User talk:Barkeep49

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2021 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 01 January 2021:

• Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bradv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CaptainEek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maxim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Primefac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the CheckUser and Oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2020:

• DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joe Roe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mkdw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2020 at their own request:

  Oversight: Joe Roe

• Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
• All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
• DGG, Joe Roe, and Mkdw will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 01:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2021 Arbitration Committee

• Congratulations; I' m glad you will be there to replace me (and that goes for the other new people also). We may overlap on one case. and if there's one thing I like, it's giving advice. . DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  @DGG: thanks for that kind offer and for those kind words. I am looking forward to learning a lot and offering what I can to the committee and the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• My congratulations to you. A more worthy candidate I have yet to see in fifteen years of being here. My only advice, for what it's worth, don't forget your roots! Well done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  I was just talking last night that I need to figure out how I can keep doing content creation. I need to be in a particular mindset to do content creation and 2020 sapped a lot of that from me. I worry that even if I carve out time for content, easy enough to do on the whole, that I won't be productive with it. Long story short, I won't forget my roots but I worry about how well I'll do engaging with them these next couple years. I am just hopeful that acknowledging this issue will help me to confront and overcome it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• CONGRATULATIONS! The result was a foregone conclusion. With such an impressive score, if ever the Committee had a chair (it doesn't) you would be the best candidate for that too. I sincerely hope that you will be a strong voice there, not simply go with the flow, and do your best to make the Committee a more equitable place. I do also hope that you won't now leave NPP high and dry without your superb leadership - I would hate to see nearly a decade of my work go to waste. So I'll dive back under my blanket now it's all over. Stay well, my friend. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  NPP remains near and dear to me and I will work hard to ensure your legacy is carried on. Thanks for the good wishes and I hope that the place under your blanket is comfy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Throwing my congratulations in amongst the throng as well. Good luck! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks! I am taking all the luck I can get. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Joining in, congrats! — Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks! I had planned to circle back to your NPP School yesterday Berrely but then I ended up doing other things. You remain high on my to do list though, no worries. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• All the congratulations. Very happy for and proud of you. - JDL. Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm obviously pleased with the result. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• If it isn’t my tutor !!!!! Congratulations Captain, boy am I glad!!!!!! Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm certainly glad too. Look forward to continue seeing you around the way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Celestina007, Captain? Aren't you getting confused with another newly minted arb? Merge and redirect to Captain BarEek49. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit, lmfao I’ve always referred to Barkeep49 as “Captain” since forever.

The merge and redirect part got me laughing and tearing up. Happy holidays to you both. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, and to you - have a great one! GirthSummit _(blether) 20:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Finally!! A ray of hope and sunshine bursting onto the scene!! Congratulations, Barkeep - it's where you need to be and well-deserved. Atsme 💬 📧 19:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  I'm glad that I could (somewhat) contribute to a ray of hope and sunshine in a year that needs more of them but no pressure or anything, eh Atsme :)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

My reflections on ACE

I just took some time to write my reflection on ACE. I wrote there that I would be OK if no one read it but all things being equal I'd prefer people to read (and react) than not. I always feel a bit pompous posting to my own user talk to gather attention but since there aren't a ton of ways to advertise such things here I am. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

BK, you did yourself a disservice by putting this up at a time when it is lost amid the Holiday greetings taking over watchlists (not to mention that watchlists have become unusable because of increasingly unhelpful bot activity, causing one to miss important edits, but I digress). My reflections on your reflections:

1. Unhappy people: In my guide, I admitted I was happy with the 2019 Arbcom, even though I initially was not. But one of my candidates still didn't make it, so ...
2. Candidate statements: Agree (I paid a good deal of attention to them this year).
3. Extended statements: Agree.
4. Candidate questions: Made all the difference in my votes and recommendations, but agree they are underread.
5. Non-admin candidates: Agree that this has not been well tested by a strong candidate.
6. I agree with you on 'crats. I think they are an unnecessary super-class. On clerking, I find it somewhat useful; an unhelpful inattentive clerk is not likely to make a good arb.
7. I don't think guides made a difference this year, but that is a reflection of the makeup of the candidates. This year was a foregone conclusion except for one slot (where I think we missed it, and will come to regret not having either Ballioni or Guerillero in the final slot). I think it is wrong to say there haven't been years where they did make a difference. I won't single out where they were most certainly particularly helpful in the past.
8. Content creation: From historical (seeing the misrepresentations and hounding of Eric Corbett) to the more recent (the failure to understand in some quarters the severity of the impact on content creation by the WPMED dysfunction) means we need arbs who really understand the issues and work in the trenches of content creation. Your success this year, I believe, proves me right, as you were a candidate who bridges both (admin and content experience). The same problem we see at RFA (those who have climbed the grease pole by checking all the right boxes) affects the arb elections. On the other hand, I have seen arb guides that focus ONLY on content creation, which is equally problematic.
9. Personal experience, yes.

Now back to guides. These were fine when an individual user could put up a guide for their Wikiassociates and talk page stalkers, in place of having to answer the question "who are you voting for" over and over. At some point in the past, it became required to link them to the template, which gave them a prominence that was never intended by ... at least people like me ... who only wanted to be able to answer the question among the circle of editors who follow and share our concerns.

Merry Christmas ... you shoulda made this post a few days later ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

You're right from a "how can I get the most people to read this" perspective I should have waited. I also appreciate your general thoughts, but I would stand by my general assessment of guides going back years and my conclusion that we spend way too much time talking about them. They are what they are and we should just kind of let them be at this point, in my mind. FWIW I think one reason content creation has been underrated as an asset is because of the content creation focused guides (though I think we're pretty close to agreement on this point). Merry Christmas to you and your family. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are my initial thoughts about the first items:

1. Unhappy people:  If we wanted to reduce this behavior, we would ridicule it.  Imagine that we stop responding with hand-wringing and justifications, and instead keep a box at the top of the page that says "It's been ____ days since someone last declared this ArbCom to be the worst ever" or replied with "Congratulations, you're the third person this year to declare this ArbCom the worst ever!"
2. Candidate statements:  I don't know if these are massively underrated.  They seem pretty useful, and people seem to think they're pretty useful.
3. Extended statements:  I have no opinion.
4. Questions:  I wonder whether a formal process is necessary.  What if there wasn't a central location, we stopped pretending that this was supposed to work like a real-world legislative election, and if I wanted to ask you something, I just asked you on your talk page, exactly like I would normally do?
5. Non-admins:  The reason is that some of us have enough sense to avoid things like that.  If you have enough sense to avoid RFA, then you also have enough sense to avoid ACE.
6. I agree with SandyGeorgia about clerks.
7. I also have my doubts about how valuable these are in general, but some of them can be valuable to a small number of people. I think there is a lot of potential for harm in writing these. If you write that Alice and Bob are bad candidates, they're likely to remember that for years to come.

The other two didn't hold my attention as well. However, on the subject of content creation, some folks in the past have found it helpful to dedicate a specific time for content creation. If you intentionally plan to write content every Saturday morning, then you are likely to get some done. The automatic ritual of it helps make it happen. For myself, I find that it helps to start every day with a content-oriented page. I usually see WT:MED before I check e-mail, and sometimes before I even get out of bed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing taking Sandy's scolding above to heart, I waited to reply until today so more of my talk page watchers might see it. Thanks for your feedback. I have to say the idea of using humor to change the social mores around ArbCom is one I hadn't really considered and might be the one most likely to work. I wish I had thought of that a year ago when I lost since I could have actually done it over the last year. As for candidate statements, I think you and I are saying similar things. From having talked to both successful and unsuccessful candidates, no one really said "pour lots of energy into your candidate statement" as advice. But I think they should have because, as you note, you and many other voters find them helpful. As for questions, I think your idea is an interesting one. Fundamentally I think the questions are good as a method of making sure that our elite remain accessible to all editors. But you're perhaps right that this could just easily, and perhaps even better, happen on user talks rather htan as part of the ArbCom process.

Finally as to content, I find it hard to write content at home, especially on the weekends. Too many distractions and calls on my time. Instead I tend to write my best content on Fridays because it is the day at work that tend to be pretty quiet in terms of problems and unscheduled in terms of meetings so I have nice chunks of uninterupted time to focus and make it happen. I hope to keep to that this coming year. I also hope to do enough non-Wikipedia writing that I get so inspired about something not having a Wikipedia article that I simply must write about it. I have a couple other ideas but I appreciate your sharing what's been successful for you given the similar ways that other Wikipedia work could get in the way of content for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that people answer questions differently if it's part of a process vs informally. On the one hand, I'm pontificating to a faceless group, and on the other hand, it's just us (and whoever happens to be watching).

Speaking of questions and ArbCom (rather than its election process), I've wondered whether it would be helpful to ArbCom if its members asked questions during the Evidence and Workshop phases. Some sort of mid-case feedback ("Yeah, I think we understand Part A of this dispute, but could somebody please explain the dancing elephants in Part B?") might get you the information you need more efficiently.

And, I suppose, this comment is an example of the above. If I were proposing this at some suitable ArbCom page, I'd probably write up a whole proposal, suggest an implementation process (e.g., should questions manifest as a note on a case talk page, or a section at the end of each page?), marshal arguments in favor, etc., but here I just suggest that ArbCom members could make a practice of asking questions during cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm all about asking questions at the workshop - my first two comments there as an arb were both questions [1] [2]. I will just note that the way ArbCom is setup is that most arbs don't engage with the case until the PD has been drafted. This is, I think, a healthy division of labor. But for the arbs that read it, yes to questions. I'm now a couple days behind on the evidence (and might just wait until it closes) but I'm guessing I'll have some more questions after reading that. And yes both formal and informal spaces have their virtues and I'm glad that I have smart people watching this page who I get to chat with. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy holidays

File:Christmas tree decorations 5.jpg	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!
	Hello Barkeep49, Wishing you a joyous holiday season and a happy and peaceful New Year. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 23:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg	Merry Christmas Barkeep49
	Hi Barkeep49, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness. – SD0001 (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!

Hello, Barkeep49! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Exasperated

... and time for a long walk. Could you, or an independent admin TPS who may have the time and patience, please look at User talk:Oshwah#Please undelete User:RobertFindling and User talk:RobertFindling? These are good faith editors who have exhausted my patience for the day, and I am beyond my non-admin knowledge of what needs to be done next. Time for me to push back in frustration that I was trying so hard to catch up on other work just when this hit ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Never mind... the message was finally absorbed, and dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia except isn't it still a COPYVIO? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Arrrrrrgh ... I hadn't even looked at that. So, revdel ?? Sheesh, I have this ability to hyperfocus, but when I am trying to get through content work requiring focus, I should learn NOT to look at those blippity-blip-blip pingie thingies at all. One of the many reasons I hate them. I should not have even looked until I was done with the content work I had planned for this morning. Appreciate you looking .. if it need revdel, probably better at this point anyway ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You can turn off all pings in Special:Preferences, or convert them all to e-mail instead of web. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Turning them off sounds dangerous ... but converting them to email had not occurred to me ... if I do that, then I can look at them when I am not going to be frustrated by 85 little thingies pinging at me! Thanks, WAID ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

BK and WhatamIdoing, it's a whole new world since I made that change five days ago. Only now am I fully seeing how much of a yoke that pingie-thingie was around my neck, and how miserable it was making me, and how much it was affecting my editing conduct. Because I would lose track of pings, I would feel I had to answer right away, even if I didn't have time, and that also led to the impression of bludgeoning because you answer everything, and ... ACK !!! Now I can process through my talk page, process through my watchlist, and go over to my email to check my pings only when I have the time to respond properly. With trying to submit evidence to the arbcase (where I searched for days for a diff I have never been able to locate), just as we had a veterinary emergency (good outcome), thankfully, only this morning did I check my email, and having the pings in email allows me to mark read or archive what I have responded to, and leave unread those that are pending.

So, here's why I'm here :) How do the rest of you do it? Now I feel guilty every time I ping another editor, because here I am being a hypocrite, when I hate those things. By what process do the rest of you get any work done and keep track of what pings you have responded to? Am I really dumber than everyone else in here? (Don't answer that ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I start every day with the page history for WT:MED and Special:Notifications. I toggle the individual notifications on and off as I need to. Also, I'm not an Inbox Zero person, and I don't mind letting the notifications sit while I finish what I'm doing. Other people can't tolerate letting it sit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

See I am an inbox zero sort of person and so when I have that little grey notification sitting there crying for my attention it ensures I don't forget about things I want to make sure to do. In general I try to have an agenda for what I want to do on Wikipedia on any given day before I start editing and it then becomes about triage with what calls for my attention onsite vs what my goals were. I'm glad the email pings are working for you. Great suggestion by WAID. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both ... my problem was that before I had no central way of tracking what I had responded to and what not, which left me feeling like I Must Respond Now or I will lose track, whereas now I can use Mark Unread in my email to know what I have to come back to. The downside to that is that I am now more tied to Wikipedia email, where before, I rarely checked it. But overall, I can go back to processing my watchlist and talk page the way I did pre-pingie thingies, and then only when I am done with that, go review the pings in my email. And if others are comfortable with pinging, I guess I don't have to feel like a hypocrite when I ping others ... ? Bst, and thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ping other editors liberally. Most people like it, and will be happy if you do so. And you are using them, just not via the default interface. I'm glad that you've found a system that works better for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hypocrite guilt resolved ;). Thanks again, both, for all the help, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		To go along with the big bucks you get for mopping up :) Happy New Year! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Empire AS ^Talk! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2020 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Empire AS ^Talk! 18:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

My future adminship

I want to be an administrator, but what do I need to do to become one? Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in adminship Ssjhowarthisawesome. I'll give you a few specifics but the first thing I'd do is encourage you to read Wikipedia:Really simple guide to requests for adminship. In your case you don't have the activity level that the community expects. Generally successful candidates will have had a couple hundred edits each month for at least 12 months. The community also generally looks for some sense of how to do content - writing a good article is a great way to show that. Those are a couple baseline examples of the kind of work you can do if you have your eye on becoming an admin. Out of curiosity what does the Ss stand for in your username? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Happy new year :)

Tatupiplu'^talk 05:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I've been continuously learning about the Wikipedia guidelines, and I'm practicing it every day. I think now I can perform the NPP operations with full efficiency.

If I qualify for a one month trial for NPP permission, Can you monitor and be my mentor? - Tatupiplu'^talk 06:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tatupiplu sorry I am not taking on new Wiki commitments at this time as I sort out how much time and energy being an arbitrator will take up. Good luck in your pursuit of the NPR user permission. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 No worries, :) -Tatupiplu'^talk 16:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking for an online admin

Can you help? Pmelo1 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. What do you need? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I am using this new account after receiving a veiled threat about a separate deletion request involving another page and am using this alias out of an abundance of caution

According to thus afd a decision was made to delete and salt the (misspelled) page in question. The page has magically reappeared here at yet another page that was deleted and salted (see below). As in the previous articles all of the contributors are either sockpuppets or SPAs. This re-creation of a deleted and salted page seems to have occurred when an unknowing editor mistakenly transferred the creation of another intentionally misspelled page ending with the Roman numeral ‘I’ and transferring it to the original deleted and salted page without waiting to re-create it until a consensus was demonstrated in support of re-creation.

Therefore, the present article should be speedy deleted (which I can not nominate due to extended page protection) under G4 especially since the most current and most recently edited version of the article is substantially identical to the deleted version (save the mention of the subject’s death). Also the content was not undeleted via a deletion review or was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion (the only exceptions for a G4 waiver).

On top of that, the article falls under WP:BLP1E, lacks individual notability, and is apparently a hoax. Coverage is primarily based in local media and therefore may fail depth of coverage and is (with few exceptions) definitely not persistent. Google News searches return 4 results with no significant coverage. Other results indicate significant decrease in coverage from 2015 until the subject’s death in February 2020.

The article is a re-creation under a deliberately misspelled title most recently created in November 2019 and previously created and deleted multiple times with multiple spellings, including on August 18, 2013, which was later re-created, G4’d and salted on August 29, 2013 with a reinforcement of the salting on February 13, 2015. Under another spelling, the creation, deletion and salting happened in February 2015. Yet another attempt was also salted.

The central claim for notability for the subject is this man’s court case against a state social services department and legislation drafted based on the allegations in the case with the occasional news story. The court case was the subject of another AfD on August 18, 2013 resulting in delete. Many years later the case and/or the legislation is not mentioned on the department’s article and that only strengthens the argument that the threshold for this man’s individual notability has not been met.

The individual sources on the article prove the lack of independent notability, depth, and persistence of this low profile individual:

1,2,3,4,9,10,11,24 – relate to illness and death of subject, in itself not sufficient for individual notability and no mention of anything to cross the line of WP:BLP1E
5,6 7,8,12,13,14,15,16,25 - local coverage rehashing or retelling reasons for or events in his court case or legislation (that was directly prompted by same court case) which do not grant individual notability
17,18,19,20,22,23 – mention in passing regarding court case or associated legislation. Proving the fact, but not individual notability
21 – op-ed written by subject about same exact legislation and court case; an op-ed does not give rise to individual notability

Therefore, the article likely falls under WP:BLP1E and lacks individual notability. Coverage is exclusively in local media with the exception of his death which was put out from a local AP wire, and therefore fails depth of coverage and is (with one or two exceptions) not persistent. News coverage from 2015 is non-existent except for the mention of his death and a reintroduction of the same legislation in 2020, neither of which proves individual notability. Even if we put aside the aforementioned we are still guided by the policy that “Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article.” The principles for BLP1E that the “person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual” and “the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented” also apply.

As an aside it must be noted that the page was re-created after being deleted and salted without going through the proper channels as it was not re-created with a consensus that demonstrated a support of re-creation.

Therefore, in conclusion, because of the multiple circumventions of deletions, saltings, G4s, and the lack of individual notability, this article should be speedy deleted. Also each incarnation of the page was created by a banned user in violation of G5. Pmelo1 (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I know just enough about this topic to know that I am not the right admin to consider this request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Right. Thanks and have a good day. Pmelo1 (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for Youth Against Rape

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Youth Against Rape. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahluwalia

You have closed the discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fateh Singh Ahluwalia and even deleted the article.

[3] [4] There are so many refs in Google books for "Fateh+Singh+Ahluwalia"+1758 All these talk about this military general and king. I have no idea why Sandstein thinks that Government of India website will falsify history about an important historical person, Sandstein has made an incorrect assessment. Don't forget that the state speaks Punjabi language. The article should not have been deleted. Can you change your decision to keep or to relist the AfD so that I can post these refs for others to consider. --Walrus Ji (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji, I did indeed close that discussion and which included a weighting of your comment. When I close a discussion, I am merely judging the consensus reached by the participants of the discussion. In a deletion discussion, it is best to bring your three best sources to the discussion rather than relying on people to search through results. I will go ahead and relist the discussion so you can give your sources and see if consensus changes over the next week. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Thank you for considering. The AfD had received very little participation. Hope more people will participate. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Always an exciting remembrance. Thanks Gerda. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. For 2012 wishes look here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Questions

Dear Barkeep49, would be you please explain this to me: I've asked the Clerks twice to remove the uncivil language and personal attacks (false accusations) on the page of my arbitration request as off-topic and offending. Although I received "awaiting moderation" notices on both communications, there has been no further response. The false accusations are still there. Even a new attack against scholars in the comment space of one of the other parties remains without being recognized as such, even though it could be added to the evidence. So losing confidence in the proceeding two days ago, I decided to withdraw my case and explore a suggestion by user Robert McClenon, see [5]. However, the arbitration request is still there as if active. Is there a special reason for keeping all the insults in place and treating the case as active? It's somewhat ironic that one of the voters advised me to go check this: [6] while at the same time several of the items listed as rude and uncivil are disrupting my request on the Arbcom page. Thanks.Saflieni (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni - your request to withdraw the arbitration request was retrieved and was passed along to the clerks. Per Arbitration Committee procedure there is a 24 hour waiting period which we are now in. As for the personal attacks, I'm sorry you didn't receive an acknowledgement of your emails. This is always tricky and the new committee is committed to doing this right but also is on its own learning curve as us new arbs learn the ropes amidst one of the busiest times of the year for communication.. Your request about the attacks were indeed received and generated discussion and I'm sorry we didn't circle back to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Barkeep49. Not sure what to do next, though. As I noted in my message to user Robert McClenon, the Guide to Arbitration states: "Arbitrators ... are hesitant to making a ruling on the grounds that one side is right in a content dispute. There are minor exceptions to this; for instance, the committee has historically taken a dim view of individuals using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy." I can't say that I noticed this "dim view" playing a role. As a result the parties involved have been handed executive control over the article (and related articles). How this helps Wikipedia is unclear.Saflieni (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni the issue here, at least for me, was we were talking about a single article about a book. It wasn't clear, for me, that this had spread to related articles. When I get to the place you do with an issue, I find a way to step back from it for a time and focus on other things. Sometimes within Wikipedia sometimes outside of it. Then when I'm feeling a bit more relaxed, I often find I can come up with new approaches to the situation or at least a great willingness to take a longer view about the approaches I had been using. I don't know if that will be of any help to but I hope it is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Making me the problem again is not very helpful here, no. I am relaxed, had time outs. I don't respond well to dishonesty, but got that under control now. However, I wonder if the community would be okay with this situation if it was about a more familiar but similar topic, for instance: if editors were promoting a book which claims that Jews had infiltrated the SS, were ultimately responsible for the Holocaust and had themselves carried out a secret genocide on the side? Well, maybe they would. I've been picking up some strange vibes to tell you the truth.Saflieni (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you thought that was me making you the problem. You said you weren't sure what to do next and I shared how I approach those situations. I didn't know if it would be helpful for you and it turns out it wasn't. In terms of your analogy I think this is where Wikipedia's system underrepresentation bites us. If this were the Holocaust we'd have had a much bigger pool of editors who were already interested and immersed in this topic. So even if they weren't watching that article they would be able to join the discussion once it appeared at a larger forum. That isn't really the question you wanted me to answer but it is the answer to the "what if this were about the Holocaust?" in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Thank you for taking an interest and sharing your thoughts. Saflieni (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In case you're still interested: Handing them a free pass didn't work out very well. They've continued to add insults to the Talk page and basically do whatever they want with the article. They're now taking turns deleting/reverting my edits to circumvent the 3RR rule. Saflieni (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like it's time to try another method of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I hope you don't mean this type of harrassment: [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saflieni (talk • contribs) 20:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a conduct forum, so no it's not what I was referring to. I was thinking of something like an RfC or WP:DRN. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Won't do any good. They'll just disrupt it again. Btw, they're now even using our present conversation and the one on Robert McClenon's Talk page as evidence for my guilt. [8] And they'll probably succeed too. Haven't seen anyone checking facts in their context yet. Oh well. Best to you too.Saflieni (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Apology

Happy New Year and congratulations on your decisive endorsement from the community as a new Wikipedia arbitrator.

That said, I think you owe someone an apology. Your agressive and misguided pile on, threats, and bullying are particularly distressing from a new arb. Be better. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind wishes. I happened to approve a draft of yours the other day and went by your talk page and was happy, for you, to see so many AfC accept notices. As to the substance of your message I know that my messages feel different as an arbitrator than they did on 12/31 and I'm attempting to be mindful of that when I write messages - including this one. I'm sure that in 2 years, as my term ends, I will be better at doing that than I am today.

However, I do stand by the comments I left Missvain and I dispute the idea, even after a re-read, that I threatened or bullied them. I knew what I had to offer was not of the "warm and fuzzy" variety which is why I did make an attempt to differentiate the "cost" of doing AfD closes and what i saw as specific issues there. I worked very hard to try not to mention ArbCom, both because I don't want this to go there and being especially mindful that I am now an arb and that would feel like a threat. However, I did have in mind a few cases around administrator actions that happened in 2020. And a theme there was that issues built up over time and that people didn't want to have difficult or hard conversations. So then the issues kept happening. And the end result was desyop. That's not an outcome I would want for her (or any administrator). This morning someone at work referenced a Brené Brown quote that I think speaks to my intent here "Clear is kind and unclear is unkind." Perhaps I missed the mark in impact but I was trying to hit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughful and respectful answer. I certainly appreciate your generous words of support and encouragement.

1) You're an Arb now so whatever you tell an editor or admin carries that weight. Treading softly and using all the kindness and collegiality you can muster would be wise.

2) The particular example you sighted of the early snow close of Public Perceptions of Jared Kushner was entirely within policy and was effective in stemming what continues to be a time wasting disruption that has garnered not a single keep vote aside from its troublesome creator. Moreover MissVain had already cordially reopened the discussion upon request. A mistake in copying something that was corrected when it was pointed out was also not worth criticizing her or anyone for.

3) If you wanted to tread at all on an admin doing thankless work in a contentious area you could have politely suggested slowing dowm there to share the burden and avoid ruffling feathers.

4) The manner in which you expressed yourself remains shocking to me. Especially after you say you've reviewed what you said and stand by it. "Sandstein might not be asking you to stop but I will." You go on to say youve never interacted with her before this week. So wouldn't some polite inquiry and discussion FIRST be more appropriate? You also said you would've dragged her to an admin noticeboard if she wasn't an admin. A problematic statement in several respects. And all this followed on User:Sandstein's bullshit objection to her relisting a school article that had one keep and one delete vote a third time because the guideline says we "generally" don't do that.

To summarize, you were wrong on policy, wrong on approach, and wrong on outcome. And instead of correcting course you've reiterated your earlier stand doubling down on your stayements and position which has encouraged us to go further delving into it and dragging those involved through the muck. I would AGAIN ask you to reconsider and to always seek to bring more light to situations and stem drama rather than adding to it.

If you're going to attack an admin for speedily closing a discussion obviously heading for a snowball delete, and one that was generously reopened upon polite request, and one that now continues to offer nothing but drama you better explain yourself. C'mon man. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I will give you a longer response but Missvain has set to archive after 51 hours. Were you aware that I had left a message on 12/29? That answer will help to guide me in my answer to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I was wrong on that point. There were some housekeeping issues identified but mistakes do happen. Certainly you raised your concern over sped and volume. But your followup missed the mark and my points on those issues remain. But ultimately the key issue is really the point you raised about getting more people involed at Aritcles for Deletion and Wikipedia generally. We are volunteers. Aspects are rewarding and others not so much. I am banned from AfD as part of an ugly series of attacks I received after creating lots of entries on Reconstruction era African American politicians. Up to that point I had been quite prolific there going through entries, reading them, looking for sources, fixing things up, offering my opinion. This ruffled feathers as does my prolific article creation. There are also agendas beneath the surface of what people say and do. I don't miss the drama of AfD but I out in the time because I saw lots of worthy entries getting deleted. I also did plenty of delete votes. My point is that constructive efforts that improve the encyclopedia shoukd be encouraged not discouraged. Sometimes people take on too much, but lending a hand or a kind suggestion to share the burden would be better than a reprimand or punishment. I respect your work here and obviously so does the community overwhelmingly. I can see that being an arb isn't easier or more fun, at least in having to deal with complaints, than admins face. But helping, guiding amd encouraging seems to me a better approach than what you did. And again, the substance of the issues raised doesn't support your position. If you think her closes were wrong take then to DRV and offer a friendly opinion. Or maybe you should habe offered it up in the discussion instead of second guessing? Reprimanding someone for doing great work and threatening to go after them if they continue to do can never be the rifht approach even if their work isn't perfect. I've seen what the "by the book" Wikilawyer set gets away with here and it's ugly and chases a lot of people away. Party on. You don't owe me any more of an explanation. Take care and have fun. Thanks for your good works. I was rereading Oberlin Academy and while you weren't spot on off the bat I think you were reasonable and ultimately got it right. Maybe a different more friendly approach could have achieved the outcome in the present dispute with an enthusiastic if zealous editor you were concerned about taking on too much. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Since you've indicated I don't owe you any more explanation I won't respond in full, other than to acknowledge I have read your message. If you change your mind and would like a longer response let me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Yo

Hey aren't you're that guy who created The famous meme guy standing in 2012? 950CMR (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not create that meme. I did attempt to bring it to Simple Wiki because I find it amusing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I want mediation for Joy (singer)

By talk page on Red Velvet (group), I suggested to update their new photos for fulfilling good articles criteria, and Paper9rolls said it can be working on, so I thought editing Joy's photo in article Joy (singer). But Alexanderlee still insists that it was on talk page of Red Velvet, so it doesn't apply to Joy article. So there was numerous conflicts, but i think I didn't do anything wrong for edits on Joy (singer). Could you pls mediate us on that articles? If I was wrong, then I will admit my fault to Alexanderlee who involved in -- Wendylove (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wendylove: unfortunately I don't have time right now. You can find a mediator at third opinion who can help you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you please review my article

Hey.

I noticed you have reviewed a few pages in your time at Wikipedia- I am a beginner to Wikipedia and have just finished writing my first article, now the draft is pending for review. It'd be great if you could check it over! I am apprehensive that it will contain mistakes and I will need to wait another few weeks/months before getting another review.

Many thanks, Apaul291003 (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Apaul291003 I do review articles from times to time but don't take requests. Sorry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Question Regarding Scientific Consensus/Factional Bias Editing

  Heyyy! I apologize if I am going about this incorrectly (in which case feel free to purge your talk page of my interrogative pollution), albeit I had one question pertaining to a possibly sensitive subject (Hence my reaching out to a member of the Arbitration Committee)...
  How would I go about properly editing an article where there is misinformation on a subject having a general scientific consensus, but various factions of the population differ for religious, social, or political (ideological) reasons? This, for instance, would apply to the subjects of gender identity, climate change, etc... Is there recommended reading for new Wiki editors on such subjects? Thank you in advance, and again, I apologize if I was suppose to about this differently! 

BlushChablisPhilosopher (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@BlushChablisPhilosopher I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Can you clarify so I can help point you in the right direction? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Teerpu

Re this deletion, I'm concerned about how a policy-based argument supported by a reliable source seems to have carried no weight in determining the consensus, given that the fellow editors had not reviewed that argument yet. I expected a relist/no consensus in the worst-case scenario. Currenlty, the vacant space created by the deleted article is occupied by an other one. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ab207, I am skeptical that the award you mentioned will change the outcome of the discussion. However, because that is new information that was not mentioned in the discussion, I will relist it for a week to see if consensus changes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for being considerate! -- Ab207 (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If the article is restored, please put it at Teerpu (1994 film). There is no primary topic. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 that might be. If so it should be hashed out in a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion (or BOLDLY, if it sticks following the AfD discussion). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Request to undelete Karen Earle Lile

Hello, my article on Karen Earle Lile was deleted by you and I would like to know the process for undeletion. I think that the votes to delete were made without sufficient consideration of the quality of the secondary sourced and the number of secondary sources that were articles or news stories entirely on the Karen Earle Lile.

I have never had an article deleted. If Karen Earle Lile was the subject of multiple articles from nationally recognized news articles and even 48 hours news feature, how can this not be considered notable? Should I take photos of the articles and add them to Wikipedia, since many of these did not have URL’s but were in library or subscription services? I am thinking that those who voted just did a cursory search by google and did not look at news sources before Internet was created.

The reasons given by those who voted were vague and did not address the answers I gave and references I added to the article.

I would welcome more info about what I can do. I took a lot of time to research this and I respectfully disagree with deletion.

SoundNotater (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)SoundNotater is a historian with interests in philately, music, dance, sociology, sports and genealogy. Not new to research. 2:40am ET

@SoundNotater thanks for your questions and interest in Wikipedia. I note that your sources were presented pretty early in the discussion and were considered by other participants in the discussion. Unfortunately they did not consider those sources sufficient to establish notability (at least as Wikipedia defines it). If you wish to appeal this decision you may do so at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I would suggest if you decide to appeal that you write your appeal as concisely as possible - it's possible, reading the comments, the length of your participation during that discussion hindered rather than advanced your point of view. Let me now if there are other questions I could answer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 thanks for advising me on this. I do believe that I made many mistakes and that it hindered the fair consideration of the article. I didn't know that using an asteric was a vote or individual comment, so, when I listed sources, I did it as a list with an asteric for every point. So, everyone had voted against my article before I realized that. Then I did more research taking everyone's comments into consideration, and added that research to the article, but the voters did not come back and look at it, so it was never considered. I know know how to do things better. But, I think that I would like to wait before asking for it again. Instead, I would like to put that research into several other articles, because in perusing Wikipedia, I see that my research fills in many gaps in several different fields. Could you place the last deleted article into my draft space, or somewhere I can pull out the references, so I don't have to start from scratch?. Then after I am finished with sharing this research in other articles, I may propose the article again, in a time to come or someone may see what I see and do it instead of me. Does this seem like a wise approach? SoundNotater (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC) 12 January 2021 (UTC)User:SoundNotater 11:50am ET

It is possible to restore something to user space for you to work on it. When you're ready to work on this article again come on back. There are some guidelines/practices around doing this that I'll share with you at that time (some of which depend on how long it's been since the deletion discussion which is why I'm not just doing it now). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Boyan Slat

Please reconsider your close of this AfD. The nomination made claims which were, in my view, quite false, and it received zero support. As this is a BLP and the subject is quite respectable, it seems important to fully clear their name. The only issue seems to be the lack of !votes but that is a mainly consequence of the lack of participation at AfD. A respectable person's reputation should not be besmirched because of Wikipedia's failure. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson as you speculate, that AfD was closed due to lack of participation more than on the merits. The idea that an AfD is a potential BLP violation, which seems to be what you're intimating here, had never occurred to me and even now having considered it for a couple hours after first reading your message still doesn't resonate with me. You are around AfD enough to know that people make really bad statements, for keep, delete and everything in between, on the regular. So to whatever extent this was an illformed nomination, it is just someone being wrong on Wikipedia, which is hardly unusual.It doesn't really qualify for a third relist, in my judgement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not wanting the AfD to be relisted; my expectation is that it should be closed as Keep. My thinking is based on the following points:

1. The article has existed for over 5 years without any previous trouble
2. In this time, the article has been edited by 199 editors and read by over 800,000 readers. It appears that only one person has ever felt that the topic should be deleted.
3. During the AfD, the count was 1 nominator for deletion and 2 !voters against. That's a supermajority for keep.
4. There's also the strength of argument to consider. Naturally I am involved, but it seemed to me that the nominator misunderstood our notability principles and misrepresented the facts of the matter by claiming that this person was not the subject of coverage.
5. The nominator also used the prod process first, implicitly claiming that deletion would be uncontroversial. This is so far from the truth that it seems to be a disruptive and fringe viewpoint. They should not be encouraged to persist in this behaviour.
6. The proceedings are a matter of public record and the talk page now records your finding that there is "no consensus" about the standing of the article – that it is sufficiently dubious that it might yet be deleted. It seems to me that this is derogatory, suggesting that the subject may not be sufficiently reputable to have an article. Such suggestions are noticed by subjects who naturally take an interest in what is said about them and then write in to OTRS to complain about notability tags and the like.
7. The details are now recorded on the talk page which also notes that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." I consider the AfD outcome to be contentious in this way.
8. Leaving the matter unsettled therefore still seems unsatisfactory. If you stick to your position, I shall be taking the matter to DRV but, as that's a last resort, I have explained my case in detail to see if we can avoid that.
9. My apologies if this wrangling is tiresome but I didn't invent these processes. I started that article in good faith and it's my time that is being wasted too.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In terms of points 6 & 7 I continue to note that there is no basis in policy, guidelines, or practice to suggest that a BLP violation occurs because there was an AfD discussion about a topic. In an AfD discussion with 3 editors participating where there is not a consensus means that there is no consensus (points 3,4). The solutions for no consensus are either to relist to have more editors participate or to close as no consensus. Because this had already been relisted twice, I did not see a reason that it would qualify, under our guidelines, for a third relist. I see no reason to think that this nomination was made in bad faith and so I cannot just weight that position away. Your arguments about using or PROD, the length of time the article existed and number of editors who've worked on it would be relevant if the outcome were delete if this situation were reversed - 2 editors arguing delete and 1 keep (points 5, 1, 2). However, as that outcome was never on the table I find that information to have no weight as to what the close of this discussion should be. If you feel that this needs to be taken to DRV, so be it, but I am not going to reverse the decision because you've invented the concept that a no consensus decision at AfD is a BLP violation (point 8). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing sources at AN and Kiki Camarena

Hi Barkeep49, I know you're terribly busy, but I'd appreciate it if you actually did review the sources used to support this text [9] that was the subject of the RfC, and that most respondents endorsed. Per AN editor comments that quotes from sources are required, I've added quotes from the sources there [10]. The quotes are not that long: well-written academic summaries of the issue by historians and social scientists. The proposed text is almost wholly based on what they write, with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet, I've obviously been paying attention to that discussion and while the general concept of how to close an RfC well interests me, doing the work necessary to establish whether or not that was a proper close does not. Much of my Wikipedia time is taken up these days in ways I can't control. This probably makes me less receptive to a reasonable request such as yours to spend it further in ways that I've not volunteered for. Sorry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright Barkeep49; understood. By the way, I don't know if you read it but I thought I saw Tombs' "The English and their History" on the table in your userpage - I loved that book! Am now working my way through a book about the American revolution and Tombs is proving a helpful background. -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't actually read that book. I just like books and that was an image that seemed to obey the rules enough (though we'll see what Commons ends up saying) that I could use it to keep my userpage from being too text heavy. But I do love history myself and so now I'm interested in adding that to my reading list. When I turn to the American War for Independence, it will be to read Atkinson's trilogy which I've heard really good things about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Huh, just read Ellis' NYT review, and Atkinson's work sounds fascinating. Some of these revolutionary battlefields are close enough that I visit them once a week, so an "up close" account like this will be appreciated! -Darouet (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Your infobox

Hi. I politely believe you should consider removing your "new page reviewer" infobox. I believe so as it links to a different user when the verify button is clicked and therefore, has the potential to be confusing. Thanks, Steve M (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't want to be confusing so I have fixed it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about ARBCOM restrictions

I know about my topic ban but am I able to revert blatant vandalism like this and it would be OK? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I don't see how this is blatant vandalism – an MOS violation, sure, but those are a dime a dozen and it's unclear to me why you think it was made in bad faith. Blablubbs|talk 11:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

While that is a manual of style violation it is not blatant vandalism and so would not be covered under Wikipedia:BANEX. Blatant vandalism would be "Londonderry is <expletive>" (with an actual swear word). I'm glad you asked so you didn't, in good faith, violate the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a frustrating time under it not knowing what you can and can't do, that's for sure. I do want to make sure I do everything right so I don't unintentionally cross the line. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

A technical hand will be of great help

Hi, I saw you have managed the settings for investing.com, whose editing is currently limited to extended confirmed users; I just completed its draft - can I submit it for AFC (technically speaking) or does it have to be lifted first? Also, could you please verify that it doesn't meet WP:SD G4 at its current state?
I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the draft as I believe the article is ready for mainspace, it's not a typical AFC case (I'm not sure how this notable platform's entry got deleted, nevertheless I examined all the issues that have been raised such as wp:N refs and language and resolved them). Thank you for your good work! Bezrat (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bezrat I would not delete the new version under G4. And yes you can submit the draft at AfC without me having to change anything technically. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

NPP school

Barkeep49, I see you listed at NPP as chief coordinator, so I'm putting this query here. I was extremely concerned to see this response by Hog Farm at their RfA. Out of four bad CSD tags that SoWhy asked about, they blame two for the first half of 2020 on their attempting to meet CSD tag quotas for NPP school. For all I know, this concern has already been raised at NPP and there are no longer quotas, but in case it has not, I am registering deep concern that quotas will inevitably lead to trainees disregarding the most important rule about CSD, that it is reserved for the most obvious cases, and predispose them to over-tagging after they complete training. This is in addition to the BITE concern. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, it's still part of the NPPSCHOOL rubric. That having been said, trying to complete the assignment by rushing to fill out the quota instead of looking for pages that actually meet the CSD will only result in doing poorly on the assignment, so I'm uncertain that this is a significant concern in practice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it was more me than a significant flaw in the assignment. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. It encapsulates an assumption of bad faith on the part of page creators. We have the example of police department quotas for speeding tickets to draw on for where such expectations of patrollers lead. (Incidentally, are patrollers taught to notify page creators when applying any kind of deletion tag? I've noticed for some time that many taggers don't do this, which makes it worse. It's unreasonable to expect new editors, in particular, to be using their watchlists.) @Hog Farm: That speaks well of you, thank you. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thinking on it more, while I mirrored your use of the word "quota" in my first comment, I don't think it's accurate to describe it as a quota analogous to policing quotas. These tasks show up as assignments at the end of the CSD section, and are framed as "nominate 5 pages with X CSD rationale and list the page names here for evaluation". There is no time limit, or expectation that the trainee do these tasks repeatedly. Rather, it is a controlled test of their ability to use CSD criteria with an instructor closely monitoring their decisions. Page reviewers are instructed to inform editors when placing deletion tags, and are encouraged to use Twinkle, which does it automatically for them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir, thanks for your concerns. It's important to get outside perspective. Making sure that editors do CSD correctly is, as you point out, important and it's important that reviewers get this right before they have the permission (or before they start using it). Every NPP School teacher runs the curriculum that they desire, but I am going to talk about the "standard" curriculum that most teachers use in whole or in part. Assignments are a mixture of generalized "answer this question about this policy/guideline in your own words", theoretical scenarios, and hands-on practice. Speedy deletion work follows this progression. We look at the criteria, with the student answering question. They then get a set of scenarios, designed to be difficult and explore the hardest scenarios. Only after completing those two steps do students move on to practicing on live articles. As Rosguill indicated, it's in the student's interests to do well here and their work is being monitored closely by an experienced Wikipedian. If they misstep they are going to find out, not just with the decline or acceptance (because truthfully I've had student's speed deletions accepted that I would judge wrong) but with specific feedback. If they rush through in order to speedily complete an assignment that is not going to reflect well on them and could lead to them ultimately failing the course. If they view it like a quota that's going to be a problem and so I heartily disagree that we're incentivizing speed over quality. But maybe I'm wrong. How would you suggest we build reviewer capacity so we have more editors who understand correctly how to use speedy deletion tags? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest you mention the damage to the encyclopedia and to editor retention from overzealous deletion tagging at all levels of project discussion, and that coordinators ensure it is never presented to trainees as a "quota"; Rosguill, I appreciate your further reflection, but your having accepted the term as valid in your immediate response indicates that distinguishing the assignment(s) from quotas has not been a concern. Trainees need to be explicitly told that it isn't a quota, that taking their time and being sure is one of the things they will be evaluated on, because even a rejected nomination can alienate a good-faith article creator, and as you mention, Barkeep49, there's an appreciable risk that some admin will action the CSD even if others would have declined it. It only takes one hasty nomination and one hasty admin and the article is for all intents and purposes gone forever. (I would like to suggest that speedy deletions based on trainees' nominations during training be automatically reviewed by an admin NPP coordinator, but I think that would violate community procedures.) I also mentioned my concern that an appreciable number of editors tag articles for deletion under all three processes without notifying the creator, let alone substantial contributors. I would also strongly advocate training new page patrollers to notify liberally, at a bare minimum the article creator; even the cops give a ticket informing the speeder of how to appeal. In fact, let me go further: new page patrol has historically been the most important way new editors are discovered by the community, and new editors' adjustment to our rules and ways of doing things has suffered considerably since experienced editors stopped welcoming them. May I suggest that rather than simply starting someone's talk page with a template notifying them that their first article has been nominated for speedy deletion, trainees should be taught to put a welcome template at the top of the page as the previous or following edit? There are welcome templates specifically for editors who have created inappropriate pages. "We have the Teahouse" or even "What a pity your first article has been nominated for deletion, we have a Teahouse where you can maybe find advice and consolation" is not the same thing at all as "We have rules for articles and I'm afraid you appear to have broken them. Here they are, and here below is the notification about how to appeal the deletion nomination". Yngvadottir (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. You have some intriguing ideas which I will be bringing up with NPP School teachers. I will note, however, that I dislike your repeated use of a police metaphor for what NPP does. If an NPP used that kind of language I would discuss it with them too. There is a reason that our third sentence of our landing page, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers states It's what keeps bad pages out and, equally important, it gives a boost to new, good faith users creating their first genuine articles. Giving boosts to good new articles and new article writers is a core component of NPP and essential mindset of the successful patroller. If someone views themselves as the cop on the beat at NPP they are ultimately going to fail in the task, which given your overall empahsis on other editors is something I am guessing you agree with. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do think we agree. Which is why the fact a NPP trainee promising and self-reflective enough to be running less than a year later for admin, so far successfully, still perceived a CSD nomination "quota"—a term that implies the policing role—is so concerning. (NPP is not a shooting gallery or a game, either; I suspect those have been more discussed concerns in the past.) And thank you for considering my ideas, which are very much from an outsider perspective with regard to the current NPP program. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure that quota really connotes policework. Honestly, if we're concerned about reviewers developing a cop mentality (and I agree with Barkeep49 that we should distance new page reviewing from policework as much as possible), I'd be more concerned about the word patrol. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I am the the NPPS trainer of Hog Farm and I am deeply disappointed of Hog Farm comments that the assignment is a quota as no time limit is set for any assignment including the final exam which they chose not to part take citing they have " I've been granted NPR through WP:PERM. I mostly plan on working with redirects.". At no point have I pushing Hog Farm to complete the assignment but as always I do check with all my trainees if they need any help if they cant answer the questions or dont understand the reading material. I also concern of Hog Farm intention of putting the blame on NPPS system instead of taking their act responsibly, reading the Wikipedia guidelines as provided nominate and nominate the CSD/AfD within the guidelines, as not only NPPS participants should do but all editors who nominate any CSD/AfD. It is not the issues of the NPPS rubric but the bad faith of Hog Farm on blaming NPPS instead of own up their conduct as Hog Farm might want to give a reason to pass RfA. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Thanks for weighing in and clarifying, but I think you're being a bit rough on Hog Farm. People do make mistakes when they're new or learning something new, and several experienced editors have referred to that RfA answer in support votes, including the questioner and Ritchie333, whom I'm pinging here because they've expressed concerns about our use of templated messages, especially with new editors, so they may have thoughts on the feasability of my suggestions about notifying/welcoming. (I think I tend to be more supportive of use of warning and notification templates because I regard them as the products of long consideration about how to be clear without seeming brutal, but I may be out of touch.) Barkeep49, on reflection it's the trainee perceiving a quota of speedy deletion nominations, rather than the word quota per se, that makes me regard police ticket quotas as an informative analogy. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, Everyone made mistakes and I am definitely included and plenty of times when editing Wikipedia. I am not here to be rough on Hog Farm as if English is their second/third language then I could understand the editor misunderstand the word "quota" but I doubt it is the case. I am here to defend NPPS and not commenting anything on their RfA page. There is no quota and no time set on answering the exercises/assignments in any shape of form. Participates do the exercises as when they chose to in their own time, just like any editors edit any pages in Wikipedia, and inform us to review the assignment when they have finished them. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: - I think part of the problem may have been my word choice with "pushing". In the background I'm from, "pushing" or "pressing" is a sports phrase for when someone has a perceived failing in an area, and they start trying way to hard to make up for it. I felt like I shouldn't be taking me so long, when the problem was only perceived in my mind. I didn't mean to blame NPPSchool whatsoever, but to attribute to a psychological failing on my part. Like I said above, I was the issue there, not your NPP program. If I'd known that my intent would have been misconstrued, then I would have phrased it differently. Maybe this should be posted somewhere in the RFA, so that nobody gets an incorrect bad impression about NPPSchool, or an incorrect good impression about me. The more I think about my mindset in that, the more I think of it as problematic, and it does give me some real pause about my qualifications for RFA and if I should withdraw. I would have appreciated a ping to this discussion though, so I could clear things up as to what I meant. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, you tend towards being much too hard on yourself (which is one of the reasons I don't worry about how you would behave with the tools; you are introspective, and you learn from mistakes). When you stated above, "I think it was more me than a significant flaw in the assignment", that was sufficient. You weren't blaming the system, you were taking responsibility for how you interpreted the requirements, and I for one understood it just the way. Carry on; withdrawal would just be you being too hard on yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, Thank you for your message. Sorry to learn you that you feel you might have the intention to withdraw from RfA for I guess my words might be too strong, in retrospect, and I would like to ensure you that that was not my intention.

NPPS, CUVA as in Wikipedia in general, we welcome editors to edit and they do it in their own free time. I had trainees who completed NPPS/CUVA program rather quickly and do also had participants took many months to complete the programs, for some of the took a long break and decided to continues the program due to personal commitments which they had to stay away from editing. Participants are always welcome to see assistance/feedback/comment/review/explanation at any point of the the assignments, thus no pressure should be placed on oneself to hurry for answering the question if more time is needed. A note to the trainers would be appreciate so they know the participants are still interested in the program but need a little help or time to work on the exercises.

Mistakes happened to all of us as we learn about Wikipedia guidelines for I have tagged CSD A7/A9 wrongly when I first start out even I have read the guidelines but not 100% get meaning of it and lucky me an more experience editor brief me on my talk page on that topics. So it is ok to make mistakes as long as we learn from it.

I would not comment on your RfA page for as a trainer of yours, my comment might have some influence on the vote. I had the experience myself during my RfA and my CUVA trainer brought up an incident of my "wording/conduct" when I was starting editing Wikipedia years ago where I meant to say "skirting around the topics instead of answering the questions and uncivil language" during a discussion where by the editor using vulgar language "FUCK" to provoke me and I ended up saying "talking to you like talking to a child". My trainer brought this up on my RfA which that incident even after I have more than 100k edits and I have learnt my lesson and contribute in my failing of RfA. Thus I would not wish that on you. Being an admin is to having a set of tools to do the normal editors wont have. Admins chose their areas of services where they could contribute. My only comment to you is that if you want to serve in the area RPP or AIV, then do take up the CUVA program (it is a lot easier than NPPS) where you might find it useful and gain some knowledge. Good luck on your RfA and stay safe. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Seconding SandyGeorgia—please don't think of withdrawing. I said above that coming here and responding as you did reflected well on you, and I'm pleased to see that now that the concern has been raised in an oppose at the RfA, you have yourself linked to this discussion and again made what I consider a very good statement responding to that concern. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Since this is my talk page I should note that I chose to tell Hog Farm he shouldn't withdraw from RfA via email approximately 11 minutes after his original message. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy 20th anniversary!

	Celebration~!
	Wikipedia will only ever turn 20 once! Hope you are doing well and have a prosperous onwiki experience in the future. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Learning by teaching

Could you please look at this? Somebody wants to merge "peer-Learning" and "learning by teaching". I don't understand why "Learning by teaching" ever is menaced! Thank you very much! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Learning_by_teaching Jeanpol (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"Menaced" is a pretty strong word and not one that I think accurately reflects what is going on. Wikipedians are merely trying to decide what way of organizing knowledge will best serve our readers. We want to cover lots of topics but frequently having separate articles is inefficient for both readers (who have to go to lots of places to get the encyclopedic overview they're seeking) and editors (who have to monitor multiple pages). The question becomes in what sense is "Learning by teaching" a distinct concept with its own pedagogy and information and in what sense is it a phrase that might cover differing ways of the same idea. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right. I first was afraid and then I looked at the intention behind this action. So I understood. Thanks a lot!Jeanpol (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration on WS-10 and J-20 pages

Hello admin. Could you please start an arbitration on Chengdu J-20 and WS-10 pages? Specially regarding J-20's engine.

I have encounter this user: Revolving Personality Construct whom asked me to "reason" with him on the WS-10 talk page. After many attempts with references. He just can not win an argument and just started disruptive editing by removing sourced materials with the references themselves all together.

Thank you,

--2601:152:4400:5580:3046:5C53:419D:91E6 (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This does not seem like a problem that is ready for arbitration. Another form of dispute resolution would be more helpful. Honestly, I would consider treating this like a content problem because you are both edit warring. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School

Doesn't look like you need any help there (unfortunately, since it would be nice to have more folks interested), but if you ever do, and feel I'd be qualified, be more than happy to chip in. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969 you should put yourself down as a teacher. You are definitely qualified and different editors resonate with different teachers so it's nice to have a variety of options (especially because I think ICPH is basically retired and I'm not able to take new students right now). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Will do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Just stop

Please stop making edits that I find directly rude and hostile, as an editor. I don't know what your motivation is, nor am I in any way addressing motivations. Your recent edit on my talk about edits in my sandbox is way OUTSIDE the parameters of the ban. I find them hostile and rude, unnecessary, and unbecoming for an administrator. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)