User talk:Barkeep49

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

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 [1]. 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: [2] 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: [3]. — 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. [4] 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)

Dear Barkeep49, Sorry to bother you again. Last time my messages to the Arbitration Committee got lost in the mail so I want to alert you to my email of yesterday in which I request the arbitrators to check the validity of my recent ban. The main reason provided to justify the ban overlooks information which directly contradicts that argument. I informed the editor who issued the ban about this but they maintained it based on their personal opinion of the content. This means it's a content dispute between the banning editor and the banned editor. They furthermore acknowledge that my rebuttals were deliberately ignored. This raises questions about fair play. Would you mind having a look at it? Thank you.Saflieni (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni our privacy rules preclude me from listing the dates you've sent emails to ArbCom/Clerks but if you want to write here or email me privately with the dates you've sent emails I'd be happy to confirm whether or not we received them all. If we didn't receive one I'd like to know. This is different from us acting on it quickly or at all - as a committee ArbCom decision making takes time and is also setup, intentionally, to be deliberate. Also yes we did receive your email yesterday and discussion about it has begun. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni I can confirm that we did receive the messages you sent. ArbCom, as a committee, moves slowly and, especially when multiple emails are sent in a short time period (such that an earlier email may still be under discussion when a new one comes in) is imperfect about acknowledging them all. Thanks for working through that with me. I will also acknowledge your reply to the message you received from the committee a few hours ago. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Barkeep49. The response I received from the Committee is a little puzzling. It discusses a different topic than the message I sent on January 19. So if anything is not clear, please ask. Saflieni (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saflieni:, I am going to reply here rather than your talk page for what I hope are obvious reasons. I will speak generally but hopefully you will follow what I'm responding to.

The analogy you gave is an interesting one but ultimately the wrong metaphor. We're not a classroom or a school. We're a community and a self-regulating one. If that isn't for you, fair enough, it has some good points and some bad points. But it is the system we have.

I understand why you dislike the message you refer to, it is definitely not friendly. It is not how I would put that message. However, the one left by the second editor is not written so aggressively and is, from my perspective, someone trying to help you. You may not like the help being offered, which is fine and you choose not to follow through on the advice, which is your choice. But it is, I am convinced, offered with good intent.

And finally yes everything you sent was read and that decision was the one that was arrived at. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to reply to me here then please do respect me and my questions. I didn't refer to classrooms or schools but used the common English expression Marking your own homework [5]. It means that people or groups shouldn't judge the quality of their own work or decisions, because they're not likely to recognize their flaws. For cases like mine, where an ANI decision violates several Wikipedia policies, there is a provision in WP:UNBAN which says that bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee ... where there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure. This seems pretty straightforward. So if Arbcom says "we don't feel like" without further explanations it is appropriate for me to use a common expression which sums up the inherent problem of the alternative option. The first reply I received from Arbcom gave advice about the different ways to appeal a block, so they had not read or understood my message. The second one, signed by you, mentioned my appeal request but again advised to check ways to appeal a block. Moreover, the page you referred me to refers to WP:UNBAN so we've been going round in circles. This didn't give a lot of confidence again. By the way, as an administrator, would you mind explaining why you believe that demands by hostile editors to stop mentioning the key Wikipedia policies they violate or else, including behaviours listed as personal attacks in WP:NPA, are somehow good advice? I'm trying to get a grip here. If some people here are exempted from following the principles, perhaps a list should be published. Saflieni (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom didn't say "we don't feel like". The page I sent you to advised you on how to write a successful appeal. My email directed you to where you could file an appeal. If you were going to be successful in your appeal it would have been about taking the advice offered. Maybe it still can be.

Wikipedia is not a debating society or a legal system. The tactics you're using, including in the message I'm replying to, would be more successful in those contexts. However, this is a different context and so it's not going to be successful. It's why all the experienced editors you've encountered have refused to engage with you on those terms. If you can accept our context and way of handling disputes, that's great. You've got a sharp mind and we can use those. If you find that our way of doing things isn't for you, well that's a sad thing (like I said we can use sharp minds and you seem to want to be involved) but also simply the way it has to be at times. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I subscribe to Matt Yglesias' newsletter and part of what he wrote this morning expands on the point I'm trying to make in my second paragraph so I am going to quote it below. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Excerpt from Lawyer-brain, NECTAs, marriage penalties, and the trouble with normal by Matthew Yglesias

I’ve been thinking lately about something I’ve decided to call “lawyer-brain” though it is of course not exclusive to or universal among lawyers. What it amounts to is the belief that things that are not courts of law should act like courts of law, where every decision is made with heavy emphasis on both adhering to precedent and setting new precedent and an extremely high priority is placed on the application of neutral principles. Courts act this way for a reason. But nowadays we often see demands that other institutions — social media companies, op-ed pages, elected officials, vaccine administrators, etc. — act like appellate judges when there’s no actual reason everything should be like a court... Hotels have policies, which is a way of managing the staff and setting customer expectations, but the managers can also just make ad hoc exceptions if they want to. “Check out time is at 11AM” is not a constitutional principle, and even if you write it as “Check out time is at 11AM — no exceptions,” they can still make an exception.

The page you sent me is Guide to appealing blocks.[6] But I'm not blocked, am I? The only helpful information on that page is this statement: Banned users, too, have special rules for their appeals. See WP:UNBAN for procedures of ban appeal. So when I go to WP:UNBAN I read this: Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community or, where there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure, to the Arbitration Committee. It's not very complicated. Valid reasons for appealing to Arbcom are specified in the linked reference, of which these two: some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, and: the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad are relevant here. Your weird lawyering story designed to evade this information, which I'm sending you now for the third time, is very rude. Not sure why you think that's a good idea or why it's the Wikipedia way. But if you refuse to respect me and my appeal request and won't give me decent answer, so be it. Saflieni (talk) 00:05, 24 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 [7] 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 [8]. 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)

If you agree that the article meets WP:GNG, it would be appreciated and save a lot of wait time and effort if you could simply move its draft to mainspace, and lift its protection, as (unlike me) you have the authority to do so. I think it's clearly ready and does not need to go through the AfC process. Regards, Bezrat (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I don't generally review AfC drafts on request. I'll let a fresh pair of eyes make the decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem. If you too believe G4 or G11 don't apply to it now I would like to simply move the draft to mainspace, extended-confirmed limit? Once this happens I really hope that new and objective pairs of eyes will make sure it doesn't get censored as a certain editor keeps tagging it for SD. Bezrat (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean the third paragraph is more promotional than informative. So while I would not delete under G4, I'm not really weighing in on G11. I am also not seeing the kind of information I would expect to see in an article that is sourced by multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources, which is what is required under Wikipedia:NCORP so avoiding AfC/DRV does not strike me as wise. You need to show how it has become notable since August or you need to show how the August AfD got notability wrong. One of those two things must happen before this article goes to mainspace and AfC or DRV is the right way to do that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:12, 20 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)

@Pasdecomplot, no, they aren’t “unbecoming for an administrator” what Barkeep said was a factual statement the “nervous breakdown” line you used was very wrong of You & unbecoming of an editor who has voluntarily decided to join a collaborative project. I say this from an objective and unbiased stance seeing as I have worked with both you and Barkeep49. Celestina007 (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Resignation from NPP

What is the process to officially resign from the New Pages Patrol? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520 just ask a sysop to remove the user permission. Should I do so? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520  Done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible arbitration required for Conservative Party (UK)

Hello,

One of my recent edits to Conservative Party (UK) has been reverted by Czello on the basis there is 'no consensus'. The edit in question is changing the description of party's position on the political spectrum from 'centre-right' to 'centre-right to right-wing' to include the broad range of factions in the party.

There is by no means unanimous agreement for / against this change but from looking at talk:Conservative Party (UK), there are more contributors favouring such a change. Additionally, from looking at similar pages which have been the subject of similar disputes, such as Conservative Party of Canada, it can be seen that there is precedent for such an approach. I have noticed Czello has previously engaged in an edit wars over this, so I thought it best to seek arbitration immediately.

Many thanks, Crunchynotsmooth (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Crunchynotsmooth, arbitration is the final step of our processes and you're not there (or close to there) yet from your description. For now if they're edit warring you can ask for administrator help at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. It sounds like there are also content issues so you might be better off getting a third opinion. I would also definitely recommend reading more about our dispute resolution systems. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick one

I definitely have asked you this before but for clarity sake I need to ask again, now, when I tag an article for notability concerns, or any tag at all, it is marked as reviewed, more often than not I unmark it, my question is, is it good practice to manually mark it as unreviewed ? or do I just leave it as reviewed? Celestina007 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It depends. Sometimes I want to place the tag so another reviewer will look at it. When I want to do that I use Twinkle. Rarely I want to put the notability tag even when I mark it reviewed. In that case I use the toolbar. Hope that answers your question @Celestina007. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bear Came Along

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bear Came Along you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bear Came Along

The article Bear Came Along you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bear Came Along for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

Completion rates for comments made with the Reply tool and full-page wikitext editing. Details and limitations are in this report.

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

• The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
• It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.

Research notes:

• As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
• There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[9]
• The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[10] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
• A large A/B test will start soon.[11] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.

New discussion tool

Screenshot of version 1.0 of the New Discussion Tool prototype.

The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[12] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.

Next: Notifications

During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)