User talk:Opabinia regalis/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Opabinia regalis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 18 |
Green Day long-term abuse question
Hey. Over the past several months, a long-term vandal has been sneakily changing information related to charts and certifications on Green Day articles. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002 and its archive for the background. Lately, semi-protection has stopped being effective, as the master has swapped to regularly using sleepers exclusively for the semi-protected articles while continuing to vandalize articles in an ever-increasing topic area (expanding from Green Day to The Who, Kelly Clarkson, and Fall Out Boy, for instance). The community hasn't been able to effectively deal with this vandalism. As at this diff, requests for full protection on particularly hard-hit articles have been declined (possibly rightfully so, as the protection policy is unclear on if full protection can be used for sockpuppetry). The obvious next step, in my opinion, is WP:50/300. We obviously can't keep pumping editor hours into cleaning up after this master indefinitely until the master tires. Since the community hasn't yet agreed on the use of 50/300 outside of ArbCom sanctions, would it be a good idea to somehow involve ArbCom in assessing this long-term vandalism and potentially authorizing the use of 50/300 protection on articles affected by this sockmaster? The facts aren't under dispute here and the editor is already indefinitely blocked, so a full case seems unnecessary. I'm not familiar with ArbCom, so I have no idea how to go about this. ~ RobTalk 02:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- BU Rob13, when ArbCom made the announcement regarding 30/500 it was only related to the way it is used with regards to ArbCom enforcement (maybe that's not the right word). ArbCom doesn't make policy (i.e. we can't authorize 30/500 for sockpuppetry/long term vandalism). The committee doesn't own 30/500, the community does, so it's up to the community to decide if and where it can be used over the course of non-arbitration related matters. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Kelapstick: Yes, but on the other hand, isn't ArbCom well within its jurisdiction to consider the actions of a specific editor and whether they justify specific sanctions where the community has been ineffective in handling misconduct? I think that's undeniably the case here. I've spent at least 10 hours total following around this master, and I'm not the only editor playing whack-a-mole here. I'm not requesting a change in policy on protection from ArbCom. I'm wondering if ArbCom could create a remedy that includes 30/500 protection relating to this specific topic area, as it has in topic areas like the Arab-Israeli conflict. Principles 6, 7, and 8 and finding of fact 3 in WP:ARBPIA3 supports applying remedies to put an end to ongoing disruption caused by sockpuppetry where the community has failed to do so. Arbitrators at the time specifically referenced sockpuppetry as a core reason for supporting remedy 2, which was the 30/500 restriction. ~ RobTalk 03:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Without a case, I would say probably not. You would probably have a better (and probably faster) chance proposing at AN/I or AN and getting it enacted there. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- A full case would be faster than the community amending the protection policy, which currently states this protection level can only be used by ArbCom (whether or not that was ArbCom's intent). There's a broad RfC on 30/500 being prepared, and I doubt even editors in support of using this protection level for persistent sockpuppetry would support handling this case as a one-off instead of holding the longer discussion on what the protection policy should be for this. I'll post at ANI later tonight and gauge reactions, but if there's no quick consensus there that the protection policy allows 30/500 to be enacted by the community, I guess I'm filing a full case against a blocked user who can't even respond. It seems like a waste of time all around while the encyclopedia is being actively harmed. ~ RobTalk 03:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Kelapstick is right, the guidelines published apply to AE/DS (I even clarified after the fact when people asked about it at ACN). AFAIK there's no community policy yet, so an admin could just do it on their own, or you could propose it at AN(I). Still, seems like the simplest route would be to go to AE and ask for 30/500 under BLP DS (oh god that's awful alphabet soup) if the affected articles are all current musicians and bands. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- See here for the ANI discussion. Let's see what the community thinks. BLP discretionary sanctions would be a stretch, since all of the edits are about the songs themselves, not the living people who created them. It depends how broadly construed an admin wants to define "broadly construed". The next step will likely be a full ArbCom case if the community fails to come to any consensus on how to mitigate this disruption. ~ RobTalk 04:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Good luck! Hmm, I missed that it was the related articles and not the actual musicians' articles that were the problem. In any event, while filing a case request to get a motion to grant new DS is a possible procedural pathway, I don't think that's a good approach - for one thing, DS on a "topic" defined by "the favorite targets of this one vandal" would be pretty hard to nail down, and has a "sledgehammer to kill a fly" quality. Best, I think, to either get community consensus for 30/500, or (if the ANI fails) wait till the next time he comes around and then try full protection again. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Take a look through the ANI thread, where editors are opposing based on the potentially broad topic area (i.e. inability to deal with a conduct dispute in its entirety due to the broad nature of the issue) and lack of current guidelines on 50/300 for use outside of ArbCom (i.e. inability to resolve a serious conduct dispute through community processes). Have we hit the textbook definition of an ArbCom case yet? ~ RobTalk 19:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, arbcom cases are usually active disputes between current editors, not ongoing vandalism by someone already blocked. This is kind of an odd case because there's a reasonable technical solution but no established procedural pathway to invoke it. Skimming the ANI thread, I'm surprised to see some people suggesting PC2 - I'd think that would be "worse" than 30/500. It would help to list the articles affected, or at least to get a sense of the scale - are we talking about a dozen articles or a hundred? Would an edit filter work? Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Take a look through the ANI thread, where editors are opposing based on the potentially broad topic area (i.e. inability to deal with a conduct dispute in its entirety due to the broad nature of the issue) and lack of current guidelines on 50/300 for use outside of ArbCom (i.e. inability to resolve a serious conduct dispute through community processes). Have we hit the textbook definition of an ArbCom case yet? ~ RobTalk 19:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Good luck! Hmm, I missed that it was the related articles and not the actual musicians' articles that were the problem. In any event, while filing a case request to get a motion to grant new DS is a possible procedural pathway, I don't think that's a good approach - for one thing, DS on a "topic" defined by "the favorite targets of this one vandal" would be pretty hard to nail down, and has a "sledgehammer to kill a fly" quality. Best, I think, to either get community consensus for 30/500, or (if the ANI fails) wait till the next time he comes around and then try full protection again. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- See here for the ANI discussion. Let's see what the community thinks. BLP discretionary sanctions would be a stretch, since all of the edits are about the songs themselves, not the living people who created them. It depends how broadly construed an admin wants to define "broadly construed". The next step will likely be a full ArbCom case if the community fails to come to any consensus on how to mitigate this disruption. ~ RobTalk 04:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Kelapstick is right, the guidelines published apply to AE/DS (I even clarified after the fact when people asked about it at ACN). AFAIK there's no community policy yet, so an admin could just do it on their own, or you could propose it at AN(I). Still, seems like the simplest route would be to go to AE and ask for 30/500 under BLP DS (oh god that's awful alphabet soup) if the affected articles are all current musicians and bands. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- A full case would be faster than the community amending the protection policy, which currently states this protection level can only be used by ArbCom (whether or not that was ArbCom's intent). There's a broad RfC on 30/500 being prepared, and I doubt even editors in support of using this protection level for persistent sockpuppetry would support handling this case as a one-off instead of holding the longer discussion on what the protection policy should be for this. I'll post at ANI later tonight and gauge reactions, but if there's no quick consensus there that the protection policy allows 30/500 to be enacted by the community, I guess I'm filing a full case against a blocked user who can't even respond. It seems like a waste of time all around while the encyclopedia is being actively harmed. ~ RobTalk 03:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Without a case, I would say probably not. You would probably have a better (and probably faster) chance proposing at AN/I or AN and getting it enacted there. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Kelapstick: Yes, but on the other hand, isn't ArbCom well within its jurisdiction to consider the actions of a specific editor and whether they justify specific sanctions where the community has been ineffective in handling misconduct? I think that's undeniably the case here. I've spent at least 10 hours total following around this master, and I'm not the only editor playing whack-a-mole here. I'm not requesting a change in policy on protection from ArbCom. I'm wondering if ArbCom could create a remedy that includes 30/500 protection relating to this specific topic area, as it has in topic areas like the Arab-Israeli conflict. Principles 6, 7, and 8 and finding of fact 3 in WP:ARBPIA3 supports applying remedies to put an end to ongoing disruption caused by sockpuppetry where the community has failed to do so. Arbitrators at the time specifically referenced sockpuppetry as a core reason for supporting remedy 2, which was the 30/500 restriction. ~ RobTalk 03:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Edit filters definitely won't, since this involves just changing a few numbers within tables. The articles affected right now are the four listed, but this really does need broad approval since he'll just pop up in another somewhat similar article. I'm stepping away from all this for 24 hours since this is getting a tad frustrating. I don't see any of the editors opposing 30/500 volunteering to watchlist the 100+ pages I have on my watchlist to combat this sneaky vandalism (both pages the puppeteer had edited and pages I think he's likely to edit in the future). ~ RobTalk 21:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, if it's always (or usually) numbers in tables then it might actually be edit-filterable. More or less, any wikitext change you could write a regex for could be caught in an edit filter, but there are a lot of performance issues I'm not too familiar with. At least it sounds worth showing some examples to someone more competent than me. But taking a break from an ANI thread is never a bad idea ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's not, unfortunately. It often includes adding/removing sentences in the article, changing tables more broadly, changing certifications instead, etc. It also happens on different pages, and there's the danger of casting the net too wide. You don't want to accidentally restrict those types of edits to articles well outside the topic area, so the only way would be to update an edit filter every time he targeted a new article rather than just go to RFPP after the community gives authorization for 30/500. With all of those different concerns, it would wind up preventing maybe 50% of the vandalism (which he'd eventually adapt to by focusing more heavily on adding/removing sentences instead of the tables of chart rankings), and it would be a lot more work than 30/500. Would the Committee consider a motion to clarify that their previous motion does not restrict the community's use of 30/500? Whether or not this is justified, the original motion clearly confused a lot of people. I'm not asking for ArbCom to intervene on the protection policy itself, obviously, but a quick clarifying motion to emphasize that ArbCom has not and will not set restrictions on the community's use of 30/500 outside of AE/DS seems appropriate. Anyway, this comment isn't stepping away, so I'm stepping away for real. See you in like 15 minutes when I forget again.
~ RobTalk 22:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Considering the number of times this was repeated by various arbs while the motions were open, and the fact that the question was then asked again at ACN, and the fact that I edited the motion to clarify... I'm not sure that posting a new statement of the same thing in the same places is going to make anyone read it ;) Ironically, I was probably the most strongly opposed of all of us to having this used widely outside of AE/DS. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- You're probably right. The funny thing is that consensus can do almost anything outside of ignoring office actions by the WMF. While editors are worrying over whether or not there's community consensus for the community authorizing 30/500, they're completely missing the fact that if the community starts authorizing 30/500 in specific discussions, that is the consensus unless a wider discussion says otherwise. Policy can be created through precedent, not just through large-scale RFCs. ~ RobTalk 20:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Considering the number of times this was repeated by various arbs while the motions were open, and the fact that the question was then asked again at ACN, and the fact that I edited the motion to clarify... I'm not sure that posting a new statement of the same thing in the same places is going to make anyone read it ;) Ironically, I was probably the most strongly opposed of all of us to having this used widely outside of AE/DS. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's not, unfortunately. It often includes adding/removing sentences in the article, changing tables more broadly, changing certifications instead, etc. It also happens on different pages, and there's the danger of casting the net too wide. You don't want to accidentally restrict those types of edits to articles well outside the topic area, so the only way would be to update an edit filter every time he targeted a new article rather than just go to RFPP after the community gives authorization for 30/500. With all of those different concerns, it would wind up preventing maybe 50% of the vandalism (which he'd eventually adapt to by focusing more heavily on adding/removing sentences instead of the tables of chart rankings), and it would be a lot more work than 30/500. Would the Committee consider a motion to clarify that their previous motion does not restrict the community's use of 30/500? Whether or not this is justified, the original motion clearly confused a lot of people. I'm not asking for ArbCom to intervene on the protection policy itself, obviously, but a quick clarifying motion to emphasize that ArbCom has not and will not set restrictions on the community's use of 30/500 outside of AE/DS seems appropriate. Anyway, this comment isn't stepping away, so I'm stepping away for real. See you in like 15 minutes when I forget again.
DYK for Galdieria sulphuraria
On 22 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Galdieria sulphuraria, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the red alga Galdieria sulphuraria grows well at pH between 0–4 and temperatures up to 56°C—among the most extreme environments known for a eukaryote? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Galdieria sulphuraria. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Galdieria sulphuraria), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Cat userboxes
I realise coming here without talking about an actual article may be foolhardy, but can I interest you (and your talk page stalkers) in User:Ritchie333/Userbox Suede? Having had to close or hat too many discussions over the last 24 hours, it does come to mind for me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nice to meet you again, Ritchie, you could have added this above, where "I needs a break" and cat infobox was pictured resp. mentioned ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- You know, usually catboxes aren't the kind of thing you put out in front of guests, but this one's an exception ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- BTW, on the gender neutral thing, there must be a way to capture the gender preference setting of the userpage owner, along the lines of {{gender}}? Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
... for "Wikipedia:If you're that pissed off, put down the keyboard and go outside. (Why is that still a red link?)" - next time, please vote on different topics with a new time stamp, then you'll get just a thank-you-click ;) - Today: most welcome feast of joy, pictured. I was cited to ANI, - what do you think? I told our friend who outed himself as male ("Because if I were female, I might've grown some resistance to this bullshit.") that being blocked may be better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh hey, the link has been blued! I just barely managed to restrain myself from voting via lolcat. Srs Bsns over there and all.
- A very nice article, congratulations! Yes, I saw the ANI thread - I confess I haven't read it, though. There's only so much bullshit I can read at a time. He's got a point, though; women are better at it ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Two things (thinks was a nice buut unintended pun) about the longish thread I hope you will be able to read on your escape out: The last proposal (1RR) is short (and by a woman) and only asks behaviour that I thought was the normal way of collaborative editing anyway. Can you support that? - I have been called User:Gerda the Notorious Infoboxen wikiCriminal in 2013 and found it amusing, kept it on my user page for two years. I am not amused by "I dont think Gerda needed any help discrediting themselves." and said so, there and on the user's talk (header ARCA). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- You're right, on the 'discredited' thing; we need some more red links filled in for that kind of comment. WP:SNARKY? But I'm still not reading that thread ;) I'll probably make a hypocrite of myself soon enough when something extra dumb comes along, but I think it's best for arbs to not stick their noses in at ANI. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's not the snarkiness that I mind, - it's that it would require a citation. He (seems to be a man) says the article name was not changed. I have three diffs of a change (listed in the same discussion). You could stick your nose in for sniffing but I understand that you have more pleasant things to do ;) - So do I. I told the article name changer that I have no time, on 20 April. The first
hitname change came on 26 April. If it doesn't get solved, this and the many edits in between will go to arbitration, - perhaps better prevent that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)- Oh no, don't bring that stuff to arbcom! Well, unless you're going to sing for us... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do not fear: I bring nothing to arbcom but clarification, I bring nothing to ANI but a plea for talk page access. But I am not alone. - Clarification: I still adhere (unless provoked) to 2 comments per discussion (which I believe is liberating) so only watch this discussion deteriorate (to removing edits of the other side and saying "you were made to look like the idiot that you are"). It doesn't improve collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Talk page access? Who's blocked now? Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't clear enough, that was way back when Alakzi was blocked and protested under other names, - the one and only time I went to ANI without being called there. The only times I sought arbitration was for clarification, and I may seek it for the discussion which is (partly) hatted now (including the line quoted), after exchange of some comments which have nothing to do with improving said article. Imagine a bot that eliminates personal snark and also the overly general remarks, about ib fanatism. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Whew! I was afraid I'd find moar dramaz out there somewhere. Anybody want to fund development of SnarkBot? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Two blocks overnight (and unblocks), for still more inventive ways of - you name it. Every editor is a human being. - How do you like my idea of - instead of an interaction ban - request the two write an article together? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, either it'll work or the two will explode in a puff of drama... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- The snark bot, would it pick up the first comment which needed context and perhaps a look at a user page for even humans to understand (and at least one human didn't)? The reply was no snark at all, just filthy. (better walk away) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, either it'll work or the two will explode in a puff of drama... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Two blocks overnight (and unblocks), for still more inventive ways of - you name it. Every editor is a human being. - How do you like my idea of - instead of an interaction ban - request the two write an article together? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Whew! I was afraid I'd find moar dramaz out there somewhere. Anybody want to fund development of SnarkBot? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't clear enough, that was way back when Alakzi was blocked and protested under other names, - the one and only time I went to ANI without being called there. The only times I sought arbitration was for clarification, and I may seek it for the discussion which is (partly) hatted now (including the line quoted), after exchange of some comments which have nothing to do with improving said article. Imagine a bot that eliminates personal snark and also the overly general remarks, about ib fanatism. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Talk page access? Who's blocked now? Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do not fear: I bring nothing to arbcom but clarification, I bring nothing to ANI but a plea for talk page access. But I am not alone. - Clarification: I still adhere (unless provoked) to 2 comments per discussion (which I believe is liberating) so only watch this discussion deteriorate (to removing edits of the other side and saying "you were made to look like the idiot that you are"). It doesn't improve collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh no, don't bring that stuff to arbcom! Well, unless you're going to sing for us... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's not the snarkiness that I mind, - it's that it would require a citation. He (seems to be a man) says the article name was not changed. I have three diffs of a change (listed in the same discussion). You could stick your nose in for sniffing but I understand that you have more pleasant things to do ;) - So do I. I told the article name changer that I have no time, on 20 April. The first
- You're right, on the 'discredited' thing; we need some more red links filled in for that kind of comment. WP:SNARKY? But I'm still not reading that thread ;) I'll probably make a hypocrite of myself soon enough when something extra dumb comes along, but I think it's best for arbs to not stick their noses in at ANI. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Two things (thinks was a nice buut unintended pun) about the longish thread I hope you will be able to read on your escape out: The last proposal (1RR) is short (and by a woman) and only asks behaviour that I thought was the normal way of collaborative editing anyway. Can you support that? - I have been called User:Gerda the Notorious Infoboxen wikiCriminal in 2013 and found it amusing, kept it on my user page for two years. I am not amused by "I dont think Gerda needed any help discrediting themselves." and said so, there and on the user's talk (header ARCA). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Blocks are a powerful extinguisher and their long-term benefits are proven. Wikipedia's blocking culture has not contributed towards the deterioration of discourse on the site. Izkala (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Warning: Snark detected! The preceding comment has been determined with high probability (0.983302) to be an instance of snark. Give me a challenge next time! SnarkBot 3000 19:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Missing cat dance: Today's precious went to a user whose user page is all about a cat, infobox included, - cheered me up a bit, a year after Dreadstar appeared on the German Main page. So did a dialogue here, after "Avoid the infobox topic, for your health" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that is the best userpage ever. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oh my god, I need to make a userpage for RiRi. Best idea ever. Keilana (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Today's precious anniversary went to someone who seems to love infoboxes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oh my god, I need to make a userpage for RiRi. Best idea ever. Keilana (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
.jpg) | |
| go outside |
|---|
- Here's my version of "I needs a break". Yesterday I have been told (without snark, unfortunately) whom not to tell a story, and what not to miss, - I miss free speech ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Good idea. Hard to get wrapped up in wiki arguments while stopping and smelling the roses... :) Speaking of which, note to self: you need to weed and clean up the garden this weekend or it will be an embarrassment to BBQ visitors next weekend. Quit procrastinating! Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Here's my version of "I needs a break". Yesterday I have been told (without snark, unfortunately) whom not to tell a story, and what not to miss, - I miss free speech ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Floridean starch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cryptophyte. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Floridean starch
Hello! Your submission of Floridean starch at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Floridean starch
On 3 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Floridean starch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that most red algae store energy from the sun as Floridean starch? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Floridean starch. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Floridean starch), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Template:Official websites/single
I saw you deleted Template:Official websites after a TfD. It seems one subpage, Template:Official websites/single, accidentally got left behind. Would you mind G8ing it? Thanks. – voidxor 01:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Voidxor: Oops. Done! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
10 July, or Teh Witch
| 10 July |
It took only 300 years to restore her good name. The image is not free, - any kitten that could go with the message? (The statue image is not free. It would be if in Germany.) - She didn't appeal. I noticed with pleasure that the arbcom issued two messages yesterday restoring the names of editors, and still do believe that arbcom might look "self-critically" at previous rulings from time to time even if the people don't appeal. (Background: when the witch article TFA was removed from the Main page on Halloween 2010, I met the dark side of Wikipedia for the first time, after a year of merry innocence.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, a farmer witch? How about a black cat on hay?
- I think this year we've removed more sanctions than we've imposed. People should just appeal ;) It wouldn't be fair to pick cases based on who knows who... Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I just had another dangerous thought: expiration date from the start. - Love the cat! Love the removing more even more! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- ps: looking at the article again, I learned miscarriage of justice, - how could I have missed that all these years? I'm talking about such cases. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- You know arbcom isn't justice ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I do (know, best). Why was I restricted: because I defended Andy? Why was he restricted: because his discussion style wasn't liked and he had been banned before, yes twice. Any evidence of wrongdoing? Oh yes, one diff, which was a misunderstanding. We all could have spent a better time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- For equal right: Smerus was admonished for his contributions here which amused me (the contributions, not the admonishment). A farce, the whole thing, really. We collaborate nicely, always did, - don't tell arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- The not-so-secret secret of arbcom is that we don't actually know what we're doing ;) We can at least try to fix stuff that didn't work, but someone has to bring evidence of a fuckup... Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you see people obviously not looking at evidence, how would you bring more evidence? Or is that too logical? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, during an arbcom case last year I said I'd put cat pictures and cookie recipes on the evidence page. I would definitely read it if someone did that. But if the cookies come out lousy then the recipe author is getting blocked ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- ArbCom is a lot like geology, just liquor and guessing. While my baking specialty is cookies, I do have an epic triple-layer chocolate cake recipe, that the smallest of the Kelapsticks once insisted I make, it was spectacular (notwithstanding my poor skills at applying frosting).--kelapstick(bainuu) 00:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mmmm, I could go for some chocolate right now. You know what sounds like a good addition to the frosting? Liquor. Maybe not for the little ones, but most of my "specialties" involve bourbon or rum. As an ingredient! Mostly.... Speaking of which, I need to talk to the WMF about reimbursements for the increase in liquor budget this year. They do that, right? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well the frosting did have coffee in it, but no liquor. I do pour a bottle of beer in when I am cooking a chicken or turkey however. Always adds to the gravy. As for your liquour budget, just submit Form 10-15A (Rev 12) to James, he'll write you a cheque. --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- As someone much wiser than me once said long ago, Wikipedia's dispute resolution process can be summarised as:
- Block whoever's being the most obvious bozo;
- Wait a week and see if the problem has stopped;
- Repeat 1.
- Despite all the reams of guidelines, policies, earnest essays and WP:ARBPOLs, that's still ultimately the mechanism at work a decade later; the key to understanding Arbcom cases is that the workshop and evidence pages serve as a testbed in which everyone is given the opportunity to act like a doofus. (OR is the statistics one, not me, but I'd hazard a guess that there's a perfect correlation between "number of words said in ANI thread or Arbcom case" and "probability of coming out of it with some kind of sanction".) Remember, arbs have to read all this gubbins so the people who add the most unnecessary verbiage to the case pages are unlikely to be endearing themselves. ‑ Iridescent 05:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- And when all else fails, check the Magic 8-Ball. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, now I know where I'm getting my comments on that ARCA I haven't read yet! Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Just drop the word "evidence" in arbcom cases? It's evident that "evidence" is no evidence. Replace by what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- We could call the pages "doofus auditions"... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Can we go back to the days when it only took a week between successive bozo blocks?
- I don't know about perfect correlation, Iridescent - refusing to participate never seems to go well either ;) We should figure out the optimum and make that the word limit. The frustrating part of watching a case develop, it seems, is that it's not just an opportunity to act like a doofus, but an active inducement to do so. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- And when all else fails, check the Magic 8-Ball. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- As someone much wiser than me once said long ago, Wikipedia's dispute resolution process can be summarised as:
- Well the frosting did have coffee in it, but no liquor. I do pour a bottle of beer in when I am cooking a chicken or turkey however. Always adds to the gravy. As for your liquour budget, just submit Form 10-15A (Rev 12) to James, he'll write you a cheque. --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mmmm, I could go for some chocolate right now. You know what sounds like a good addition to the frosting? Liquor. Maybe not for the little ones, but most of my "specialties" involve bourbon or rum. As an ingredient! Mostly.... Speaking of which, I need to talk to the WMF about reimbursements for the increase in liquor budget this year. They do that, right? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- ArbCom is a lot like geology, just liquor and guessing. While my baking specialty is cookies, I do have an epic triple-layer chocolate cake recipe, that the smallest of the Kelapsticks once insisted I make, it was spectacular (notwithstanding my poor skills at applying frosting).--kelapstick(bainuu) 00:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, during an arbcom case last year I said I'd put cat pictures and cookie recipes on the evidence page. I would definitely read it if someone did that. But if the cookies come out lousy then the recipe author is getting blocked ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you see people obviously not looking at evidence, how would you bring more evidence? Or is that too logical? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- The not-so-secret secret of arbcom is that we don't actually know what we're doing ;) We can at least try to fix stuff that didn't work, but someone has to bring evidence of a fuckup... Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- You know arbcom isn't justice ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Clue needed
OR, you've been clueful about RfA debates for many years. I don't really know where to turn; I'll just throw some things out, and maybe you can help me add them up. Here, we're down to 540 active admins. We were losing around 80 per year like clockwork until last year, when there was a pause, but now we've lost 43 in half a year again (I always measure from Jan 1). My hypothesis is that the pause last year had something to do with less-active admins realizing there was a problem and stepping up to do work that needed doing; but of course, that labor pool is a limited resource (and getting smaller), especially in a volunteer organization like Wikipedia. WP:RFA promotions are at a record low. In the most recent RfA, the main objection seemed to be lack of experience; most voters didn't want to quantify that as a specific number of years, but I think it's a fair reading that the opposes were looking for something like 2 years of experience, at least in this case. Recent discussions at WP:VPR#5th RfA reform got nowhere. And then there's this RfC, which no one has closed yet ... and I can see why. In the RfC, parallels are being drawn to WP:RM, WP:TFD and WP:CFD, where non-admins have in recent years been allowed to close certain discussions, and there doesn't seem to be any substantive argument against the recent practice. This RfC attempts to extend similar rights to non-admins at WP:RfD, but the voters are sharply divided, and many would consider this a "no consensus" result. I'm at a loss what to do here. It's easy to see what would happen if we followed the implied advice of some of the opposers: if we pushed some of the more avid and competent non-admin regulars at RfD over to RfA before they had their two years of experience, or whatever is needed these days, the experience would be likely to sour them. I don't know why the numbers of active admins continue to decline, but I imagine that if it were possible for them to get more help of various kinds from non-admins, they might feel less besieged (and perhaps be less likely to leave). These days, I spend most of my time on copyediting software, which I hope will be helpful for Wikipedians some day, but if I weren't doing that, I would certainly be spending more time on the admin problem, and I feel somewhat guilty that I'm not. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Deleting the last part ... I don't think it would pass. I really don't know what to do. - Dank (push to talk) 19:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- The reason the number of admins is dropping is attrition, which is perfectly natural. Unfortunately, the requirements at RFA keep getting stricter and stricter, so nobody wants to put themselves through that gauntlet. I was elected in 2010 with 5,000 total edits (lots of which were automated) and 14 months active. Recently, a user who wanted to do routine maintenance tasks with 5000 mainspace edits alone and 14 months active was attacked with WP:NOTNOW and ultimately withdrawn by a very battered editor. The only way to fix it is for us to collectively decide to change our ever-climbing standards. Even back in 2010 there was talk that requirements were getting too high. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Class of 2006 (originally), 6 months and ~2300 edits. And yep, WT:RFA was full of complaints about rising standards then too. (I've considered writing a bot that recycles old posts to that talk page to see if anyone notices... ;) I have some thoughts on this but no time to post them (or rather, to remove the grumpiest bits) just now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Dank: Slow response that's now too long :) I can't say I have any brilliant ideas... you've certainly been following this issue for longer than I have.
- Ha, that last part is the first part I'd started to respond to :) To some extent "everyone involved in this process thinks this is a good idea" is pretty much what happened at TfD, and the transition to NAC deletes worked largely because we started off with a small handful of TfD regulars who knew each other and who knew what they were doing. I'm sure it helped that many people, admins included, are a little intimidated by templates, so the "invasion of hat collectors" some people predicted in the RfC didn't happen. There's been some turnover but I still don't think it's ever been more than 3-4 regular NAC'ers at a time. Small groups of competent people who trust each other get a lot of the heavy lifting done around here - both in terms of content and in terms of maintenance work - and yet they're very fragile and poorly supported by either policies or social norms. One downstream effect of this is that the requirements for participation in particular activities trend toward rigidification in unhelpful ways - you must have this many edits and this much "service time" and this few blocks and blah blah. I'd like to say you're on to something in suggesting that "non-admin work" be defined locally by the people doing the work, but I don't think it's a stable solution.
- As far as unbundling goes - whether it's technical stuff like the page mover right or social stuff like NAC deletes - it gets the work done, and gets people valuable experience in doing admin-like tasks, but I keep coming back to a concern that the overall effect is more exposure of people's routine wiki-lives to the behavior of the current set of admins. You see people talking about "applying" for user rights, and little mini-RfAs playing out at WP:PERM, and a lot of fuss about subjective states like "trusted" and "in good standing". Thoughtless or unreasonable revocations of user rights don't have to be frequent to be unpleasantly salient - and unlike most blocks, user rights removals don't expire and thus require the user to go hat-in-hand back to admins to reverse the decision. Furthermore, the norms around reversal of admin actions have also rigidified considerably over time - which is good in the sense that it contains short-term drama and overreaction, but bad in the sense that unreasonable admin actions are more likely to stand. Discretionary sanctions cover a surprisingly large part of the encyclopedia and again, help keep a lid on recurring problem areas, but the rules for editors are byzantine and the rules for admin actions explicitly privilege the first person to deploy their tools. Many of the disputes that once would have become arbcom cases are now handled at a noticeboard, sometimes because the area is already under DS from a previous case, and sometimes because admins take the bull by the horns. And yet people hate ANI, and the quality of the commentary there is often appallingly low. (I know someone will read this and yell "power grab!" but I honestly think this trend has gone a little too far, and some things that are "handled by the community" at ANI would be better off with a more structured inquiry with a pre-defined group to make a final decision. You know, sort of like an arbcom case....)
- So we have a declining supply of admins, and the scope of their role has broadened. In an increasing number of areas admins act as managers rather than janitors because the scutwork has been farmed out. I guess it's not surprising that people have become more conservative in who they're willing to give the tools to. What's frustrating about the current state of RfA is that most admin actions are still very simple and have nothing to do with these broader contentious areas. And even within those areas, the things that make someone a good admin haven't really changed very much; it's much more important to be thoughtful and perceptive and willing to take constructive criticism than to pass a wikipolicy exam or to have cleared some arbitrary threshold of time or edits. Unfortunately a lot of what passes for rationale at RfA is actually just uncritically repeating memes. (Incidentally, the same thing is occurring in that RfD RfC...)
- In the past I've opposed the idea of minimum criteria for RfA, but I wonder if these contentless opposes could be controlled by something a little softer, along the lines of "candidates whose accounts are over six months old and have more than 2000 edits are considered qualified for a full review", where "full review" means no "NOTNOW" and no "you need 10k edits" or "two years isn't enough" or "I like to see article+talk+portal+timedtext edits above 57% of the total" or whatever else. And maybe build in the proviso that the thresholds can only be changed by straw poll with over 75% support for the new numbers, so the thresholds themselves don't start inflating. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed with all of that (except that I have no opinion on the last bit ... I'm very disheartened by everything concerning RfA. I thought we had a solution at WP:RFA2015, but apparently not ... nothing substantial has changed.) "Small groups of competent people who trust each other get a lot of the heavy lifting done around here - both in terms of content and in terms of maintenance work - and yet they're very fragile and poorly supported by either policies or social norms." is the best one-sentence description I've seen of Wikipedia. The key for me will be whether last year's plateau in the number of active admins was a one-time thing or whether this year's numbers recover, and the plateau becomes the new norm. If numbers continue to slide, then the key will be how hard a time the community gives non-admins who are doing work that admins previously did. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Heh, thanks; I feel like that needs a pithier slogan, though ;) The last bit is just spitballing and the rest is a tangled mess. I have the impression that 2006-era RfA had so many going on at once that a lot of this nonsense didn't happen. There wasn't such a large resident camped-out-on-every-RfA class, there just wasn't the time to ask or read 20+ questions for 10+ candidates at a time, and the small-group effect from stronger wikiproject communities meant that candidates would get votes from people who had actually worked with them. (One of the most noticeable differences on returning to Wikipedia after 8 years away was the hollowing-out of wikiprojects, especially smaller/special-interest ones. Awhile back someone did a run-through at TfD and nominated dozens of old collaboration of the month banners and whatnot, still forlornly announcing on talk pages that this article is the CotM for September 2008 for a wikiproject whose talk page has seen no edits since 2012...) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed with all of that (except that I have no opinion on the last bit ... I'm very disheartened by everything concerning RfA. I thought we had a solution at WP:RFA2015, but apparently not ... nothing substantial has changed.) "Small groups of competent people who trust each other get a lot of the heavy lifting done around here - both in terms of content and in terms of maintenance work - and yet they're very fragile and poorly supported by either policies or social norms." is the best one-sentence description I've seen of Wikipedia. The key for me will be whether last year's plateau in the number of active admins was a one-time thing or whether this year's numbers recover, and the plateau becomes the new norm. If numbers continue to slide, then the key will be how hard a time the community gives non-admins who are doing work that admins previously did. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Class of 2006 (originally), 6 months and ~2300 edits. And yep, WT:RFA was full of complaints about rising standards then too. (I've considered writing a bot that recycles old posts to that talk page to see if anyone notices... ;) I have some thoughts on this but no time to post them (or rather, to remove the grumpiest bits) just now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the solution is dealing directly with those making RfA a miserable place. I've been looking through voting records a bit lately. I found an editor who recently helped to sink two RfAs from solid candidates. Maybe it wouldn't be a horrible thing if someone responded to their next vote asking if they thought Biblioworm was a net negative. Or Yamaguchi. Or Wbm1058. Or Cyclonebiskit. Or you, actually, Opabinia. That list has got to form some type of all-star team of admins, and they were all opposed by this one editor. The vote of an editor with such a voting record should be summarily tossed in the trash, not counted the same as someone who actually considers the merits of a nomination. ~ Rob13Talk 05:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, if you're doing voter stats, I and other returning ex-admins should be excluded since the information available to the voters is different. And if you want the all-star team you have to take me out; I've been pretty useless lately ;) I think there was a proposal at one point to weight votes based on how well the voter typically agreed with the results, but of course that encourages bandwagoning. I like the idea of removing bad reasoning more than removing the people contributing it, but on the other hand, those people will probably just present a moving target of different bad reasoning, because most of them are really opposing adminship as the institution currently works rather than specific prospective admins. But if you're thinking of who I think you're thinking of, then I agree they seem to occupy a different universe than the one I'm in. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- You've been off in ArbComLand, so I think you get a pass on admin actions for now; you have plenty of behind-the-scenes activity, I'm sure. It's very difficult to get rid of bad rationales because no-one can agree on what is a bad rationale. It's not like you can take on individual fringe rationales at once; as soon as an editor who knows their rationales are disliked sees the possibility in the future that you'll make them stop being ridiculous, they'll side with the fringe rationale to prevent the precedent. But you can target the results of the rationales. There's this weird "polite society" thing that happens at RfA. When someone demonstrably gets it wrong, either by supporting a candidate who goes on to cause problems or opposing a candidate who goes on to do great things as an admin, we all avert our eyes. If someone's rationales happen to be so bad that they consistently get it wrong, then I don't think there's anything wrong with telling them so and asking them to defend their voting practices in light of the demonstrably incorrect results they've led to. If they can't explain how their rationales are reasonable in light of the results of voting that way, their votes shouldn't receive the same weight as someone who votes in support of candidates who go on to do great things and votes oppose on candidates who turn out to be bad news. ~ Rob13Talk 23:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Been busy in real life too... my mainspace contributions lately are even more pitiful!
- Awhile back one of the crats did a "brainstorming about RfA" thing. I suggested something like "statements should be evidence based" and people opposed it ;) If I had the time I'd collect a sample of RfAs and classify the oppose rationales and see which ones are actually useful in terms of correlating with RfA outcome or with metrics of successful adminship (but then I'd have to define what that means....). Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's still another issue. There's a particular faction of "content creators" who would consider an admin candidate who goes on to never block a user to be "successful" and anyone who performs any civility blocks to be "unsuccessful". I don't think that's a good measure, even if I generally dislike civility blocks except when the incivility is truly disruptive. ~ Rob13Talk 20:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's true that there's very little useful feedback to admins about performance in routine tasks, and therefore very little useful information to draw on when evaluating potential admins. There's the inevitable baseless complaints about perfectly ordinary admin actions, and if you really screw up there's a lot of screaming at ANI, but someone could just quietly drift along getting increasingly out of sync with, say, common speedy-deletion practice for a long time before anyone really noticed the pattern. The only real performance measure we have is whether or not someone got desysopped/forced to resign, and that's a terrible measure - there's plenty on that list whose problem was running afoul of politics, and others who should've been desysopped long before they finally were.
- As for the self-styled content creators, I don't think they're doing anything particularly useful with their time by repeating their arguments at so many RfAs, but on balance I find them easier to take than the self-styled civility experts. The really disruptive arguments at RfA seem to be the ones that treat Wikipedia as some kind of mysterious alien society that requires years of immersive study to truly appreciate. It's just way too easy for less-experienced voters to bandwagon that stuff with "come back in 6 months" types of oppose comments that have no real content but let the voter wander off proud of themselves for having high standards. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's still another issue. There's a particular faction of "content creators" who would consider an admin candidate who goes on to never block a user to be "successful" and anyone who performs any civility blocks to be "unsuccessful". I don't think that's a good measure, even if I generally dislike civility blocks except when the incivility is truly disruptive. ~ Rob13Talk 20:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- You've been off in ArbComLand, so I think you get a pass on admin actions for now; you have plenty of behind-the-scenes activity, I'm sure. It's very difficult to get rid of bad rationales because no-one can agree on what is a bad rationale. It's not like you can take on individual fringe rationales at once; as soon as an editor who knows their rationales are disliked sees the possibility in the future that you'll make them stop being ridiculous, they'll side with the fringe rationale to prevent the precedent. But you can target the results of the rationales. There's this weird "polite society" thing that happens at RfA. When someone demonstrably gets it wrong, either by supporting a candidate who goes on to cause problems or opposing a candidate who goes on to do great things as an admin, we all avert our eyes. If someone's rationales happen to be so bad that they consistently get it wrong, then I don't think there's anything wrong with telling them so and asking them to defend their voting practices in light of the demonstrably incorrect results they've led to. If they can't explain how their rationales are reasonable in light of the results of voting that way, their votes shouldn't receive the same weight as someone who votes in support of candidates who go on to do great things and votes oppose on candidates who turn out to be bad news. ~ Rob13Talk 23:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, if you're doing voter stats, I and other returning ex-admins should be excluded since the information available to the voters is different. And if you want the all-star team you have to take me out; I've been pretty useless lately ;) I think there was a proposal at one point to weight votes based on how well the voter typically agreed with the results, but of course that encourages bandwagoning. I like the idea of removing bad reasoning more than removing the people contributing it, but on the other hand, those people will probably just present a moving target of different bad reasoning, because most of them are really opposing adminship as the institution currently works rather than specific prospective admins. But if you're thinking of who I think you're thinking of, then I agree they seem to occupy a different universe than the one I'm in. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gene Brown (professor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army Air Corps. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for unblocking me. I'm now a member of the Personal acquaintances project. Those who have this template shouldn't be investigated for sockpuppetry. For security reasons, I also no longer make edits at a public computer. Fixer88 (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Fixer88: You're welcome. I hadn't heard of that personal acquaintances project, so thanks for pointing it out. It looks like it's mostly active on the German Wikipedia, though, so while it's great to be involved with meetups and meeting other Wikipedians, I should warn you that there's no policy or practice on the English Wikipedia that would stop participants in that project from being investigated for socking if there's evidence of it. Being cautious about public computers and shared locations is a good idea :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Gene Brown (professor)
Hello! Your submission of Gene Brown (professor) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 97198 (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
How to restore deleted template
Hi Opabinia regalis. You deleted Template:American Experience episodes on 01:28, 20 June 2016. How do I restore it? Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Mitchumch: From the log, it looks like it was after the selective merge performed in this TfD, which you participated in. Why do you want it restored? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- I want a copy of the code. I didn't know it was deleted. I would've placed a copy on a personal sandbox page. Mitchumch (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Mitchumch: OK, I restored it to User:Mitchumch/American Experience episodes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate it. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Mitchumch: OK, I restored it to User:Mitchumch/American Experience episodes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- I want a copy of the code. I didn't know it was deleted. I would've placed a copy on a personal sandbox page. Mitchumch (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
16 July 2016
 | |
| 16 July 2016 |
|---|
... on a centenary of a performance, - and thank you for being around in a refreshing inspiring way! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Gerda, and thanks for being around too :) Congrats on the TFA! Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I also want to say THANK YOU for the same reasons sweet Gerda Arendt described, and wanted to add that I sincerely appreciate your common sense logic.
Atsme📞📧 18:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Atsme :) But.. are you guys sure you're on the right talk page? Refreshing? Common sense? I mean, I poured hot water into the French press this morning and then stared blankly for a bit before realizing I'd forgotten to grind and add the, um, coffee. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 01:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing, that's also refreshing (to know that one isn't the only one). I didn't say common sense, find your sense rather uncommon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- no cat on this page, only the mini? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh no, my kitty got archived! I guess I'll have to find another one... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Atsme :) But.. are you guys sure you're on the right talk page? Refreshing? Common sense? I mean, I poured hot water into the French press this morning and then stared blankly for a bit before realizing I'd forgotten to grind and add the, um, coffee. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I also want to say THANK YOU for the same reasons sweet Gerda Arendt described, and wanted to add that I sincerely appreciate your common sense logic.
- thank you, like the mini on the watch list also, you deserve cookies, but the last ones I made were all eaten ;)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Did someone say cookies? I'll bring some! I really should bake more :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, I am glad. I am glad that this DYK hook about peace for Jerusalem (DYK to be, but already on my user page) coincides with the memory mentioned OTD and the Bach cantata for this day. - I am less glad about waste of time, discussing a block that the user doesn't appeal (not appealing is very appealing to me), and discussing pro and cons of a hidden notice, - a notice that was perfect nonsense up to today and nobody noticed, and the world wouldn't change without it), - life is too short. I talked to Kevin about health last year, was quite amazed how often my name shows up in his archives. He was the first addressee of "talk before you block", DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Very sad news; I was very surprised when I heard about it. Life really is too damn short. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ethics of Dissensus, yes, needed. Did you see the plan to continue his work, on his talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) 08:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's a very nice idea, and the barnstar too :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Did you know that we seem to have the infobox-summer-flu, and it's all my fault, I was pictured with my flash mob (the second, and yes I asked for it. I didn't ask to be called morbid.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's a very nice idea, and the barnstar too :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ethics of Dissensus, yes, needed. Did you see the plan to continue his work, on his talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) 08:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Very sad news; I was very surprised when I heard about it. Life really is too damn short. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, I am glad. I am glad that this DYK hook about peace for Jerusalem (DYK to be, but already on my user page) coincides with the memory mentioned OTD and the Bach cantata for this day. - I am less glad about waste of time, discussing a block that the user doesn't appeal (not appealing is very appealing to me), and discussing pro and cons of a hidden notice, - a notice that was perfect nonsense up to today and nobody noticed, and the world wouldn't change without it), - life is too short. I talked to Kevin about health last year, was quite amazed how often my name shows up in his archives. He was the first addressee of "talk before you block", DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
It's now at ARCA. My motion would be: for the rest of the year, the word infobox is taboo, - people edit those things like images and tables, nice add-ons to articles, in good faith and on 1RR. (Did you know that in the original case, which was my first so I didn't know what arbs mean by motion, I placed an infobox for Verdi in that section, which is now in the article ;) - My little memorial piece for the young man who died too soon is on the Main page, A Requiem in Our Time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Gene Brown (professor)
On 8 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gene Brown (professor), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Gene Brown taught the same biochemistry course for 50 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gene Brown (professor). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gene Brown (professor)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lisa Steiner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Development. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For your excellent work as an arbitrator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC) |
Whenever I peek at the arbitration pages, I am consistently impressed by the soundness of your analysis and the thoughtfulness of your comments. Your comments often parallel what I would have written in the same spot if I were still on the Committee, although that is not my basis for thinking you are doing a fine job. As for brevity, remember Einstein's admonition that "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler than that." Most importantly, I hope you are finding the work more rewarding than you sometimes let on on this page. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Newyorkbrad: Uh oh, didn't we tell you? Well, you know how it goes with keeping track of all that email. You've been recalled to service as an arbitrator, effective immediately. Should you find continued service an undue hardship, we may elect to grant you a temporary exemption; Floquenbeam and Iridescent are next on the summons list.
- But seriously, thanks :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Seemingly unrelated: today we celebrate the birthday of Albert Ketèlbey, who composed In a Chinese Temple Garden, - lovely collaboration! To my knowledge, that is the first composer TFA with an infobox ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Congrats on the TFA! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Seemingly unrelated: today we celebrate the birthday of Albert Ketèlbey, who composed In a Chinese Temple Garden, - lovely collaboration! To my knowledge, that is the first composer TFA with an infobox ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I only nominated it and wrote a few side dishes such as In a Chinese Temple Garden ;) - A rather unusual history: created by Andy, improved by several (too many to list), taken to FA by Tim and SchroCat, - a model of collaboration! (forgot to sign, earlier today, and who else?)
.jpg) | |
| life is too short |
|---|
- How is this? The image will grace the German Main page tomorrow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Fitting indeed. All the other versions of that painting are creepy, but that one looks like a pretty nice place for a rest. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- The article is de:Vier Tondichtungen nach A. Böcklin, which I wrote in English, and another user translated to German, then I nominated it for their DYK section ;) - I love collaboraion! Their DYK is called SG, they add only two a day, but then keep it for 24 hours. I had quite some success with the translation of de:Stargazy pie, by Worm That Turned. Any article by you that you think would be good in German? My very first article was translated to French, see my talk! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Congratulations on the French article! I did once come across an American scientist who had a German bio but no article here till I created it - kind of embarrassing really. I think most of my articles are too boring to translate :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- I just had reason to look up my 2015 archive - and smiled ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Congratulations on the French article! I did once come across an American scientist who had a German bio but no article here till I created it - kind of embarrassing really. I think most of my articles are too boring to translate :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- The article is de:Vier Tondichtungen nach A. Böcklin, which I wrote in English, and another user translated to German, then I nominated it for their DYK section ;) - I love collaboraion! Their DYK is called SG, they add only two a day, but then keep it for 24 hours. I had quite some success with the translation of de:Stargazy pie, by Worm That Turned. Any article by you that you think would be good in German? My very first article was translated to French, see my talk! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Fitting indeed. All the other versions of that painting are creepy, but that one looks like a pretty nice place for a rest. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- How is this? The image will grace the German Main page tomorrow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually when I grow up, I want to be Opabinia. Whenever I start to write something, she manages to beat me to it, having written pretty much what I wanted to say, but much better than I would have written it. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, aren't you on vacation still? You can be me right now if you'll trade ;) I have around 2.5 million data points to analyze and a deadline on Tuesday! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Just to draw your attention
I saw your recent statement on my WP:ARC case. I have pointed out some relevant things in my section of the thread.[1] I thought I'd draw your attention to it. If this is not necessary, or if this is a breach of protocol, please let me know. Cute kitten, by the way. :) Debresser (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
And again.[2] Debresser (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser: OK, will look later... you can just {{ping}} from the ARCA page, but then you wouldn't get to see a cute kitten :) Hmm, maybe I should fix that.... Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- I never understood how pinging works. Well, that and the kitten is a real argument too. :) Debresser (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, this is so much easier than ARCA! Writing {{ping|Debresser}} produces @Debresser: - which rings the little notification bell. Use that syntax on another page, as in {{ping|Opabinia regalis}}, and you trigger a notification for me. More than you likely care to read at Template:Reply to/doc and even worse at mw:Manual:Echo which explains technically how it works. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- You can still use a simple link to a user page, and sign (as I did just above, look for "collaboration"). It will cause a notification. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Weel, you wrote
{{ping|Debresser}}, but I don't have my sound on so didn't hear that bell. There is also nothing in the notification area about it. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)- t/p/s try this. Debresser. Do you get a notification from that? Irondome (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser: Sorry, I meant the little bell icon at the top of the page, not a literal sound :) You should have a bunch of notifications now, unless maybe you have them turned off? (Preferences>Notifications, see if "Mentions" has "web" checked.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- No bells. I checked "Mention". Perhaps that is it? Debresser (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser: How about this one? If you still see no notifications from correctly formatted pings, and you have "Mention" checked, you might want to post at WP:VPT about it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Now it works. Apparently turning on the "Mention" is what did it. Thanks a lot. Debresser (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser: How about this one? If you still see no notifications from correctly formatted pings, and you have "Mention" checked, you might want to post at WP:VPT about it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- No bells. I checked "Mention". Perhaps that is it? Debresser (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser: Sorry, I meant the little bell icon at the top of the page, not a literal sound :) You should have a bunch of notifications now, unless maybe you have them turned off? (Preferences>Notifications, see if "Mentions" has "web" checked.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- t/p/s try this. Debresser. Do you get a notification from that? Irondome (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Weel, you wrote
- I never understood how pinging works. Well, that and the kitten is a real argument too. :) Debresser (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Please enforce the word limits
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence#Please enforce the word limits in the interest of fairness --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: 1) He seems to have about 600 words. Preliminary statements don't count. 2) It's early yet, and it's not uncommon for people to draft evidence that is a little long and then cut it down to size. 3) If you think you need more space, ask the drafters, DeltaQuad and DGG. 4) Please don't post on a dozen talkpages about minor stuff like this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Oops, I didn't see Kirill's post, but responding on the case page was a better idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- So he gets 1000 words to my 500 words and he gets another 886 words (yes, you let him go over his 500-word limit there as well) recopied from his preliminary statement while my preliminary statement was deleted instead of being copied to the evidence page? I am the target of accusations yet I am not allowed to repond. How is that even remotely fair? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) In this particular instance, if I were a clerk I'd be inclined to turn a blind eye to the word limits on both sides, provided they don't turn into outright essays. Because he's being accused of a number of minor things, rather than a single Really Bad Thing, it's going to take more words than usual both to detail the case against him, and for him to respond to each accusation in an acceptable level of detail. I imagine Newyorkbrad could dig out a precedent for this somewhere. ‑ Iridescent 16:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have no problem if the limits are raised. Saying that the limits have been raised would be fair. "Turning a blind eye" puts those of us who follow the printed rules at a distinct disadvantage compared to those who ignore them. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you want an extension - or to be included as a party - ask the drafters. Posting in 15 places about someone else's alleged excess verbiage is rather ironic. Word limits are approximate and extensions are regularly granted.
- The preliminary statements from parties are on the evidence page, non-parties on the case talk page. Last year's committee tried putting them all on the evidence page, but it made the page unwieldy, so we went back to the old way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have no problem if the limits are raised. Saying that the limits have been raised would be fair. "Turning a blind eye" puts those of us who follow the printed rules at a distinct disadvantage compared to those who ignore them. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
On slowing down
I appreciate the sentiment you are expressing, but would like to caution that I feel there is a murky line between slowing something down and dragging something out. I fear it is difficult to judge in this situation whether the benefit of slowing down to relax and reorganize will outweigh the harm of stretching out an already lengthy and stressful situation. I am glad though either way to see someone looking out for another's interest. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- @M. A. Bruhn: Thanks. You're right, no doubt there is a gray area there, but I think we're not at that point yet less than a day after filing. Another day or two now is cheap compared to a month-long case, which is itself stressful and frustrating for almost everyone. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I see, I didn't realize these lasted nearly that long. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- @M.A. Bruhn: Well, it is possible to handle some things by motion in an expedited way, or to have a case with a shortened schedule - and one of those may well happen - but this is the standard timeline. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link. I wish that I had looked into the processes related to this sooner, I would have wanted to consider them before making my post at ANI. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- @M.A. Bruhn: Well, it is possible to handle some things by motion in an expedited way, or to have a case with a shortened schedule - and one of those may well happen - but this is the standard timeline. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I see, I didn't realize these lasted nearly that long. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Although the point is probably moot due to this case going to be accepted, I was wondering if you are aware of any alternatives to a full-blown Arbcom case other than letting this die down on its own. I would support such an alternative, but feel letting it die down is not appropriate. I will wait for the arbcom discussions to begin my arguments, but a brief description of what I will argue and the reason why I went from wanting this to die down to seeing it addressed is due increased discouragement that an editor can experience in a negative admin/non-admin encounter, and how public misbehavior by an admin can sanction such behavior and lead to a chilling effect on its reporting. I will present evidence along these lines where a user with a clean block log and years of activity expresses such discouragement and retires several months later, and I will ask how a user could possibly feel comfortable bringing up concerns of harassment or personal attacks to ANI after witnessing an admin brought to ANI on charges of harassment justify their usage of the terms "mentally challenged" and "liar" and justify bringing back 2-year-old disputes out of nowhere, and be admonished by no one other than a single non-admin user who is instead admonished by others who link them to an essay telling them that it's easier to demand an apology than to give one, and who state that the admin had "done did it again, :-)" and ask "let's everyone just drop it". Before I saw this, and more, I had thanked a user at ANI requesting to let the drama there die down, but after seeing issues come up time and again to be let to die down I decided that I wanted this to be addressed in some capacity, although I did not expect a month-long Arbcom case. If you know of any other alternatives to a full-blown Arbcom case then I would be interested in hearing them. By the way if this is inappropriate to bring up here then feel free to delete my post and I will just wait for the Arbcom case to begin. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @M. A. Bruhn: Not inappropriate at all, but I'll have to respond to this tomorrow; I am running out of working brain cells today :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @M.A. Bruhn: Well, I see the case opened this morning, so I guess it's a bit late now for alternatives other than us handling it by motion instead. But for future reference, some half-baked comments on the issue. In short, the community has tried a lot of different ways of organizing complaints about other editors' conduct that had escalated beyond a talk-page thread but wasn't ready for an arbcom case. Most of them didn't work. You see there's a pattern here in that some of these more decentralized mechanisms for collecting feedback have either fallen into disuse or been deliberately shut down, channeling conduct problems mostly into AN and ANI (which, as you've seen, don't work very well either).
- There are numerous now-defunct venues that have been tried at one point or another that worked like mini noticeboards for conduct-specific issues. WP:PAIN, WP:CSN, WP:WQA come to mind; there may have been more.
- There used to be a sort of intermediate step expected before user-conduct issues reached arbcom: WP:RFC/U, which was a venue for holding an RfC on a specific user's behavior, either as a pattern or in a specific incident. This was shut down a year and a half ago, give or take. It was always a bit of a mudslinging fest, and I don't think it was all that effective. I'm not really sure whether this was better (because it was supposedly about feedback rather than sanctions) or worse (because it was less structured) than an arbcom case.
- There also used to be an editor review process, which was sort of a mini voluntary RfC. That got shut down too, mostly for lack of participation. Administrator review, a similar process specifically for admins, still exists, but is fairly moribund.
- Some admins choose to participate in voluntary admin recall and define a set of conditions under which the community can either ask them for a re-confirmation or ask them to step down. This idea has a sort of messy history and I can only think of a few (maybe one?) low-drama recalls. Since it's voluntary, of course, there's no obligation that admins participate, and I think this idea has mostly gone out of fashion.
- There's also a very long history of complicated politics surrounding adminship, often focusing on community expectations for adminship and processes for removing admins. There is a pronounced and consistent long-term trend toward higher standards and fewer candidacies at RfA, to the point where some people now are uncomfortable with admins who went through the process a long time ago and/or rarely use their tools. Yet there is still not really any effective process for providing feedback to admins about their performance other than posting on their talk page about it, posting at AN/ANI, or filing an arbcom case. I'll save my opinions about this particular case for the case pages, but this much is clear enough: a similar set of circumstances would be very unlikely to reach arbcom, much less be accepted as a case, for a user who was not an admin.
- One other thing on the subject of case evidence: Examples of behavior dating from 2008 would not normally be the kind of thing that would be useful evidence in a case, unless it provides unambiguously necessary background information. I don't have statistics on hand, but I'd guess that four or five ANI threads over 14 years and >100k edits is actually well within the average rate of complaints. You're certainly right that high-handed behavior by admins can be discouraging, but I think what you've identified is also good evidence of the chronic dysfunction of our noticeboards. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- (Kibitzer, and your editnotice cat looks lovely) See, my impression was that WP:RFC/U originally existed to give advice to Jimbo Wales on whether to ban someone from Wikipedia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- [3] Looks pretty much like what would happen if we gave ANI threads their own subpages... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the background information; I feel that I have a better understanding of the current climate, and I will adjust accordingly in order to avoid simply rehashing previous discussion about admin violations of civility. I will only introduce two pieces of evidence, relatively minor exchanges from within the last year, since I don't want to focus on condemning their behavior and feel it will be sufficient for what I want to get across. I am conflicted, on the one hand I feel a post of your length deserves a longer reply, but on the other hand I feel I have burdened you with enough reading already. However, since a picture is worth a thousand words, but does not involve any reading, I'll go ahead and leave off with this. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Talk page stalkers: A+ click right there :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- (Kibitzer, and your editnotice cat looks lovely) See, my impression was that WP:RFC/U originally existed to give advice to Jimbo Wales on whether to ban someone from Wikipedia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- @M.A. Bruhn: Well, I see the case opened this morning, so I guess it's a bit late now for alternatives other than us handling it by motion instead. But for future reference, some half-baked comments on the issue. In short, the community has tried a lot of different ways of organizing complaints about other editors' conduct that had escalated beyond a talk-page thread but wasn't ready for an arbcom case. Most of them didn't work. You see there's a pattern here in that some of these more decentralized mechanisms for collecting feedback have either fallen into disuse or been deliberately shut down, channeling conduct problems mostly into AN and ANI (which, as you've seen, don't work very well either).
Re: RevDel
Thanks for the revision deletion on my user talk while I was offline. It seems very obvious that this is a socking IP of Foleo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), given the context of that section and the past usage of socking IPs. The timing of the edits also came shortly after I protected Criticism of the Quran, an article where he's previously edit warred and where another socking proxy IP 137.74.154.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has recently popped up. Mind taking a look at this and determining whether there's enough to indefinitely block Foleo on the behavioral evidence? He's about to come off a block for edit warring and socking which I placed. Given my past administrative interactions with him and now his harassment of me, it seems like this is a proper time to hand this off to another uninvolved admin rather than press on. ~ Rob13Talk 13:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: No problem. I'll look, but if it needs to be sorted out before tonight then you might want to poke someone else, I have meetings all day (ugh). Opabinia regalis (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's not urgent, just needs new eyes. ~ Rob13Talk 16:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Yup, that's pretty obvious. Done. Blocked some proxies too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look! ~ Rob13Talk 14:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Yup, that's pretty obvious. Done. Blocked some proxies too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's not urgent, just needs new eyes. ~ Rob13Talk 16:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
DYK for John Buchanan (biologist)
On 18 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Buchanan (biologist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology biochemist Jack Buchanan published his work on purine biosynthesis in a series of more than 20 papers in the Journal of Biological Chemistry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Buchanan (biologist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John Buchanan (biologist)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
At least one...
(talk page stalker) Atsme📞📧 21:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Agnoprotein
On 22 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Agnoprotein, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that agnoprotein (pictured) is found in two polyomaviruses that can cause human disease, JC virus and BK virus? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agnoprotein. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Agnoprotein), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Purnell W. Choppin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barnes Hospital. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Block evasion by 72.198.49.108?
On 17 August, you blocked 72.198.49.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for a week for evading a block. Which block was he evading? The IP is problematic today—and may also have been editing from other IPs—and I'm trying to establish a history to see if a longer block is justified. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- C.Fred, I believe that would be User:Foleo, who has been constantly evading their block via open proxies. 72.198.49.108 seems to be a more stable IP address this person keeps returning to. Sro23 (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- @C.Fred and Sro23: Yep, that's him, the behavior is obvious. Softblocked for a month. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
A worthwhile follow-up
Hello Opabinia regalis. In regard to your recent edit where you said it was not your intention to imply my request was in anything but good faith, I wish to say: I did not mean to ever imply that you had. I am sorry for not being clear enough on this point; you have been wonderful in all I have seen. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- @John Cline: I don't know about this 'wonderful business :) Sorry, I misread - easy to do in these endless infobox debates! Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think I better take a break regarding those discussions. DYK that three years ago, I listened to a concert thinking that a friend would be banned because he uncollapsed an infobox for me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- ps --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
TRM case
I saw your ping while I was at the circus with my kids, sorry for not responding to you sooner. I'm certain that Arbcom are no idiots, and therefore I'm certain I'm completely and utterly confused as to why a case can be raised in such a biased manner. Banedon pinged at least 16 editors with whom I may have had any kind of conflict, and George Ho jumped onboard, pinging another eight or so. So to enter any kind of comment this case is to invite further lynching from around 20 or so editors, all of whom have more time and inclination to see the back of me than I do to attempt to defend any position I may or may not have. My experiences with Arbcom have been generally very negative, not necessarily the outcomes but the manner in which the trials are conducted and the obvious invested interest of some (just some) of the sitting members. I am staggered that canvassing on such a level has gone without any kind of sanction, and I am disappointed (but not surprised) that claims of sockpuppetry and failure to collaborate have gone without counter question. That I am forced, daily, to try to maintain (almost single-handedly it feels) the integrity of the main page from numerous slack-minded and slack-handed editors inevitably ends in conflict and me being the bad guy. I've never abused my admin position. I've only ever thought of the readers. But I won't be dragged further into this debacle other than to take on the corollary actions of seeking sanctions against those who falsely accuse me of sockpupptery or compare me to Donald Trump. The latter is the most demeaning thing I have ever seen and I am sickened to my core. Good luck to you and the rest of the Arbcom, I think I see how this pans out, and I don't think it net gains Wikipedia, but when did that ever count in such cases? My best, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- As said already on your talk, TRM, I appreciate your watch over Main page integrity, even if it sometimes hit me, but never incivilly so, just demanding sourcing, and rather pulling than taking a risk. Bells Across the Meadows therefore made it 10 days late, but I could follow your argument. - I survived a few years of arbcom restrictions without evidence, - kids at the circus are more important. - Tomorrow will be the Precious anniversary of the father pictured bonding, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Four years, my so far last entry on one of the most interesting pages in user space, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- You know he should just send an appeal... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, arbcom isn't enough of a circus...? ;) Thanks for responding, The Rambling Man.
- While all those notifications were inappropriate, I'm not convinced they had all that much of an effect - by my count just short of half the current comments either recommend declining the case or are skeptical about its usefulness. And only one arb has actually voted so far, in part because decisions are often based on the parties' statement in response, so describing the outcome as a fait accompli seems like an overreaction. For my part I think there may well be a case here, but not really as framed - the recent issues raised seem to be centered on main-page-quality-control disputes with quite a few more people involved, and a case centered on "TRM allegedly being uncivil" misses the context. (But, while I'm on that subject, you're not exactly "forced" to do that in a volunteer project... ;) Poorly worded DYK hooks or whatever are mostly a nuisance, not a disaster.)
- I pointed out the Trump thing to the clerks yesterday IIRC, and it's since been redacted, so that kind of thing doesn't stick around forever. But if comparing someone to a racist politician is offensive, isn't comparing people to a lynch mob also inappropriate? Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Straight to your final point, if I get seventeen notifications that people with whom I've had a disagreement with have been notified that they can weigh in on me, yes, I'd consider that 100% analogous to a lynch mob. Did the same user also go and ping people with whom I've had perfectly wonderful working relationships with over the past eleven years? If so, I missed it. My editing record speaks for itself with regard to collaboration, that I find it difficult to tolerate mediocrity on the main page, that's entirely different. It's a volunteer project, but one I'm proud to be a part of, hence my drive to keep standards as high as possible there. It often upsets people but sadly I find the integrity of the encyclopedia to be the top priority. YMMV (as some say).
- To earlier points, the speed with which that one Arb has readily accepted the case, and reviewing previous comments, I'm still sure this is done deal. You have 23 notified users with whom I've had a disagreement who will not just talk to the case, but to the hearing, dragging up probably hundreds of diffs of my unbelievably poor behaviour. You have one or two editors who have stumbled on this because they watch my talkpage who will try to talk some sense, provide a balance. It's simply biased and wrong from the outset. It won't change anything to make a statement other than to feed those couple of dozen who have been scouring my contribs since time immemorial for discretions. Four weeks of drama klaxon.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- And here you go, completely unproven nonsense from one of the mob. I know SPI can't prove a negative, but I'm not sure how I can ever recover from bullshit accusations like this, along with an edit summary like "hacked by the accused?". You don't think this is a lynch mob? Think again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Erm, well, you have received some nuisance notifications, and a couple of accusations that are unactionable without evidence, from people who object to things you've posted on a website. You have not been threatened with a gruesome public murder on the basis of your membership in a racial minority group. I would say those two things are a bit short of 100% analogous.
- I'm not sure why you seem to expect that Salvio's vote predetermines not only that the case will be accepted, but also what the scope will be and what decisions will be made. I notice that I still don't speak Italian, and really, if someone is going to take over my brain that way, the least they could do is leave something useful behind! Like I said, just short of half the commenters have been unenthusiastic about opening a case, so that's some pretty ineffective canvassing.
- It does seem clear that there are varying views on the extent to which "mediocrity" on the main page is a problem and what should be done about it, and that looks like the actual source of the dispute. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, and one thing I forgot: if you're using the thanks feature for reasons other than sending actual thanks, please don't do that. You wouldn't be the only one, but it drives people crazy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sowy, couldn't resist.
Atsme📞📧 17:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC) - Opabinia regalis: following your advice, I didn't click thank you to this, although I am genuinely thankful for such a clear statement, nailing the disagreement in a few words. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- same --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sowy, couldn't resist.
- The Rambling Man, as far as I know Trump wasn't really the kind of father to take his kids to the circus, so kudos to you. As for the lynch mob comparison, I also find that ... over the top, even unseemly. Anyway, that's not what I came here for--I came here to say that a. Medeis's suggestion/accusation is so out there that it's meaningless and b. I asked her to remove it. I hope she'll do that and that that will be the end of it. Thank you, and remind me, when this is all over, to tell you a joke about a car full of penguins at the gas station. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, no, no Drmies - the WP humor committee has expressed strong opposition to editors ending a discussion with a cliff hanger, specifically when it involves a car full of penguins....and even more specifically if the car is a Prius. Atsme📞📧 18:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
You're pretty wisdomous
|
The Socratic Barnstar | |
| You're like the only sensible, sane voice around here these days. Glad you're back and sticking around. - NQ (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
- @NQ: You know what happens when you think you're the only sane one. You and I must be the crazy ones then.... ;) Thanks!! Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I humbly confess to having plagiarised your RfA voting style here.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Oppose Candidate claims to have plagiarized, but provided attribution in the edit summary. However, the attribution statement was in quotation marks, implying that it was a direct quote from an unstated source, yet appears to be the candidate's original words. Sorry, I can't possibly support someone who doesn't know basic policy like that. Initiate level II Defcon 1 desysop decontamination procedure Charlie Alpha Tango! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder to vote there! Look, happy people! Opabinia regalis, you expressed my reservations for DS better than I could, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Happy people? What is this?? Wikipedia is Srs Bsns. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Moan...the acronyms...the plagiarism...the humor...the kind words...what's a gal to make of all this?!
Just trying to balance the text to the image. Atsme📞📧 15:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Srs Bsns = seriuz bisinez or something like it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Moan...the acronyms...the plagiarism...the humor...the kind words...what's a gal to make of all this?!
- Oppose Happy people? What is this?? Wikipedia is Srs Bsns. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
NPP
Hi there, if you've got the time, I'd love to hear what you alluded to at the NPP RfC in terms of alternative means of improving management of the incoming articles. I'm eager for the NPP situation to be addressed (I've def gotten bitten by people with a range of experience) and sooner rather than later given quantity of new contributors who can be affected by even one bad patroler, but if a better remedy can be readily identified, I know I'd be interested to hear it! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Innisfree987: What I was thinking of there is the m:ORES system, which was recently released in beta on our project - it's a system that uses machine learning to "score" individual edits and highlight those that may need review. It has some bugs to work out, and overlaps some existing community tools (e.g. ClueBot), but is IMO a clear step forward in terms of automated curation integrated into mediawiki and supported by the WMF. I was suggesting that a similar tool could be used to score whole new articles. Currently most "patrolling" involves looking at a list in chronological order and applying some filters, but if we had a system that could automatically identify high-risk new pages, they could be re-ordered to make sure those pages were prioritized for review.
- More generally, I think we need to decompose "new page patrolling" into its component tasks and think about how to make individual tasks more efficient/effective/accessible, rather than trying to control who participates. Roughly speaking I think NPPish activities break down into:
- Identifying and promptly removing seriously problematic material. This is the highest-priority task that needs to be oriented specifically to new pages. BLP violations, attack pages, and copyvios have to be handled ASAP. Personally I don't think spam is quite so high-priority - spammy articles have very low readership, for obvious reasons - but others disagree.
- Nominating articles for deletion. I separate this from the preceding category because we get lots and lots of new articles that are basically harmless, there's no great rush to get rid of them, but they're not appropriate for an encyclopedia and if they're not caught at the NPP stage, they could be overlooked indefinitely. This is also where most of the "biting" occurs.
- Userfying/draftifying articles. Some articles are obviously inappropriate for mainspace, but the topic has potential and the editor could fix the problems with some education, possibly by being reoriented through AfC.
- Adding maintenance tags. I view this as a totally inessential function. I think we're well into the alert fatigue stage on maintenance tags and 80% of them should just be deleted outright. Nevertheless, it's a common activity among NPPers.
- Adding wikiproject tags and assessments. I see this a lot less frequently from dedicated NPPers, yet this is one of the more useful things that can be done with a new article - direct it toward people who are interested in and knowledgeable about its subject so it can be improved.
- Contacting the authors of new articles with welcome templates, thanks, and advice. Hardly ever seems to be done by someone who thinks of their task as "patrolling", rather than by someone who came across an article by the new article alert bots or some other method, but you'd think it'd be a useful thing to do more often.
- Improving the articles. I know, hardly ever happens, but we shouldn't forget it's an option.
- I suspect a lot of the issues with NPP come up because these things require a fairly broad range of skill sets, and different people rank their relative importance differently. Most people with a good grasp of English can probably do #1, but it's easy to make errors in #2 or #3, and these errors are often both conspicuous and bitey.
- If I were going to redesign the process, I'd probably do something like the following:
- Rebrand the activity as "new article sorting" or "new article review" (I think this was Kudpung's idea, and it's a good one, though "review" has some overlap with the PC reviewer right). Needs to be something without the "enforcement" connotations of the word "patrolling".
- Reduce the requirements for the autopatrolled user right. Currently a lot of people think of it as requiring a record of near-perfect creations - well-formatted, no maintenance tags, etc. IMO the right standard is "this person's articles are very unlikely to need to be deleted", regardless of their quality otherwise. Create an automated tool that regularly generates a list of autopatrol candidates for admins to review.
- Make the page curation tool opt-in? If you at least need to have clicked "Preferences" and poked around a little in order to "do" NPP, then we can shave off the bottom 10% of the clue distribution... ;)
- Deemphasize or get rid of most of the maintenance-tagging function. (Could be as simple as making the tags harder to find in the page curation or twinkle interfaces.) The fundamental questions when looking at a new article should be "Is this appropriate for mainspace? If no, what do I do with it?" Sticking a bunch of tags at the top is bitey and ineffective at actually attracting improvement.
- Get people to tag and sort into wikiprojects instead - or, if that's too granular, sort pages into general topic buckets the way AfD does ("science", "biography", etc.) As soon as possible, get articles that aren't actively problematic out of the undifferentiated "patrol backlog" and into a place where people interested in the subject can take their time and look more closely.
- My general thinking on new editors is that we should be investing a lot more time in identifying and supporting the ones who show early signs of being highly productive, and less time in "taking all comers". My subjective opinion is that the best thing we can do with new editors who show signs of clue is link them up with other editors working on the same things as early in their wiki-careers as possible. We're missing a lot of opportunities to establish those links by conceptualizing new article management as "patrol". Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I saw a big chunk of text and I just had to read it and respond.
- I would decompose #7 into tasks that can be quickly done (but not automated) like categorizing and converting to typical formatting (e.g. bolding article title at start, formatting references, adding wikilinks, etc), with article improvements that are more substantial and content focused like expanding a stub-quality article to start-quality and supplying refs and creating a framework that will facilitate future article expansion.
- I would differentiate between maintenance tags that serve the reader such as those warning of disputed neutrality with those that only serve editors such as the "reads like an essay" tag. The former I would keep whereas the latter I would either convert into hidden categories or make their visibility an opt-in preference. The latter also contribute to overall banner blindness and make the former not stand out as much.
- Speaking of banner blindness, some of the banners for welcoming are huge and scary and contain information that isn't particularly relevant. In fact, until just now over a dozen welcome templates (including the one I was welcomed with used by Huggle) linked to the now defunct user scripts Wikiproject. I presume its been discussed, and discussed, but I really don't see any merits to leaving a completely impersonal welcome template. At minimum new page patroller welcomers should use a template that mentions the article that the user created. Ideally they should use the template just for supplying info and write their own personalized welcome. Perhaps a pseudo-compromise could be an ad-lib type template where you say "One good thing you liked about the article" and/or other things and they get incorporated into the welcoming message.
- What if editors are topically focused rather than action focused? I.e. they want to patrol all new BLPs and normally just scan the new articles backlogs for articles about people. I don't know if this demographic exists though.
- I really like the idea of an automated tool which looks for candidates for auto-patroller (especially if they produce many articles).
- I don't know if it exists, but a tool that gives a hierarchical Wikiproject tree to search through to find the most relevant Wikiproject would likely improve the sorting by a lot. Currently it seems you need to have another tab open to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory and search there for Wikiprojects. Also the guidelines about Wikiproject tagging should probably be updated, the entire first section of the Wikiproject tagging guidelines is actually devoted to explaining the differences between WikiProject tags and stub templates.
- In general I really like the idea of splitting up the patrolling tasks into separate components. I'm afraid that something along the lines of the following scenario may be happening. Editor A visits unpatrolled page and does everything stated at the patrol checklist at WP:NPPCHK except for one thing which is more difficult/iffy, since they didn't do that one thing they don't mark it as patrolled. Editor B now sees unpatrolled page and quickly goes through the checklist until they come across that one iffy thing that they don't know how to handle, so they leave. Editor C then does the same thing, etc, until an editor finally either 1) actually does the one thing, or 2) marks it as patrolled even though the one thing wasn't done. Either way if this is happening then its extremely inefficient, and splitting into components would mitigate it. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I saw a big chunk of text and I just had to read it and respond.
- Opabinia_regalis, thank you so much for this comprehensive response; I agree with you, enthusiastically, on basically all counts. I was really eager to see something, almost anything, be done about problems at NPP but the more I think about it, the less I think the proposed solution will address what I see as needing fixing; may forestall finding a solution that does; and may even have a chance of making matters like biting worse?
- Just anecdotal, but as a still-newish user (three months of editing regularly, account's a year old), I can think of only one instance where I was "bitten" by what I now recognize as inexperience (an impenetrable explanation for deletion nom on something I'd created, quickly rectified by AfD regulars); much more frequent and much less easily resolved has been impatience (etc.) from experienced users, even admins, even after I specifically reached out to indicate my desire to learn and to ask for their help and patience with the process. So I'm increasingly concerned an experience requirement won't do much to help there, whereas unbundling the NPP responsibilities in the way you describe, replaced with a sorting process that separated especially Task 1 from Tasks 2 and 3, as you lay them out, seems a lot more promising. I think there are some people whose style is very appropriate to Task 1 and who may prefer not to have to be troubled with new-user encouragement responsibilities for Task 2, let alone 3--so establishing a sorting process that could orient people toward the work that suits them seems much more likely to address the biting concern I have than does an experience requirement. (It's funny, I actually just made a suggestion to someone that they basically do that on an individual level, but I agree with you completely that if there were a different process called "sorting", that institutionalized a differentiation of these tasks, it'd be VASTLY easier and more likely that people could self-select into appropriate work.)
- Also to the "help people find the work that suits them" aspect, I also agree that WikiProject tags (or, likewise, it occurred to me, using categories for NPP sorting) could go a long way to improving things--I actually just raised a similar idea with Kudpung, that at present it's really hard for potential reviewers with a specific subject interest to find relevant pages to review, and that at present WikiProjects are so decoupled from NPP that--again to take my own example--about a third of the as-yet unreviewed pages I've created actually have had other editors look them over--but only for project scales, while the pages remain in the NPP backlog. (And not because the editors in question were unqualified to conduct NPP! E.g. here, here, here.) If this could be improved, I think it'd also encourage more participation in Tasks 6 and 7 you mention--more participation than we have now, and more and better participation, I think, than what one gets by making something a hat to wear and specifically, a hat you have to request at PERM (rather than, say, being allowed to opt-in like AfC, and just get removed if you're not up to snuff). My experience in other institutions is that if a process for selecting participants obliges people to grab for something, you end up with a group of grabby people. Again, not promising for fixing biting.
- So--I guess then my question on a practical level is, do you have a suggestion about where to go next? With the acknowledgment that you've already mentioned being too busy to join a "reform team" which is perfectly understandable given your existing responsibilities! I'd like to help but I know my limitations, as someone who's pretty new, for something as bird's eye view as this undertaking. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I saw a big chunk of text and I just had to read it and respond.
- ha! See, most people say "I saw a big chunk of text so I didn't read it..." ;)- Thanks to both M. A. Bruhn and Innisfree987 for your detailed comments - I think you've both made very good points on the question of "biting" in particular. One of the recurring problems with NPP as currently constructed is the tension between the "new user interaction" and "garbage removal" parts of the job, and they attract people with such different skill sets that it's hardly surprising that experienced editors self-select into other tasks. As I understand the background to the current RfC proposal, part of the aim is to foster a stronger sense of community among a smaller, more focused group of NPP participants - sort of like a wikiproject. I think this shows through in the way the proposal is set up, without having thought through the usage of Twinkle and other tools, but having thought about the community aspect to the extent of adding a bullet point about deprecating a userbox. The idea I outlined is sort of the opposite in disaggregating the current "NPP" and directing the incoming stream of new articles toward existing topic-based communities where editors are more likely to take an interest in improving the articles. If we have multiple layers of review, it's OK for each of them to be error-prone, as long as the errors are in different directions :) To stand on the other side of the fence for a minute, though, Wikipedia's topic coverage is notoriously unbalanced, and the activity of topic-based communities (usually organized into Wikiprojects) is highly variable, so some people might not be comfortable with having a core review function performed that way. We do already have new article alerts, and projects vary widely in how much use they make out of them.
- My "if I were wiki-dictator" plan on maintenance tags is to create a new namespace - Info: or something - so each article has an associated Info: as well as a Talk: page. (Or even just a talk subpage?) That's where you put all the metadata - wikiproject banners, article assessments, old AfD tags, merge and split tags, article history ("This article was featured at In the News on May 14, 2007." etc.), education banners, and all the other cruft that tends to accumulate. That would also be where non-urgent maintenance worklists would live ("This article needs copyediting", etc.) - leaving, as suggested above, just a few important tags in the reader-facing mainspace ("This article might be a hoax"). Having someone add a to-do list to your article is a lot less bitey than having someone ugly it up with tags, and I think the dates on most maintenance tags you come across pretty clearly suggest that their supposed benefits in getting readers to edit the articles are not really being realized.
- As for practical next steps.... yeah, I'm just throwing out ideas; I don't really have time for a big project. I'm also not much of a Big RfC for Sweeping Reform person - I much prefer the "just start doing it the new way and see if it works" approach. For now I'm going to link this thread in my comment on the RfC in case anyone reading there is interested. One person who always has useful thoughts on newbie-biting via article tagging is Ritchie333, who might have some ideas. You might also like to pop over to the Women in Red project, where there has been a lot of activity around finding and improving new articles that are biographies of women and supporting their authors - that might be a good way to try this on a trial basis with a particular topic and a group already interested in the underlying goals. (I'm also hoping some kind talk-page stalker might have an idea of how you could proceed, if they haven't all been crushed under the tldr... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Affinity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
Hello, Opabinia regalis. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
- Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
- A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
About that template...
You mentioned a template that would ping all the ArbCom. If you're serious about that, I could whip something up à la {{@MILHIST}}. Miss seeing you at TFD! Primefac (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Only if you "accidentally" leave me out... ;) Thanks, but I'm not sure the other arbs wouldn't kill me!
- The other day I installed that new TfD script thinking I should do some more normal admin work, but I haven't had the time. Damn real work! Glad you are still holding down the fort over there. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- The script is pretty nice, I only find a bug about every fourth day :p Fortunately the backlog isn't too bad. (It's the Holding Cell.... but I'm working on that). Primefac (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thoughts on essay
Mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Relist bias when you have a chance and providing your thoughts? With AfD showing backlogs recently, I think it might be a helpful reminder that kicking discussions down the road usually isn't helpful. I'd like a set of eyes on it before I start "putting it out there" (and potentially embarrassing myself with any typos, etc). Cheers! ~ Rob13Talk 22:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Good idea, I like it. (And I didn't find any typos, but that means exactly nothing given how many I contribute... ;) But, well, I hate relisting in general, so of course I agree! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Kitten
 |
Your talk without a kitten? No. Wikipedia must be much better now that a page listing a few operas and bios was deleted, - expect a drastic decline in infobox debates now that 21 articles such as Max Reger no longer invite to be "targeted". (And see what happens when I try to avoid the topic.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're right! I better add a whole bunch more, just in case I start running low on kittens again ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Amazing dialogue on my talk: someone asking me to translate my article of 1 Jan, for a bio in a memorial concert! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Perfect use for a good article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Took me far on memory lane. Tonight, we sang Elijah (all of it), as back then when we were praised by Germany's leading paper, for a dramatic reading highly sensitive for text and tone. The conductor had a high fever that concert, but managed. - 2016 Elijah Concert on Monday, our national holiday, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Perfect use for a good article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Amazing dialogue on my talk: someone asking me to translate my article of 1 Jan, for a bio in a memorial concert! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hardy PD comments
Hi OR, I note your post here and thought a brief reply here might be more appropriate as the MH case is going to close any second. Sadly, I agree with you that the key decision has been made, but I disagree that it was to not desysop MH. That decision was (I would guess) fairly easy for arbitrators to reach once the quality of evidence was clear. For me, the key decision was that sanctioning non-parties with no notification is permissable. The TRM case is pretty obviously wandering in that same direction. I recognise you have characterised this issue as a "rough edge" (unless I am misunderstanding you) but it's actually a core issue of fairness and principle and it isn't going away. EdChem (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @EdChem: Well, the final decision in the Hardy case includes no non-parties, and neither does the PD in the TRM case. The Hardy case would never have existed without the contention that his adminship might be a problem, so in that sense it was the key conclusion in the case. Honestly, rehashings of the Hardy case on talk pages after it closed (not by you, obviously) were kind of what we were trying to avoid with the probation remedy people didn't like. While I was going to write more stuff here, if it's all right with you, I think it might be better to pick this up again after a bit of time has passed, and as a more general issue with the "named party" system. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Re the MH case, I guess it depends on 7c under "user conduct" which is obviously written as an adverse finding (not a description of background) aimed at a non-party, but I do agree that the outcome is much less problematic than I had feared. On the TRM, I confess I am surprised (and pleased) that the PD doesn't go where it was being pushed. As a personal view, I find TRM an irritating discomfort in the posterior, but only because he confuses being right with recognising trivia. I hope he is not desysopped because he does a lot of good for the main page, if only he could stop with the incivility and learn what is worth worrying about and what is trivia. Anyway, I'm staying out. If there are no further controversies over named parties, I think that would be an excellent outcome for all. Thank you for responding. EdChem (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- See, not responding is hard! But for anyone from the future who is looking into this case and digging around in my talk page archives, I'm pretty sure EdChem means 7e :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Re the MH case, I guess it depends on 7c under "user conduct" which is obviously written as an adverse finding (not a description of background) aimed at a non-party, but I do agree that the outcome is much less problematic than I had feared. On the TRM, I confess I am surprised (and pleased) that the PD doesn't go where it was being pushed. As a personal view, I find TRM an irritating discomfort in the posterior, but only because he confuses being right with recognising trivia. I hope he is not desysopped because he does a lot of good for the main page, if only he could stop with the incivility and learn what is worth worrying about and what is trivia. Anyway, I'm staying out. If there are no further controversies over named parties, I think that would be an excellent outcome for all. Thank you for responding. EdChem (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)