Jump to content

User talk:Wugapodes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 213.205.194.214 (talk) at 21:45, 5 March 2021 (→March flowers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Backlog

Transcluded from User talk:Wugapodes/Tasks

GAN report: mystery solved?

Wugapodes, you may recall that in the GAN report's Malformed nominations sections, an "Unknown nomination" link to the Film section of the page, but with no other information beyond that, showed up for this first time on June 1, 2019. It finally disappeared last night, and I have a tentative diagnosis.

I believe the nomination in question was for Rushmore (film), which was originally made on May 31, 2019, during the day and with a subtopic of "Film". It was clearly a handmade GA nominee template (people are supposed to substitute the GAN template): what I thought was the problem here was that there were no links for the nominator or their talk page, which I fixed. What I missed when I finally started investigating in mid-June—and what I think caused your bot to pick up on the error—was that the date/time field was malformed: all times are supposed to have two digits for the hour and two for the minutes, and this was formatted "8:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)" rather than "08:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)", something I didn't notice until today, when I was trying to figure out what went wrong.

I think it was the problematic date that caused the problem, though there may have been something else about this nomination that caused it—this is a tentative diagnosis, after all, and it may be accurate, partially accurate, or not the actual issue at all. Still, this info might help you track down where in the code the error might have been generated, and why the link was to the section rather than the actual (problematic) nomination.

Hope all is well, and best of luck tracking this down. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, yeah, that's probably it. The regular expression which parses the noms assumes that the timestamp has two digits for the hour, so that's an easy fix. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GANs to do

New Years Greetings

I've noticed that some of these GANs directly above are either done or on hold. In case you might be interested, I've recently listed the biography for the film director Martin Scorsese as a nomination. He is nominated for an Oscar this year and I thought it might be nice if his article could be brought to peer review quality before the Oscars next month, if you might be inclined to look at it. CodexJustin (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome template

More readable article

Thanks for listening to me and making the changes. May I also suggest you consider changing the rather long sentence: "It used to be only the study of the systems of phonemes in spoken languages, but it now may also cover any linguistic analysis either at a level beneath the word (including syllable, onset and rime, articulatory gestures, articulatory features, mora, etc.) or at all levels of language where sound or signs are structured to convey linguistic meaning." I count about 66 words which requires a grade 31 to read (how many PHDs is that :). Here is a suggested revision: At one time it only related to the study of the systems of phonemes in spoken languages. Now it may cover either a) any linguistic analysis either at a level beneath the word (including syllable, onset and rime, articulatory gestures, articulatory features, mora, etc.), or b) all levels of language where sound or signs are structured to convey linguistic meaning. I will leave it too you. Cheers. John (talk)

Tech News: 2021-08

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • The visual editor will now use MediaSearch to find images. You can search for images on Commons in the visual editor when you are looking for illustrations. This is to help editors find better images. [1]
  • Advanced item The syntax highlighter now works with more languages: Futhark, Graphviz/DOT, CDDL and AMDGPU. [2]

Problems

  • Editing a timeline might have removed all text from it. This was because of a bug and has been fixed. You might need to edit the timeline again for it to show properly. [3]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 February. It will be on all wikis from 25 February (calendar).

Future changes

  • Advanced item There is a user group for developers and users interested in working on Wikimedia wikis with the Rust programming language. You can join or tell others who want to make your wiki better in the future.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

00:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

In your statement are you saying you agree with Johnuniq's assessment about my TfD, or you agree with the general idea that concerns of retaliation (when the filer might've also made a mistake) scares people away from reporting issues? I'd personally dispute Johnuniq's statement, the simplest example being I found it very hard to get PR to say what the dispute was about; in my very first reply to him I succinctly said that I agreed with the understanding of the dispute he outlined in his own words.[4]: Johnuniq, that is pretty much an accurate description, I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: Let me ramble for a moment, though if you're short on time the last sentence is a direct answer to your question so feel free to skip my musings. Have you ever listened to the band Nana Grizol? I quite like them. They're a folk band from Georgia and I'm particularly drawn to their lyricism; reminds me a lot of The Tallest Man on Earth, but with less bluegrass influence. Personally, I like their album Ursa Minor most, but at the moment I'm thinking of a song from Love It Love It which don't get me wrong is quite good, but it was their first album so they were still trying to find themselves I think. Anyway, my favorite song from is "Motion in the Ocean" which I think shows the group's unique mastery of meter along with their beautiful lyrical imagery reminiscent of Jeff Mangum. One line I find myself returning to in that song is Life's not made up of things that must be lost or won/But you can live that way if that's what you call fun. In terms of composition I'm not sure if it's the strongest part of the song but I like the turn of phrase even if it's not flawless. I enjoy meditating on it every so often. Check it out if you get the chance! Anyway, I haven't looked into the merits of this dispute extensively, and quite honestly I don't really care about this particular spat. To directly answer your question, I "agree with the general idea that concerns of retaliation (when the filer might've also made a mistake) scares people away from reporting issues". — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green for hope

Lenten Rose

Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the note, and especially for your tireless contributions! I'm always inspired by the efforts of Greens, they remind me of the American abolition movement's philosophy as summarized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton: "I never forget that we are sowing winter wheat which the coming spring will see sprout and other hands than ours will reap and enjoy". I'm glad the flowers are still blooming! To keep up my recent trend of music recommendations, have you ever listened to The Decemberists? You reminded me of one of my favorite songs of theirs, "June Hymn". The imagery never fails to get me into a spring mindset. I like to think of it as part of a three song cycle starting with with "January Hymn" from the same album and ending with "July!, July!" from their first album. Personally, I'm looking forward to the summer, largely because I hope the pandemic will be mostly behind us. I've gone stir crazy, and though work is largely to blame for my recent absence, a not-insignificant factor is that I'm simply too grumpy most days to keep my cool. Things are tense in the real world, so things are tense on Wikipedia because Wikipedia is in the real world. Sarah and I think a few others made a similar point in the RfArb, and I think we'd do well as a community to keep that in mind; a lot of us are worn out. We shouldn't ignore the problems incivility causes for the community, but we also shouldn't make situations worse by throwing sanctions around as if all our home lives haven't been severely disrupted. Hopefully ArbCom is able to handle that nuance. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I'll check out the music! We had one arb case where the accused said nothing. I'm in the process of nominating a garden architect for DYK, more later perhaps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 04:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

things I'm unclear on

Okay, that's infinite, but w/re the DYK manual upate. There are multiple steps I'm confused by at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Admin_instructions#Manually_posting_the_new_update_(if_the_bot_is_down), so maybe one at a time.

1. I've slightly clarified the first part of this one. The second part: If the image/file is on Commons and not protected, upload it to En and tag it with {{c-uploaded}}. Here's what I'm thinking: "So I download the commons image to my machine, upload it to Wikipedia under the filename specified in the hook...which in the case of the next up dyk appears to be a commons filename: File:1959_Michigan_Wolverines.png...how am I making sure what I'm uploading and naming and protecting is what the MP is expecting? What name am I uploading this file under?" —valereee (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I like the clarification you made! To answer your remaining questions: editors without +sysop cannot upload files to EnWiki if the filename is already used on commons, but as a sysop, you are able to do so (see reupload-shared at WP:UAL and the technical manual at mw:Manual:Configuring file uploads). Using File:1959_Michigan_Wolverines.png as an example, the software will always check to see if File:1959_Michigan_Wolverines.png exists on EnWiki, and if so uses that version. If it doesn't exist locally, it then check to see if commons:File:1959_Michigan_Wolverines.png exists and if so uses the file from that project. So by downloading commons:File:1959_Michigan_Wolverines.png and uploading it here under the same name, you are guaranteeing that the MP will use the local copy instead of the commons version. Hopefully this helps, but if not let me know and I can try to explain more clearly. Personally, I've never had to do this as the commons bot is pretty reliable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's exactly what was confusing me, thank you! Yes, I haven't had to manually protect a file, either. And frankly, it's a good thing that bot is reliable because the only time you can check is when it's in the top two queues (IIRC), which is usually days after I've moved the prep to queue, done all the other checks, and moved on. :) Okay, I made a couple of minor clarifications to #2, 3, 4. #5 doesn't need clarification even for dummies, as anyone who has ever moved a prep to queue will understand that one. So that actually seems like it's what only admins can do and must be done asap after the bot has gone down?
The rest can be done by other people over the next few hours, I think? #6 is a non-admin task. 7 is an admin task but could be handled later. 8 and 9 non-admin, could be handled later. 10, admin, could be handled later. And why is #11 even included as part of these instructions? —valereee (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Imo #10 (clearing the promoted queue) should be done asap and ideally by the same admin. If it sits around, people might not realize it's a duplicate until it's too late, especially if we're on two sets a day. The process of clearing the queue is also a useful sanity check in case the admin moved the wrong queue or missed a hook or something. It's not the most important part of the process, but if we're gonna organize them by must do/should do, I would want clearing the queue in the must do camp. Also, for #11 (promote preps) I think it's there to encourage proactive promotion instead of waiting for a backlog to happen. It also serves as a nudge for admins who might be helping out in a pinch but don't usually admin the DYK area. I've got no strong feelings on whether it should stay. But beyond that I think everything you said is correct.
If you do some more substantial refactoring of the instructions, let me know when you're done. I've noticed that the instructions on the preps and queues aren't synced with the main instructions, so I'd like to set up WP:section transclusion to keep the instructions all in one location. The downside is it makes the wikitext a bit more confusing so I'd rather wait for a stable version to keep the diffs tidy. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Album era

Happy to tell you that this article passed GA without any complications 😊 isento (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's great to hear! Thanks for your contributions (and the tea)! — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

Thank you for all the help and patience. isento (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2021-09

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • Wikis using the Growth team tools can now show the name of a newcomer's mentor anywhere through a magic word. This can be used for welcome messages or userboxes.
  • A new version of the VideoCutTool is now available. It enables cropping, trimming, audio disabling, and rotating video content. It is being created as part of the developer outreach programs.

Problems

  • There was a problem with the job queue. This meant some functions did not save changes and mass messages were delayed. This did not affect wiki edits. [5]
  • Some editors may not be logged in to their accounts automatically in the latest versions of Firefox and Safari. [6]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 March. It will be on all wikis from 4 March (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
  • Republic of Venice Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
  • Scotland ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
  • Rwanda Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
  • Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
  • Botswana The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
  • Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
  • Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
  • United States Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
  • England Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Message regarding Capricorn from IN

Your script successfully saved this edit. The script should not save this edit.--Alcremie (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) , modification at 12:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IN, it's up to you to know what redirect categories should be applied and that incorrect addition being saved isn't the failure of the script. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 18:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March flowers

Thank you for having taken the courage to close the IF RfC. I was determined not to take part and managed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I've been out of the loop, lots of people have pointed it out the close to me, but it struck me as pretty run-of-the-mill as far as contentious discussions go (well, besides the obvious duck). I honestly don't know much about the InfoboxWarsTM so I was actually excited to close the discussion: I get to learn about the history of the dispute and everyone else gets to have their issue settled. I might start closing more content discussions; I always wind up learning something new. I didn't know Fleming wrote Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang despite loving that movie as a child. Another is when I closed the Kyiv naming discussion and learned about Chicken Kiev. So from my perspective, it seems like we're making progress on improving the tone of these discussions. Hopefully we can improve to the point that you feel comfortable adding your voice again! — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, makes sense. My hope is different: that these discussions stop. I just read the one for Mary Shelley again - by chance, I was looking for something to nominate for TFA - where I participated and was told I add fuel. I drove editors away, allegedly, repeated by the Fleming writer (in an edit summary) just now. It remains a mystery to me, but your wording added light, I think. I quoted it on my simple-dream-page, - hope you don't mind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{Gerda HOUND}} Wow, Wugapodes, you're on a roll today! I can't believe that's the last I'll be hearing about Ian Fleming from a certain someone (poke-poke), though now I've probably just jinxed it!¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 22:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's very sad to hear. Truly, wikis work best when we're kind to each other, and if there's anyone synonymous with kindness in my mind, it's you. I'm glad you're enjoying editing elsewhere; you're obviously not short on quality contributions! But it's sad to see how poorly equipped we are as a community to handle conduct problems like this. I wish we could do better because we lose valuable perspectives on all fronts. I still think about a topic that came up in the anti-harassment RfC: have the WMF train volunteers in things like bystander intervention (see also Green Dot Bystander Intervention and meatball:DefendEachOther) and de-escalation methods so that the community has the resources to address and respond to abuse before we get to a point-of-no-return. While RfCs are part of the solution, if no one knows how to de-escalate we're just adding more fuel and hoping it doesn't get sparked. That's something that I really appreciated in the Fleming RfC, someone had been collapsing threads (maybe Ritchie but I didn't check) which not only helped as a closer, but set clear boundaries for participants about what behavior would and would not be tolerated. Working to head off problems pays off, and I wish we focused more of our energy there. I still lean towards meatball:RadicalInclusiveness, but that essay points out serious problems that I'm only starting to appreciate personally. By my impression, we're somewhere between stages 15 and 20 in the meatball:WikiLifeCycle and that's terrifying (I'd say 20 but I'm obviously in a mood). But no other wiki has had our community, its ingenuity, or our material resources; hope springs eternal. I believe you said it best though, "reformation is a work in progress". — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Howe to Yes springing ;)

What future bliss, He gives not thee to know,
But gives that hope to be thy blessing now.
Hope springs eternal in the human breast

— Alexander Pope (1891), Essay on Man
That's lovely. Thank you! Some of the things we tried to reform in 2013 are actually happening right now. Yes to hope springing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking about this, and trying to work out what triggers incivility. Part of the problem is, as mentioned on meatball:WikiLifeCycle, we don't really know each other. Although I've socialised with a couple of Wikipedians such as ClemRutter and Whispyhistory to the extent they've both spent time with my kids and not talking about WP at all, they're the exception rather than the rule. I suspect some editors don't have any proper friendships with fellow Wikipedians at all, and might even consider that to be a good thing.
The easiest example I can think of is when somebody edits an article on my watchlist that I've improved to GA standard. That implies I want the overall quality of each subsequent edit to be raised, and if somebody adds something that I believe doesn't meet that threshold, I will get irritated at being thrown some work in order to get it back there. I can't just revert because eg: if something is true and missing from the article, but unsourced, the other editor can justifiably claim that I could have got the source and add it myself. When my patience really comes under test is where I (or the other party) only slightly has the upper hand - I don't care if somebody wants to change the genre on an infobox from "Rock" to "Hard rock", but if somebody complains that a claim cited to three broadsheet newspapers still fails BLP, and doesn't come round to my point of view within a couple of discussion posts, I'm going throw my hands up in despair. Worked example - on posts 1 and 2, I'm talking about content, come to point 3 and I'm starting to use "you" - that's a warning sign right there.
However, if somebody who I know and get on with edits an article on my watchlist, I won't touch it. JG66 has edited plenty of articles I've done major work in, but I've worked alongside him in enough cases to trust that any edit he makes on those articles will be an unambiguous improvement. I think there's a lot to be said about people disdaining that which they do not know - it explains why some of the most strongest support for Remain in the Brexit Referendum was in areas that have a large immigrant population such as Inner London. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can follow. My personal case with this particular editor is different and too long for here. I declared him Precious eight years ago (before I even knew what an infobox is), and said so on his talk - as I routinely do -, and he took it as grave-dancing and reverted. I thanked him for the TFA - as I do every day, routinely - and he replied "not wanted" when reverting. That even was an article with an infobox. The next one will come soon, and I will hopefully remember to suppress my eagerness to thank. Why that is I don't know. - Some day in 2016, I woke up to the worst experience on Wikipedia so far: that Tim riley retired, and Ssilvers declared that was my work. I had no intention - ever - to drive anybody away, and now the one I had written FA and GA with, and without a clue what it was, allegedly. I had made - in defense for arbcom, beginning in 2013 and updating - a list of articles where infobox were reverted, which also included Ian Fleming. They seem to have discovered the list then, but how can that drive a grown-up person away? It was deleted as inviting to battle, which was absurd, because if there was battle, were not those who took something away the ones who started unfriendly actions? I am used to absurdity, having worked on Kafka. Just for background. - I have no secret army, just the community seems to want accessibility as I do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, not to be a jerk face, but to reiterate: please do suppress, with some vigor, even. Who knows why they view you with animus (I'm unable to tell the reasons for that, at least), but the fact is that they do. So, again, best to just leave them be as far as thanks go and so on. El_C 15:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a wonderful quote from Vonnegut that I find myself muttering every so often: "Busy, busy, busy, is what we Bokononists whisper whenever we think of how complicated and unpredictable the machinery of life really is." But yes, I think you're onto something...

Better for us, perhaps, it might appear,
Were there all harmony, all virtue here;
That never air or ocean felt the wind;
That never passion discompos'd the mind.
But ALL subsists by elemental strife;
And passions are the elements of life.
The gen'ral order, since the whole began,
Is kept in nature, and is kept in man.

— Alexander Pope (1891), Essay on Man
There's an interesting perspective at meta:Community#Body risk that you reminded me of (how rarely I cite meta), and an essay I've considered righting at the title Wikipedia:Using "real life" considered harmful. We are in the real world right now, and we are at risk. The stories at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#On abuse of administrators are heartbreaking, and only represent a fraction of perspectives. The abuse that non-sysops have told me they've endured for their on-wiki activity can be sickening---I had to decline involving myself publicly in a problem a user raised because I was already receiving threats due to my day-job and didn't want to invite more (I directed them to T&S and I hear they have been very helpful). Imagine what casual editors must endure! The idea that what we do here is disconnected from our or other activities is dangerous. It allows us to compartmentalize and rationalize behavior we would (hopefully) never inflict on each other in MeatSpace. Meeting other WikiMedians like you say is rare for many people---I didn't until I left rural New York---but I think eye opening due to the recognition that our CyberSpace and MeatSpace selves are in fact connected and mutually impactful. Aside from the various newbies that I work with at edit-a-thons, I think I've met very few established Wikipedians. I run into Kevin on campus every so often, and I chatted with Legoktm at a meetup once, but beyond that, if someone said they met me at the FooBar event it would still be like meeting a stranger (Sorry if you're reading this).
With a nod to Gerda, this place is Kafka-esque and inscrutible to nearly everyone. It is unkind from the start. This coming Monday I'm providing admin support for an edit-a-thon run by Ljdowning and seeing how hard it was for a professor to interact with us was heartbreaking. I archived it (see User_talk:Ljdowning/Archive_1) partly out of courtesy for when new editors start finding her talk page, but mostly out of embarrassment for our community. One of her first interactions with the community resulted in I think it is completely unfair of you to remove this entry so quickly. I am not online 24 hours a day. I stopped working yesterday evening, and I was going to polish and rework the entry today...Does no one review the reviewers? and the interactions barely got more welcoming from there. That she wants to recruit editors for us after those experiences is heroic. Imagine how hard it must be for editors without a PhD! It's why I think meatball:WelcomeNewcomer is so important: we need to show new editors that we are alive and kind, and hopefully remind our regulars that there is a human behind that name. One of the things I'm most proud of and that never fails to bring me joy is Wikipedia talk:20th anniversary/Birthday wishes where readers left kind messages for us all, and editors worked together to make sure a warm welcome turned redlinked user talks blue.
While WP:OWN is an important policy and WP:MASTODON a great essay...we are real people with things going on in our lives and emotions and beliefs. Asking someone to completely disconnect from that is big especially when they gift us their time and labor. It's why I have issues with the current discourse around "not enough content creation" at RfA---the rationale can be misused but the intuition is spot on: you have a connection with and pride in the content you create, and proper administration requires being sensitive to that fact. You're right, people fear what they don't know, and it's sad that they don't know how vibrant our community can be when we're vulnerable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And when infobox warriors come en masse, arriving at a contentious situation on an article they’ve never been near in their lives, it has a consistently eroding effect. El C does know why I don’t like Arendt? Simple. She’s one of the co-ordinators of the IB warriors. She’s one who is also constantly dripping soft poison into every situation she can. While she says she never commented in the Fleming RfC, she commented on it endlessly on the talk pages of many, many editors. As for her underhand and disingenuous pointing me out for a pet Admin to block me, it’s something I’ve seen a thousand times and more. What people like Ritchie and Arendt don’t understand is that most of us don’t want to even think about IBs. We are sick and tired of the constant pushing around them, and the need to point out that actually they are often so dumbed down they are misleading (which is why I tried to remove the misleading ‘alma mater’ field, and the unthinking mass reverted without actually knowing anything about the subject). It’s why Arndt and her fellow IB warriors are the reason I left. I took a pride in the work I used to do here, but to see it being turned to crap by people with no grasp or knowledge of the subject is why I stepped back in.
I appreciate very few will bother to read this, let alone actually think about the ramifications, and I’m sure it’ll be only minutes before this IP is blocked as well, but reading the smarmy poison about me here and on a couple of other talk pages made me realise just how much that poison has twisted things.
El C, thank you for reiterating your request to Arendt not to post anything on “my” (old) talk page. Requests for people not to post used to be taken seriously when there were standards and honourable editors around to respect that. I guess that’s a practice that’s dying out too. - The editor formerly known as SchroCat, editing under 213.205.194.214 (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Fleming, redux

Thank you for closing the infobox RfC, a well-written, fair and informative close in my view. Unfortunately, the edit warring has moved on from having the infobox to what should be on it. I know you said "What counts as "relevant" should be determined through regular editing." but that does kind of imply if regular editing breaks down, then a talk page discussion is warranted. At the moment, I'm not going to take any action other than just keep an eye on it, and consider protection / blocking if there's more reverting without a corresponding discussion on the talk page. Although is technically reversing your unprotection, my understanding is this is acceptable per the advice given in WP:WHEEL : "Reasonable actions undertaken by uninvolved administrators to quell a visible and heated edit war by protecting a contended page should be respected by all users, and protection may be reinstated if needed, until it is clear the edit war will not resume or consensus agrees it is appropriate to unprotect." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a bit of heat is normal, and should be just watched. The master of that house loves to communicate via edit summaries, - what can we do? The world will not collapse if we have an extra parameter, or one is missing, for a short while. - Compare Carmen. When the infobox was accepted (I tried for the first TFA run, but was slightly premature), of course there was discussion, in that case mostly about the lead image. But not much, and nothing incivil. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-10/Dispatches. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was nice while it lasted I guess...anyway, I semi-protected the page indefinitely because the obvious sock is obvious and blocked the IP for a couple days for good measure. If that doesn't stop things, feel free to do what you need to. I'm too tired at the moment to formulate something better, but my position on how others should treat my admin actions is that anyone can undo them for any reason and if I get miffed about it I'll bring it up on your talk first. The goal is to limit damage to the encyclopedia, not my ego; plus, strict second-mover advantage can be dangerous if not attenuated by NOTBURO. (edit conflict)— Wug·a·po·des​ 09:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wugapodes&oldid=1010514323"