria. However, the article had previously had a highly promotional version, which yours was similar to though shorter and much less promotional. This previous version had been deleted in after a formal discussion and so I deleted the article as a recreation of an article deleted after a discussion. My suggestion, as a newer user, would be to go through Articles for Creation for this particular article topic. Just a note, that the standard for starting an article about a company is much higher than for a chef. Hope that helps. If you have further questions please don't hesitate to ask them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49 Thanks a lot for your feedback, it was really valuable! I'll keep in mind your advice. Happy holidays! --Alishka93 (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


Second opinion?

Hi - if you have a minute, see Eric D. Schlager. The article is short on RS and long on puffery - I draftified it, and left the author (whose username implies a connection with the subject) some messages, but they've ignored me and republished it into mainspace. I'm leaning towards G11 for the mainspace article, and reiterating to the author that they should be going through AfC with their draft due to their connection with the subject, but thought I should get a second opinion. Any thoughts? GirthSummit (blether) 15:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, when I went to look at the article I found it already tagged for G11. In reading the article I found the tag appropriate and deleted it as such. The editor, in my book, runs afoul of WP:CORPNAME - we have evidence of what they edit and it ties into their username. You guidance to go through AfC for Schlager is the right one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks - yes, the username is also an issue, I thought I'd give them a chance to disclose their connection rather than just blocking them, but I'll discuss that with them if they respond to me. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
🏈May your new year go better than the 31 teams who passed up on this guy🏈
    Love,    
Action Jackson

Praxidicae (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Praxidicae and I hope you have a great 2020 even after my preferred team beats your preferred team in the Super Bowl. I do feel the need, as a Wikipedian, to point out that only 28 teams passed on Jackson (4 teams didn't have a pick before 1.32)[1] and that one of those 28 teams were the Ravens. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Moriarty, Morgan (2019-11-06). "Did your NFL team mess up by not drafting Lamar Jackson?". SBNation.com. Retrieved 2019-12-30.

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 03:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Barkeep49!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Jewish American poets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Chess (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year Barkeep49

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Celestina007 (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

 
Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WBGconverse 17:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, I've replied. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think similar attention is needed at User_talk:ShunDream#Please. Seem to have abandoned his account, after infiltrating into NPP and AfC to accept dubious spam. WBGconverse 09:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
    Winged Blades of Godric, pulled. I don't have time to do a deep dive on the articles you've identified but I suspect several others would end up delete if taken to AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

ping?

Hey, Barkeep, I just got pinged by you, but can't figure out to where...it seems to be an old post to your talk, but there's nothing new there from you. Did you need something? --valereee (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, sorry about that. I was consolidating my archives because I decided I needed to up my max size (this current version would have taken up almost half an archive on its own). I didn't think it would ping anyone because there were no new sigs but that seems to be very wrong... So sorry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
No worries, I just thought I was being incompetent :) --valereee (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
 
radiant child
... you were recipient
no. 2109 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda Arendt. I know I've expressed to you in the past how much this meant to me and my gratitude for this recognition remains. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, appreciated. Even after the year of thanks is over, and the year of vision began, a round of thanks in the morning is simply good for me ;) - not tomorrow though, when I'll be off to vacation days. Happy 2020! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

question

Hey, Barkeep! I wanted to ask you about your take on Stevey7788...it seems like he was clearly a very useful editor for over a decade and made huge contributions. We're sure he's implicated in this COI editing, I guess. Do we think he just was offered the chance to make some money on the side after he'd become a trusted user and just couldn't resist? Are we talking about this kind of thing anywhere? I'm wondering whether it would be worthwhile for us to be in contact with folks like him, asking them to help us discover others doing the same thing, help correct their own bad acts and any bad acts they know by others as a way to sort of repay their debt to the community. --valereee (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: - Are you aware of this extensive sock-puppetry spanning for years? I have dealt with pretty many UPE rings via OTRS, and the primary lesson is to never trust anything they say, at face-value (unless we are dealing with rank-noobs). WBGconverse 15:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, yes, that was an intermediate stop for me. Near the end of the investigation, we see I also deleted G5 everything I could (articles created prior to after 1 November 2017), including the country usernames listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Musbaunow/Archive. I'll leave the remaining accounts (Techdude3331, Sunnyluo88, Stevey7788 and Siddiqsazzad001 already blocked) for someone else to figure out what to do with. (For the latter two, see the deleted contributions.) from MER-C, which made me think the Stevey7788 account might not be an actual sock, and if not maybe was a previously well-intentioned user who'd been approached with an opportunity (or searched for an opportunity) to edit for money. If Stevey7788 had been for more than a decade a good user but couldn't resist the temptation to earn, perhaps now they're ashamed and would like to make amends. My thought was that someone like S7788 might have knowledge that could help track down the entire organization. They know how they were paid. Petty criminals make good confidential informants. --valereee (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, It's an interesting question. I'm not aware, outside of COIN of this being discussed anywhere. Your idea has merit - I don't know who has enough of a relationship with him that could make an approach. We also don't know, of course, whether he's even monitoring the email on that account anymore. Also the most likely scenario, along the lines of what you suggest, is not that he was approached and turned to the dark side, but rather that he was the one who did the approach; he made an active decision to seek out paid editing. Happy New Year to you Valereee. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
And to you! I suspect you're right, the most likely scenario is that he made the approach. (The prospect of getting caught)*(the perceived risk of it) < the larceny in his soul, unfortunately. But few of us are as bad as the worst thing we've ever done, and people often feel deeply ashamed after they get caught doing something wrong and sincerely would like to make amends. We might be able to use that to WP's advantage. :) --valereee (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, I completely agree which is why it could be worth (someone who isn't me as I've got my Wiki plate full at the moment) figuring out who might be able to send an email seeing if he wants to talk. That figures to be more successful than someone reaching out blind. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • For a long time, I was highly active in COIN/SPI/UPE, and using some unconventional methods while not breaking any Wiki rules, due to my training in a previous life, I was able to smoke out some truly undesirable characters. I thoroughly enjoyed the forensics but sadly I don't have the time to dedicate to it nowadays - sometimes I would spend 60 hours or more on my research until I was absolutely sure I could go to ANI with certainty of a conviction. My sleuthing has not appealed to everyone, editors and admins alike, and strangely, there are some even highly respected members of our community who don;t necessarily see much harm in paid editing. My stance however, has always been that I resent anyone making money out of my voluntary work and I believe that deep down, many highly committed volunteers share my indignation not only of the paid editors, but also of those who serenely and tacitly support it. The problem is that paid editing, declared or otherwise, is hugely lucrative. So much so, that it is as much a drug to those who engage in it as it is to those who do other well paid but illicit types of work: once a UPE, always a UPE. White collar criminality exists, so we should not fool ourselves over the extent of UPE in Wikipedia. It's tentacles reach throughout the entire fabric of the project, at every level, as Wiki-PR and Orange Moody have proven, and even within the WMF itself, and what goes on in the English speaking regions of Asia. I don't believe one should rush into this Stevey7788 idea, good as it sounds. Leopards don't change their spots. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    Kudpung, at a fundamental level I agree with you when you write "I resent anyone making money out of my voluntary work." I have mixed emotions when it comes to our current UPE policies. If someone is following our policies and guidelines I don't think it fair to penalize them beyond what our policies and guidelines support (as someone would do) but I'm also not sure having an "approved" way to do PE is good. But I'm not sure having no way to do PE is better than our status quo either. And I do share your observation that some well respected members of our community are amazingly tolerant of even UPE. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    Whoops I got distracted and forgot the second point I wanted to make. However, I think you're misunderstanding what Valereee is proposing here (or maybe I do). I think the idea is not to welcome Stevie back to our community but to see if he'd be willing to share with us information about his experiences such that we could do a better job of combating UPE going forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I haven't misunderstood, not for a second. I know exactly what is being proposed. It's a tactic that's common among investigatory forces and one I learned in a previous life. How can anyone be sure that Stevey7788 is still not in our midst? The difficulty is in knowing how to go about in such a way that it would have the desired result. I'm not sure that any of us has the skill to pull it off. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Kudpung, that's probably the best reason not to try this -- lack of skill. I do actually see harm in paid editing, even when disclosed. Paid editors earn for creating long walls of text; volunteers get fed up with it and stop arguing. I've worked with several paid editors, and they just keep coming, asking for minor tweaks, wanting to insert every minor mention, it's more than just a little annoying when they treat me like it's my job to help them. I do it because I think it's better to have these paid editors disclosing. If S7788 had disclosed, he'd still be doing the other kinds of stuff for us that made him a useful editor; we'd just be watching him more closely. Actually he probably wouldn't have been able to get away with doing NPP, maybe that's the highest-paying job? Maybe you make more if you don't disclose because you're more likely to be able to slip stuff through? --valereee (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I discovered one two years ago who had a whole raft of user rights and abusing them to make a lot of monney - including OTRS. About the only right he didn't have was Admin. He was a very hard nut to crack because once exposed it meant he was going to have to refund his 'customers'. The pages and drafts we know about were deleted and salted, but all these people do is go and create another account. There are even admins and WMF employees who have been blatantly editing for pay. It's unscrupulous, unethical, and like being caught with their hands in the till, it is theft of the work the rest of us do by building and policing this encyclopedia for free. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

  You are a saint in your patience in mediating discussions at WikiProject Medicine. Everything I have seen you do seems correct and nothing that I have seen you do seems incorrect. Your skill in mediating, the initiative you take to intervene, and the tone you use in conversation are all satisfactory and beyond my ability to advise for any improvement. Thank you for stepping into this in the way that you have. I appreciate the support.

I do wonder a bit if your presence as a mediator has itself heightened tension, and if conflict would be so frequent if you as an authority were no observing. Wikipedia needs a design intervention for many aspects of mediation to recommend best practices, when to engage and disengage, and what parts of the process to divest to specialized support groups.

Thanks for all this - Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words and I certainly share your questions about what effects my mediating had and whether those were net positive or net negative of the project. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 
Different strengths of tea for Barkeep (L to R): green, yellow, oolong, and black SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep, re, "what effects my mediating had and whether those were net positive or net negative", remember my response to your concern about my possible need for travel in upcoming days? We are only responsible for our own conduct; we cannot hold ourselves responsible for that which we cannot control in others. You should not have been handling this alone, with no other admin assistance, and you have done your very ... very ... very best. For my part, I am sorry for anything/everything that came from me (verbosity :) that made your task even harder. As a daughter whose father is failing, all I can do is my best to be a good daughter; I have no say in what kind of father I had. The events are not always within our control, we do our best anyway, and you have. Have some tea :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Opinion about New page reviewer

Hi, Barkeep49. I hope you are well. I wanted to known that about my new page reviewer permission will expire on 02 January 2020, So can i request for again before 2 January? I have been working hardly since than ever before when i was getting this permission. [ actually i want to indefinitely this right because i'm from the beginning interested to helping article editing ]. I hope that i will get a positive answer from you. Have a great Night.-Nahal(T) 17:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

NahalAhmed, yes by all means post asking for the permission permanently. I haven't looked at your reviews but I can see you've done more than enough to get a good sense of where things stand. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Thank you so much for the good response. I will request for it tomorrow. Advance happy new year 2020. Happy Volunteering.-Nahal(T) 17:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I have been faced some problem , recently some reasons for changed my name. but at this moment I can no longer use AutoWikiBrowser & AFC review tools. I had a user right permission for these two. I'd like it back, can you help me? Since my name has been changed there will be a later problem when calculation AFD work? here are reasons to change the Global rename. I hope that i will get a positive answer from you. specially thanks.~ Nocturnaltalk 20:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Nocturnal306, AWB and AFC are based on the username so I went in and updated both lists to this new name. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49Thanks you . updating my new name will definitely help work for AWB and AFC.~ Nocturnaltalk 21:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I'm sorry for that a mistake here my name is User:Nocturnal306, Please can update again. As soon as I fix it using my signature and full name. I'm sorry again.~ Nocturnaltalk 21:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Nocturnal306,   Done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Mail Notice

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

Celestina007 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007 & NPP

I note the editor's interest in NPP rights; you should review their talk page history. I and others have upbraided them over called their attention to clearly incorrect taggings, warnings which are swiftly removed from the talk page. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, thanks for the feedback, it's useful as a starting place. I do always take a look at both the user talk page and the recent history, though I am not the only one granting NPP these days. I'll just note (not having looked at what you or others wrote) that upbraid is probably not the word you were looking for in this situation. I would surely hope that in a collaborative encyclopedia problems we notice are not passed along in a way, to use Meriam Webster's words "to criticize severely : find fault with" (or) "to reproach severely : scold vehemently". I'm sure it was just the first word that came to mind and not actually a reflection on how you approached Celestina :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Point taken. I decline a lot of A7s, but few are as obviously in error as some of the recent ones from Celestina (eg Sefaattin Tongay, H. Keith Moo-Young). I don't deal in conduct issues but I do start to wonder at good faith when an editor selectively removes negative messages from an admin. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Espresso Addict, having now looked at their talk page and the tags you've declined I completely agree with the messages you left expressing concern over their A7 tags. Thanks again for the feedback. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Espresso Addict you are correct I’ve made errors in judgements no doubt, the Sefaattin Tongay appeared to be an autobiography article hence I’m sure there’s a policy that states autobiographical articles are to be tagged immediately. I’ve made some errors yes, but if you could go through the entirety of my works so far I’d say I have been a net positive. Barkeep49 if you also go through my talk page you’d see several individuals who have acknowledged & commended me for my good works so far and even users with the NPP rights have asked me to apply for this right. Have I made mistakes in the past? Of course we all have but in your honest opinion do you think my effort so far in the NPP has being satisfactory? i leave that to the community to decide. It’s a shame my shortcomings are being spoken about but my other good efforts are being ignored. And what policy mandates me not to remove already read messages from my takpage??? That’s a prerogative of mine now isn’t it? I have deleted several messages from my talk page & not only those who leave negative comments & queries in fact I recently removed a message from my talk page with a subject which read “Kudos to a work Welldone” that was a very positive flattering message which many other editors would have left on their talk page as it is ego boosting but that’s not my kind of person. Furthermore Espresso Addict we have had many interactions in the past & if me removing your entry from my TP upset you for that I’m sorry & would keep of using the CSD tags for now although I should note that you are probably the only admin who keeps declining my CSD tags & I should note that i have also created good AFD’s which can be observed.Celestina007 (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Celestina007, you definitely have the right to remove messages from your talk page "although archiving is preferred" according to our guidelines. Our policy on autobiographies is a bit more nuanced and does not require immediate (or ever) deletion. I don't have time to do a complete evaluation right now of your NPP efforts, but it feels like you might have some gaps especially around A7. This would indeed suggest that NPP School might be a good option for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Application For NPP Tutorship

Hey, I was wondering if you could be my mentor/guardian at the NPP school. I’m not sure how it works but I stumbled upon five names or thereabout who are experienced seasoned editors who guide & teach aspiring new page patrollers & for obvious reasons as I have always considered you a mentor, I was wondering if you could accept me as a student? Celestina007 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, I am happy to take you on as a student. My first piece of advice in this role: add a bit more "chill" on Wikipedia. 2 emails (both of which I've read) and 7 talk page messages in about a 90 minute period is a lot. High activity with high quality work is fantastic but can be less great when communicating with others. And as you've seen by reading the syllabus communication is an element of NPP. Head on over to User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/Celestina where we will do our work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope its OK to just call you Barkeep

I probably should have asked before shortening your name to Barkeep and dropping the 49. If it important I promise I will start adding it back right away.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, it doesn't bother me in the least though there is a User:Barkeep so just make sure you ping the right person :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
A couple question while I have you. What do you think it says about WAID's RFC that you can not find one uninvolved administrator to certify it as neutral? After all your involvement with the RFC during its creation do you honestly think you should be the one to certify it as neutral? You already pushed the decision to the community when Trypto got bludgeoned out of the discussion, I can't help but feel like you are rewarding that by certifying a RFC with one sides research in the lead.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
AlmostFrancis, well as I wrote above to Sandy what I take the lack of a volunteer is that this is quite something to volunteer for and no sysop relishes this particular challenge. I read your latest note at WT:MOSMED about the lack of neutrality in the RfC but have not done another read with your criticism in mind. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Barkeep49,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.


   – 2020 is a leap yearnews article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

Utopes (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


A GA request

You had previously reviewed my Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Hard Luck article, but I got stuck when I couldn't find material for a theme section. I have now wrote Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Wrecking Ball and I feel that it is good enough for GA-class. Could you please review it? Scrooge200 (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Scrooge200, give me a few days to really look at it. I would like to make sure it would go well before agreeing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Hi Barkeep49,

Regarding your comment here, I wanted to express my appreciation for your note and extend my belated congratulations on your successful RfA. I'm sorry for not responding to you sooner; my activity over the last several months has been inconsistent and I missed your note until just now when I was adjusting my talk page's archive logic.

All the best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Black Falcon, no response was necesary but I appreciate you taking the time and effort to leave one regardless. I hope 2020 is a good year on wiki for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
For a minute there, I forgot we are in a new year and decade. :) Thanks, and wishing the same to you. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be so pedantic, but we haven't actually started a new decade yet! I couldn't help myself :) PK650 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh gosh. I hadnt realized I had #decadetruthers watching this page. :) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

My appoligies

Hello, I am regretful for my earlier comment. I looked at the article that Colin complained about and found an earlier diff that was reverted for citing a Walmart receipt and though that was what was being complained about. I did not consider that Colin was interested in a later revert. While I may have issue with your encouragement of bludgeoning I was wrong to accuse you of furthering harassment. I apologize for any pain I might have caused you and with you well. I also believe asking for more comments on the noticeboard. I would ask you thought to consider what happened to Blue Rasberry. They made a single comment which was answered not only on the noticeboard but also their talk page. Do you think this encourages participation? You also approved of the person that shut them down. Does this really help increase participation. You might ask yourself while such a supposedly important discussion has become a one way conversation.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, thanks for clarifying your earlier comments and know I always welcome feedback. However, and I could be wrong here but think I'm on good footing, but I think you're misreading the tone between WAID and Blue. At least if you're referring to this thread. Blue is an academic and WAID is comenting on an area of their academic interest and research in what I am pretty sure is a friendly and collaborative manner. I would certainly not want to shut down useful conversation (as you've noted I'll err on the side of allowing too much) and have generally found WAID to be respected by all participants in the dispute. The silence at AN could mean any number of things and I too have been thinking about what it says and appreciate hearing your perspective on the matter. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Lane and I have been editing together for over a decade. As is typical for any old friendship, our conversations will not always make sense to others.
I do not expect to be losing any of my old friends over this RFC. We all have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and we all know that building Wikipedia is each other's most important goal, even when we have different ideas of how to get there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

IP block exemption

Hi! I wish you a great and happy new year! First of all I'd like to say I'm thoroughly enjoying my recent tasks! I've learned so much, and I like how every day presents different challenges, which I think is NPP's greatest attraction. Secondly, I wanted your opinion on the following matter: I was subject to IP range blocks twice through no fault of my own over the past month. I wonder if this will be a continuous occurrence, and if so, if an IP block exemption might be in order? These blocks are quite disruptive while in the middle of an editing session, and I'm after a more permanent solution, rather than a mere "oopsie" and swift unblock. I tried to request this on my talk page was was told to submit a ticket. Thing is I'm not longer blocked, so the ticket submission system won't allow it. Could you help me or at least point me in the right direction? Thank you very much, PK650 (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh and also if you don't mind, could you help me with talk page archiving? I would like an index, but find the instructions at User:ClueBot_III#Index_generation somewhat unclear. I'm not used to Wikipedia templates yet! Best, PK650 (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
PK650, So sorry for ignoring your earlier message. I feel terrible. Did you get an answer? As for arching I would be happy to help. You have a few big decisions:
  • How long do you want a message to stay on your talk page?
  • How do you want to organize your archives? By date or by size?
    • If by size how big do you want each archive to be?
But good news awaits. If you find this all complicated you can just put {{subst:User:ClueBot III/JustArchiveThis}} at the top of your talk page and ClueBot's default setup will go in motion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
That's alright, buddy! I know we're all busy and a message can often be overlooked. I did not, unfortunately. What do you recommend I do? Of course I could do nothing, but on the other hand it's happened twice already...
As for archiving, I set it up last week, but it dawned on me earlier today that I didn't set up an index so now everything's archived but seemingly hidden. Can I now make an index (as I've seen in other people's pages) with the directory that's already there? I might do what you suggested if that sets an index up too, without all the fuss. Thank you again, PK650 (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Source guide discussions

Given that the last discussion on this subject got derailed rather inconclusively, I'm tempted to go ahead and draft an RfC discussion for Ghana as I had earlier suggested. What do you think? signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I've started work here. I was somewhat dismayed to find out this morning that the Reuters report that I heavily leaned on to write the Turkey draft does not publish information about Ghana, and our own articles on the subject are threadbare. I'm going to reach out to professors of journalism that specialize in Ghana to see if they'd be interested in advising us on these matters, in addition to doing what I can with available resources. signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, it looks like Reuters doesn't cover Africa at all and is limited in Asia? That's really too bad. I'll do a little digging too and see if I can find something that could serve as a basis. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Reuters did have a listing for South Africa, so I don't know about "at all"...but yeah it's disappointing. I've surprisingly been making quite a bit of headway with a German-language print source cited at Media in Ghana, which is available in full on Google books [4]. signed, Rosguill talk 20:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, excellent. I didn't spend too much time looking once I saw you had that but the best I found was this very minimal listing from the BBC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I finished mining that German source and also a Reporters without Borders site. I've reached out for help on WP:Africa and WP:Ghana, as well as some off-wiki channels, but I'm not too optimistic about getting any further help. I'll give it a few days, but then we should be ready to go. signed, Rosguill talk 21:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, fantastic. One suggestion: "As the intent of this discussion is not to conclusively deprecate or green-light sources that have been the focus of prior discussions, the standard four question format is not appropriate here." is probably meaningless to those who don't frequest RSN RfCs (and my hope is that we get a handful of such editors here). Perhaps just omit that sentence? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately I think that may be a necessary disclaimer for the regulars who do frequent RSN. Unless you were planning on hosting the RfC elsewhere, I think it's for the best to keep it. signed, Rosguill talk 00:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, I was thinking we'd host it as a subpage of NPP with a pointer from RSN. It's going to need a subpage anyway. But you've likely given this a bunch more thought than I so I would defer to you on this front. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
hmm...I still think we should keep it, but in that case I think we can make it a small-font disclaimer signed, Rosguill talk 00:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

West Midlands Serious Crime Squad GA nom

You put that one on hold about 5 weeks ago. That's four weeks more than what nominators are allowed to make changes.

During that time the nominator has edited only once, and that was more than two weeks ago. And it wasn't even that article.

I think you've given him more than enough time to make your requested changes, and it's time to fail the article. You can let Jim know that you'd be willing to reconsider in the future if he does make the changes and goes through the motions of formally renominating it. But for now it's time to do your part and clear the GAN backlog a bit. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Suppose that's true though my taking the review is what brings the backlog down. But closed in any case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. But in the future when you take a review, come back with your thoughts, and then put the article on hold, the time limit is a week. I can see letting it go a little longer as long as the nominator's actively working to address the issues you raised, but in this case absolutely nothing had been done in response.

Clearing the backlog isn't just about taking reviews, it's about completing them, one way or the other. (OK, I confess some self-interest here ... I have nominated an article recently in the same category and, seeing how far down the queue it was, noticed that a bunch of articles at the top were under review or on hold. Good, I thought, there'll be some movement soon.

But when I looked at those articles, I saw that a lot of them had been that way, with no movement either in terms of writing a real review, or any response to same from the nominators, for a long time. So I resolved to try to do something about it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Case, I understand the frustration that comes with waiting for your article, so far down the line, to be picked up. I am frequently jealous of those who write Millitary History articles and get their reviews picked up with such alacrity. However, I do disagree with you in three ways. First the seven days of a hold are not a guideline but merely best practice. And second I'm not sure that a whole bunch of incomplete reviews above yours means you wait longer. Instead it's about capacity. My on hold review for West Midlands wasn't stopping me from doing another review, my busyness at work combined with my work at WT:MEDMOS was. Despite that I still agreed, on request, to take another review and I feel a good deal worse about my lack of a review at Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Hard Luck than an on old review with an editor who has gone inactive. But anyhow best of luck to you with your own nom. I hope it will be you 21st GA sometime soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

AN/I close

I can't find the AN/I close for the pricing. QuackGuru (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, here you go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Editors are now tagging the content since they can't delete it. Is this appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, it's a bit of a grey area but I do think goes against the spirit of the ANI prohibition. As such, I have asked that editor on their talk page to not do it any further. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd definitely use this discussion and the corresponding edits in an ArbCom proceeding on the subject. potentially misleading edit summary, edit warring to de-emphasize a dispute, and the lack of engagement in resolving the dispute. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Is this what I think it is? Removing a bot-recovered citation? [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Probably not. Seraphimblade removed all the pricing information, and the bot jumped in before it could all be restored. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, Ronz. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
There's certainly enough issues of behavior by enough editors that an ArbCom case could be had. Does that create conditions that allow for consensus on the content issues at play to be solved? Maybe but it's no guarantee and even if it does create the conditions it's likely to be a tough road to achieving it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

On a related note, I've been holding off on acting on Wikipedia_talk:Prices#Move_to_user_space?. --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, replying there. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the article talk pages need protection. QuackGuru (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I have closed that thread per the ANI discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Can a draft of List of drug prices be expanded with more drug prices? It is not an article. It is all about drug prices. I was planning to update it next year and recruit more editors. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, my first reaction was "of course it can be". But then I started thinking it through more and realized it wasn't so simple. So sure it can be updated but with the following caveats. First, the safest way to ensure that it doesn't become a battleground would be to move it to your userspace rather than leaving it in draft space. Similarly, you would need to be careful about who you invited to edit to ensure it did not become a new battleground. It would not be appropriate to move it to mainspace until consensus is reached about the broader question of how we address issues of drug costs/prices. And once that consensus is reached the article might need to be changed to reflect that consensus. Does that all make sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I want to leave it in draftsapce for anyone to contribute to it. I want to recruit students to expand it. If someone nominates it for deletion I would request it be quickly closed until things are worked out about the prices. QuackGuru (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, if you leave it in draftspace then it is virtually impossible for it to avoid becoming a new battleground because you can't hand pick who gets to contribute. So people who disagree with you about pricing would be just as able to contribute as the students who you hope to recruit (and for the perils of inviting students to contribute to highly contentious areas I would strongly suggest you read this current discussion). That kind of editing process would run afoul of the spirit and the letter of the ANI consensus. I would strongly suggest that adding your voice to the discussion around formulating the RfC would be more productive than time spent editing that draft. The choice to engage, or not, is ultimately up to you and I have and will defend your right not to participate there but if you care as much as it seems you do that's a place where you can help move this process along so we get consensus and you could further improve that draft in the manner you wish. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Since it's being discussed now: I ran across it yesterday. It appears to be a list that QuackGuru put together focusing specifically on high-priced medications. It also looks like at least some of it is QuackGuru's own work, rather than simply coping content/refs from existing articles... It would be helpful if QuackGuru would share from the experience of doing this work. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
This is not an article about adding pricing or removing pricing for an article about a drug. It is about the price list of drugs. It requires numerous contributors to expand it. I would like to start a discussion at AN/I to request it can be expanded. It can remain in draftspace. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, I have just posted a general update at AN. In that update I stated that an appeal (yours) was going to be forthcoming. In the interests of keeping the conversation together I'd ask you to consider launching your appeal as a subsection of that update. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
The appeal could turn into a deletion discussion. I think I should just wait for now. It is just a draft. No readers will be reading it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough QuackGuru. Happy New Year to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep, can I please fix your typos and word omissions at AN? After all, typo is my middle name! Check it over, as some typos and word omissions lead to a lack of clarity. Otherwise, very nice summary (glad you didn't attempt to summarize my mess :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, it's now at WT:MOSMED. I promise I did read it over before posting but yes go ahead and feel free to correct some typos and word omissions. I benefit greatly from the editing of others :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes it's hard to see your own word omissions, because you knew what you meant and think the word is there when it's not : ) I will do an edit there, then, only if you promise to be right behind me to correct anything I may get wrong! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Activity

I see that User:Pbsouthwood added a clarify tag yesterday to Hydroxychloroquine. The drug is an anti-malarial but also has secondary uses for treating rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and porphyria cutanea tarda. Peter asked "for what" the treatment price "per month" referred to. James then edited the article to clarify "treat rheumatoid arthritis or lupus", to remove the UK price completely, and to update the MSH source from 2014 to 2015 while changing the price from a range to, what appears to be, the median of two Buyer prices for 200mg tablets multiplied by 60 [never mind that the source does not give a dose for treating those diseases, or that two Buyer prices isn't "the developing world"]. I note the article does not date that price to 2015, so readers may think it current. I think it is not unreasonable to question "what for", especially as it actually appears that an anti-malaria drug is being given a "developing world" monthly cost, not for treating malaria, but for rheumatoid arthritis or lupus!

While Peter may have not been aware that "There is an embargo on adding or removing pricing during this process", James most certainly is. I don't think Peter's query, nor the clarifying "treat rheumatoid arthritis or lupus", break the embargo, but all the other changes, updates and deletions do. I don't think it would be wise to go around tagging all 540+ drug articles with templates asking to clarify what the treatment condition is or query where on earth the dose information is coming from. -- Colin°Talk 16:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) My apologies, I was looking up unrelated information and added the query, not expecting it to be addressed immediately - these things generally remain unfixed for months. I was not intending to provoke anyone to break an embargo. Tagging that price claim is something that anyone might have done in complete ignorance of the dispute.
While it is not a surprise that there is an embargo, I don't remember actually reading about it, but I may have done so and simply forgotten. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Pbsouthwood, I agree tagging the price could be done in complete ignorance of the dispute and was indeed done by another editor unaware of the dispute a couple days back. And even for those who are aware of the dispute and the embargo, my interpretation of adding a disputed tag as a grey area that goes against the spirit of the AN/I consensus is not something anyone who hasn't been following closely (including watching this talk page) could possibly know. So no worries about your tag. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Noting that Colin is forbidden from pinging or notifying Doc James on his talk about this discussion, but Ronz has done that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I took that drug for giardiasis when I lived in South America. I see no mention of yet another use for the med in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Colin: I agree most of that update is appropriate and helpful. I have also indicated above to Peter that adding a dispute tag is a grey area it was fine he didn't know about. I have reminded the editor who added/removed information not to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you all seriously claiming that sourcing content to "Walmart receipt" is anything but vandalism? Did anyone even bother to look at the edit before they tried to score cheap points in an edit dispute. Barkeep can you please confirm that your prohibition forces editors to keep obvious vandalism in arguments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlmostFrancis (talkcontribs) 03:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, what Walmart receipt are you talking about? And this is not "my prohibition" this is an embargo enacted by the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
AlmostFrancis, Please read WP:Vandalism andWP:ASPERSIONS, and please tone down your language. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Activity update

Just a note to those around here, I was just asked on DocJames talk page specifically about updating. I had discussed this previously with two other uninvolved syosps on IRC and all three< of us feel that updating information already present in an article does not qualify as "adding or removing pricing" and can be done even while the RfC creation process plays out. courtesy pings to @Ronz, Colin, SandyGeorgia, and QuackGuru:. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that tagging/amending/updating prices on articles should be included in the moratorium. While I have no intention of editing the prices at present, the contentious issue is not just whether prices are included or not but that existing prices make false claims, do not represent what the source says, cherry-pick one database record rather than another, use prices drawn from buyers and suppliers, etc, etc. All these issues have been a source of conflict over the years. I wouldn't support the idea that James alone is permitted to modify their own price statements, and all evidence suggests that anyone else amending them will result in conflict. It would also be highly disruptive if editors modified the article text of drugs being used as RFC examples such that they deviated from the examples presented at RFC. We don't want the RFC discussion on what should be said to be played out by edit warring on the articles. It would simply be better that any statement about prices be left alone for now. -- Colin°Talk 10:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Barkeep; I am following the discussion at Doc James talk.
1. These personal exceptions for Doc James are part of why we are where we are. It is awkward that we can't consolidate conversations because of a) prohibitions on pinging/posting and b) lack of engagement in one place. One point of the ANI close was to prevent disputes from spreading. At ANI, "The question of drug pricing is remitted to a single venue". Full Stop. Your words. I agreed with JzG on these conditions instead of supporting a topic ban on Doc James as requested by another sysop (Nil Einne). Doc James has not come to the single venue to discuss, and one party is prohibited from posting to Doc James talk, and yet that party can be discussed there. This is a formula for dispute-spreading. There should be, in fact, no discussion of the price dispute at James talk, other than your notifications and further clarifications with James and Peter.
2. I have always been and still am opposed to back-channel decisions on IRC. (That is not "a single venue".) Conversations regarding a sysop who is continually given exceptions for behavior (eg edit warring) should be in full view of everyone else affected. Who are the two sysops who agreed that we can grant this change to the clearly established conditions? By conducting business off-Wiki, your excellent conduct in this matter so far puts you at risk for being drawn in to the precise pattern that needs to be addressed. Please provide the names of those sysops.
3. My recommendation is that you walk back this private discussion and decision, and leave the ANI close as was clearly agreed. I agreed with JzG's approach only because it was so carefully worded, and having been down this road before, knew what might happen. It has. Doc James breached the close. Please respect your own ANI close, and do not complicate a years-long dispute with non-public discussions where three sysops decide to exempt one sysop from a community agreement. OWNERSHIP is at the core of the pricing dispute and all previous disputes: exempting one editor, who has not engaged with the rest of us who are attempting to solve the problem, from a community-wide decision which accounted for this very possibility furthers the very problem we are attempting to solve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: I was one of the editors who was consulted on IRC. The off-wiki consultation was clearly disappointing for you, and I'm sorry about that and will aim to be more transparent in this matter. It probably won't make you feel better, but I was presented the question in a very abstract sense and was not aware of the identity of the participants, and certainly did not intend my comments to be about giving a particular sysop an advantage or special exception over others. My reasoning was that the spirit of verifiability doesn't allow us to keep old bad information if newer, equally- or better- sourced information is available -- it must be updated or removed, and the closure explicitly prohibits removing it, so updating it is the only option. Additionally, updating pricing doesn't seem to involve the same dispute as to whether prices should be included or not. Thanks for your comments -- I hope I have addressed some of your concerns, and if not, please don't hesitate to reach out further. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
it must be updated or removed Howso? What's the hurry? Is there some BLP-like requirement? --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: thanks for all your thoughts here. I want to acknowledge that I've seen them. I think some of your criticisms of me are more than fair but want to take a few hours to think on them before replying (especially because other pieces of the analysis I respectfully disagree with at first blush). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
For today at least, pinging me will only increase my need for a calming cup of tea. That "tipping point" has been passed by sysops allowing the very behaviors we seek to address, to fester and grow by a participant who has not engaged. This Is The Pattern. Regular editors, who want to add medical content, have no place on this project. We have competent, qualified medical editors who have written numerous guidelines, featured articles and featured lists, but who do not have a sysop flag attached to their account, who are doing everything they can to assure medical content on Wikipedia is accurate, and being undermined by those who have a flag attached to their name. This is why good editors quit. This is why medical content is suffering. This is why good editors no longer engage to remove vandalism and quackery. This is why good editors stop trying to bring medical content to featured status. This is why I stopped editing for years and unwatched hundreds of medical articles. This is Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Sandy, (who I'm intentionally not pinging based on what she wrote above as there's only so much calming tea in the world but who I will ping tomorrow) thanks for all your thoughts. As I've expressed to you in the past, when you were working on the edit request, I knew that being the sole sysop involved in these issues was going to be trouble sooner or later. And now we're here, in part, because I took a half measure in this regard. There had been an increasing number of decisions that I had been asked to make about this situation. While the all the decisions had been respected I had become uncomfortable being the sole uninvolved sysop attempting to properly carry out the community's will in this regard. What I should have done was to solicit wider feedback formulate a different version of the update I'd posted and then reverted at AN. What I did instead was to reach out to others on IRC. I understand why this opaque measure rubbed you the wrong way. While I appreciate L235 chiming in, what I should have done after making the first mistake of consulting on IRC rather than AN was to just own the decision as my own - as I felt that updating prices was ok before the discussion and after. I included the IRC mention as a way of being clear what I had done but rather than being transparent it diffused responsibility for the decision in a way that it shouldn't have. Why was updating ok with me when I'd said even adding a tag was not? In my thinking it's different because it's not adding something new and because the embargo is designed to ameliorate the conflict not preserve bad information.
In the time that I've been working on this conflict I've worked hard to treat all editors with respect. Especially because the core group of editors, whether they carry the sysop user right or not, deserve immense respect for the longstanding ways they've made Wikipedia a better place. I can, and will if you or some other editor would like, explain how I've tried to treat all editors the same regardless of sysop status. But essentially my approach has been to make a polite request for specific action where I've observed a line being crossed. So far every time I've made a specific request to take/rescind an action the editor has agreed. I have also, attempted to follow the ANI close statement that there will be "no rehashing of grievances" by acting on not what's happened in in the past with editors but what's happening now. All of this has applied to all editors including DocJames.
But I also remember acutely what it's like when you don't have the sysop flag. I wrote, in a line I had to remove from my ACE statement due to space constraints, "I remember what it’s like to feel put down not or otherwise dismissed because" I wasn't a sysop. We lose so many good editors for so many reasons and I'm sorry that the conditions here are such that we're going to (potentially) lose you. The places you've chosen to contribute in this dispute have been made better because of your contributions. I can only hope you decide Wikipedia remains worth it.
As to the specific asks you've made, I have struck my statement here and on Doc's talk that refers to the discussion IRC. I am willing to discuss the decision to say that updating is OK further and have now laid out my thinking rather than just giving a "because me and two people you can't comment about said so" reasoning. Just to reiterate, updating feels different than adding or removing because the ANI close was about ameliorating the dispute and where the information is already present updating serves our readers without changing the scope of articles involved in the dispute. If you don't want to discuss it further we can all head back to AN/ANI or go to ArbCom as has been discussed below. If we head to AN/ANI (and obviously if it ends up at ArbCom) it will likely mean I step back from attempting to moderate the dispute for at least a bit to give the community space to weigh-in and indeed offer feedback on my own actions.
As for the final bit of keeping discussion at WT:MOSMED you're absolutely right. It has, at minimum, spread to this page, Doc James' user talk, WT:Prices, Talk:Ivermectin. I'm happy to take a more assertive stance on pushing stuff over there (for instance I should have replied to several of the questions posted here there). As you note some conversation will still be needed at on user talks but this would be much more one on one discussion. To that end if you (or others) want to continue conversations about updating with me, we should create a section to do so there. If you wish to discuss my actions that would of course remain more appropriate for this page (or AN/ANI/ARBCOM). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I am back from Ceylon; I found life in a country where pings are outlawed very relaxing. Do you want me to respond here, or do we want to keep discussion at WT:MEDMOS? My suggestion would be that we continue this particular aspect here, in the spirit on not splitting a conversation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I think your decision to permit editing of price information is a rational one, assuming the conflict is only about addition or subtraction (or moving to body), and assuming that updating the text might change it from "bad" to "good". That really isn't the case; it is just differently bad. Attempts to resolve some of the OR or false claims have been rejected by reversion and on several occasions caused protracted dispute. I only see that being more likely during an RFC. You say you are not keen for an embargo to "preserve bad information" but no amount of tinkering or updating data from 2014 to 2015 is going to make the information good. Nearly all of the prices are many years out-of-date, wrong and misleading. We've lived with that for years and really it is best if they are left be for a little while longer. -- Colin°Talk 13:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
We may be in disagreement about the "rationality" of the decision, Colin; I have very big problems behind the logic in this decision, and am surprised no one has seen the logical flaw. I am waiting to hear if this is the right place to have that discussion, and to make a recommendation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia and Colin: I have copied this discussion to WT:MOSMED to try and both not split the discussion and to honor the ANI close. Let's continue this strand of discussion there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI, User:Colin/PriceEdits contains a computer-generated list of all price/cost insertion/deletion edits to 530 drug articles by any editor since 2015. It also contains my analysis of where editors have come into conflict. Plenty examples of why I note my concerns above. To take an example of the kind of "copyedit" being suggested by User:WhatamIdoing at the MEDMOS discussion, an editor changing "the wholesale price in the developing world is" to "The median buyer price according to the International Drug Price Indicator Guide was" sparked an edit war at Lactulose. -- Colin°Talk 10:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom

I think we should give considerable thought to ArbCom at this point to get the continuing behavioral problems under control. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure the current behavioural problems are so out of control that requires any urgent ArbCom intervention, provided the moratorium is on drug price edits in articles generally. I can't see anything good with permitting otherwise and don't see why there needs to be any rush to fix prices that mostly cite a database from 2014 or book from 2015. It would greatly help if certain parties acknowledged their edits were controversial and agreed to pause. As I mention above, permitting editing during an RFC is only likely to lead to grief.
I would still like to press ahead with the RFC that WAID has initiated creating. Hopefully something can be created that is worth offering to the community. I would like some clarification wrt where that RFC text should be discussed (RFC talk, or still at MEDMOS).
There is of course very much a long-running user-behaviour problem wrt medical article editing, of which the drug prices are but one symptom, and I have little doubt they will end up at arbcom. But the community needs to exhaust all normal venues for dealing with it, and it seems we must deal with it as a content dispute first. So let's try that approach and see where it takes us. -- Colin°Talk 18:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
But the community needs to exhaust all normal venues for dealing with it Well said. I have to say I'm pretty exhausted with it. SandyGeorgia [6] has indicated something similar. I'm hoping that exhaustion is the reason the WT:MOSMED discussion lacks participation from the editors who have regularly weighed in on the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
My own two cents is that it is not premature to head to ArbCom at this point. It's also not the only option for addressing the issues (at least right now). However, if an editor feels it's the best way, well there probably is enough evidence that the community has exhausted all normal venues. I think it all depends on how much hope you have that the conflict will remain calm enough until an RfC can be launched. While I have no less hope that an RfC can be launched (though not certain it will) if things remain calm, each of the past few days have given me less hope that things will remain calm. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've been warming to the idea of an ArbCom case recently. I was the main filing party for the GMO case, and I might be willing to file for this one too. But I think that it needs to wait until either (1) everyone gives up on having an RfC, which hasn't happened yet, or (2) things take a bad turn during the RfC. And I have a suggestion for anyone who might be watching here: remaining silent at the discussion about RfC formulation may end up being a bad look, if a case happens. Better to make a good-faith expression of opinion there, even if it doesn't get listened to. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Tryptofish. ArbCom's initial response (other than wishing they could hide under a rock – I always feel so sorry for the people who get stuck with that job) is likely to be that there are such significant content disputes involved that they'd like to see content RFC attempted first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe an astute arb would look at an abundance of evidence and:
  • a) question the claim that there is a broad pricing dispute at all, anywhere, and
  • b) ask the community why they haven't even tried to address the issues in evidence via, for example ANI, then
  • c) wonder how many more pages like this could be put together to address the previous problems exactly like this one.
And then decline the case until the community deals with it at ANI. For example, if I were one of the "me, too" !voters who followed others to disputes, I'd be wondering how that's going to look in a hard data format put before the arbs. My suggestion is that the community has not tried to solve this problem yet at all, so the arbs are quite premature. Arbs ask, "can this be solved by the community, and if so, why are you forcing it off on us?" The community has yet to address the evidence, and the ANI close was formulated on the premise that a broad pricing dispute exists. I will address this further when I respond to Barkeep above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
It certainly should be obvious to all, given the evidence, that routinely adding prices to drug articles is not a community project and never has been: we do not have a group of editors working together by consensus to add and maintain these prices in all these hundreds of articles. Considering Wikipedia:About says "Wikipedia is written collaboratively" that should ring alarm bells. Talk is talk but what matters is the edits and the article content, and the edits are being made by a single editor and the article contents sucks. The presence of an openly declared agenda (Big Bad Pharma want to suppress prices; Wikipedia is not censored) should also be ringing alarm bells and in any other advocacy-editing situation, swiftly dealt with. I don't share Sandy's confidence in ANI, which seems to be a low-attention-span forum where editors are quick to form an opinion and express it loudly. This is a hard problem that needs wise owls, not windbags. I would still like to see where an RFC takes us.
Wrt evidence, folk may have guessed that I'm a big fan of evidence; I don't like unfounded statements (about anything, editors, sources, organisations). If I say that many of the MSH sources have no supplier data, I want to know if that is true: it turns out 30% don't. So I wanted a neutral way to discover who was making additions or subtractions to price and cost statements on our drug articles. That turned out to be fairly easy to code, and it was actually a bit of a surprise to me that one name didn't just appear most of the time, but almost all the time. What that program won't find is cases where people have tried to reword the price statements or update values, provided the number of "cost" or "price" on one wikitext line stays the same, or gave a price but didn't use either keyword. It is important to know the limitations of data. I don't think it would be so easy to find more nuanced instances of editing behaviour nor would I be keen to automate investigations into one editor. -- Colin°Talk 13:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Re-read the ANI, Colin. There were multiple and reasonable admins who solicited rational feedback; I gave fair feedback against a topic ban that allowed one party to come to the table. Hence, they agreed with the approach. Barkeep's instincts were right when he posted (but later deleted) to AN. I would like to explore that line with him, among other messy things about what happened in the last day. We have not exhausted the possibilities of ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Following on the notion that there ever existed a broad dispute on drug pricing, additional evidence that should be reviewed at ANI is that redirects away from a policy page and to a personal essay were created and stood for four years. The essay said that "Wikipedia has no specific policy on presenting prices of products"-- text that stood since Oct 2015. WP:NOTCATALOG (mentioning prices) was a part of WP:NOT policy as of the date the October 2015 statement was written, so editors have been redirected to a false statement about policy for four years.
After a month of examining all of these edits, and attempting to formulate an RFC, it has emerged that we are attempting to address the wrong (indeed, a non-existent) problem. No evidence of a broad drug pricing dispute has surfaced, while there are voluminous pages of evidence supporting that only two editors were seeking to insert drug prices into articles.
My suggestion, once we finish the discussion at WT:MEDMOS (as we still have unfinished business in that discussion), is that a focused discussion at ANI, moderated to prevent the kinds of unfounded attacks we typically see at ANI, should be initiated by Barkeep. We now have evidence-- that the community is capable of acting upon-- without need to approach the arbs. We now have current evidence of how Colin conducts himself, which is well contrasted by what we have seen from others. I would be happy to present a summary of the "me, too, per so-and-so" editors should that become necessary, but I hope they have by now gotten the point, and this WPMED cabalistic behavior will stop.
It is also possible to present pages of evidence, similar to Colin's above, that show one editors' preferences being inserted across hundreds of articles, on several different matters, but my recommendation on that issue is that it should not be necessary to present this evidence if that editor is reminded at ANI to cease confusing personal preferences with policy.
With a few notable exceptions, and as evidenced at the MEDLEAD RFC, WP:MED has had a recent history of applying guideline as if it were policy, and ignoring policy as if it were guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Although my comments above were presented in the vein of how to move forward, and on a page that is not part of the pricing issue (safe place?), on re-reading, I am concerned that some can be viewed as "rehashing old grievances" (that is, covering territory before the pricing dispute). I am striking those portions that relate to issues before the pricing dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
It is still my intent to update the community soon. I've had my eye on Jan 7 (one month after the close). That said AN/ANI is not a venue that is well moderated both by design and practice so I wouldn't expect that from there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps my inner Pollyanna is escaping again, but it was my hope that we could actually get something useful at ANI if you prefaced it with a reminder that editors are under sanctions which will be applied if aspersions are cast, etc. For example, we would not see it degenerate into diffless claims that "Colin edit wars", or the six different WikiAcronyms thrown at me on the talk page of the MEDLEAD RFC, with a complete absence of AGF. I feel like we have enough new information that we could get useful feedback at ANI, if presented by a neutral party like yourself, and moderated to-- at this point-- absolutely give a 24-hour block to those casting aspersions if they continue that aggression. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd like everyone to focus on the RFC. It was the resolution from the last AN/I, and it gives the whole community (not just admins and the sort of opinionated folk who hang out at ANI) a chance to review the issues. I don't want to be used as bait to bring out the pitchfork and torches mob just so admins can hand out some 24hr blocks while my name gets besmirched on the internet yet again. -- Colin°Talk 17:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Understood and agreed. I had unwatched WT:MEDMOS because work had moved on to the specifics of the RFC at a separate page, which I was watching, but now that we are all back at WT:MEDMOS, there I am :) Yes, full steam ahead on the RFC. We are so close, and nothing I said above should be construed to mean we shouldn't be focused on the RFC as well as other issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Although I'll defer to Barkeep, obviously, about what he wants on his talk page, it's probably best to keep discussion about drug prices at the designated locale, and save defense arguments for the ArbCom case pages, should a case become necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I intentionally did not move this section to the page as I think it falls into standard exceptions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I am safely home now, Barkeep, and will head over to the other page shortly. (Tea beckons again.) Thanks for wishing me safe driving, which I accomplished. When I unpack my concerns on the other thread at WT:MEDMOS, though, (step by step), the final step will lead us back to my point above, so we will end up with a somewhat split topic. I think most of us have enough focus to follow the plot, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I'll ask here because I can't on your talk page, and might as well keep this in one place. I have examined your comments at WT:MEDMOS and find that, apart from an early comment about variable insurance pricing, I cannot determine your position either on drug prices (routinely vs exceptionally) nor on the many example texts+sources (do they fail OR, DUE, LEAD, V) nor on editor behaviour surrounding price insertion and reverts/wars that result. You have made a lot of comments about the RFC questions/format and considerable effort in proposing some drafts, which is very appreciated. But, unlike Barkeep, you don't need to play the neutral moderator role. So when above you say that you think an arbcom is brewing and you might even propose one, I'm rather in the dark as to what your angle is. For all I know, your angle is Big Pharma want to suppress drug prices and Wikipedia is Not Censored! :-). Obviously your view on most of these things belongs on other venue, not here, but wrt Arbcom, what is the case you would bring? -- Colin°Talk 15:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Colin, my reason for not having so far expressed an opinion about what my answer to the RfC would be is that I'm trying very hard to help create a successful RfC without taking a "side". But since you ask, my present opinion is that I agree with you and disagree with James about how drug prices should be presented, particularly on the basis of WP:NOTPRICE and WP:SYNTH. But I could also be persuaded to change my mind, given a convincing counterargument. I hope that there will be no need for an ArbCom case, and as I already said I think that one would be premature now. But if I were to file one, I anticipate that the locus of the dispute would be something like what JzG said here: [7]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I wonder who "they" is; we have focused on a resolvable scope, and have an RFC ready to go-- because we finally realized we were taking on too much and agreed to scale it back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd rather not argue the case here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree such speculating doesn't much help matters. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, WP:AE may prove to be enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
If there's a specific editor conduct issue to resolve AE would be sufficient but in my nearly month of involvement here to the extent that there are editor conduct issues it's not singular and not the sort of line cross that AE excels at. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, I guess there's a piece of this issue I'm not seeing or privy to. From the point of view of a medical editor who just wants to be able to write medical FAs, and can't in the environment that prevails at WPMED (where guideline is policy, and policy is guideline, and you can't write an FA lead that will satisfy both policy and WPMED), I'm trying as hard as I can to "focus on a resolvable scope". I'm very sorry our efforts have not been good enough. I guess I should have gone skiing for Christmas. :( :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Re MOSMED Behavioral Concerns

This is in response to a series of edits SandyGeorgia made at WT:MOSMED. I'm going to respond to her statements in two pieces. The first will be at my here and focus on my conduct and that of others. The second part is will be at WT:MOSMED and will focus on the core content issue (should updating pricing information be covered by the ANI embargo).I normally wouldn't split discussion like this, but in this case there are related conduct issues (relating to my conduct and the conduct of others) and content issues (related to an interpretation I made of an a community decision. As one part of that close makes clear that the question of pricing is related to a single forum, it's important that the content based discussion be held there, while that talk page remains an inappropriate venue for conduct decisions. This is an imperfect solution but all available solutions are imperfect and so we're stuck with trying to make the best of a difficult situation. Now onto my response.

You wrote that you felt taken advantage of in part because I had been shielded from information. It's a lousy to feel taken advantage of and I do not want to diminish or dismiss that experience for you. You wrote that I've been shielded from information - I know you wrote this out of our mutual respect for each other and by assuming good faith. However, in all honesty I do feel like, after reading that ANI conversation carefully and having been so politely corrected when I've misstated something about this dispute, that I do have some grasp on the scope of the problem. Though I make no claims to having the same understanding that you and others who've lived it have.

So that brings us to actions since that conversation. For me an important part of the ANI close has been the third statement: "The above debates will be subject to civility restrictions with strict enforcement of WP:AGF, WP:CIV, no WP:BLUDGEONing and no rehashing of grievances.". For me this has meant several things but most importantly that while we should learn from the past, discussing it, debating it, or attempting to come to consensus even abotu what happened was not going to be productive. To do otherwise was going to end up in a "rehashing of grievances". I respectfully submit that some amount of what you write here falls afoul of that rehashing. This would be just as true if the discussion were still on my talk page as it is here. I am not suggesting the past is unimportant simply that it is not helpful at this moment in trying to come to consensus on the MOS guidance (and thus the content of a wide swath of articles). If you feel that the past simply can't be divorced from the present, well I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise. Instead I'm going to say that the only options for how to proceed in that case are a conduct related forum like ANI or ArbCom.

Instead I have been focused on what's happening now, both in trying to help get the RfC on prices launched and in current behavior. Now you have presented conduct issues at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles (or its talk page) and I will acknowledge that I have read all of the issue you've presented but not focused on them as much as they probably deserved. My explanation for this is that trying to keep track of that and everything around prices simply became overwhelming and so I prioritized prices. The only apology I will make for this decision is not explicitly communicating it better and earlier when you made reference to it. I will just note, also by way of explanation, that I definitely did not ignore what you wrote but instead focused on other elements of what you wrote to me at those times when making my own reply.

As for conduct that you've presented around prices I have tried to be attentive to it. For instance following the comments you made about the single forum not being honored well that's why this discussion is here because at its base it's a content related discussion (and decision) not a conduct one and that discussion should be held here. I've looked at Doc James' talk page and since you fairly pointed out conversations should be had here (a development that happened while I was away from Wiki) that conversation stopped (as it should) with James agreeing the conversation should be had here. As for the different treatment we've experienced, I don't deny it's happened and it's likely happened for any number of reasons which according to Wikipedian ideals would not matter, but since we aren't living in that utopia have mattered. I do my best here and attempt, where I can without being a scold or heavy handed, to get others to do their best as well. If only I could wave a wand and improve our community's discourse.

So that brings me to my actions. You wrote that you cheered when I posted to AN. I had decided on the 30th that I needed to update the community and would do so on January 7th or a month afterwards. I debated posting that this was my intent but decided that would create an artificial deadline that might not actually be helpful to resolving the consensus. I also didn't want to post too early as I knew there would likely only be one such update and the conversation that came out of that stood a chance of derailing the RfC discussion (if no other sysops chose to get involved and it opened the floodgates for all the conduct issues that people have been sitting on) in addition to the chance it did of helping (drawing fresh perspectives and an infusion of people fresh enough to power the RfC to the end). However, when QuackGuru indicated that they were going to appeal my thinking about their draft, it forced my hand. When they then walked it back and no one had replied well I took advantage of that and reverted (but did post it to the talk page which I think did have some benefit). Sometime between now and then if this hasn't already been brought to a conduct forum I will be actually posting an update. And to your other point about the number of participants I too wish that attracted as many people, but as you know well policy and content writing is hard, much harder than just looking at conduct so it's unsurprising that more people participated at ANI than in the actual hard work (and in fairness there were a bunch of participants initially who stopped when the conversation got very long, very quickly).

As for my conduct around the decision, I've already explained my thinking around that, what actions of mine fell short of the ideal, and what I've learned and committed to acting like in the future. So I will not revisit that - I feel I've offered you what I can there and if you feel more is needed well then we're again talking about ANI or ArbCom. You do write that you feel James got special treatment. I must respectfully disagree or at least disagree that I treated him differently in my role as an uninvolved sysop, understanding that some of what you feel relates not to me specifically but to the broader unequal treatment of different people I addressed above. My first reaction when someone has broken some element of the ANI close is to ask them to revert. When it was pointed out to me that James had broken the close I treated him the same way. And, like everyone else to date, he respected my ask and reverted. And like several other people he asked for an interpretation, which I gave and then after your criticism retracted and replaced with what I should have written in the first place having already thought it out.

Ok I think that's a response to all the conduct stuff you've raised. So onto part two, discussing the meat of that decision, at at WT:MOSMED. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This is in response to a series of edits SandyGeorgia made at WT:MOSMED, correct, but you have not mentioned here that I responded there after you moved the section from your talk page here and several times requested that I respond there, even though I was aware that those response more correctly belonged here. A person coming to this section for the first time, without reading the entire discussions, would not know that I responded there at your request, when the original post was here.
You wrote that you felt taken advantage of in part because I ... I did not feel taken advantage of by you, and I did not say that.I felt taken advantage of by having engaged in a process in good faith, while others did not even engage. I feel even more so, having gone just now to the talk page to try to help out at Trypto's RFC draft 2, since he is asking for feedback, but where I just now found that he advised you "quietly" that he was working on that draft on 26 Dec,[8] but only told the rest of us at WT:MEDMOS on 2 January.[9] How could we have helped sooner on that draft[10] if we weren't told the draft was being developed until two days ago? User talk:Tryptofish/Drug prices RfC draft 2
I respectfully submit that some amount of what you write here falls afoul of that rehashing. I do not disagree that the way that the issue above (Section Activity udpate) unfolded led to a) me being upset about something presented as an off-Wiki decision (backchannel), that b) led to me ending up "rehashing" when explaining why that was upsetting. Rehashing that had been avoided during an arduous month, but which yes, did occur as my explanation for why that incident was upsetting. I agree that rehashing is not helpful. I, too, respectfully submit that it was my concerns about the transparency that led to my reaction, that then required that I give you an explanation, as your adminning of this matter has been exemplary. And I understand this to be the case regardless of which page it was on. If you feel that the past simply can't be divorced from the present, ... No, I do not feel that at all. In trying to explain why the incident in section Activity update was upsetting, and to explain that I wasn't blaming you, I did end up going into some old territory. I hope I get some credit for leaving out hundreds of kilobytes more than I covered. <that was a joke about my verbosity :) > I understand the importance of avoiding rehashing so that we can focus on the current dilemma, and will do my best to push back sooner from the computer if needed.
Now you have presented conduct issues at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles (or its talk page) ... You have twice phrased this as if presenting that there was my choice. A person coming to read this section would not encounter the history: that you moved it there and asked me to respond there, even after I inquired mutliple times whether I should. Again, regardless of where I answered, I agree it resulted in some rehashing, but it should be clear that putting my response on that page was not my choice, but yours.
... but not focused on them as much as they probably deserved. My explanation for this is that trying to keep track of that and everything around prices simply became overwhelming ... I recognized that days ago, and felt it was too much for one person, and understand. No apology is needed.
I do my best here ... As I have seen and acknowledged <repeatedly, with my typical verbosity>.
I debated posting that this was my intent but decided that would create an artificial deadline ... Very sensible.
... when QuackGuru indicated that they were going to appeal my thinking about their draft, it forced my hand... I saw that as it unfolded, and felt you handled the dilemma well. I still maintain that your instincts to post to AN were right, as you should have had more help sooner.
... and what I've learned and committed to acting like in the future. So I will not revisit that - I feel I've offered you what I can there and if you feel more is needed well then we're again talking about ANI or ArbCom. There is no need to revisit that. I explained why the incident upset me, I explained that it is not an overall reflection on your handling of this situation, and I am at this stage wondering why you feel the need to say this. Perhaps the tone of my response did not come through as intended. For that I'm sorry, as we're all responsible for what we write, and to some degree, how other people receive our comments.
You do write that you feel James got special treatment. I don't believe I've said that. Please point out where I said something that led to this, so I can clarify what I meant. I am not the clearest writer in the best of times. In fact, I said you have been fair and equal in how you have treated everyone. There has not yet been a need to sanction anyone, and only warnings have been issued, so had you sanctioned James, that would have been unequal. I still feel that it is not logical that we can't tag dubious information for the benefit of our readers.
... what you feel relates not to me specifically but to the broader unequal treatment of different people I addressed above ... No, here I fear there is a real misunderstanding. I specifically stated that your treatment had been equal, but that in other places and by other people, non-sysops were treated differently than sysops, and I quite specifically said that was not done by you. We have a misunderstanding here; I hope we can clear it up.
When it was pointed out to me that James had broken the close I treated him the same way. I agree, and said that. But, the result is the same; we are here, with a price udpate embargo and only one editor has edited price data, and we are finally (perhaps) in the last few hours seeing engagement at WT:MEDMOS where we might be able to understand the mistakes in that text.[11]
Re Sandy ... I thought we didn't personalize in headings?
Overall, it seems like your response here is not fully recognizing that, once I calmed down from the "IRC" issue, I was not questioning your conduct or blaming you; I was explaining my reaction. I'm sorry my explanation led to some rehashing, I'm sorry if I was unclear and you feel I was blaming you (I am responsible for my reactions, not you), and I'm sorry a difficult matter became more difficult by the split/moved conversation; we both learned something from that, I hope. In the future, if I am asked explicitly to respond on a page where I know the conversation doesn't belong, I will certainly reject that request. I understand your concerns are the same, regardless of which page the words were typed on. Other than that, yes, my explanation for my response led to rehashing, and I'm sorry. Perhaps I didn't push back soon enough from the computer and head to Ceylon, but as we both know, it has been a very long month.
Now, I would very much like to understand how I can help Tryptofish fill out his draft RFC, but am quite unsettled to find that he told us about the draft on 2 Jan, but told you on 26 Dec, so ... I don't really know if I can be helpful at this stage. I had prepared a number of thoughts for him, but when I went to the talk page ... well. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I will reply after I digest in the morning, but I never thought, or meant to imply in my writing, that you acted wrong with where you posted any of this content. You followed the lead I set and I've been trying to work towards the right balance (which I think I did with this latest split posting). I'll reread in the morning and strike things if I see that upon rereading but know that when I wrote all that at no point was I thinking you'd posted where you shouldn't have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Please reread everything in the morning; I am (perhaps mis)reading your tone as offended, when just the opposite was my intent in my long explanation. Verbosity kills the cat everytime! And think how this reads to someone coming here for the first time, seeing my name on a heading, and not having the full background.
Sleep well ... we all deserve it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Just letting everyone know, since Sandy mentions me near the end, that I've tried to respond on the content-related stuff at the guideline talk page, and I am about to discuss the more personal stuff with Sandy at my own talk page, where she has very kindly reached out to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
It also occurs to me to let people know that, for personal medical reasons, I might not be editing on January 8 and 9. It's nothing serious and nothing to be worried about, but I just figured I should say that because it might be a very active time in the RfC-related work we are doing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Good luck on January 8 and 9.
So, I should also say that I got a phone call yesterday that my 89-yo's father's health is failing. I spoke to him this morning, and ... it does not sound good. I may need to get on a plane at any time in the coming weeks, and end up on the other side of the country in a somewhat remote area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I'm so sorry to hear that. That obviously is so much more important than what we're doing here that I'm a bit reluctant to really reply at any length. So let me just briefly write that I am not annoyed with you or really anyone involved in this disagreement. I have really enjoyed getting to know you and am sorry that through the vagaries of Internet writing I came off as annoyed. That output just reflects me in self-reflection mode. If you do want a response to something you wrote (I don't want to ignore you just be sensitive) please do let me know and I will happily give you a response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, Barkeep, but don't let it trouble you. Without getting into excess detail, some fathers are better than others. No further response is needed, but if you have more to say, please don't hesitate because of my circumstance.
I feel REALLY sorry for you when you try to disentangle the sprawl at WT:MEDMOS, and think that should be the focus for all of us right now. We really need an archive; we are all talking past each other and there are too many sections. We have the beginnings of a sample discussion with James that could benefit from being extracted from the middle of the mess. Have fun in there, and thanks for the kind words, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah-ha

Barkeep, I had a big ah-ha moment yesterday from some of WAID's summaries, and can see that a lot of my focus on the RFC formulation has resulted in time and bandwidth misspent. Meaning, thank you for putting up with me ... different approach going forward :) Anyway, I'm really here to ask a question: was my ping and mention of CFCF appropriate here? I thought twice about it after done, and considered striking, but you can't undo a ping, so ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

CFCF, regarding your concern in this section, I agree, and saw the problem right after I posted. But then I got very busy in the rest of the price sample discussion with James because we are making good progress for the first time in a month, and forgot to follow up further. I just wanted to ping you here as well, so that we can take this off the WT:MEDMOS page, as it belongs here under conduct. My sincere apologies once again. Having been away from Wikipedia for several years, through this I am finding how much I hate the pingie-thingie. Had it not been for the ping, I could have immediately simply removed that reference to you altogether. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@CFCF: thank you for your gracious response. I'm replying here instead of there out of concern that a whole lot of bloat on that page is my fault, for not having my "ah-ha" moment sooner. We can get there from here, and I hope we will see the WPMED I once loved and engaged return soon. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad you and CFCF were able to work this out Sandy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Lack of AGF

I do not feel Tryptofish is editing collegiately, with the assumption others are working in good faith to improve Wikipedia. Examples:

I appreciate that you asked for one of these statements to be struck, and it was only partially struck. The attacks continue despite your request

"My talk page remains open if editors have concerns about another editor. All are reminded that "strict enforcement of WP:AGF, WP:CIV, no WP:BLUDGEONing" remains in effect. If a comment is about the RfC or otherwise going to move us forward there's a way to move things forward without naming, directly or indirectly, other editors."

Tryptofish continues to comment negatively on other editors, directly and indirectly. I also don't find "is laughable" and "will be a fiasco" as adjectives conducive to a respectful level-headed discussion on RFCs. The angry statement last night, following a direct attack on me: "Yes, I said that, and if anyone does not like it, I really do not care" is frankly worth a block imo, given the "strict enforcement of WP:AGF" that all parties are aware of, and given a previous warning on their talk page. That's just not on. (Just in case anyone thinks that this is convenient timing for the rival RFC to be launched, I would be happy to postpone, but I don't think it at all acceptable that I and others be expected to put up with continued attacks and "I really don't care" insults to any admin mediating enforcement). -- Colin°Talk 11:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's avoid referring to them as "rival RFCs", since they are intended to be complementary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia I don't think Tryptofish thinks WAID's "fiasco... laughable" RFC is in any way complementary. My point was to use language someone complaining about my "convenient" request might use. I think both RFCs are honest good-faith attempts to resolve the problem, but I have my preference about which we should run now, and think any followup RFC will be worded based on what we learn from that. -- Colin°Talk 13:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Colin: I am already out of steam for the day, and haven't had breakfast. Are you mixing up complementary and complimentary? I don't know, I'm hungry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Colin, I want to acknowledge that I have read this and appreciate the diffs you've provided to show the behavior you're seeing and feel goes against good faith. I want to think over your larger point and decide what administrative response is appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, it's easy to take selected passages out of context, frame them as something other than what they really are, without also presenting the context, including the provocations as well as the much larger amount of talk in which I have been trying to foster positive steps forward, all of which is a good reason why this is likely to end up at ArbCom. If you would like, I can provide a rebuttal, which will necessarily be lengthy. Up to you, please let me know. And there are reasons why, in over a decade of editing here, Colin is one of only three editors whom I have banned from my talk page. I also want to remind you of my post higher up on this talk, where I said that due to personal medical reasons, I'm likely to be away from Wikipedia for a few days this week. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Trypto, I once again implore you, as I did on your talk,[12] to not further anxiety about a potential arbcase. I feel that we are well beyoond that point, and have made good progress. Considering my earlier sense of "betrayal", James has a very good reason (90-hour work weeks), and you gave him very good advice to let people know when he would be away. But continuing "likely to end up at Arbcom" when we are all working well now is unhelpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't start a section on Barkeep's talk page titled "Lack of AGF". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Tryptofish, thank you for the reminder that you'll be away for a few days this week that had slipped out of my mind. And yes thinking about the whole picture, including the whole picture shown by the diffs is important and why I didn't want to give a knee-jerk response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I am struggling to understand how offering to post a lengthy explanation of why Tryptofish's lack of good faith is justified, "why, in over a decade of editing here, Colin is one of only three editors whom I have banned from my talk page". I already suffered an AN/I where many people, including Tryptofish, got an open platform to make their deeply negative views of me public knowledge on the internet, and every time someone links to the ANI for the purpose of the closure statement, the link takes readers to that platform of negativity. Enough please. At this point, I'd expect some rolling back, olive branches and all that from Tryptofish, not threats to escalate. -- Colin°Talk 21:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Colin, I have thought about the fact that your name is on that ANI thread too. I am sure it must have been painful. I had written more but you and Trypto have written faster than I could craft a reply so I'll hold onto those thoughts for now. But I didn't want to not acknowledge the feelings and experience you shared here. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

How many more assume-bad-faith posts like this before it is stopped? That's just not on to ban someone from your talk page and then use the page to criticise them multiple times over multiple days. -- Colin°Talk 21:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious. Why do you think I meant you? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
A plea. Trypto, I would like to see WPMED be what it once was. I would like us to work together collaboratively as we once did, on building content. I would like us to be able to improve content together, as we did during the "collaboration of the month" days. Perhaps this isn't a priority for you because, as you have indicated (somewhere) you weren't ever an active WPMED participant; I submit that it does matter to many of the "principals".
During this process, I have made mistakes. Many mistakes. But I have also moved to a position where I can now work collegially and respectfully with a number of editors with whom, in the last four years, that had become difficult. And many of us have moved towards each other's positions when we have listened to each other. I don't know who you are criticizing, and can only speak for myself. Criticism of anyone, even if unnamed, is not good at this point.
I try to acknowledge my mistakes, apologize and atone for them. But you are still threatening to file an arbcase if things don't go the way you envision, because of things that should be by now in the past. Please let this process work. Please stop making posts that serve only to stir the pot. Kindly, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
But that's not what I'm doing. I'm not threatening anything, and it's not about whether things go the way I "envision". And I cannot imagine how anyone could think that it's not important to me to have all of this result in better content and peaceful editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
One important conflict resolution method that we use at my workplace is "owning your 50%". Now in reality I don't believe that if two people are in conflict it necessarily means that each are equally responsible. But that's not this. This is an approach that encourages a person to consider the dispute from the other person's perspective and then taking ownership for the part that you've made worse. I don't have time to find a perfect writeup of it, but this is pretty decent. It might be helpful for both of you to give at least a little thought about.
That said it feels like emotions are running really high with both Trypto and Colin and I would ask each of them to consider whether further dialogue is going to help move forward or are going to be about the very real emotions and experiences driving the conflict. I'm not dismissive of the latter - at all - but also don't know they need further stating in rapid section here at this moment. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
That's very helpful, thanks. Personally, I'd like to let all of this sit for a few days, and I won't comment here any more so long as other editors don't keep asking me to respond to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Not commenting negatively on other editors at the RFC or your own private talk page full stop. Not "as long as...". Full stop. Barkeep, does The above debates will be subject to civility restrictions with strict enforcement of WP:AGF, WP:CIV, no WP:BLUDGEONing and no rehashing of grievances not mean anything? "Let me explain at length why Colin is one of only three editors who I have banned from my talk page". I'm not really seeing any strict enforcement at all and wondering why. -- Colin°Talk 22:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Colin, It does. I have referenced it I don't know how many times. I think some action is called for at this point which is what I read you to be calling for. I don't, however, want to rush into that and want to find the appropriate action to take. I didn't become a sysop to take an administrative actions against editors who I respect. I'll do it, but unlike teen me who was a forum moderator, it doesn't excite me. And so I damn well sure I want to get it right. Which doesn't mean days but does mean I want to have thought about this and not just reacted, even though I'd be able point to policy/guidelines/community consensus to support what I did. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
If you mean by that, that you are thinking about administrative action against me, then I want to post a detailed rebuttal before you take any action. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Tryptofish, the situation between you and Colin requires some sort of administrative action. That doesn't necessarily mean sanction against one or both of you (though it might). But does require action. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
If that might be a two-way no-fault IBAN, I would actually welcome that. But anything beyond that, I would insist on writing a detailed rebuttal to the above accusations first. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
It occurs to me that, if it is something like that, and if an ArbCom case becomes needed, I will not be the one to file the case request. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tryptofish and Colin: I have spent a lot of time reviewing policy and procedure around discretionary sanctions. I have also spent a fair amount of time reviewing the content of WT:MOSMED. I had hoped to resolve this prior to my update at AN but I have run out of steam for this dispute. Normally I'd just sit on it until the morning. However, I have been waking up to a slew of talk page messages and notifications so it's not entirely sure this dispute will wait until the morning. Importantly, I also think the voices of the larger community (as well as needing, at minimum to find at least one willing uninvolved sysop) are needed at this point. I think the diffs Colin has put together are more than sufficient for a filling at WP:AE. Trypto if you have your own diffs and rebuttal, well that noticeboard offers a structured format for providing them. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Fixing ping to Tryptofish. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Seems to be moot now - after ten years of solid content work Tryptofish has walked out. That kind of work is going to be missed. Pissing people off (and I'm only saying, not finger pointing) seems to be Wikipedia's New Year's Resolution.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    I'm pretty upset on multiple levels to read this news. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    We are both upset, but I am not surprised. Other issues have surfaced overnight, in a return to the editwarring behaviors to install personal preferences, and you were right to be concerned that "this dispute will not wait until the morning". I have no idea if Colin intends to continue editing Wikipedia, but I know I will not continue in this environment, where multiple editors are unable to peacefully exist and we see editwarring to install personal preferences according to no guideline, and certainly not policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

1/12

Thanks for that reply, Barkeep. I have taken a deep dive in to FA TS to try to rescue it from five years of neglect because of the WPMED issues, so that I can unwatch it, knowing I've left it in the best shape possible. I understand your reasoning there, but I'm still happiest with WAID's version. There is no such thing as a perfect, or perhaps even a good, outcome wrt that sourcing dilemma. I really think someone (like me, but better if not) needs to point out at the AN thread that you are still doing this all alone, which is unconscionable. Especially with failure to AGF in evidence right on that thread, and yet, you standing alone ... taking the beating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, thanks for the update. Overall I think the AN thread has done something important - inviting in some new voices to the discussion. It still might end up being the same RfC as before but it'll have been "stress tested". I also appreciate that we have at least one closer for the RfC lined up. The lack of other sysops involving, well we're all volunteers and I understand why no one else has raised their hand if still being a bit disappointed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
You have far more patience and tolerance than I do :) I think it is quite awful that no admin has surfaced to help you on the behavioral aspects. I spent 10 years polishing and maintaining TS, only to let it fall into complete disrepair over the last five years. If I can get it to an unembarrassing place, my work in the medical realm will be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of strict enforcement of civility, AGF, etc, could we get something done about the number of times we have to read “fighting words” like “bludgeon”, along with charges of COI, POV, etc? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing "new voices" plural. I see Isaacl is new which is welcome. Levivich was involved at the start, making their POV clear. AlmostFrancis's contribution hasn't risen above personal attack and smear (e.g. User:Colin/ExistingPrices, which is in fact tens of thousands of words written by Doc James is somehow "Colin's original research" and therefore "not neutral"). I think you need to press for those claiming something isn't "neutral" to explain factually why, with evidence. For example, the WT:MEDMOS sections "Mistakes" and "Out of date" give solid evidence that one in five of the MSH drug prices is incorrect, even if one accepts all the other bad-practice things are correct, and the volatility of prices is clearly shown since 25% of them change by a factor of 2 or more each year, and 50% of them change by a factor of 2 or more after 5 years. We get one side saying "the mistakes are just rounding errors with the number of days in a month" or "the prices aren't out of date" but those claims are unsourced and unfounded and unfair. If those claiming "not neutral" are in fact just complaining about inconvenient facts, then they should be ignored and in fact that should be raising alarm bells about whether they are playing fair. -- Colin°Talk 10:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

1/15

Barkeep49, AlmostFrancis has three choices I can see. He can comment on the content of those pages and explain why the content is biased. That would be useful and productive, but since the content of one of those pages was written by James, he's not chosen to do that. He can offer his opinion without any explanation, which as you say he is allowed to have but any admin would be quite free to ignore. Or he can base his negative opinion solely on who the creator of that content is and its location in my user space. That's what I count as a personal attack which clearly says "Comment on content, not on the contributor." In this edit the link & text marked dubious: "You don't get to add Collins OR to the background without hearing the otherside". And "Adding one sides original research to the background section isn't neutral". Let's imagine that someone reverted an article edit I made, using the summary "Remove text because it was added by Colin". I object to the claim that those links to article text and MSH data should be allowed to be disparagingly called "Colin's original research". That is personalising what is really just text on a page. I would appreciate if AF was reminded to discuss the text rather than negatively comment on who wrote it. -- Colin°Talk 16:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Colin, "but since the content of one of those pages was written by James, he's not chosen to do that." is speculation that I don't think you could back-up with a diff and, even in these confines, should be struck. Still reading the rest but that jumped out at me. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok struck. I think you should look at where Contributions/AlmostFrancis and Contributions/73.162.31.92 are heading. This comment about an editor "paid to be on Wikipedia" seems inexcusable, as does this accusation of admin bias, which isn't the first. I accept I've not always managed to remember to post a complaint here rather than on the RFC. It is tricky. -- Colin°Talk 16:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Am busy now for a few hours. Will take a look when I have time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
AlmostFrancis is welcome to find fault with my actions as administrator. It's part of WP:ADMINACCT. I tend to have a pretty thick skin and don't think AF has really crossed too far into "the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith" which one must adhere to even when doing ADMINACCT. The paid editing line is different but I don't think has been repeated. Some of the criticsm seems to make allusions to me being involved but so far I think my actions have stayed in the realm of administrative actions. However, if someone were to make a personal attack against me that would require action from a different sysop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Would that "action from a different sysop" come about at AN, ANI or AE? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, if someone were to make a personal attack against me I would weight the best forum to ask for an uninvolved look. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
If you view this in the context of that and that, and the AN statement, I ask if that time has not already come. And while I understand that many people were busy over the holiday, and no one was forced to participate, some of us (perhaps foolishly) gave our holiday to put together an RFC in good faith. I do wish people appearing after the holiday would give some indication of having read the whole thing, to see how we got to where we got, and so that we don't have to keep repeating points already covered, at the risk of then being accused of "bludgeoning". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep can you please show me where I said anything about paid editing. I of course might have but I don't remember and will be happy to strike. The diff you are referencing says "another paid to be on Wikipedia". That WAID works for the WMF is clear on their talk page, and just for clarity I have no reason to believe and seriously doubt the WMF is paying for her work on either of these RFC's, but that doesn't change the fact that being paid to be on Wikipedia is notable when someone is adding the verbiage that WAID is adding.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
AlmostFrancis, no it was indeed [13] comment. Which based on [14] [15] I presume to be you. Let me tell you how I read the comment and I welcome learning what the intent was: the way I read it was that there were only three editors in favor of the RfC and one of them doesn't count because they are paid to edit Wikipedia. The whole idea behind User:WhatamIdoing and User:Whatamidoing (WMF) is to make clear what is being done in an official capacity and what is being done as a volunteer. Especially because no one employed by the WMF is "paid to edit". So this makes your statement incorrect and arguably a personal attack. Of course, I was really suggesting that there should be no sanction for this edit despite some pushback from both Colin and Sandy. But I am glad that you wrote about this so that I had the opportunity in my role of an uninvolved sysop to have discussion and offer an explanation about community norms, and offer suggestions on possible wordings and approaches. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Colin:, yes he should write "You don't get to add OR to the background without hearing the otherside" rather than mentioning you by name. And yes if an editor wrote "Remove text because it was added by Colin" that would be a problem. But he didn't write that. And saying that it's Collins (sic) OR, is roughly the equivalent of "It really doesn't help your case that the content of one of the links is 99% Doc James" which you wrote. Arguably that is also troubling because rather than work to find consensus it basically divides editors into sides. Having distinct sides is not a formula for consensus. But to the point at hand, noting who wrote content and saying the content is flawed is not ideal because it does create ill feelings as you've demonstrated. But it's also easy to slip into when trying to discuss a charged dispute even with good intentions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree, my main point is to puzzle how "Colin's original research" which is a page I created but did not actually write any of the content is "Colin's original research". The editorship of those drug prices is not in any doubt. I agree mention of "side" is unhelpful, but framing a "Its biased because Colin created the page" is toxic to consensus. There's no way to fix the content of those links in order to satisfy the complainant. I don't think calling it "OR" is helpful either, because all text we write is original and I don't go about claiming that what X says or what Y says is "original research" in a disparaging way. It is simple content, and needs to be discussed as words on a page rather than with smears. -- Colin°Talk 16:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
So can I take that to mean that you are not going to strike out your assertion that I accused someone of paid editing in that Diff? Of course people employed by the WMF are paid to edit Wikipedia, which isn't even a problem. WAID is a community liaison and is paid by the WMF to edit Wikipedia, this is beyond dispute and is the only reason User:Whatamidoing (WMF) even exists. They also edit Wikipedia in their personal capacity. None of this changes the fact that you closed an ANI discussion that had multiple conditions that were supposed to be tightly enforced. You then made zero effort to enforce prohibitions on bludgeoning or rehashing of grievances and only had issues with AGF and personalization when it was one side being called on their conduct. Look you are popular and can have me blocked whenever you want. As I have repeatedly said to both you and Colin I am happy to exit these conversation and make my point in the RFC, but please keep mentioning how uninvolved you are. AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
AlmostFrancis, I don't know if I'm popular but I have been entrusted to be a sysop. And I take that responsibility seriously. This is why your reply, which you've misplaced, is underneath a discussion where I defend you. You may not like how I have enforced the ANI close but have done so consistantly. I have also sought out other sysops to be involved who perhaps would have been more willing to issue the kinds of sanctions you clearly wish to happen. Even as a sysop we're all volunteers and so I have discrestion over how I use the tools, or in this case don't use them. In this case, I have leaned towards discussion over blocking. Consistently.
You didn't chose to answer my question of what you intended when you wrote that WAID is paid to edit, merely restated why you think what you wrote is correct. That's fine. You have no obligation to respond. But since I do have an obligation, per WP:ADMINACCT I will say that I am not willing to strike a comment where I summarized your comment as paid editing when what you wrote was "paid to edit".
I know that my inactions, which I stand by, have not been to your liking and I'm sorry to see that you've chosen to exit the conversation. Perhaps we will encounter each other again in the future and if we do I hope we will find ways to improve the encylopedia together. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The diff that you are referring to is clear that I said "another paid to be on Wikipedia", even Colin acknowledges this. So when you quoted "paid to edit" this is nothing but a smear as it certainly not a quote from that diff. The only time I mentioned paid to edit was in reference to you saying no one is payed to edit Wikipedia which is obviously wrong because WMF accounts exist. Of course you can smear anyone you want as you are utterly in charge of this situation but please stop lying about me.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
More accurately, I am paid to be off Wikipedia. The WMF does not write content or content-related policies, and it does not pay me to do so. Neither I nor User:Doc James, who is on the WMF's Board of Trustees, work on any health-related content for the WMF. The WMF pays me to sit through meetings and to answer their questions. They do not pay me to create content or to write policies for Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
And to clarify my financial engagement with the WMF, I pay my own travel and accommodations for meetings including board meetings. And receive no money from the WMF. I have donated more money to the WMF than I have ever received. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@DJ: I have donated more money to the WMF ... Ah ha! So you admit it: you paid to edit!   Levivich 03:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
AlmostFrancis, I think this is the point where you strike "WAID is a community liaison and is paid by the WMF to edit Wikipedia, this is beyond dispute". While your original wording was "paid to be on Wikipedia" rather than "paid to edit", arguing over the difference becomes futile once you have now repeatedly claimed WAID is paid to edit, which isn't true. And this doesn't change Barkeep49 (and my) impression that the original intent of your words were to dismiss WAID's opinions because of who they are, rather than what they said, which is a personal attack. -- Colin°Talk 08:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Colin please do not ping me anymore. I am not overly interested in your input on Barkeeps actions. The long and the short of it is that they misquoted a diff in such a way to put words in my mouth. WAID has a job for the WMF for which they have made many edits. The disclaimer on their page contains the following "I work for or provide services to the Wikimedia Foundation, and this is the account I try to use for edits or statements I make in that role." If they are now claiming that actually that account is not used for paid work then I don't know what to tell you. Seems weird to have two accounts if you use both for volunteer work. I have already made clear I was not accusing them of editing for pay on the RFC "and just for clarity I have no reason to believe and seriously doubt the WMF is paying for her work on either of these RFC's".AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
There are several options for people who don't want to be pinged. They can mute a specific user here, or they can post to Barkeep in their own section of this page to avoid interaction with other editors. Considering the extent to which the pingie-thingie is used these days on Wikipedia, it is not useful to expect a given individual to remember who they can ping and who they cannot. (I disagree that Barkeep49 did anything other than correctly paraphrase what was stated at AN.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

1/20

Please see history. RexxS posted a comment at the RFC talk page about an edit WAID made. I responded. SG reminded us all that comment on drug price RFC is restricted to one forum. I moved it there and deleted the wrongly placed discussion. RexxS is upset. He's reverted both edits and "Don't mess with other peoples' posts", "I didn't post this here, and moving it here is misleading, as well as discourteous to those who received notifications. If you forge my signature again, I'll take direct action to prevent a repeat." doesn't sound very friendly, particularly the bad-faith allegation of forging signatures. We really could do without this. -- Colin°Talk 22:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Since I didn't "mess with anyone's post", I don't know why RexxS pinged me on that particular response, but I'm staying out of there now, since it is not the correct venue, clearly, for discussing the RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I posted a comment on the talk page concerning an edit summary WAID made to the corresponding project page, not at the page it was moved to. Moving it had the effect of making a nonsense of my referral to the edit summary, and of breaking the destination for anyone who received a notification. Sandy missed those points and she was pinged to make her aware of them. It was suggested a few weeks ago that the involved editors step back and let third parties do some work on creating the RfC. I did exactly that, and Colin has singularly failed to do likewise. My comment on the edit summary was directed to WAID and we don't need Colin feeling he has to poke his nose into every conversation. Colin has generated megabytes of text on these issues and seems to have gained the impression that he can dictate where other editors post. He can't. I did not give him permission to copy my signature onto a page that I didn't post to. It's deceptive and runs contrary to our CC-BY-SA licence. It's about time somebody reined in Colin's bludgeoning tactics, and if he tries that sort of heavy-handed trick with me again, I'll seek sanctions against him. It's not friendly, I agree, but then neither is Colin's behaviour, and it needs to stop. --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, have you received the Discretionary Sanctions notification? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course. Has Colin? --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry for asking; there was a period when some notifications were forgotten, and I wasn't sure if you were aware that "The question of drug pricing is remitted to a single venue: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles § Product pricing)" ... "subject to civility restrictions with strict enforcement of WP:AGF, WP:CIV, no WP:BLUDGEONing and no rehashing of grievances". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Please don't apologise, Sandy – I'm glad you asked. Here's the text of the Discretionary Sanctions notification that I received from Barkeep on 23 December. I'm sure that everyone can see that there's no mention or link to anything remotely resembling "The question of drug pricing is remitted to a single venue". So I'm afraid that I was unaware of any requirement for that and chose to post at the talk page of the affected project page, as that would seem to me the most logical place. I'll be sure to post at the "single venue" in future, but you really must understand that is the first time I've looked at this topic in weeks, and I do object most strongly to a discussion I began with WAID being "clerked" by Colin, especially as I now see he's been interfering in almost every paragraph elsewhere? I'm pleased that somewhere (that I haven't found yet) there is an injunction against WP:BLUDGEONing. Barkeep: as a very infrequent participant here, may I enquire when that part is likely to be enforced? --RexxS (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, here is the link you want. The ANI makes clear that bludgeoning is not to be permitted. But in really looking into bludgeoning I have found a complete absence of guidelines and supporting "case law" (e.g. how other sysops have handled this topic) that would frame my own practice. Not all that surprising because WP:BLUDGEON is an essay. And unlike some other essays that take on the patina of a guideline (I'm looking at you WP:CCS) by their explicit endorsement and referencing at a guidleine, I have found no such support here. As such I think WP:AE is, as a place of collective sysop action used to handlingly difficult behaviors, is the best forum for such enforcement rather than the "lone sysop on patrol". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I have been rather busy and other than some contemplation on the RFAs have largely been absent onwiki since Friday (and even then I was still at below average activity). Indeed I have let my notifications rather build-up. But I hear you pings of my talk page, oh I hear you. Keeping discussion of the RfC at one place would always be a bit of a challenge and the occasional slip is to be expected. It's best in such situations that an uninvolved sysop (of which there are now two on the scene? 1.5 at least?) be the one to do such clerking rather than active participants in the content discussion. When involved participants do clerking actions it can cause the ill feelings we've seen here. I have closed the discussion for now. Involved editors threatening each other does nothing helpful. Colin is rather sensitive about the bludgeon accusation (and since bludgeon is not written into any of our behavioral guidelines, nor any arbcom decisions I could find, it is a rather tricky case to make imo). If someone wants to make it, it should really be done with diffs most likely at Arbitration Enforcement. All frequent participants are reminded, however, of Bludgeon's nutshell points:

  • It is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion.
  • The more often you use the same reason in a given discussion, the less effective your words become.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, it is somewhat odd in this whole mess that the Discretionary Sanction alerts never mention the conditions of the ANI close (as it now appears that RexxS was not aware). I get the message about "involved participants clerking"; next time, I'll just add to your load of pingie-thingies! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, the ANI close isn't actually Discrestionary Sanctions. DS have very strict rules around them including the exact proscribed wording one must use when notifying for them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
That's perfectly true, Barkeep, but looking at it from Sandy and Colin's point of view (who have been immersed in the process), I must have seemed to be a complete klutz for posting in the wrong location. Can I suggest that as an uninvolved admin, you are entitled to use your discretion and impose whatever conditions you deem fit upon the RfC pages to ensure the smooth operation of the process. If you wish, you may choose to require editors to adhere to the conditions laid out in the ANI close you referred me to (thank you for that) – announce it on the principal page, then add a page notice to all affected pages, and the conditions gain the effect of discretionary sanctions for any editor who is aware of them. HTH --RexxS (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
RexxS a good suggestion indeed and if it had come a couple weeks ago I'd have done it. But we're at the end of this process. In a few days (certainly no later than the end of the work week) we'll either have an RfC (I hope) or I will announce that in my view the ANI consensus is no longer binding as the process to form an RfC will have failed. Some other uninvolved sysop could express a desire to continue enforcing it, but I think that rather unlikely to happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, Barkeep, a previous misplaced discussion on the RFC talk was removed and transplanted by User:WhatamIdoing. I don't think WAID is an admin and most certainly isn't uninvolved since she has been debating drug prices with WP:MED for years, far longer than me. I merely did the same. I do object to admin's thinking that certain edit actions require a level of privilege: it rather goes against the "Encyclopaedia anyone can edit" community values. Perhaps I'm more used to Commons where admins are explicitly reminded they are not special at all except for a few extra buttons on their UI. The difference between WAID's move and mine was zero. Except RexxS has clearly interpreted my move in bad faith and made an outrageous allegation and threat, in an edit summary: "If you forge my signature again, I'll take direct action to prevent a repeat." I can't really express how upset I am about that and that it seems from Barkeeps response that it's totally understandable and acceptable for RexxS to write that and revert my move, and in fact it is actually my fault and I am to blame for his rage? Above he gets to pour out his negativity about me, and all that happens is I'm told not to do such a move again. No comment at all that such a reaction is unacceptable and the comments in the edit summary are very very unacceptable. These "ill feelings" do not come about from clerking actions, but from loss of good faith and lack of respect for other editors acting in good faith. The community does not function when that happens, and solving it doesn't involve restricting what editors in good standing may or may not do on the project. RexxS was way out of line, and I don't see any admin comment about that.

I don't know where RexxS gets the idea that "involved editors step back and let third parties do some work on creating the RfC". James has varied in his participation levels but certainly hasn't been uninvolved, making many comments about suggested questions or revisions to text. WAID has, as I said, been arguing about drug prices for about 5 years. Other editors with clear views on drug prices have also commented. I've avoided directly editing any draft whereas James made some controversial edits and should have refrained from doing that. I think there's a bit too much comment-on-the-contributor going on with RexxS's comments, rather than valuing what people have written. I would appreciate if RexxS could participate in any further drug price discussion without their comments being entirely based around who said what. -- Colin°Talk 08:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You still have to butt in, don't you Colin? You have to comment on absolutely everything, and don't know when to drop the stick. Okay, I'm content to respond.
Barkeep: what some other editor did in moving a misplaced discussion has no bearing on Colin's actions - I object strongly to my posts being moved when it changes the context and breaks notifications. Either I should have been asked politely to move the post myself (which I could have done properly), or Colin should have quoted me on the other page if his wish was to keep threads together, rather than to attempt to impose his views on where posts should be made.
"I do object to admin's thinking that certain edit actions require a level of privilege:" yet another PA. I have at no time used any admin tools in this RfC, nor do I intend to. My expectations of a basic level of courtesy from Colin are those of any experienced editor in good standing, which he has singularly failed to provide. The difference between WAID's move and yours was that your move shifted my referral to an edit summary out of context and made it confusing, and it left those who had been notified scratching their heads trying to work out where the notification was from. You didn't even have the courtesy to leave a placeholder stating "conversation moved to ...".
Colin, how can you claim to be upset over my admonishment not to forge my sig? It's simple: you copied text onto a page and added my sig to it. I didn't make that post to that page, and you misled others into believing that I did. We don't allow that kind of deception on Wikipedia, and had I taken you to ANI for review by independent admins, you would have stood a good chance of being sanctioned. Don't do it again. You can quote me, and you can ask me to make the move myself, when I would have had the opportunity to fix the consequential issues. That's how editors act collegially and in good faith. Your pretending that somehow you are the victim of my justified annoyance fools nobody. The community functioned perfectly well in your absence for years, and the problems arising now stem principally from your crusade to remould our accepted guidance and practice into your own image of what it should be without compromise.
If you really don't remember the request from almost a month ago that the heavily involved participants step back and let other voices be heard, then you'll have to either search through the mountain of verbiage that has accumulated, or call me a liar. Your choice.
Either way, I have had a chance to read a lot of that verbiage, and the striking fact is that you've felt the need to post your line on almost every comment made by other editors. Contrary to what you claim, I have seen the occasions where you've reverted Doc James' contributions as if your version was the only acceptable one. If you're not prepared to search for some common ground and accept some compromise, as the rest of us are, you're going to derail every attempt to rescue any possible improvements to our guidance.
Finally, I'll apologise to Barkeep for wasting space on their talkpage – my only defence is that I wasn't the one who chose the venue – and remind Colin that my contribution to the debate was indeed based around the issue of false precision, and it could have been discussed as such, if he hadn't decided to turn it into a circus and continue to flog the dead horse on meta issues. --RexxS (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Let me clarify the comment quoted in green was about Barkeep, not RexxS, where IMO Barkeeps response to RexxS's attack/threat to me ("If you forge my signature again, I'll take direct action to prevent a repeat") was to blame my "clerking" because "it can cause the ill feelings we've seen here", and to ask future clerking be restricted to the holy order of editors who have a block button on their UI. There is extensive discussion at the main WT:MEDMOS page about the draft text and edits made to it; I don't think anyone would have been confused to see RexxS's text there. WAID didn't leave a message behind when they moved the text, nor are anyone's posts here precious and untouchable: we all forfeit that right per licence terms. RexxS, language like "impose his views" is uncalled for. The location for RFC discussion is not "my view". In fact, I think the talk page is the appropriate page for discussing that draft, but it has been decided by others that there is only one location for discussion, as Sandy already pointed out, and there is prior history in moving text there to the other place, in exactly the form I did. From your comments, it appears you are an admin, which is all the more concerning to see language like "forging my signature" and "It's deceptive and runs contrary to our CC-BY-SA licence". I know a fair bit about CC BY-SA licences: this is nonsense. I fail to see what different edit WAID made and why me doing the same thing would apparently have had me sanctioned if I had been taken to AN/I over it.
  • "Contrary to what you claim, I have seen the occasions where you've reverted Doc James' contributions as if your version was the only acceptable one." Diffs are required for this. Preferably this century.
  • "Your pretending that somehow you are the victim of my justified annoyance fools nobody" Somebody really needs to go cool down.
  • "The community functioned perfectly well in your absence for years, and the problems arising now stem principally from your crusade to remould our accepted guidance and practice into your own image of what it should be without compromise." This is just an unacceptable comment for anyone to make. Especially an admin. And especially one who has very recently been reminded about the editing sanctions we are under wrt old grievances and personal attacks.
I don't want anyone here blocked, interaction banned or whatever. I would like to have a discussion about prices on Wikipedia drug articles and to be able to participate in those discussions, without personal attacks and threats to block me for making a good faith edit. I'm getting "Fuck off back to Commons" vibes, and it isn't nice. -- Colin°Talk 13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
And on we go: dead horse + stick. As you wish.
I apologise without reservation for misinterpreting your statement I quoted in green. I do think, though, that it's unfair to criticise Barkeep who is doing their best in an increasingly impossible situation.
The confusion would be with anybody who tried to find the edit summary referred to in my post, "to quote your edit summary ... because there was no such edit summary at the page you moved it to. Don't you see any problem with that?
I was pinged to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices by Sandy, and when I arrived there I was confronted by a blank page. If WAID had followed my ping, she would have found the same thing. Looking back through the page history I saw your edit summary, "moved to WT:MED talk"), so I went to WT:MED and couldn't find it. I had to search your contributions to find you had in fact moved it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. Can't you see any problem with that?
Did I make this post? No I did not. And yet there is text that I wrote elsewhere, and there is also my signature. Did I add that sig? No I did not. Examine WP:Signature forgery, in particular, the opening words, "Never use another editor's signature". I object to you using my signature. In cases where my posts are archived, or moved from the opening page of an ArbCom case by clerks, I have a reasonable assumption that that will happen, and do not object. When another editor with whom I have been in dispute comes along and blanks the page I posted to, then adds my post and signature to a completely different page, leaving a false trail in the process, you can be sure I will object.
I'll do my best to trawl again through the 572,330 bytes of text you've added to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles out of the 1.5 megabyte total, and find again the edits I noticed when I have a day to spare.
The present grievance I have with you, Colin, is not an old one. It is precisely the fact that one in three words on that page was put there by you. Perhaps you're not aware of it, but you have found the need to say something about almost every issue raised there, and not just once. Where have you made the effort to meet those you disagree with in the middle? Have you approached this debate with an open mind, willing to shift position when new arguments are adduced, or are you determined to argue your fixed position against all comers? --RexxS (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, this is what civility looks like. "Hey Colin, I didn't realise that we weren't supposed to discuss the draft RFC on the draft RFC talk page. I see now Sandy reminded us and thanks for moving my post and your reply to the correct location. (Btw, you made a little typo in the edit summary as it is WT:MEDMOS not WT:MED). // Thanks RexxS, yes it is an easy mistake to make, and I made it myself and WAID was good enough to move the text that time.". -- Colin°Talk 15:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay. In the spirit of compromise, let's see how close I can get.
Hey Colin, I didn't realise that we weren't supposed to discuss the draft RFC on the draft RFC talk page. Unfortunately, when you moved my post, you probably didn't notice that I had already pinged WAID who is going to find a blank page, and you made a typo in your edit summary, so we both end up going to the wrong page.   Also unfortunately, you missed that my post referred to WAID's edit summary on the original page, which doesn't make sense on a different page. Never mind, no harm done.
Any better? Feel free to have the last word. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: I know as well as anyone that Colin writes a lot. However, I don't think his point about the language you've used when describing him should be lost amdist your response about several other points. "The community functioned perfectly well in your absence for years, and the problems arising now stem principally from your crusade to remould our accepted guidance and practice into your own image of what it should be without compromise" lands on the personal attack side of things in a way that your subsequent comment "It is precisely the fact that one in three words on that page was put there by you. Perhaps you're not aware of it, but you have found the need to say something about almost every issue raised there, and not just once. Where have you made the effort to meet those you disagree with in the middle? Have you approached this debate with an open mind, willing to shift position when new arguments are adduced, or are you determined to argue your fixed position against all comers?" does not in my judgement. And while Colin has used some sarcasm himself, I don't think its use with someone who you don't get along with is helpful in general and certainly was not in this specific instance. I think you've shown here that you make your point (strongly) without running afould of the civility standards we expect for all editors (and which I freely admit I expect to an even greater degree from administrators at all times, whether they are in their administrative or editorial capacity per WP:ADMINCOND). I also disagree slightly with you on the signature bit but don't want to dillute my own point about civility by writing about that and mention it only incase you are interested. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I was waiting for my turn :) I hope RexxS (whom I believe is aware of my contributions on the medical front, but may not be) considers how the statement "The community functioned perfectly well in your absence for years, and the problems arising now stem principally from your crusade to remould our accepted guidance and practice into your own image of what it should be without compromise" makes so many other med editors feel. This is something that would normally go on RexxS's page, and we would be able to talk about the whole picture, all the lost contributions, but since we are under restrictions, I have to put it here. And since we can't rehash past grievances, I can't really explain how horrible it is to read these words, which reduce so many more of us than Colin to chopped liver.
I am also frustrated at the constant charge of "bludgeoning" when every new editor who comes to WT:MEDMOS rehashes the same points, which Colin then answers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Careful Rexxs it turns out bludgeoning is an impossible to understand concept and accusing someone if it is worse than doing it. Also misquoting someone and then ignoring them when they point it out is perfectly fine as long as you are uninvolved. Quick question Barkeep what would you say about a user that has been admonished to not keep pinging someone who has twice asked other users to meatpuppet for them and ping the other user. AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
AlmostFrancis, do they have an iBan? If so that would merit a sanction, most likely a block. If it's some other form of admonishment I would need to see the admonishment and the request of others to give you an informed response. As long as we're asking questions, was "accusing someone if it is worse than doing it" referring to things I wrote? If so that's not what I wrote or meant. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
So you closed a discussion a main point of which was Colin pinging Docjames after they had been asked to stop, where they were only let off the hook by agreeing to not ping DocJames anymore. You then closed the discussion with an understanding that revisiting grievances would be tightly enforced. You then let Colin meatpuppet and ask other users to ping DocJames in his stead. Can you just acknowledge what parts of your close are actionable and which you are going to ignore. Are you going to strike out your misquote or is that too much to ask? You might have noticed that my writing did not have quotes around it. That means they are my words. You put quotes around your words, therefore representing that I said them and not you. Another question if you don't mind, did you take note of the people who replied repeatedly to the new administrator trying to find a neutral RFC. You going to do anything about that? AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
AlmostFrancis if the misquote is about how you referred to WAID I have already responded. If it's a different misquote please link me and I will consider it, as I did that request. As for your question I'm afraid I don't get what you're trying to say or ask me to do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I know you already responded. I merely pointed out their is a difference between interpreting, which I did, and fabricating a quote, which you did. I would like to know which part of your close your intend to actually enforce? Are you pretending that you did not see the content about Colin pinging DoJames when you closed the ani discussion? Are you claiming, therefore, that asking for other people to ping DocJames is not furthering a dispute? Or are you claiming that Colin has not on two occasions asked other to ping DocJames? I can help you with the last one but I doubt you care either way.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I am enforcing several parts of it in this very section. I recognize that you're unhappy with my lack of action towards Colin. Fortunately for both of us, I'm not the only sysop on wiki. You have two venues where you can see if there will be consensus for a different enforcement of the close more to your liking. There is ANI and AE. If you would actually like to discuss what you wrote above with me, it would be easier to do so without phrases like "I doubt you care either way" "fabricating a quote" "Are you pretending" which come off as hostile towards me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok I will make it as clear as possible. If I show that Colin was warned about pinging DocJames in the Ani you closed and then asked others to Ping him about updates do you have any intention of doing anything about it? I am sorry that pointing out you fabricated a quote upsets you but here we are? You quoted the following [diff] as "paid to edit" anyone can clearly see I did not write paid to edit. You can keep pretending otherwise, I guess. You should look at Trypto's talk page. I mean if that isn't furthering a dispute what is.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, regarding your statement in the section below, (First a genuine thanks for pointing me towards Trypto's talk page. I had not seen that.), I know you have been busy, but I specifically pointed at that several days ago, on AN. And got no admin response to what I view as stirring the pot from the distance of "retirement". For an editor who has "retired" to continue the dispute on their own page, by pointing accusations at others, is off. I am surprised it was not looked in to sooner by someone; I guess AN really is dead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I didn't click the links you included. I figured I'd been reading everything and so it was just going to show me diffs I'd already read. Obviously this was a bad assumption. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry :( I also (mistakenly) assumed you had that page watchlisted, and so ... felt like, again, the non-admins here get to be repeatedly beaten up on, while at the same time, others are given a pass on very aggressive battleground behaviors. :( Of course, AGF tells me I should not assume you (or any other admin) saw what I considered to be ongoing pot-stirring from a "retired" position on that page. Perhaps no one followed it when I posted at AN? Because one knows not what other people are following, one can easily then be accused of "bludgeoning" for repeating posts and asking that editors who have not adequately followed the discussions be pinged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Colin, I agree with you that sysops aren't special on the whole. I made a similar point to Buffs at AN just yesterday. You and WAID are being treated differently, I concede, and neither of you are sysops. However, someone (Rexx) objected to the clerking done here and no one, to my knowledge, objected to WAID's clerking. If someone had I'd have come at them with the same reminder. So the difference is because of the reaction to the action. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of treated differently, do you have any intention of warning WAID about announcing a RFC that hasn't been approved yet as opening in the next couple days? I was under the impression that a neutral administrator had to approve this RFC yet WAID is telling their draft is going forward even though the only neutral administrator has explained changes need to be made. Any comment?AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


I had very limited time onwiki this morning and prioritized a quick reply at WT:MEDMOS over trying to digest this rather longer set of writing. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Replies finally posted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis Section

@AlmostFrancis: I've moved us down here because I would rather not derail a second thread, where I was actively enforcing the sanction, with a discussion between us. Instead we can have our very own space. First a genuine thanks for pointing me towards Trypto's talk page. I had not seen that. As for Colin, when I have seen actions of Colin's or anyone's that has struck me as against the ANI close or our general policies and guidelines I have said something. That is an action and one that I think, on the whole, has produced the desired results. So yes if you produce appropriate diffs I would be willing to act on it. It just might not be an action that uses the administrative toolset. If that's what you want I have identified two palces you could pursue that outcome from a wider group of people who aren't me. To that end What's the diff for what you're asking about with WAID? If I read it the same way as you're presenting it (that the RfC is fait accompli) I will drop a note about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I've looked through the WT:MEDMOS page and archive 12 and can only find one occasion of a ping request. This was a point where there was an ongoing edit war on the draft wrt "dubious tags" and contentious edits being made (not by me!) On 11th Jan I wrote "James (can someone else please ping him) you are upset about ... I am also upset that....So I propose a compromise....". I don't think it is at all unreasonable to occasionally request on-wiki that someone else ping James with my offer of a compromise. As it turns out, nobody did ping him, James didn't reply, and then chose to participate with comments about a different RFC, and hasn't participated at all for the last 7 days. Perhaps there's another occasion I made a request like that, I have a feeling there is, but I can't find it with Find on my browser. I've certainly never asked anyone off-wiki to ping anyone. Not really seeing how an open on-wiki request, not seeking help from any specific editor, which others can choose to ignore (as they did), constitutes an allegation of meat puppetry. If reasonable folk think the ping restriction includes even suggesting that pinging James might be helpful, then I'd be happy to comply. -- Colin°Talk 08:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe that the complaint is that I posted notes to WP:NORN and WT:MATH, as we discussed at WT:MEDMOS a couple of weeks ago, to ask editors to put the page on their watchlists. (Search for "Maybe we should advertise the RFC at some research- or statistics-oriented pages" if you want to read one of the prior discussions.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
This plan, followed by this post (same at NORN). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Barkeep49/Archives/3".