User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/11#Aside

That could change as we tell those with ARBPIA bans they have to appeal to ARBCOM, which I've started doing. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:That's a reasonable point though I don't think it changes the overall analysis of my point since the comment I made was presuming a heavier workload. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:That's only if the admin says the appeal has to be heard by arbcom. I'm not sure how much that will come up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

::Well at least one admin is saying he's doing it. And perhaps more will given that the most frequent admin in the topic area is becoming an arb. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Really? That sounds like a bummer. That guy was pretty cool. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: I haven't been keeping tabs on exactly what you've been doing lately. I know you were a first-rate new page patroller, and trainer of other people wanting to do that well, so if you're still doing that, great! I believe, from my own limited interactions with the committee, and from what other people have told me, that you were an excellent arbitrator, so I guess it would have benefitted the project if you had kept on doing that, but I'm sure you have your own reasons for stepping back from that and I would never want to put pressure on any contributor to work on an area of the project that they don't want to. Wherever you do it, I hope that you will continue sharing your extensive knowledge and encouraging contributors new and old.
2. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently: I can't think of any. There are things you do that I would probably do differently from you if I were doing them, but that's more about the different ways that different people interact with each other. One of the things that keeps this community working is the diversity of our contributors, their different perspectives and ways of doing things are a great strength. So, yeah - even if I occasionally take a different perspective on something from you, I wouldn't want you to stop and seeing things your way.
3. (Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep: when are you going to take that vacation in the UK?
4. (Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know: it seems like a long time ago now, but you should know how much I still appreciate the help you gave me back in 2019 when I was going new page patrol school. Your friendly, patient and thoughtful guidance was excellent. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed your voluntary recall page has a typo on it. It says "immeadiately". My inner OCD cannot leave without pointing this out :) OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:For my level of educational attainment I am an atrocious speller and there are some words I can never spell right. That's one of them. Thanks for point this out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned that three admins (User:ScottishFinnishRadish, User:Extraordinary Writ and User:Vanamonde93) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Raladic are considering a logged warning for both sides for edit warring, based on a single example supplied by Extraordinary Writ. In the previous AE on this area [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive341#Colin here] Barkeep explicitly said "If people have concerns about anyone other than [the subject] they should file their own AE report" but here we see admins take it upon themselves to widen the scope of "those who may be sanctioned" to include the filer, for an issue separate from anything they wrote in the AE filing statement. And doing so with a single example that if that was all a typical user posted when filing a complaint, would result in a swift dismissal of "Nothing to see here, come back to us when you can offer an strong pattern of problematic behaviour". Once again I get the feeling that the rules about evidence are for other people. If you are going to arbitrarily take it upon yourselves to inspect other users' behaviour, why not also then any others present. What a jeopardy you have created, that being a filer of the complaint escalates hugely the risk of being sanctioned yourself, because those other guys could be 100 times worse than you, but you have to be perfect.

The statement at the last AE: "There was also a rough consensus among uninvolved administrators that there may need to be other AE requests to handle other problems raised during this discussion" was a strong encouragement to the community to file additional reports on problem users. Which is what User:Void if removed did.

About my own AE... The filer basically made shit up and was caught out by the reviewing admins for doing that and yet... there were no consequences. Barkeep's rationale for that was that bad faith misinterpretation was not "limited to Snokalok". Quite bizare for me to read that because there are other bad editors, the filer isn't sanctioned for making claims about me that are patently untrue. So the lesson then was you can come to AE and post any old shit about an editor and hope the admins find some other fault in the subject (tone say).

The lesson from the Raladic AE, if you follow through, would seem to be that if you complain about an obvious activist at AE, you'd better be an absolute saint, or better still, not have any edits in the area to be examined, because if you make any mistakes, you'll get a logged warning back at you. And if one can get a logged warning because an admin finds a single diff, then presumably the next escalation is you get topic banned for one more mistake. (We warned User:X and they didn't heed the warning). I'm not provoking you to go find two or three diffs. But Void is one of the better players in this field, and of all the people at that AE, a long way from being those most in need of logged warnings.

I get it that boomerangs is a thing people do on Wikipedia. And at times it is useful to avoid vexatious filings from editors who are actually the problem vs the subject. But you guys explicilty asked us to make more reports, and it turns out Void was stupid enough to take you up on it.

This area is overrun with activist editors on all sides who use revert regularly and with impunity. That a medical editor trying their best to use WP:MEDRS might let their frustration lead to mistakes is somewhat understandable. Of the editors on both sides of this debate, I think Void if removed and Sideswipe9th are the only two I feel properly grasp that "other opinions exist and are valid, even if I disagree with them" and who understand our policy and guildeline limit and guide what we need to write in article space. Both of them are fully capable of understanding the other side's POV and fairly describing it. Unfortunately Sideswipe9th is no longer editing, and I am quite certain this AE will do the same for Void.

I fail to see why any reasonable editor would either file any more AE requests against activists in this area or even bother to edit in this area at all. I'm not aware of any other medical editors who edit articles in this topic. One or two post the occasional talk page comment. It will be left to the activists (on both sides) who lack any concern for building an encyclopaedia.

Colin°^Talk 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:Colin: putting something in quotes which is an accurate summary is a problem, but does not mean they (in my mind) {{tqq| basically made shit up}}. Beyond that I cannot comment on the current report or what that means for the patterns of yours, Void's, and this one until I have had a chance to read it. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

::I think you made a typo there, and meant to say "inaccurate summary", which is a very generous description. -- Colin°^Talk 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you please block for 3 days with talk and email revoked. We'll see what happens after that, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:@Crouch, Swale I had been planning to indefinitely block you tomorrow but have done this request instead. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

::Hi Barkeep49, what's happened here? Why is Crouch banned/blocked? I haven't yet located any discussion or anything related to this...  — Amakuru (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

:::@Amakuru: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Crouch,_Swale_ban_appeal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing:
2. * You know how to disagree without being disagreeable. This is an important skill.
3. * You don't seem to judge people by single comments/actions/events. I appreciate that about you.
4. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/things I wish Barkeep would do differently:
5. * In an effort to de-mystify U4C, I would like you to consider frequent small contributions to the The Signpost. For example, the dewiktionary dispute could explain things like "Some communities only have a small number of active admins, which makes disputes difficult to settle because there's literally nobody else around. In that case, help is available from the global community by requesting..." or "Not every community has a rule like WP:INVOLVED, but we recommended a resolution that was in line with that principle". Or you might say "2024 report: Only one case was received."
6. (Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep:
7. * Does your username represent a past profession or a future ambition?
8. * How much wood would a woodchuck chuck?, assuming any rodent would engage in such a behavior?
9. * Can You Tell Me How to Get to Sesame Street?
10. * Do You Know the Muffin Man?, and were you ever disappointed to learn that the muffins of the song weren't sweet, cupcake-like American muffins?
11. (Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know:
12. * When the words high quality are used to describe an noun (e.g., a high-quality source, the high-quality content), it is supposed to be hyphenated. I no longer know what my first (IP-based) edit was, but I suspect that it was fixing punctuation in an article.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks @WhatamIdoing. That's an interesting suggestion. I did a fair amount of UCoC blogging (EG drafting, Charter drafting) so doing it on the U4C seems natural. I will have to think about this as I definitely have observations and learnings (for instance there is a "trying the community's patience" block procedure from Turkish Wikipedia which I find fascinating) that enwiki (and perhaps others) would find interesting. Clearly I should have limited it to two optional questions ala RfA but that ship has sailed.

::Does your username represent a past profession or a future ambition?

:::Speaking of RfA I answered this one there. {{tqq|I made it for another place, which no longer exists, and where it made much more sense in context.}}

::How much wood would a woodchuck chuck?, assuming any rodent would engage in such a behavior?

:::Enough to build a racetrack in Saratoga, New York.

::Can You Tell Me How to Get to Sesame Street?

:::Tune into PBS or have a Max subscription (at least in the US)

::Do You Know the Muffin Man?, and were you ever disappointed to learn that the muffins of the song weren't sweet, cupcake-like American muffins?

:::I was not disappointed. And I can't think of the Muffin Man anymore without either thinking of Shrek or Arrested Development.

:Gosh I must drive you nuts because my grammar is so lacking. But I will endeavor next time I use the phrase high quality to actually use high-quality. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:: (watching) WhatamIdoing, you deserve high praise for {{diff|Talk:Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov|1262967893||this comment}} in the disccussion mentioned further up: all positive! I woke up thinking about calling your attention to the other discussion as well, but it seems to be resolved, sort of, so never mind. I'll call you if it happens again ;) (always hoping it will not happen again) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

::I am entirely satisfied with your answers, but I point out that "high quality" only gets a hyphen if it is used as an adjective: "the high-quality source" but "I prefer sources that are of a high quality". And, no, it doesn't drive me nuts, because your grammar is actually good, and I'm used to being an outlier where punctuation is concerned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Barkeep, I greatly respect you as an editor, and I wanted to respond to your concern regarding not taking the BN route - just not at the higher-profile page. If I hadn't had that spat with the roads people, I think I would have gone through the BN route. That made me think this would be potentially controversial for re-adminship, in a sort of PROD vs AFD analogy. And with the idea that this would be potentially controversial, it didn't sit well with my conscience to take the BN route, when the 'crats wouldn't likely wouldn't know that there was a reason that I was thinking it was possibly controversial. So it just felt, well, sneaky to me. I think a lot of this is from my rural Missouri Southern Baptist farm kid background; it's just a whole different mindset from how most people view the world. Hog Farm _Talk 03:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:The crats are the sole people - not even arbs - entrusted to determine if something is under a CLOUD. There is a waiting process so editors can bring up reasons it might be a cloud and the crats can then weigh it. The community has thought this through and come up with a process that minimizes drama and the amount of time asked of it. If Worm hadn't just done this I wouldn't have even said anything. But I've seen how standards creep up at RfA and I want to fight it where I can because it's bad enough already. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:: I guess my only concern is - it sure feels like the answer to "my conscience isn't quite okay with this" is to do it anyway. Unless we're going make not having an overactive conscience part of the general expectations for adminship, this feels like the only valid option then for someone in my shoes is just to not ask for the bit back. If it's problematic to go through the RFA process again, and the editor has valid ethical heartburn about the BN route, they're really backed into a corner. Hog Farm _Talk 04:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

::: Perhaps some perspective here is useful. Right now you are seeking the opinion of up to 34,000 people who have a watchlist and are active editors. The BN has about 1400 watchers, of whom about 300 have reviewed that page in the past month. The majority of those watchers are also regular RFA participants. What is the case for you to ask the opinion of thousands of people, when you are eligible to get the same opinions at a single noticeboard that doesn't light up the watchlist of thousands of people? You could make exactly the same disclosure of your concerns at the noticeboard as you have in your RFA, and I think you'd get an accurate read. People who are fine with you don't even have to say anything, whereas they'll feel obligated to click "support" now. Risker (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

::: The whole point of the 24 waiting period at BN is to deal with potential controversy for re-adminship. That's the correct venue. I really don't think you've considered that watchlist issue. I saw "new request for adminship", clicked through and saw the name Hog Farm, thought "Hmm, could have sworn they were already an admin, and then clicked through again to find out that you {{em|are}} already an admin and are just asking for the tools back. I'm sure there are many other people who are going to be as annoyed as I am. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:::So I've been thinking about your answer quite a bit @Hog Farm. The frame of personal conscience is an interesting one. When a large community should respect or at least tolerate actions of personal conscience if they're disruptive to the community is a complex one (see the varying ways countries, sometimes even the same country, handle conscientious objectors during war). In this particular case I do respect your need to do what is right but have two thoughts. The first is that my objection is about this turning from a random one off of Worm into a pattern of you and Worm into a standard practice; if there had been more time between the two of you I'd likely have made my comment in support similar to what I did there. And the second builds on that: what else did you consider as a means of doing this in a way that would assure you that you were doing the right thing? Because the RfA is turning out the way it has was certainly predictable to me (it's why I made the comment when the RfA was 3-0-0). Did you consider asking a handful of people who you think have a good sense of the pulse of the community and who you feel would give you honest answers (rather than merely flattering you) what their thinking was? Or did you consider some other community way of going about this, perhaps asking at ORCP or even going to what's left of the road's project to ask? In other words, did you consider things to assuage your conscience before settling on RFA as the only way? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:::: I really truly did strongly consider going the BN route. As to asking other editors - my go-to would have been SandyGeorgia, but she has been much less active recently. Another would have been Vami IV, who has sadly passed on. I had forgotten than ORCP existed; that would have been a good route to go as a check before then going on to BN if I had remembered it. Going the roads route really felt to me like intentionally kicking a fire ant nest; I also don't know that the views held there are representative of the community at large, especially given my understanding is that most of them left because they found that their views on OR and notability were no longer as mainstream in the community as they once were. If some of the ideas Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Making_voluntary_"reconfirmation"_RFA's_less_controversial _Talk 21:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this comment: I assume the third sentence should read "This RfC feels like..."? isaacl (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of :15.ai. 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. – The Grid (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of :15.ai. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregariousMadness (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: You are overall an amazing admin, keep up the good work!
2. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/things I wish Barkeep would do differently: As a regular Signpost reader, I agree with Whatamidoing that some Signpost contributions in regards to the U4C would be appreciated.
3. (Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep:
4. (Optional) I consider you to be one of the best admins on the site. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
5. :Thanks @QuicoleJR for taking the time to think this through and leave some feedback. I am hoping to do something around blogging about the U4C - more to come there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Ehrenbach, snow on grass melting.jpg

| image_upright = 1.3

| bold = story · music · places

}}

On the Main page today Jean Sibelius on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's Fifth from the opening of Notre-Dame de Paris. We sang in choirs today. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

:What pretty choral spaces. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

:: Thank you! - Rehearsal was difficult - too many new pieces, too little light - but the singing, with raised vigilance, was good. - What do you think of {{diff|Samuel Barber|1251417174||this edit}}? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:: Listen today to the (new) Perplexities after Escher. - Do you expect to see the places of birth and death in an infobox, - that is the simple question. Do you have time to say yes or no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

:: The Samuel Barber situation looks resolved. I still find it sad that it happened at all, wasting time of five editors. I understand that you are busy, but in the new year, I want to engage arbitration to get to terms with editors still thinking that edit warring is a method to prevent information that our MoS displaced from the lead, such as places of birth and death, and recently honorific suffix. Where should they go if not in an infobox? - I will see an opera tonight! By the composer with the ongoing RfC!! The trailer (in my story) looks spectacular!!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:::So one of the great joys of not being on arbcom is I get to decide what I want to spend time on. And at least at the moment that isn't infoboxes. I know it remains on your mind but between the u4c and what already sucks me in I have a full plate of project work (especially relative to the content I've done lately). I am on team "edit warring about them is bad" so I wish good luck with cutting down on that in the new year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:::: One of the great joys on Wikipedia is that the Barber case has now (overnight) been completed nicely. May it be for a bright future. Enjoy the seasons, and me not bothering you again. On Beethoven's birthday I recall a DYK from 2020 (when his 250th bday was remembered). I fondly remember when Worm That Turned (who had co-written the infoboxes case) {{diff|Ludwig van Beethoven|662287287||installed the community consensus}}. I thought that possibility of a compromise would end the conflict, DYK? - Right now I'm working on 6 Bach cantata GAs parallel, almost too much of a good thing, but they all turn 300 years, and Christmas in Bach's Leipzig was on 3 days, each with a new cantata. I love creating content! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::I think the community consensus provision has shaped and dulled the conflict even as it hasn't quite eliminated it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:::: Listen today to Beethoven's 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - I picked a recording with Antônio Meneses, because he was on my sad list this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:::: I come to fix the cellist's name, with a 10-years-old DYK and new pics - look for red birds --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to post in your talk page regarding this, but would relisting the AfD be a possible outcome? I spent a lot of time digging up those sources, and I don't know if I can rewrite the whole article with the new sources without the previous version of the article. I'm just hoping that my time and effort isn't going to waste because I truly do believe that my argument is solid enough to establish GNG of 15.ai. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:Relisting is absolutely a possible outcome. Feel free to suggest it at DRV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

::I had already done that, sorry for the confusion -- what I meant was since you were able to change it from "no consensus" to "delete", would it be possible to change it to "relist" to gain a better consensus on the sources? Or is that an inappropriate question to ask? I apologize in advance if I shouldn't have asked that. I just can't remember what the article used to look like and the logs don't exist.

::And also, should I tag the users that I mentioned voted Keep? For example, I wrote "Schützenpanzer changed their vote from Weak Keep to Keep, JarJarInks voted Keep, Aaron Liu expressed his Keep vote (but didn't bold it)" without using the User tag. I don't know if this would be considered canvassing, so I thought I'd ask you before I did anything like that. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 23:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

::I'm sorry for not discussing with you on your talk page before creating the deletion review. I didn't know that it was considered polite to ask and then bring it to DRV, and sadly Liz hadn't responded by the time I had already posted it on DRV. I think it's too late for that now, but I would have asked you to reconsider de-weighting EC's arguments because I feel like I gave a pretty good one. I really, really think that moving it from "no consensus" to "delete" was incorrect, so if there's any alternative that could keep the article intact so I can edit in my drafts, I implore that I be given a chance to do that. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 12:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Navigating Wiki procedures can be a challenge. One general tip is to read the full set of instructions (where discussing with a closer was mentioned) and not just the "how to" (which I know is itself intimidating). In this case it does not matter as I could relist but I stand by my re-close of the topic. While I appreciate your passion and the work you did on the article and it certainly had an impact, I think there was a consensus (but not a vote) to delete this article. As discussed, I do think giving you access to the deleted text (if it stays deleted) is appropriate as there might be another place you could use the writing and incorporate your further research. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

People seem to think that the new article is a copy of the old 15.ai article, but it isn’t since I spent all of last night writing this one. I’d really appreciate it if you could clarify that for anyone who thinks that. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Following the suggestions of @WhatamIdoing & @QuicoleJR in my solicitation for feedback, I have now started a U4C blog. You can read it at User:Barkeep49/U4C. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the way someone with your profile has engaged on the HF/WTT RfAs - we might have different views, but you set a standard worthy of emulation. Thank you and regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for that feedback. I know on this kind of position I'm part of a wiki minority but I also believe consensus can change and I work to try and change it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, I noticed your extensive research posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence and your followup notes in the workshop. I'm usually the writer for The Signpost{{'}}s Arbitration report and it caught my eye. Would you be interested in collaborating on a writeup for the next issue (~January 7)? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:Sure @Bri. How could I help? On a different note someone has suggested that the Signpost might be interested in User:Barkeep49/U4C. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

::Cool! I'm most interested in the hypothesis you mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop#Analysis of Barkeep49's evidence. I'll leave it up to you how you want to present that, the data gathering, and how you decided your hypothesis was falsified. Maybe my part is to do a succinct introduction and wrapper describing where we are at with PIA5? What do you think?

::I've put a shell in place at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next next issue/Arbitration report. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

::Now that the final 2024 issue is done, I've moved this to "next issue" space for next Signpost issue: WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Arbitration report. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Thanks. Let me know if you need anything further from me but absent feedback from you I don't have any expansion plans (though am happy to do so if you think something needs expanding). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm correctly following the recent discussion, but did I do something wrong? I tried to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion but I might have gotten too carried away. Is there any chance that the AfD will be speedily deleted? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 04:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:Each individual post of yours is defensible but the total number of edits has been a lot. Obviously not so much I've yet said anything, but you're playing with fire each time you past. As for deletion it's possible some admin could come and close it as speedy deletion but I think that's unlikely at this time both because it's unlikely an admin will notice it and because even if they do, they would have to explain how it met the criteria. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

::But most of my edits are me just editing my own messages in quick succession right after I submitted one… I don't think I made 52 separate comments as BusterD said. I want to respond to their comment because I want to defend myself but I don't know if I should. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 10:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:::You have painted yourself into this corner, GregariousMadness. It is your behavior, not content of those individual edits, which has made such an impression on me. On Wikipedia, it's usually better to make your point with sources, not argumentation. It's a forgivable newbie error. What I said at the AfD is what I believe any closer might say when they come to this discussion. Remember I started this process neutrally, disinterested in the outcome, as an admin should be. But as page creator, I'm a page watcher as well. I have a wide difference of views from many of the !voters, but I have largely sat quiet. Your behaviors in this process wouldn't reflect well on any participant. That you can't see that is precisely the handicap under which you're laboring. BusterD (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

::::{{tq|On Wikipedia, it's usually better to make your point with sources, not argumentation.}} I'm really confused by what I did wrong because I thought all of my arguments were based on sources I was finding. I have 17 comments in the AfD total right now. I tried being cautious so as not to bludgeon and I was told that commenting new sources as a new comment would not be counted as a bludgeon, which was why I was happy to make my point there. I'm asking you, as a veteran editor, how I can improve going forward, and explicitly pointing out where I went wrong would be very helpful to me. But right now, I am just too scared to say anything in the AfD. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 11:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::@GregariousMadness I count about 90 replies. You having about 1/5 of all replies is an issue. Your % of bytes is even more disproportionate - coming in at 1/3 (the # of edits you've made is even more disproportionate but that reflects your habit of making tweaks to edits you've made as much as anything). My recommendation going forward is not to post. And where you feel you must do it on the talk page. I'm really trying to give you leeway - I'm here to create not delete stuff and so letting the best case possible be put forward for a marginal topic is something I value - but you're basically out of that leeway and if you can't show good judgement about when to post I will force the issue through a partial block. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::I'm really sorry. I'll stop posting, but again I don't think I have 90 replies. I counted them one by one, and the reason my reply count seems so big is because I have a habit of making trivial edits after I've made a post. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 00:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::There are ~90 total replies so your 17 is about 20% of the total replies. As noted here and at the AfD by bytes you have a higher proportion. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::And as for the last reply, I did it because I originally brought to topic to HyperAccelerated's talk page, but they told me to continue the conversation in the AfD instead. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 00:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: {{User4|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User4|Epicgenius}}, {{User4|Frostly}}, {{User4|Guerillero}} and {{User4|Lee Vilenski}}. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency, I will say that I received several substantive pieces of feedback offwiki.

• Continue doing: this feedback pretty closely matched the feedback offered on wiki. If someone's really interested I'll go into details but it feels ridiculous to summarize this publicly.
• Start/stop: There was a theme among some that I am, at times, more abrupt/curt/hard line/cutting in my off-wiki communications than I am on-wiki. This is summarizing feedback by three different people which was offered in quite some depth (which I appreciate).
• :For the feedback which came more from my work on arbcom, I certainly can understand where the feedback came from but I'm not so convinced that I should do anything differently were I to be on arbcom again. For the feedback which came from people's personal encounters I've given it a lot more thought and it is something I'm going to try and act differently with. The people who gave me feedback are all people who I am friendly with and who also had nice things to say but the question for me is whether there are others who felt impacted but didn't feel comfortable giving feedback. In the specific instances given as examples (which applies more to the abrupt/curt/cutting) I certainly knew that I was writing in a different tone than how I'd have said something on wiki. Some of that is because off-wiki is more casual, some of it is because I didn't invest the same amount of time I would have on wiki. Knowing the impact it had means I'm going to approach such situations at least more carefully and perhaps all together different.

Overall I'd say this was a successful process. I got positive affirmation and some meaningful feedback about things I might want to do differently. I would definitely encourage other admins to consider. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Ralston College on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:List of political parties in the United States on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

File:Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

File:Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

File:Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.

File:Info Simple bw.svg Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

----

{{center|{{flatlist|

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

}}}}

{{center|1=Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}

An editor has asked for a deletion review of :1960s in history. 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.

also: 1970s in history, 1980s in history, 1990s in history, 2000s in history.

Sm8900 (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep, you closed this thread/report at SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz#7 January 2025 with no action. Was that because it was filed by a sock account or because you determined Boksi and BePrepared were not sock accounts?

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:@IOHANNVSVERVS I only considered the BilledMammal element of that filing substantively and closed the rest of it on "it was filed by a sock" grounds. You can see at the SPI below it I do substantively consider BePrepared (and there is a new SPI open about them as well). Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::I see, thank you.

::Do you think the concerns and evidence I presented [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FIcewhiz&diff=1268435942&oldid=1268432276] warrant an SPI filing for Boksi? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Nevermind for now, there's not much to go on in what I added alone. I do think they are a likely sock however, perhaps I'll gather more info and file an SPI another time. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Spworld2 has asked for a deletion review of :Thajuddin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 16:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey Barkeep! I saw you were reviewing History of Székesfehérvár at the same time as I. I noticed the page was created in one edit with "clarification needed" tags and all, so I made the edit summary of this: {{diff||1270074136}}. Is there anything else that needs to be done beyond having that statement in the edit summary for attribution? I didn't see any notice at the source page of Székesfehérvár, which hadn't been edited since October 2024 and the split came about in December 2024. Thank you, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks @Utopes. I thought I'd seen attribution of the clear split but obviously didn't; your post facto comment suffices under the license. If I was feeling more motivated I'd have linked it back to the main article better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
• AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
• Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
• WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: {{tq|Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.}}
• Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
• The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
• The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
• Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
• Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE. {{cot|Details of the balanced editing restriction}}

:* In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.

:**This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.

:**Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.

:* They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).

:* This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.

:* Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.

{{cob}}

• If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

: Discuss this at: {{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed}}

:Copied from {{Section link|Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)|Universal Code of Conduct annual review: provide your comments on the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines}} because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

Why tag an unblock request as "CU needed" when it says right above that there's an SPI associated with the block already? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)\

:@Jpgordon this could show my inexperience in working unblocks. What is the standard way to indicate to other CUs that a consult is needed in order to evaluate the unblock request (which is that I got it wrong and they are not the same editor)? There would be no reason to do that at SPI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::I think using the CU needed tag on the user talk page is correct. The SPI is already closed; the CU tag denotes that another check /second opinion is needed in order to review an appeal of the CU block. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:Copied from {{Section link|Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)|Feminism and Folklore 2025 starts soon}} because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.