Open main menu


UlrichshornFromSW.jpg




Notice: I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles.





Contents


Please comment on Talk:Bengal famine of 1943Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bengal famine of 1943. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:BackupEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Backup. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Your statement at RFAREdit

I'm not emotionally up to epic rap battles at present, sorry. Could you please condense your statement at WP:A/R/C to fit the word limit? It may help to remember that the sole purpose of statements there is only to help the committee decide whether arbitration is required, not to argue the rights and wrongs of the case. GoldenRing (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Of course. I'm sorry I neglected to check my post for consistency with the 500 character rule; despite keeping abreast of developments at ArbCom over the years, this is the first time that I've ever felt compelled to comment myself, and only then owing to the extraordinary circumstances. I do think the entirety of my comment is engineered towards the issue of why taking the case is vital to project interests, but I will find some fat to cut to make it length-compliant. I'll address it just as soon as I have fifteen minutes to spare today (I hope it won't be more than an hour or so from now), but if the excess lingers for too long to be tolerated, please feel free to remove as many sentences from the end of post as necessary to bring the message down to the character limit, and then I will do more nuanced edit as soon as I am able. Either way, thanks for the notice and opportunity to amend it myself. Snow let's rap 19:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done Found a slap-dash way to make it work for now, without turning the post into word salad. Thanks again! Snow let's rap 19:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electric smoking systemEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:George_Washington#RfC:_Cooper's_abolitionist_tractEdit

Hi. Thanks for your input on this RfC. The discussion seems to have died down now. Before I request a close, is there anything more you'd like to add to it? Cheers. Factotem (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice/inquiry before requesting a close, Factotem; I think I've provided about the extent of the input I can on the question, or at least that I have time to contribute at present. I will note that usually RfC's are given 30 days to run before a close is initiated, but to the extent the thread has been dead for more than a week, and given that the discussion (last I looked) had gotten a little circular, I personally have no objection to a request for an early close, especially insofar as you are prompting parties for extra thoughts first. I think it's going to be difficult for a closer to form a consensus from the responses there, which normally argues for leaving the discussion open longer to solicit more opinions, but in this case, I'm not sure that would work, given the discussion is kind of dominated by two extreme positions right now, and too many collateral issues have already been pulled in. So, worse case scenario, if you request an early close and it comes back no consensus, the issue can be revisited a little down the line and with a fresh thread that can hopefully focus a little more on the core issues. Anyway, either version is going to destroy the article's integrity, I don't think. All of which is my long-winded way of saying "no further comment here". :) Snow let's rap 11:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/NoticeboardEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Casio F-91WEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Casio F-91W. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electric smoking systemEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:EOKAEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:EOKA. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 14Edit

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • June 2019

Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.

There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:

  • A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
  • We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!

Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:

  • Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
  • WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)

Until next time,

-— Isarra 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigaretteEdit

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

I have a few questions for you. Did you read the subarticles before you commented on the talk page? Do you believe they are a summary of any subarticle? QuackGuru (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I was hoping you could reply on the talk page if you have time. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi QuackGuru my apologies for not responding sooner: I must have missed your first message: I am on so infrequently right now that sometimes I get a lot of talk page notices at once and something can get lost in the mix. I'll reply to your comment on the talk page presently. Snow let's rap 09:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I replied on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I replied to you last comment. I would like to request a close. If you don't ask me anymore questions I would like to give you the WP:LASTWORD. QuackGuru (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I am going to request a close soon. You can still reply if you want. QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidentsEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:BackupEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Backup. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/NoticeboardEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:AustraliaEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Australia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019Edit

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Snow Rise,

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.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

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.

Backlog

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.

PERM

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)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!Edit

Please comment on Talk:RecusancyEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Recusancy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019Edit

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

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

removed 28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electric smoking systemEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rheumatoid arthritisEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Presidency of Donald TrumpEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Post-classical historyEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Post-classical history. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electric smoking systemEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:InfoboxEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Infobox. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

fieldEdit

Regarding this RfC, I am not sure what the phrase "have gone meta" means. Somewhat related (perhaps?): battlefield mentality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

No, while it is certainly true that there has been a fair amount of battlefield mentality in the roving battle of wills over infoboxes, with the two sides endlessly circling eachother and landing en masse to duke it out over countless articles, even following ArbCom's intercession on the matter, that was not what I was referring to via that phrase. See meta-discussion for the closest article topic we have on my idiomatic usage there: typically the unending infobox duels have played out as differences of opinion over practical discussions trying to resolve whether to utilize a box and, if so, how many of its parameters to use. This time it's actually a battle over the tone of the Infobox article itself (but still as a proxy for the two sides' strong feelings on whether they are appropriate for articles in general, as is clear from the comments there. That's what I meant by "meta". Though utterly unsurprisingly, I'm already seeing the involvement of the exact same faces I see literally anytime I get bot summoned to a dispute that turns out to involve infoboxes, no matter the subject matter of the article itself or where the discussion originates on the project. Snow let's rap 13:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear: being German, I simply don't know the phrase, can you say "have gone meta" in simple English, please? - You won't see my face in that discussion (waste of time, I'm busy with the Vespers) ;) - Just wondering: which recent infobox discussions do you remember? Fear not, I won't go there; please just support - or not - my impression that there are not many. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The usage is somewhat idiomatic, so the closest I can give for definition is Meta or the afore-mentioned meta-discussion. Basically "meta" means self-referential, at least in this context. What I was saying is that anyone who answers enough RfCs will see a certain number of Infobox discussions, but this is the first one I've seen wherein the subject was infoboxes were an encyclopedic subject in and of themselves. Does that explanation help to clarify? Snow let's rap 05:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
On a 10 July, the Witch of Pungo was pardoned, 300 years after her trial. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
10 July 2019 this. I reviewed the article for DYK, no infobox, that was my involvement. Who do you think are the "We" who have decided? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
11 July this. I added an infobox, it was reverted, I discussed it, and left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:WPXEdit

I only just noticed your comment in Wikipedia:WikiProject_X/Pilots back in 2015! You were a bit ahead of the curve on that - WP:WikiProject Biology will probably have the WP:X formatting implemented as part of some of the users there trying to jumpstart its usefulness again (discussion). The consolidated WP:MolBio has just had WP:X implemented so is a useful test case for it. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 06:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ben ShapiroEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neolithic SubpluvialEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neolithic Subpluvial. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of concentration and internment campsEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of concentration and internment camps. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sharyl AttkissonEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sharyl Attkisson. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beitar IllitEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Beitar Illit. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Feedback re: new image in the RA entryEdit

I have proposed a new image to use for the RA article that is consistent with lead images used for other diseases. I would like your feedback as I am hoping to resolve this dispute in a timely fashion. It has now been over a month that this dispute has been going on with no end in sight because no one is commenting or voting. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rheumatoid_arthritis Thisnotnpov (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SupernovaEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Supernova. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not?Edit

This is news to me. Is there a guideline to that effect?
It's accepted practice to move extended comments from Survey to Discussion, and collapsing them instead has multiple advantages over that, including preserving context. It doesn't constitute a statement that the discussion was inappropriate, it doesn't stop discussion within the collapse, and it doesn't discourage interested editors from reading the collapsed comments if the "subject line" is written appropriately. ―Mandruss  03:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the relevant policy language is at WP:TPO. The basic rule is that you never edit, move, or hide/hat another editors comments, except in the case of a handful exceptions, which are discussed in that subsection--or with their permission, of course. Further, there have been various community discussions that have made express that the hatting template in particular should not be used unless there is a violation of WP:FOC or in the case of clear disruption. One can always ask another user to hat a longer than usual response, but an editor should not go around hatting in such circumstances under their own impetus--and FYI, I'm not sure where you've seen people moving responses to the survey section, but TPO is clear that this is not permitted either, absent agreement by the editor who added the comments; it is perfectly permissible to respond to !votes within the section they are made, even though some editors believe that the discussions look cleaner/are more organized if this is avoided.
I'm sometimes in the habit (as are many veteran editors) of self-hatting extended discussions of collateral issues to the main topic of the discussion, but in the present case, the comments I left were directly on point to the discussion at hand, and they weren't even all that long, given the number of policies the invoked by comment responded to. As such, in this case I am going to decline to accede to Awilley's impression on the matter, though I am sure the action was intended in good faith. In this case, I think it's very important to note that the policies cited do not in fact prohibit the content being considered, and I don't think hatting that discussion is appropriate (or in this case, that it makes the discussion less cluttered or easier to follow, for that matter). Snow let's rap 03:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The language at TPO is "not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." To collapse is not to edit or delete. I grant that Awilley might have used {{cot}} instead of {{hat}}, as they have different interpretations and applications. ―Mandruss  05:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
That is only a part of the language I was referring to: WP:TPO also contains the following: "If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} or similar templates—these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors...." (emphasis added). And, as I said, this is a discussion that I have seen play out in community discussions before, and I have never seen the policy interpreted in any other way. If you want to establish a consensus otherwise (or just more clarity) you could always take the matter to WP:VPP or WT:TPG, but I have a hard time seeing the community validating a standard that would allow community members to collapse the comments and responses of other editors on talk pages whenever they decide (on their own idiosyncratic impressions) that the comment is too long or not important enough. In any event, until such time as the relevant policies do change, I intend to keep my posts uncollapsed except in that occasional case that I am convinced they they present WP:FOC issues, or the comment is just massively large (in which case I would self-hat it myself). I have on occasion accepted a hatting of a sub-discussion I was involved with, even if I wasn't consulted before hand, if I found the hatter's argument compelling, but in this case I do not: I feel the comments are on point and more than reasonable in size, considering the number of issues and policies that were raised in the comment I was responding to. Snow let's rap 07:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
As I said, the collapse needn't end the discussion, so your TPO quote does not apply. That is the essential point; the object is not to end the discussion but to isolate it. The factors entering into a decision to collapse in that situation are the same as those that govern the decision to move extended discussion from Survey to Discussion, and those "idiosyncratic impressions" are already endorsed by the community; it's always a judgment call like the judgment calls we face every day, and that's ok. It's a useful organizational tool, nothing more dramatic than that, and I haven't suggested it should be used in other situations. ―Mandruss  10:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
At the end of the day, WP:TPG paints in broad brushstrokes that one should not be altering the comments of others, including formatting, placement and other details which change it's profile on the talk page, and every expression of community consensus I have ever seen play out in any talk page or community forum has been consistent with that principle: the occasions when one is permitted to hat discussions are well established/enumerated in policies and in the guidance for the templates themselves. Also, your argument that the wording from TPO doesn't apply to any template used where the discussion can technical continue doesn't hold water, because the template that is expressly mentioned as an exemplar is {{Collapse}}. Also, the template Awilley used is one for formally closing discussion; it even has language prohibiting further discussion built into the template header, so I don't see where your "it doesn't end discussion" argument has legs.
Look, we can debate this until the cows come home, if you like, but ultimately I'm confident that whatever major community forum the issue might be raised in, it would reject the suggestion that TPG's broad mandate to respect another editor's right to present their argument (so long as it's on point to the content issues being discussed) doesn't apply to hatting. And at the end of the day, as TPG makes clear, it's all about objection: as I said before, I am sure Awilley acted in good faith here, and I can appreciate how people working regularly on that page might become accustomed to using the template a little more liberally than usual, because the discussion so often runs off into WP:OR or personal disputes that have little to no bearing on the content issue being contemplated. But this content was WP:FOC and directly relevant to the discussion of the issues being contemplated in the thread, not some tangential side discussion between myself and the editor I was responding to. It was therefor not an appropriate comment to hat--and such a change should clearly be dropped if the editor whose comments were collapsed objects. And as far as I can tell, Awilley seems to have no issue leaving the matter at that. That should be the end of it.
Anyway, if none of that convinces you, I don't think we can look forward to agreeing on this any time soon, and I don't get the feeling you are looking to put the issue to a community so much as discuss the matter informally with me here. Which has been fine, but if we keep at it, I'm guessing we're just going to end up more polarized over it. I do appreciate you coming here to discuss the matter in a polite manner, though. Snow let's rap 11:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Re: "If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} or similar templates—these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors...." I am not an "involved party" I am an uninvolved admin trying to restore a bit of order to a survey section. For the other part of your objection, I'm happy to use the COT template instead of the HAT template. ~Awilley (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Awilley, my mistake: I did not note that you were not involved in that particular discussion, or that you might be acting in an administrative capacity. Nevertheless, I believe such action is outside of community consensus as to the appropriate degree of suppression that an editor can use in removing the WP:FOC comments of another editor from easy viewing by participants in an ongoing discussion. Those templates, by clear indication in multiple policies (and documentation pages), are meant for only a handful of situations. Aside from the policies already referenced above, there is additionally this from WP:REFACTOR: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." I feel that's fairly simple and direct language regarding the matter at hand, and the guideline makes it clear that collapsing text templates are among the situations included in the definition of refactoring.
So again, I ask that you please respect my objection here and remove that template. I'm not exactly keen to take this matter to a community space (I'm not really flush for time at the moment and what little I can spare for the project is earmarked for other tasks), but I'm afraid I would have no other choice but to do so if you feel that this additional policy language does not clarify the matter. I believe it would be a dangerous precedent to attempt to shift the historical community approach on such things to allow editors to collapse the WP:FOC comments of other editors for simple streamlining of the thread--whether the party hatting is an admin or not, and regardless of whether they are approaching the matter uninvolved and in good faith. You can point to the fact that "technically" COT allows for discussion to continue, but the fact of the matter is, any degree of hatting substantially decreases the likelihood that comments will be seen an engaged with by others--which is why this is not allowed except for comments that have been judged WP:disruptive or, at a minimum, completely off-topic, and any other usage requires the consent of the authoring editor, none of which are the case here. WP:REFACTOR makes this explicit, and WP:TPG and the documentation for all relevant templates (COT included) have convergent language.
We don't really know eachother, so I'll just have to ask you to take it on faith when I say I'm not in the habit of making a fuss over minor formatting issues. But the potential for abuse if we erode the precautionary principle here (regarding acts that could suppress other editor's views) makes this matter not a trivial one. Therefor I believe accepting such curtailing of an editor's freedom to engage on a topic under our WP:CONSENSUS principles would be a disservice to the community and the project. Admin or not, good faith or not, I think you've got this one wrong and I ask you to reconsider to save us (and probably a huge number of other editors) the effort of litigating the matter in an administrative or policy space, when I'm pretty confident of the outcome under our policies as written and as typically interpreted by the community. I appreciate you too must do what you think is right, but I'd urge you to re-read the relevant sections of the policies we've been discussing one more time before deciding. Snow let's rap 19:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe you, and appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response here. I get the concern, and we don't want people hatting comments willy nilly. However there are some situations where the community follows certain norms with which comments can go where, and how many threaded replies will be tolerated in certain locations. You see this all the time at WP:RfA for instance...we'll tolerate a certain number of brief replies, but when things get out of hand an admin or bureaucrat steps in and moves all the replies to the talk page. Big RfCs with separate sections for Survey and Discussion are another instance of this. Here's another extreme example. (Imagine what that page would look like if everybody started responding to each others' votes!) The Trump RfC was starting to get crazy, with multiple long threads sprouting up in the Survey sections, and people were abusing the normal leniency. If nobody had stepped in the threads would have multiplied, getting longer and more off-topic. It makes it difficult for later participants and for the closer(s). Furthermore it's unfair to allow just a few editors to dominate the Survey section like that, responding to every point while repeating their own arguments. What makes their input more valuable than anyone else's? At some point a line needed to be drawn, and I drew it at 4 or more threaded replies, and I think I've been consistent and fair in that, hatting 5 threads that went over the limit with neutral summaries of their contents. Is there something uniquely valuable in your reply and the replies to your reply that I should make an exception for them?
Look, there was nothing wrong with your comment other than it being a really long comment in a Survey section instead of a Discussion section. And And there's no curtailing anybody's freedom to engage in threaded discussion. Everyone is free to discuss to your hearts content...in the Discussion section. Does that somewhat answer your concern? ~Awilley (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I get what a challenge it must be trying to keep Talk:Donald Trump in order, I really do. I get bot summoned there four or five times a year now, and it's more often than not a frickin' gnarled mess of off-topic OR, SYNTH, or just random speculation on completely collateral issues/general ranting about whoever the flavour-of-the-month boogeyman is the "libs"/"cons", all tinged with WP:BATTLEGROUND up to and including PAs. You know, before 2016, I had responded to the better part of a thousand RfCs in my time here, but never had I once been bot summoned to the same article twice--not once. Simpler times... Anyway, although I've seen a general trend towards more organization, civility, and adherence to TPG and WP:CONSENSUS standards when I have been summoned there of late, I get the need for some enforced organization, and I begin to see that in the consistent manner you are applying your approach, you are trying create an understanding among the editors that they can continue discussion within the templates and that they are simply a new approach to thread collapsing.
But I have a large number of misgivings: For one, this is extremely atypical and I'm not sure the average editor, used to HATs being used to close down disruption, will automatically parse your intention here, seeing as we don't have templates that we could use that expressly invite continued discussion--and by conventional practice, we do not use existing templates to encapsulate content except where it signifies disruption or discussion having come to an end. Even if we could normalize it so that everyone understood the meaning, it would still have significant consequences, owing to human psychology and UI factors. Skimming would be come more tedious, people would tire of opening the boxes, and using cntrl-F to navigate the article outside the live editing UI (a vital function for veteran editors) would become unusable. I will take your word for it that this approach has been used at RfA of late: I haven't responded to one in months, best I can recall, but I would suggest that RfA is a fundamentally different context. It's about one of our meta processes as a community, whereas in this case we are talking about discussion of an important content issue and the project's single highest profile article--a lot rides on this particular content discussion (the question of whether Wikipedia will allow an article to discuss what reliable sources say about the mental health of the presently most powerful human being on the planet) and I'd argue that it may be a bad time to experiment with bringing this approach on to an article talk page, as we may not fully appreciate the effects it may have on the usual consensus project.
Now, you've inquired if I see anything exceptional in my arguments that justifies a divergence from the general approach you've developed here. But the thing about exceptionalism is that its far too subjective and prone to bias for me to be an objective judge of my own contributions in that respect. What I will say is that I don't think that's the right test under policy: the question ought to be whether my comments were WP:FOC--you even identify that as the threshold test yourself above. And I think by any reasonable assessment of that test, my comments were extremely on point to the questions raised. I've hatted a discussion or eight in my time--one on that very same talk page actually, if memory serves, but that's the standard I always use: only consider the hatting when discussion has gone off topic, not before.
I'll be honest: I'm torn. Now that other sub-discussions have grown and been hatted in a similar fashion, I better understand how you are applying this system and wonder if maybe I should question myself as to whether I am being needlessly inflexible about experimenting with a new discussion formatting tool. On the other hand, I think our traditional WP:FOC test is what people expect and what is validated by community consensus, and I feel it generally works pretty well for the project. And again, the thread in question represents a particularly sticky instance to be mixing things up. And I also worry about not having a standard where the mere objection of the other editor cannot be the basis for reverting the refactoring by default; I think that's an important principle that saves us a lot of edit warring and forestalls a lot of collateral arguments in itself. I'll need to give this some more thought when I am better rested before determining how I feel about this approach to talk page management in general, and this instance in particular. But for moment I'll just say that I appreciate your transparency and willingness to engage on the topic. Snow let's rap 22:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Just two small points of clarification: 1. The intent was not to put a stop to the side discussions, nor to encourage people to continue the discussions inside the collapse templates. It's more a preventative measure to deter future side discussions from occurring in the survey section. Kind of a "Hey folks, please keep future threaded discussion in the Discussion section" but without saying it outright. 2. Before collapsing a discussion I usually also try to wait until it wanders off-topic, gets messy, has unhelpful personal comments, or has people just repeating their points again and again. I think I had a little lower threshold yesterday because there was so much of it.
I'm probably going to back off on future collapsing for this RfC...a part of the rationale is to save time for readers and closers, and if the collapsing is getting more than the normal pushback and wasting time in other ways then it's probably not worth it.
Re: "frickin' gnarled mess of off-topic OR, SYNTH, or just random speculation on completely collateral issues/general ranting about whoever the flavour-of-the-month boogeyman is the "libs"/"cons", all tinged with WP:BATTLEGROUND" preach ~Awilley (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Awilley and I are on different pages here. His intent was "any continuation should be in the Discussion section" and mine is "any continuation should be within this collapse". The latter was done once recently on that page, with clear explanations in the "subject lines", and it was accepted by the group without objection.
I thought something very useful had been invented organically. No longer would editors face the choice of (1) allowing Survey section subthreads to grow without limit, or (2) the quite difficult task of moving large chunks of discussion from one section to another, thereby yanking them out of context and dumping them all together in one enormous hard-to-edit subsection. I had toyed with several solutions, none of them much better, including a separate subsection for each discussion. I thought I had finally stumbled on an acceptable solution, with the sole downside (all solutions have downsides) that editors would be required to click "[show]" and some Ctrl+F searches would become impossible. Apparently I was wrong, and I won't try it again. ―Mandruss  02:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:NYC Pride MarchEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:NYC Pride March. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rheumatoid arthritisEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Allegations of CIA drug traffickingEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Allegations of CIA drug trafficking. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:UrolagniaEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Urolagnia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Intelligence quotientEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Intelligence quotient. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:ConstantinopleEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Constantinople. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AviationEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electric smoking systemEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Great Famine of 1876–1878Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Great Famine of 1876–1878. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019Edit

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of IranEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Satoshi NakamotoEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Satoshi Nakamoto. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019Edit

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:AbortionEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Douma chemical attackEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Douma chemical attack. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:AbortionEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction listsEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rainbow Honor WalkEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rainbow Honor Walk. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:U.S. Route 131Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:U.S. Route 131. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:FascismEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fascism. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/NoticeboardEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greater Germanic ReichEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greater Germanic Reich. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campus sexual assaultEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Snow Rise".