User talk:SlimVirgin/January 2018

Happy New Year, SlimVirgin!

Happy New Year!

SlimVirgin,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock

Hi, I am not in favour of an off-wiki conversation on this article or any article. I must say that I am concerned about the change in reference style that you have implemented which appears to loose details of the publisher and access information, consolidating several references into single references etc.

I had not made the connection between the Sarah being spoken about and your user-id at the time I made my initial comment on the talk page. I may now be in favour of returning the article to the pre-Christmas version that I working on before my break and favoured by the other editor who I was working with. Keith D (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Replied on talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Response to your question concerning AE

Hi, in response to your question here: Consensus is not necessary for an AE sanction. The topic ban was issued because the conduct that triggered it was related to the topic. Sandstein 20:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not continue to post about this at WP:AE or you may be sanctioned for disruption. Discussion of enacted sanctions is not part of the enforcement process and does not belong at WP:AE, but on its talk page or other relevant discussion fora. Sandstein 20:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) @Sandstein:, I'd appreciate it if you would allow discussion to continue there, perhaps by reopening it. The decision seems harsh and premature, and above all it's a category mistake.

I wrote the above before I read your post. "Sanctioned for disruption"? I think you are overreaching badly. Pinging MONGO, whom I forgot to alert earlier. Also Tony1, who may find this amusing for other reasons. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:AE is a forum for requesting arbitration enforcement. Your post is not requesting arbitration enforcement and should therefore be made on an appropriate discussion page. Sandstein 20:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I've made my position clear on Sandstein's talk page. It was a poor close, misrepresenting the alternate proposal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Consensus is not necessary for an AE sanction" is, while perhaps correct, had me thinking that AE must be reformed. For the record, I also disagree with the close, but I will await for more opinions. Alex Shih (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein has removed my post again, so I'll ping the other admins here: @Vanamonde93, NeilN, Drmies, Bishonen, Black Kite, Alex Shih, BU Rob13, and Masem: I think the topic ban should be overturned and a discussion needs to be had somewhere about Sandstein and AE. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

AE is kind of weird (I'm working on some observations). An admin has the authority to levy sanctions on anyone without needing input or a post to the AE board. I wouldn't want to change this. However if a request is posted to the board and another admin disagrees with the first admin's proposal before the first admin takes action then I do think consensus should be necessary at that point. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I disagree that it was poor close, but perhaps you could explain how Sandstein's close misrepresented the alternate proposal. I read his close three times and I'm not seeing it.

@SlimVirgin: Why did you think it was appropriate to re-open the AE request out of process? Is there not a well-documented appeal process?- MrX 20:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Please read the top part of the thread I opened on Sandstein's talk page. And note Sandstein eventually moving the goalposts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I guess the golden nugget is "The alternate proposal does reflect that Wikipedia editing does not occur in segregated namespaces." I don't really see what bearing that has on anything, since it is established that we are well past warnings and prohibitions on casting aspersions and overt personal attacks. Those are already memorialized in policy and by the Arbcom case. It's bizarre to me that anyone would consider simply restating an existing project-wide policy as a solution for a documented pattern of violating that same policy.- MrX 21:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I understand why you disagree with the sanction. I do not, however, share your opinion. My experience is that is almost not possible to impose AE sanctions against long-term community members without a substantial minority, or even a majority, of other long-term community members disagreeing with it for one reason or another. However, AE enforces decisions of ArbCom that are not subject to community consensus. For this reason, ArbCom has deliberately decoupled AE sanctions from community discussion or consensus, and put them into the discretion of individual administrators. The last revision of the relevant procedures, WP:AC/DS, deliberately did not impose any requirement to take into account the consensus of other admins or users. The procedures only require the following:

"Administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally. However, when the case is not clear-cut they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement. When a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request."

In the instant case, I did read and take into consideration the opinions of others, even if I did not follow all of them. There being no consensus about the nature of the sanction to impose, the issue of overruling colleagues did not arise. The relevant procedures were therefore complied with.

Any further discussion of the merits of the sanction should, I think, occur only in the context of an appeal by MONGO, in which case community consensus becomes relevant again to determine the outcome of the appeal. Because the procedures also specify that only the sanctioned user may appeal, the sanction cannot be overturned outside of an appeal by MONGO. If they do not appeal, they accept the sanction and any further discussion is moot. I hope this addresses your concerns. Sandstein 20:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Terrible behaviour from admins, chilling discussions with threats. Standard these days it seems. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

That's ludicrous.- MrX 20:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and next thing, you'll get someone to revert and then protect the page, and that's what we call "repression". Next? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

lol. You forgot censorship and rouge admins!.- MrX 21:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope, just try to remember the value of those who contribute to the encyclopedia, and the community who ardently distrust most of the admins and arbs right now, and would prefer to look after each other rather than those who just police it. "Lol" to you too. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Come on. A retirement is not accepting the sanction. It's a "screw this and screw Wikipedia". Big difference - don't 1984 it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• NeilN, yes, exactly. It is no different from any other admin action. We can all block without discussion, but once a discussion begins, we ought not to ignore the consensus. AE is set up so that a group of uninvolved admins can offer a view. No single admin should be able to override that once it has started; otherwise why have the discussion? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

There was not even a block and your comment is astonishingly out of touch with reality. There's not even a requirement for admin discussion at AE.. Are you just making things up now?- MrX 21:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The comment was hypothetical? The behaviour of many admins and arbs is "astonishingly out of touch with reality". Are you just making things up now? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sandstein, no, it does not address my concerns. The problem is black-and-white thinking and an apparent enjoyment of threatening and imposing sanctions. As I recall you took a break from AE for a while. I think you should consider taking another one. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  I think we'll go for a recall discussion actually. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose SlimVirgin being recalled for making a relatively harmless mistake. - MrX 21:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

That's possibly the encyclopedia definition of WP:DICK, but I'm not sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree—you should not have suggested it. I don't think you're a dick though.- MrX 21:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it seems like it's you that's acting like a dick and Sandstein who will be recalled in due course. Just for clarity, of course, I felt the need to explain this to you in black and white. I understand what you're attempting to do, but you failed, very miserably. Now then, off with you and let's go and improve Wikipedia for our readers. I'm sure you can do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Its easy to forget that an AE is about the editor not the admin who closes a case. If there is any doubt that a decision is wrongly reached then the admin closing must in good conscience deal with that issue. Its not about the rigidity of maintaining a process; its about a fair decision. Its doubly easy for an admin to dig in when challenged, to feel attacked. Once again, this is about the editor and what is fair not the admin and not the process. The process and admin must serve the community not damage it as happens if an unfair decision is reached. There is no shame in reversing a decision. In fact the admins I admire the most are also those who know they serve not control the encyclopedia. A thought ... or two.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC))

Mail call

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

Bishonen | talk 21:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC).

Du erhältst einen Orden!

	Der Gemeinschaftsorden
	Für deine Vielzahl an Bearbeitungen und deine Beiträge an die Gemeinschaft. Umweltheizung (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Umweltheizung, much appreciated. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to leave a note. I'm not big on barnstars or platitudes. We've both agreed and disagreed with collegiality. What I've come to respect is that regardless of whether we agree or disagree, you approach topics with integrity. I try to emulate that and it is gratifying to see it demonstrated. Thank you. --DHeyward (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

DHeyward, thank you. It's very nice of you to say that. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. I am hoping that some changes may now result that will make the process a better one.--MONGO 13:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Mongo. I'm really appalled and am glad that things seem to be working out. Coretheapple (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@MONGO and Coretheapple: thanks to both of you. MONGO, I'm very pleased that the topic ban has gone. Core, I hope we can somehow make improvements to AE. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty bad. a cross between a condo board and a knife fight. Coretheapple (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request declined

Hi SlimVirgin. The American politics 2 arbitration amendment request has been closed at the direction of the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

external links

• i need help in putting in links in bi-o's i see them but the rules conflict (notable people)

50.254.21.213 (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists.
• You are editing the person. Then there is the Foundation, which is the foundation that is honoring the two people Neither the domain that you put on the page of nor the facebook are of persion, they are of the foundation. Neither have hence a place on the page, as they are both indirect to the subject."
• "case you start the page about the foundation, then there the official link would be a suitable link, the facebook still fails, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL - it is an official site of the subject there, but we generally list only one, with very rare exceptions to that rule.
• the foundation was hers’ .. "I own a bike, does that make me a bike. You say yourself they are two different things. If you want to serve reader, then you provide thewith correct info, and a page about the foundation. The link is not appropriate, nor the facebook that the bot removed. I clean several pages a day of such myself."50.254.21.213 (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• i find a conflict to all this., this is like texting i find this way of communicating very difficult for me.
• hello are you still there ???

50.254.21.213 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Which article do you want to add a link to? If you show me the article, and let me know which links, I can try to help. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• i did that on his talk page and he shot me down that is the problem 2 many people come into this and it takes an administrator to come in and fix it, like the guy that changed the title of the deerbrook mall, that is what starts edit wars and that is what is wrong with not having an editorial board there is 2 much infighting on this platform.
• what about face book can you site the exception to the rule. 50.254.21.213 (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• you are an administrator and a biographer are you going to step in or just let thousands of pages with facebook links be wiped out.

i think that this is important enough to be made in to a rule. 50.254.21.213 (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ronald_Reagan#External_Lnks 50.254.21.213 (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 50.254.21.213 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC) 50.254.21.213 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin:50.254.21.213 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• "While I sympathise with the IP's frustration here, the bottom line is that, due to linkspam, IP/new users are not allowed to add social media links to pages, enforced by XLinkBot. As noted, the links of the subject are acceptable, but they have to be placed by an autoconfirmed user. It's unfortunate, but that's how it is, and appealing to WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't change it. I suspect WP:VPP would be the place to propose either allowing IP users to add social media links, or to ban them altogether; beyond that it's a case of content and that's not something ANI adjuciates." The Bushranger 23:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)50.254.21.213 (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• ? you are an administrator, you are a biographer, you have social media sites in your pages you put more than one external links in your pages as it has been said IP's are monitored by bots, and face book even if it belongs there is a automatic revert and as you know 12 edits were also reverted that i will never get back before i got there this page had been under copyright infringement taken from other web sites and just back open with the last edit being in april in complaining to the bot user he went in and removed all links as you said you put them back in, but they are gone again in the ANI, facebook and external links can be in biographies a perfict example is ronald regan with the fondation and 21 external links so know that you have locked it what is stoping you from puting back my 12, the fondation page and facebook as you have in your pages. ? 50.254.21.213 (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• as you have locked the page NZ Footballs Conscience has reverted my talk entries50.254.21.213 (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Request to create a redirect/disambiguation page for Vivekanandan

To my great surprise, a search for 'Vivekanandan' yielded no WP article. It thus came to my notice that there used to be an article, that was created by multiple people in the last decade for spurious reasons and deleted each time, and therefore protected against further creation, in 2010 by you. However, I find it notable enough to be included in WP. Hence, I request you to enable creation of one of the following and semi-protect it:

• at least a redirect page to Swami Vivekananda, who is the primary intended person when one searches for the name Vivekanandan. Vivekanandan is a popular Anglicized version of his name as used in South India, for example in Tamil (ta:விவேகானந்தன்) and Malayalam (ml:വിവേകാനന്ദൻ).
• create a disambiguation page, because in addition to Swami Vivekananda, there are other notable persons with this name variant including V. K. Sasikala and Vivek (actor) and the text Vivekanandan version. Unfortunately, individual English WP pages are yet to be created for many of them - including G Vivekanandan, the famous Malayalam writer.

Thank you very much! Sahrudayan (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sahrudayan: I've unprotected the page. Good luck with your editing. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! A disambiguation page Vivekanandan has been created now. Sahrudayan (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding "Cruelty to animals" category in Animal Testing article

Your opinion is sought here: Talk:Animal testing § Adding "Cruelty to animals" category in Animal Testing article. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Morrison-Shearer

FYI - The IP was trying to add Morrison-Shearer's Facebook page to the other links, and so was getting reverted by XLinkBot. Adding the Facebook page as an EL would be OK usually, but I looked at it and it had practically no content, so since the MS official website was already linked there, there seemed no point. The IP seemed to think that the bot was going to wipe out Facebook links from every other page as well, which of course it wouldn't. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: thanks for explaining. I was looking at this revert, which reverted around 20 12 of the IP's edits because one edit added a Facebook link. Is the bot meant to do that? I was about to mention it on AN/I, but the thread was closed. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question, actually, to which I don't know the answer. I'll try to find out. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the bot has to do that. What usually happens is that a newbie comes to Wikipedia to add their favorite links. They take three or four attempts to get the syntax correct, and that might take a couple of hours since they may not notice a problem until later. Then the bot finds the addition of an external link (which probably happened on the newbie's last edit because the others were broken). If the bot reverts only the last edit, the result is that the link is still there but with broken syntax. The bot cannot tell which changes are desirable and which were merely attempts to add a link. The issue has been discussed many times with the bot operator over several years. There is no good solution, but one thing is certain—it is the fact that a bot automatically and quickly reverts suspect links that means we are not drowning in spam. When people see the fast response they tend to go elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I thought it seemed a bit harsh at first, but then I saw User:XLinkBot/FAQ#REVERTALL, and as you say it seems to be the least-bad option. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

LQ

As per the edits on the page for Ernest Hemingway, what is "LQ"? (I'm referring to "rv I believe this was written with LQ")

I've always seen it expressed that punctuation should be within quotation marks and that it is incorrect to place them outside.

--Tkbrett (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tkbrett, punctuation can go inside, or inside/outside depending on whether you're dealing with a sentence or sentence fragment. The latter is known as "logical quotation" (LQ), and it's what the MoS recommends. I don't mind which you use, but I believe Hemingway was written with LQ, so by changing a couple of examples you introduced an inconsistency. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. Okay, thanks! --Tkbrett (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

ANI

Just a heads up, might want to leave a message on Coffee's talk page about the post on ANI. A ping technically is not sufficient. PackMecEng (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, NeilN did it. Sorry about that. PackMecEng (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Again. Please remember this requirement. If the admins don't follow it... :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Neil, you beat me to it. I was still trying to get the number of edits right. After that I left a note on the account's page. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I would have gladly changed it

You said at ANI in reply to TonyBallioni that I would not have listened to your input at my talk page. That simply isn't true, and I don't know what gave you that impression. I specifically stated in the relist that I would gladly take concerns at my talk page, and I thought that carried with it the impression that I wasn't 100% set in the concept so hard that I wouldn't change my mind. I literally came up with the idea thinking you would appreciate it... I clearly assumed wrong. But I mean, literally knowing the person I was trying to help out didn't like the idea would have been more than enough to majorly reconsider my standpoint. I wish you didn't have such a bad impression of me from whatever grudge or previous dealings you might think I have against you or something... I don't have anything against you at all. There are too many people on this site for me to even remember most interactions, and most times even if I've not had a great interaction before, I'm always willing to still understand that person's perspective. You might think I'm just spouting a load of bollocks. But, I'm not. I'm being honest with you: I don't understand why you don't think I'm a good enough or reasonable enough administrator that you couldn't have at least tried to approach me directly regarding the matter. It's perfectly okay that you took it to a larger forum. But, you had to have known that people have in the past enjoyed slamming my head into a virtual wall there as happens to a lot of administrators who have a history of handling contentious areas (like AE and whatnot). If you didn't that's fine too... I just feel I got a lot more harshness from you than I deserved. I really only wanted to help out. *sigh* — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a grudge, and thank you for assuring me that there is nothing like that from your perspective. I did ask you to reconsider here and it made no difference, so I assumed that going to your talk would produce more of the same.

The issue is to some extent time-sensitive. Actors are making statements, and Dylan Farrow is giving her first television interview in the morning, which will bring more sources and more readers. It would have been good to have the issue settled so that the article can be developed. I can't see any reason not to have closed it as "no consensus". As for a multi-gender close, all genders can be sexist. What we need in a close like that is for someone simply to sum up the responses. If there's a gender-sensitive article that most reasonable editors would want to keep, but people are nevertheless supporting deletion, I can see grounds for an admin to think that a special panel might be needed, but that wasn't happening there. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That was a singular reply into our conversation. And I hadn't achieved a full understanding of where you were coming from until the ANI commentary... I couldn't tell if you realized that I didn't close it as no consensus because I wanted the article to not be retained. If I'm being honest, if I were voting in the AFD itself I would have likely argued for its retention. But I tend to pull my personal opinions away from my discussion/consensus reviews. And to me, the discussion looked like it could use the standard relist for an unclear consensus. I hate no consensus closes (especially after only ~1 week) for one main reason: they allow almost immediate re-openings of AFDs which equals a waste of admin/editor time. So in most AFDs I always try to attain an actually firm consensus if at all possible. The gender concept was just a thing I thought might be necessary if it was still a hard to determine consensus in 7 days time, which I couldn't predict at this point so that is the reason for the relist comment being more of a "I'll consult with someone" than I will definitely do this in "xyz" manner. I know a lot of people feel weird by relisters reserving a discussion, but I've been asked to review RFCs way before they close (once with a panel of 3 administrators) and sometimes to just watch over them during their timeline. I saw this as not much different than one of those... and in reality it isn't. Just for some reason AFDs come across as more contentious, and admins always get accused of supervoting (something I've literally never done). I understand if it seemed like I wanted to subvert something, but I can assure you I wasn't. I do truly appreciate knowing you didn't make the decision off of something in my history... but it would have been nice if we could have had a touch of a longer discussion without escalation. I truly believe I would have made the same call... hell I was about to before anyone else even jumped on the ANI thread, because, like I said, I made the original choice because of something you said... knowing you disagreed is pretty much all the push I needed to see the idea wasn't going to be useful. I just wanted to hash out the idea, minus the accusation of me wanting to supervote (which in the AFD appeared to be why you were concerned about the entirety of the idea), before reversing the idea to bring in a female administrator to help close the discussion with me. I hope that's somewhat clearer. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we always know when we're supervoting (just as we may not know when we're being sexist). It's something that tends to be in the eye of the beholder. But anyway, thank you for explaining your position. I do appreciate it. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Woody Allen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Aside from anything else, the RfC at Talk:Woody Allen about this issue is still open. You can't declare yourself above RfCs and just choose to ignore no consensus there. For your convenience, I've opened an RfC at Talk:Woody Allen sexual assault allegation. If you unilaterally declare that RfC protocol does not apply to you, then I'm afraid this will go to an ANI. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I am astonished. It is so completely beyond the pale to rewrite another edit's talk page post that I am stunned. Please refrain from repeating that completely over-the-line action. Your WP:OWN behavior might have been enough to begin at ANI, but this would clinch it. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss this on article talk and don't post on my talk page again. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Except that you're attacking me there. There is no need to make opinion claims about me as if they are fact. There was no reason to mention me at all in your RfC2. Yet you chose to gratuitously attack me rather than just running your RfC and leaving me to mine. Please remove your gratuitous comment about me and let your RfC2 stand on its own merits. If you accept my request, I'm happy to accept your request to refrain from commenting here when necessary. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sent you an email

Can't discuss it on-wiki, for what should be obvious reasons. Courcelles (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You!

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Your ability to stay calm and collected when some other users are being obtuse, inflammatory, or otherwise just exhausting has been noticed, and is very much celebrated. Keep it up, you! -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 13:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC) (Couldn't really find an appropriate barnstar, but this is close enough)

Alfie, many thanks, much appreciated! SarahSV ^(talk) 17:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg. 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. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

File:William Hitchcock with boy and pony, c. 1900.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:William Hitchcock with boy and pony, c. 1900.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. damiens.rf 19:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

BLP, BLP1E and punitive damages (and other things!)

I know you deal with "difficult topics" (and by now you will have had too many of these!) and you were the prime mover for BLP. I raised a discussion topic at WT:Biographies of living persons#People where punitive damages have been awarded in a civil court and have been taken aback by the reply I have so far got. Could you spare the time to give your opinions or otherwise improve things? Thincat (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thincat: sorry to take so long to reply to this. I saw it, thought "I'll reply to that later", then of course forgot. I'll take a look at the discussion shortly. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look at this. I'm going to let things settle down before doing anything more – it'll also give me time to ponder. She was certainly a (very) low-profile person up until the allegations but (so far as I can judge) is now quite big news in Australia and Israel. I'd like to say that much of the outcry has come from the Jewish community (including Adass Israel itself) but this is really only my surmise after reading a lot of articles and I haven't yet found a good source saying this explicitly. Looking at the article after being away from it for a few days, I feel quite queasy about it now. I was upset about the situation at the time which is a good incentive for writing but not the best feeling for being dispassionate. Thincat (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thincat: yes, I know what you mean. I find the best thing is not to look (or think about it) for a few days. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
• Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)