And so on and so forth...Edit


I bitz yur artikl till it ded then I delete it.
In memory of content writer Richard Arthur Norton, lynched at AN after 13 years and 6 months at Wikipedia.

I’ve unblocked and opened the discussion about RAN again per your concerns. Just as a personal note, I can assure you that getting it done in the dark or anything of the sort was not on my mind (I don’t typically celebrate Father’s Day so it wasn’t even on my mind.) My biggest concern in situations like these is being respectful to everyone involved, and when it appears likely to be a blood bath I typically side on ending it quickly. Enough people have expressed a desire to comment to change the situation, though, so opening it again makes sense. Thanks for raising the issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

June events with WIREdit

June 2019, Volume 5, Issue 6, Numbers 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125

Check out what's happening in June at Women in Red:

Virtual events:

Other ways you can participate:

Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

License tagging for File:Munro-donald-l-08.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading File:Munro-donald-l-08.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


What an interesting and informative user page, thank you. Well thought out rules and regs. Came here after the current controversy page, and found the depth of caring you have for Wikipedia. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Gronlund-Laurence.jpg listed for discussionEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gronlund-Laurence.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Snowycats (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You know I read ...Edit

There's a thread from last year titled "Google’s AI-Powered War on Trolls". Is the tool you are now mocking "son of" or "return of"? Asking for a friend. Yeah ... that's the ticket. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, I was going to say that I remembered playing with this tool before, but I couldn't place it. No idea as to the specifics of your question. I presume that the idea of that tool will come back again and again in never-improving form, especially since WMF are now also our overseers, not being content to simply reap the bounty of our labor. You should pop in at WPO now and again, it would make Crow (even more) crazy, if nothing else. best, —tim Carrite (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
BTW, this message: 1.00 Not Attack, 0.99 Not Aggressive. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

July events from Women in Red!Edit

July 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 127, 128

Check out what's happening in July at Women in Red...

Virtual events:

Initiatives we support:

Editor feedback:

Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019Edit

Hello Carrite,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.


Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.


The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.


Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I will not be doing any New Page Patrolling until the Fram Affair is settled properly. Carrite (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Special Barnstar
For your superb work as to the RX thread:-) WBGconverse 17:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Shucks, I haven't got a barnstar in years! Carrite (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:1912 NCAA independents football recordsEdit

Hi Carrite.

Do you have any sourcing on this edit[1] of Template:1912 NCAA independents football records? (re "Removes Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, and Idaho, who, together with Whitman College of Walla Walla, comprised the Northwest Conference in 1912")

and related expansion of Northwest Intercollegiate Athletic Association?

Stipulated we often have contradictory sourcing and modern accounts can be incomplete, misleading, or wrong. And football affiliations can differ from other sports. I do observe this change does not align with other existing content, less Oregon State which is tagged with [clarification needed][better source needed]:

Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey UW Dawgs, yeah, categorizing the Northwest schools as "independents" for the 1902-1914 period is totally wrong. I'm actually peeling away the history now, work in progress at Northwest Intercollegiate Athletic Association, which started at WP a few years ago under a slightly different title. Gimme a few more hours to finish working on that. For quick evidence that there was such a conference, see THIS, for example. It's actually pretty interesting, arguably two different conferences, one that started in 1902 and died c. 1906 and another launched in early 1908. Anyway, hike! —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Good find, then. I look forward to viewing when complete with cites. It also implies a slew of downstream changes, including:
I'd focus on your current scope, but happy to pitch on the related when ready. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
UW Dawgs agreed that there will be a domino effect upon multiple articles from this; I'm sort of taking a day off my book project (Eugene V. Debs, 1905-1910) and sort of got sucked into the topic by a photo of OAC students at halftime of the 1912 U of O game. Pacific Coast Conference history pretends that the world started in 1915, but of course there were two decades of football going on before that. The fact that the NIAA was a structurally weak conference doesn't mean it didn't exist, of course, but somehow that fact has been missed, or rather, only vaguely hinted at. Ironically, Whitman College seems to have been a big regional player in the era. Who'da thunk it? —tim /// Carrite (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

MrAristotle listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MrAristotle. Since you had some involvement with the MrAristotle redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 05:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

New WikiProject Socialism membership systemEdit

Hello! I'm in the process of introducing a new membership system to WikiProject Socialism (designed as part of WikiProject X and adopted by a few other projects). The new system works by filling a form which creates a WikiProject Card. I'm manually creating WikiProject cards for current members. You can find and edit yours here. Any change to your WikiProject card will be automaticalle updated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism/Members. If you have any doubt, please, feel free to contact me by replying here using the {{re}} template. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard T. Ely, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Bohn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 at Women in RedEdit

August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131

Check out what's happening in August at Women in Red...

Virtual events:

Editor feedback:

Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

September 2019 at Women in RedEdit

September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135

Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red...

Online events:

Editor feedback:

Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Disambiguation link notification for September 4Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Algie Martin Simons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019Edit

Hello Carrite,


Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.


A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


The Herberts Yngvadottir (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nikolay Muralov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Znamenka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ruiz-Carl-2019.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading File:Ruiz-Carl-2019.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Masem (t) 14:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: You have this exactly backwards: first the non-free, fair-use image and then see if you can replace that with a free image. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Nope, that's not how non-free works, particularly for a public person. We expect you to take the time to see if a free image can be found. This is not only searching online but potentially seeing if friends and family of the deceased would offer their photos. If none can be found then a non-free image can be used. Remember we seek to minimize non-free, meaning we don't use a non-free image where a substitute free image is likely to be had. --Masem (t) 15:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This user's request to have autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Carrite (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "I am your lord and saviour". The reason given for I am your lord and saviour's block is: "Sock puppetry".

Accept reason:

You should be good to go now! Yamla (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@ Laser brain — Comment: Somebody is messing with me by falsifying (emulating) my IP to quote-unquote "sock." It's a neat little tech trick, actually. Probably one of the participants at the website Wikipedia Sucks is behind it, since they no doubt have my IP when I post there, the tech chops to do it, and a desire to take the piss out of me for tweaking the nose of one of their main boys... Carrite (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@ Yamla — I was good earlier but now there's another IP autoblock going on. New emulating pseudosock is "1234ideclarethumwar" Carrite (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in RedEdit

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140

Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red...

Online events:

Editor feedback:

Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Orphaned non-free image File:Ruiz-Carl-2019.jpgEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Ruiz-Carl-2019.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, @Gerda, I had forgotten all about having made your esteemed list and was a little sad about having "missed the cut." Carrite (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank goodness we have a list, and don't have to rely on my memory ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote ContestEdit

  US Banknote Contest  
November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

November 2019 at Women in RedEdit

November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143

Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red...

Online events:

Editor feedback:

Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Page Review newsletter November 2019Edit

Hello Carrite,

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 710 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.


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.

  • 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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. The smartest essay you are going to read about Arbcom this yearEdit

This long essay-post by former WP Arbcom member Kelly Martin, published November 14, 2019, is so important and so on point that failing to bring it here in full from Wikipediocracy would be a disservice and a failure.

"Arbcom as it really is, and how to fix it..."
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Vigilant: I'd prefer that there were some people on ARBCOM with actual successful arbitration experience from the real world...

Carrite/Randy from Boise: The name of the committee is a misnomer. In the words of Kelly Martin, posted at WPO on Feb. 1, 2015: "The ArbCom is in fact the disciplinary committee of an unincorporated voluntary association, so calling it one would be far more appropriate than its present name, which is indeed quite misleading." Ideal experience for Arbcom isn't real world arbitration experience, it would be more along the lines of having worked for 20 years as a junior high school vice principal.

(another user): This is quite correct. Arbitrators listen to both sides and possibly independent witnesses, yes, but they then try to find a solution reasonably acceptable to both parties. ArbCom rarely does this. More importantly, arbitrators do not punish either party, still less any independent witnesses. That is the function of a court or a disciplinary committee.

Kelly Martin's post

More significantly, an arbitrator is charged with finding a solution that is maximally acceptable jointly to the parties of the dispute (either by finding in favor of one or the other, or by finding a middle ground that both parties are at least partially satisfied with), without any obligation to considering the impact of that solution on third parties not part of the dispute (except insofar as such an impact might relate back to one of the parties). This does not describe the behavior of the ArbCom; the ArbCom has fairly frequently issued "a pox on both your houses" decisions which leave neither party remotely satisfied. An arbitrator who resolves the dispute he is charged to resolve by maximally screwing both parties has completely failed in his duty as an arbitrator.

A disciplinary committee, on the other hand, is charged with dealing with individuals whose conduct disrupts the purpose of the wider body it serves, by finding solutions that mitigate the effects of such disruptions and seek to prevent their recurrence. This is exactly what the ArbCom does. A disciplinary body has no obligations to the interests of the parties before it, other than to refrain from manifestly unfair behavior; its duty is to maximize the interests of the larger body it serves.

There isn't really a need to make real-world analogies here, because the ArbCom actually is the disciplinary committee of the (at best vaguely organized) "Association of Wikipedia Editors". It's not analogous to one; it is one. There is no need to use analogies to judicial courts when we already have countless examples of other disciplinary committees to look for for guidance. Nearly every long-established voluntary organization has a disciplinary committee of some sort, and anyone familiar with parliamentary law is aware of this concept. I suspect that the main reasons Wikipedians reject this model is that legitimately operated disciplinary committees of these bodies tend to operate behind closed doors, generally seek to minimize drama, and usually issue mostly-opaque rulings.

The fact that the ArbCom persistently fails to conduct itself as a proper disciplinary committee ought doesn't make them not one; it just makes them one that is very poorly operated. This could be mitigated if the "Association of Wikipedia Editors" would acknowledge its own existence and organize more formally, such by electing a governing board, setting down proper bylaws, and establishing committees related to its broader purpose; this would relieve the ArbCom from its dual role as both disciplinary committee and "highest governing body", and allow the ArbCom to actually act as a full-time disciplinary board.

I also agree with "Randy" that the people most qualified for this role are those who have spent years finding ways to minimize and mitigate disruption. Middle school vice principals are a good example; another good example would be those with experience as community moderators on online services such as Steam or reddit. It's not the job of a vice principal to decide who of two fighting seventh graders was in the right, but rather to terminate the disruption their fight causes to the educational environment and take steps to ensure that it doesn't happen again. Similarly, the job of a Steam content moderator is to try to ensure that Steam's product is enjoyable to the bulk of Steam's users, and to remove from that environment influences that make that product unenjoyable to Steam's customers. Often, this will mean ejecting both disputants from the fray, even when one of them has the merit of being right, but that's often how it works in civil organizations. Wikipedia is not, as presently constituted, a civil organization.

Experience with mediation or arbitration would be better utilized on Wikipedia's committee for resolving editorial disputes, except (of course) Wikipedia doesn't have such a committee. The failure of Wikipedia to establish any sort of meaningful process for systematically resolving editorial disputes in its nearly twenty years of existence, to me, leads me to conclude that the core of Wikipedia's committed members is not actually all that interested in "knowledge".

Of course, the reason why the ArbCom is so important is precisely because Wikipedia lacks any meaningful way to resolve editorial (that is, content) disputes; the ArbCom has long insisted that it has no authority to resolve content disputes. The way to win an editorial dispute on Wikipedia is therefore to transform the content dispute into a behavioral dispute, typically by egging one's editorial opponent into some sort of misbehavior that can then be used as the basis for a disciplinary action that, if parlayed correctly, will result in one's editorial opponent being silenced. This can often then be parlayed into silencing everyone else who tries to advance the same editorial position as a proxy for the restricted individual. This has turned the ArbCom into a de facto editorial board, even as it refuses to acknowledge that it is doing so, but with editorial decisions made not on a sober evaluation of whose editorial position has the merit of appearing to be "most accurate", but rather on the basis of whose editorial position was expressed with the least raucously screeching voice, and also quite commonly on whose position was backed by the largest (or at least loudest) number of influence peddlers within Wikipedia's community. The sad thing is that committed Wikipedians generally think that this is somehow better than having a group of people who could credibly be considered subject matter experts examine the facts under dispute and issue a ruling based on what appears to them to be the most factually accurate representation of the matter under dispute; that somehow a mudslinging competition is a better way to determine truth than a panel discussion among generally acknowledged experts.

If Wikipedia had a functional content dispute resolution process that could resolve content disputes before they became behavioral disruptions, there might possibly be fewer behavioral disruptions. Or, more likely, not, since, in my experience, at least, the vast bulk of Wikipedians who are not willing to compromise on content issues are going to become behaviorally disruptive when they don't get their way. But I'm not convinced that this is obligatory in a project like Wikipedia; the fact that it has evolved to that state may simply be a consequence of the decisions made early in Wikipedia's life. A project with different core principles would attract different participants.

  • Carrite, I copied this here from your subpage for reference. Hope that’s okay. Feel free to remove. –xenotalk 08:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Totally fine. I need to run up a copy on my user page, too. Kelly's observation that content disputes inevitable morph into behavioral complaints due to lack of a content resolution process is really quite brilliant and something for you to keep in mind as a sitting Arb. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIREdit

December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147

Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red...

Online events:

Editor feedback:

Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging


Dear Carrite, could you tell me the exact issue The Daily Worker which this picture has been taken from? I would like to rescan it --Алый Король (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ali! Sorry to say that I didn't make a note of the issue date. I took that image with a digital camera from film on my old microfilm reader; I have no doubt that a direct scan with top-of-the-line gear would yield better results. Best, —tim Carrite (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC) ping: Алый Король

removal of maintenance tagsEdit

  Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Oregon State Beavers football. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Specifically, maintenance tags are not "defacing."[2] These tags serve to callout issues on our articles. By removing maintenance tags, you are making it less likely that another editor will correct or improve that article. The tag has been restored, as almost every CFB team article has a robust "History" section, while this article does not. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs - One could flag every section of every article on Wikipedia with NEEDS IMPROVEMENT flags if one were so desiring. That is, if one doesn't give a crap about what the layout looks like and if one wants to burden the reader with pointless and blatantly obvious editorial commentary (dumping templates rather than actually working on a piece). OF COURSE, short sections "need more information." Of course. Removing defacing, blatantly obvious flags like this doesn't require lengthy talk page discussion — it's just a matter of BE BOLD, and improving the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Don't template the regulars. I don't need a "Welcome to Wikipedia" link after eleven years! Carrite (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PSTEdit

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST. You can join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: The address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102) 47°37′23″N 122°19′22″W / 47.622928°N 122.322912°W / 47.622928; -122.322912 The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2019 at the meeting as well.
18:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC) To subscribe or unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name from this list.

New Page Review newsletter December 2019Edit


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)

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Carrite, 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,

llywrch (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

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

January 2020 at Women in RedEdit

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153

Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020!

Online events:

Editor feedback:

Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Happy HolidaysEdit

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

Happy First Edit Day!Edit

Arbitration case openedEdit

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/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 05:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)