This user is a member of the Wikimedia volunteer response team.

User talk:Steven Crossin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Steve Crossin)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User Page User Talk Contribs E-mail Subpages Adoption Awards Mediation

Steve's Status:
Offline (verify)
10:48 am, 4 December 2019 AEST
Talk Archives
Stuff to do

Welcome back[edit]

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!", Michael Corleone, Godfather III. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Figured that I'd likely lurk now and then anyways so might as well. Not really sure what I'll do here if much. Enwiki has just changed too much over time now really. And that trainwreck over there... well. Steven Crossin 11:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The door is open, right? Come and go as you please. There is no obligation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Welcome back as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

WLC Dispute Resolution[edit]

After reading all the threads, what's your impression that re-opening the dispute resolution about William Lane Craig will not result in another failed case? It seems there are some very fundamental disagreements about the article, and I have my doubts if a collaborative, voluntary process will make any progress towards resolving them, given the past behavior. The current version of the article reflects one disputant's WP:BOLD edits that did not achieve consensus (hence the dispute). Do you plan on focusing on the fundamental issues (e.g. does WP:FRINGE apply, should the article have been WP:TNT'd like it was, should it have been incrementally improved from something closer to the pre-dispute baseline, etc.)? If there's little progress resolving them will the case be failed quickly or be allowed to linger? - GretLomborg (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Speaking briefly, my style of dispute resolution varies based on the dispute at hand - sometimes it will indeed be a collaborative discussion based approach and other times I will guide the involved editors based on policies that are applicable to the article in question. I’ve not made a determination either way at this stage, as I first need a commitment from those involved to participate in the dispute resolution process. But it won’t linger idle but will be be actively managed. That won’t mean it will necessarily be a fast resolution, but I’ve been doing this on and off for ten years, so I know my stuff. Would appreciate I feel you agree to be involved at the DRN page and I’ll take things from there. Cheers. Steven Crossin 10:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I guess my concern is that the fundamental disagreements won't be addressed directly, and the dispute will drag on arguing about one sentence or another or some small improvement proposal (and given the recent drastic changes, there's too much to discuss like that). There seem to have been some longstanding issues at play here that are outside the scope of WP:DRN, which have made this all pretty stressful. If we can get to the core disagreements, then I'm tentatively willing to participate. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Issues will be worked through methodically. I’m not a moderator, but a mediator, and I’ve handled tougher disputes than this before. At a glance, I see fundamental issues with how the article in general that should be addressed, and they will be. Have some faith, I’ve broken the back of other cases before, including many religious articles, I don’t see why that isn’t possible here. (Can you note your agreement at DRN please). Steven Crossin 15:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Steve. I edited the article/talk page without knowing there was a reopened DRN process. I've backed out of the editing process out of respect for the DR process. Anything else I should do? Also, I wasn't one of the original people involved in the DRN, but I would like to take part in working on the content in the article. Can I join the DRN process? Thanks. —Approaching (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, yes you definitely can join in - the active question at the DRN is regarding the infobox content. There aren't any hard and fast rules in place at the DRN thread (it's not my style) but try to be succinct and obviously be kind to each other. I've already determined the best starting point for the article rewrite based on my reading of consensus and weighing policies and guidelines, so out of respect for that and the wrong version, I will undo your edit to the article to keep the peace. Nothing personal - I just discourage any non-controversial edits (vandalism removal, typos) while dispute resolution is active. Cheers. Steven Crossin 21:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks. —Approaching (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The dispute may be in need of some mediation right now. Some of the fundamental disagreements have reared their heads, among other things that may need some attention. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - alternate time zones making it a bit challenging but I’ll take a look. Steven Crossin 22:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I have some questions about your proposal for private mediation: 1) Based on your experience with this dispute so far, how long do you think this will drag on? 2) Will there be similar rules against editing the article as we have now? 3) How will a mediation failure be determined and communicated? 4) As we work through the sections one by one, will you update the article with the drafts that have the most support, even if we have to return to that section later? Especially if this is to be a long process, I'd like to see the actual article move towards a consensus rather than staying at a non-consensus WP:BOLD version for months. 5) What kind of visibility will the dispute have while the mediation is proceeding if it is private? - GretLomborg (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay GretLomborg. Briefly -
  1. Hard to say. Things are moving a little slower than I'd have liked so far given the item under discussion is an introductory item (bio section). I've mediated disputes that take quite some time - it all depends on how often users participate. I used to do online (Skype or IRC) based mediation - much faster. Unlikely to be an option here.
  2. Similar rules regarding article editing will apply.
  3. If mediation fails, it will be because a deadlock can't be broken. Unusually rare. If discussion fades out, things can be picked up down the track if need be. I'm not going anywhere.
  4. Yes, normally once consensus is formed, I've historically made the update myself based on consensus
  5. Private mediation just means it's hosted in my user space rather than at DRN. As I mentioned elsewhere, other informal mediation venues have been made historical, and DRN isn't suitable for longer discussion, hence my suggestion. Hope this clarifies for you. Steven Crossin 14:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you give me a picture of what consensus and what a deadlock would look like? Would we note the private mediation on the DRN thread and article talk page? - GretLomborg (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Not really, as they're something determined by me. I can show you an example of a consensus, deadlock is something I know when I see it. User_talk:Steven_Crossin/Mediation/Archives/Prem_Rawat#Proposal_1 is part of an example of a dispute discussion that ended well - that discussion for that content took 3 weeks. Talk:Second_Intifada/Archive_6#Mediation-Deadlocked was a discussion that I ended after a month as deadlocked. Steven Crossin 14:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll take a look at those. I'm just concerned that the whole thing might end up being an extremely draining waste of time. I also think we're going to need pretty active hands-on mediation for some of the upcoming sections. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Draining, possibly. Waste of time, that depends on all of you. Mediating disputes needs compromise by all. If we don't have that, then mediation often ends deadlocked. I've mediated tougher disputes than this in my eleven years on Wikipedia, and ones that I saw go on for some time. I'm not worried. Steven Crossin 15:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI: You can access the full bibliography of the encyclopedia entry by going to this link and clicking page 213. I've posted methods to access it to the DRN thread a couple times, but I get the impression that you didn't notice them. Also, to correct a couple of things:
  • You stated here "Since it has been stated that the secondary sources referenced in the entry do not contain the information in the entry...": I don't think this is correct:
  1. The entry's bibliography doesn't really list any traditional secondary sources. It lists Craig's works and a few direct responses to him.
  2. I think you may be misremembering my comment here or Approaching's comment here. I think the accurate statement is that we don't know if the works in the bibliography contain the article's biographical facts. It cites a lot of books, some may contain autobiographical sections, but it looks like a lot of material and I don't have access to any of it to check. The book also lists a significant number of general references at the front.
- GretLomborg (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note, appreciate it. My points regarding using alternate references still stands here, especially if the entries sources cited are Craig directly. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 01:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there; I’ve got an industry certification exam today, once done my time will be freer and I’ll pop in there and steer things along. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 22:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I hope you're recovering well from your injury. Unfortunately, the mediation is getting off track, and we'll probably need some help getting focused back to the content. Also, FYI, I'm soon going to be totally offline for a couple weeks, and won't be participating during that time. - GretLomborg (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

July 2019[edit]

Hello Steven, I'm Canopus27. Apologies if this is not how to "talk" on wikipedia, I've edited many articles but talking this way is new to me.

You just reverted one of my updates  —specifically this edit to WeatherTech Raceway Laguna Seca— with the observation that "it did not appear constructive."

I actually submitted two updates in a row - one was to an update to the track record, a new record that was set this past weekend - and the second update was to correct an error I had made in the first update (I mis-read the drivers name). I think you perhaps just looked at the second update, perhaps didn't understand the context, and then reverted both updates. I'm always happy to see others improve my edits, but they were neither factually wrong nor were they "experiments". The current article is wrong, as it relates to the (newly broken) electric vehicle track record. Please review my changes again, and then undo your reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canopus27 (talkcontribs) 15:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for your message. Yep, leaving a message on my talk page is the best way to get in touch with people here! You are correct - I did only see the second edit and not the first one - I was using a tool and I only saw the change in driver name. I have happily undone my revert - sorry for the misunderstanding! Happy editing! Steven Crossin 15:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo
Dear Steven Crossin, thank you for volunteering as a host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, you are helping new users get a hold of the ropes here at Wikipedia, and helping experienced users that just have a question about how something works. We appreciate your willingness to help!

Some links you may find helpful as a Host: Helpful scripts you can install to make Teahouse responding easier, templates to use, and the question forum.

Editors who have signed up as hosts, but who have not contributed at the Teahouse for six months or so are liable to be removed from the list of hosts.

Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

DRN - Craig[edit]

One of the participants is on a short 31h block (just in case you didn't already know and consider it useful to lead the process). And thanks for your work there, —PaleoNeonate – 01:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I was indeed aware - hopefully going forward everyone can keep their nose clean so we don't have any timeouts needed. Steven Crossin 09:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

In relation to sources, should I also add there the sources I recently posted at the article's talk page, but that aren't necessarily used yet? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. If they aren’t currently used in the article, then no, but seeing as you’ve previously added them to the talk page of the article, you may provide a link to the talk page revision where you added the sources (note - for now I am only interested in links to books, not websites or news items, as the objective is to make it easier for those that don’t have physical copies of the cited books to access the source for verification purposes. Steven Crossin 23:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

a question from rgr09[edit]

Thanks for your help on my DRN requestion on Operation Mockingbird . Sorry to say I have another issue which I am thinking of taking to DRN. If you have time, I wonder if you could look at the talk page for Allegations of CIA drug trafficking beforehand and let me know if DRN would be appropriate at this point, or whether there is another, better process. Rgr09 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. An RFC might be a good process to use for this discussion, which I can see you have started one. I would suggest you try and write a clearer, more neutral overview about what the dispute is and the sources in question and uninvolved editors will in due course pop in and give their thoughts. Hope this helps. Steven Crossin 20:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I will continue with that. In addition, 82.27.90.157, the anonymous ip-editor who has continued adding the source which is the subject of the RFC writes on the talk page:
Wikipedia is crawling with operatives from various intelligence agencies. The international narcotics trade has long been controlled by NATO member state intelligence agencies (both civilian and military) and there are many paid operatives whose role is to monitor wikipedia to prevent that truth from becoming apparent to the general public who would rightly be appalled if they knew how their tax dollars are being spent. As I say Ruppert is a New York Times best-selling author widely respected in many quarters. I can only assume that you are working for those people seeking to keep the truth from the general public.
I don't see how this is compatible with WP:AGF. If it's not, should I post about this on the DRN again? If it is compatible, please explain how, so I can decide if contending with this kind of nonsense at Wikipedia is really how I want to spend my time. Rgr09 (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page gnome) And I noticed a threat posted at a user page (address also under a block). AGF is not necessarily magic that can cure conspiracy theorists... —PaleoNeonate – 08:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey Steve[edit]

Great to see you still around. I've actually done more in the last month or so than probably the last year. The main reason for that being the WMF/T&S/Fram mess. It's certainly shaken things up around here it seems. So glad you dropped in, reminds me of some good memories of days gone by. :-) I hope you and yours are well.

Best Always, Ched. — Ched :  ?  — 02:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Event coordinator granted[edit]

Wikipedia Event coordinator.svg

After reviewing your request for the "eventcoordinator" permission, I have temporarily enabled the flag on your account until 07:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC). Keep in mind these things:

  • The event coordinator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
  • The event coordinator right allows you to temporarily add the "confirmed" permission to newly created accounts. You should not grant this for more than 10 days.
  • The event coordinator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the event coordinator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
  • Please note, if you were previously a member of the "account creator" group, your flag may have been converted to this new group.

If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the event coordinator right. Happy editing! AGK ■ 07:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Mail[edit]

You've got gmail. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Closing of move discussion[edit]

The essay you wrote when closing Talk:List of presidents of Sri Lanka was a great piece of writing. Thanks for doing it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. I do close RM's from time to time but as a non-admin I've always given decent closing rationales as I feel I'm more likely to get taken to move review. Frankly I think one always should, but I guess that's not everyone's style. Cheers. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 15:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Steven Crossin, your recent close at Cameron Smith was exemplary because of the outstanding closing rationale you provided. Thank you. Please do not hesitate to close more RMs - we need more level-headed closers like you! --В²C 20:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Born2cycle, I appreciate that. I’ve pretty much come to terms that I’ll unlikely ever hold the mop and that’s frankly fine with me. I can do most things without one anyways, and RFA frankly scares me. But I’ve always felt that I’ve been a decent judge of consensus and see a backlog at RM often so think it’s an area I can contribute to. Sometimes I see the same with discussions at WP:AN/RFC but I’m conscious that some discussions there might not be smiled upon if a non-admin closed them. *shrug* Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 22:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Well if you ever make the leap, leave me a note and I'll chime in. --В²C 22:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Why couldn't you be an admin candidate? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: two reasons, this disclosure will shed most light (even if it was 10 years ago) and secondly, only been active again a little while, so even if I could somehow get the community to forgive 1, I still need to be active for a long time before an RFA would be feasible. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 02:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I see. Well, must note that I'm a Wikivoyage administrator, and I edit on other wikis like Wikiversity as well. Things that happen on Wikipedia generally get wiped clean on those other sites. Anyway, glad to see that you're here again and editing well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 12:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Meh. I'm OK doing what I do. Maybe in a year I'll run the gauntlet, and see what happens. Back in 2011 I was quite stressed. The honest view I have now is that it's no big deal really. If I ran and failed an RFA, meh. It's not like it's pass adminship or get indeffed. For now, I'm content closing RMs and other discussions, and doing my dispute resolution. Though I should wade into content now and then too. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 12:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

William Lane Craig[edit]

I will just point out that, although you chose to close the discussion at DRN in order to conduct extended off-line mediation, I concluded an extended mediation case that was open at DRN for about five months. Perhaps that is a distinction without a difference, because I created a separate page for the multiple exchanges, but left it open at DRN. It was yet another dispute involving regions in India, which is therefore a nationalistic case, since India is a nation of nations. It was an exception to the rule that we normally don't do well with entrenched disputes. The fact that DRN cases get archived after two weeks is a trivial issue because anyone can tweak the archival date. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Why bother[edit]

Virtue signaling IP users and “editors” who have been here 8 months may offer up “archives” that show 5 pages of a magazine to save face but the reality is no one is ever going to fix those derelict, atrocious articles. Ever. No idiot with more than 2 working brain cells would ever try to use AfD “as cleanup” (knowing no one would even bother picking up a broom) and anyone who sees it that way is blithely ignorant. Oh well, the encyclopedia can continue being garbage and unreliable. It’s not like we have standards. Trillfendi (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for my delayed reply. I stand by my close of the discussion - it may be true that they may not be cleaned up, but again per my closing rationale, that is not the purpose of an AFD discussion. Notability was determined in this discussion per the consensus I determined. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 02:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for help with DRN process[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Steven Crossin. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia email from user "Carlozatwiki".
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks, Carlozatwiki (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Responded there. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 11:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Your signature[edit]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

<font face="Verdana">[[User:Steven Crossin|<font color="#078330">Steven</font>]] [[User talk:Steven Crossin|<font color="#2875b0">Crossin</font>]] <sup>[[WP:DRN/V|<font color="#d67f0f">Help resolve disputes!</font>]]</sup></font> : Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes!

to

<span style="font-family:Verdana">[[User:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#078330">Steven</span>]] [[User talk:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#2875b0">Crossin</span>]] [[WP:DRN/V|<sup style="color:#d67f0f">Help resolve disputes!</sup>]]</span> : Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes!

In some combinations of browser and Skin (set in the Appearance tab of Preferences), the underline of "Help resolve disputes!" may appear lower in the new signature. The problem is that we are very close to the limit of 255 characters. I cannot find a workaround that preserves your signature exactly, but I do have a workaround that would change the colors very slightly:

<span style="font-family:Verdana">[[User:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#078330">Steven</span>]] [[User talk:Steven Crossin|<span style="color:#27a">Crossin</span>]] <sup>[[WP:DRN/V|<span style="color:#d81">Help resolve disputes!</span>]]</sup></span> : Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes!

Anomalocaris (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done this! Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 09:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Craig is no Augustine of Hippo[edit]

Can you clarify how that is possibly a WP:BLP violation so that you thought it appropriate to strike the comment? [1] jps (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be a BLP violation for me to strike/moderate discussion. I found the tone of the comment not conducive to the overall discussion, and like other editors, I would ask you to consider both how and what you say in the discussion to ensure everyone can work together productively. I can and do reserve the right to strike comments that I feel do not contribute to the overall discussion or the environment. The same applies to other editor's comments. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 23:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Just so we're clear, though, I was trying to make a point and wasn't trying to just rile up others. The claim had been made that we should model the article on William Lane Craig in a similar fashion to the way Wikipedia describes the life work of one of the Four Great Doctors of the Western Church. This seems, at best, like puffery to me. If I was too flippant in trying to get this across, I apologize, but I hope that some good faith can be extended to me. jps (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I always do assume good faith at the best of times. At times I'll let conversations go too much, sometimes I'll reel things back a bit too much as well. I think with this article and comparison articles, it should be less about what the comparison article is, but how it's structured. Gold standard should always be secondary sources. But progress has been made so far, and this isn't my first rodeo ;-) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 00:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A belated...[edit]

... thanks. It must have been daunting to move 180 articles after the discussion at Talk:List of current United States senators. I am sure many would have rather found a reason to call it a no-consensus :D Surtsicna (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Surtsicna (talk · contribs), yes, it was VERY daunting, it took the good part of a few hours to do that, and all the categories updating too. But I've never been one to shy away from hard work :-) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 23:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Thanks for supporting my recent albeit unsuccessful RfA. Your support was much appreciated. All the best for your work at WMA and DR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Steven Crossin,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Dispute[edit]

Hi. Would you be able to resolve this dispute? Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Italian language I haven't received a reply in two weeks. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there and thanks for your email. I had a look, and it appears you might not have started a discussion on the main noticeboard page? The talk page of the dispute resolution noticeboard is more used for questions about the noticeboard and not usually for actual dispute resolution, I’d recommend starting a discussion on the actual noticeboard - if you go to WP:DRN there’s a guide at the top of the page for how to do so. I’ll pop a note on the talk page soon with this info just in case you don’t see this. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 22:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I answered your reply about the Italian language yesterday. [2] I hope it goes on and eventually resolves. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I spotted your reply. I'll keep an eye on things there. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 18:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ticket#2019091710010478[edit]

If you have a minute and can handle this, it would be one less thing on my mind. Thanks for your help on IRC. EEng 18:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. I’ve reviewed and closed the OTRS ticket, and marked the file description page as verified by OTRS. Let me know if there’s anything else you need. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 22:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Two Person Close[edit]

Out of curiosity, how does a two person close work? Since I participated in the discussion, I cannot participate in its closure, but I'm curious. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 05:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I’ve actually never participated in a multi person close before, and I may just end up closing this discussion myself unless someone else decides to join in. I think how they normally work is the closers discuss the outcome of the discussion off-line, either via IRC or email, write up the closing rationale, and then one of them posts it it. It’s a thorny discussion and while I have read it and re-read it and believe I found a consensus, I still would welcome a second person to join me in closing if they desire, regardless of how in-depth my closing rationale may be. And I’m going to muse over the discussion for another hour or so, and then I’ll start writing out my essay of a close. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 05:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Given how thorny of a discussion it is, I would hesitate on closing it just yet; I'd ask if an uninvolved admin can jointly close with you. I'm not sure what consensus you believe you've found (honestly, I have not found any consensus at all); but I would be careful.If I wasn't involved in the conversation I would totally be your second person. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 05:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
FWIW (I saw you have seen my close Rockstone35) - I did ask an uninvolved admin for their take and they agreed with my assessment. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 15:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Excellent. I just made the change to the article. Thanks for being willing to close the discussion. --Rockstonetalk to me! 15:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Of course. Someone's gotta do the tough ones. Even if it's a controversial subject, eh. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 15:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Steven Crossin/DRW.js[edit]

You might be interested to know that User:Steven Crossin/DRW.js currently appears in Category:Wikipedians with misplaced help messages. Most likely, replacing {{helpme}} with something like {{t|helpme}} in line 464 will solve the issue. 78.28.45.145 (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks very much for letting me know that, I’ll make that change shortly. Cheers Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 07:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Out of Pocket[edit]

I'll be out of pocket again on duty for a couple of weeks. I don't think you'll need to hold up any work on this topic for me, if there is consensus among the group while I'm out, go for it. Squatch347 (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Requesting help re: an RfC close[edit]

Hi, Steven. I have a question solely about the wording of the RfC close at this Help page for the citation template. Per Wikipedia:Closing discussions protocol, the first step is to discuss it with the closer. I hope you don't mind. I'm not disputing the close itself, just the wording of the close.

The RfC was about a single footnoting template, Citation Style 1's "cite web." Yet the wording of the close says "names of websites in citations/references should be italicized," without making clear that this consensus is only for the use of this template.

From what I understand, we're not required to use this template — Help:Citation Style 1 even says, "The use of CS1 or of templates is not compulsory; per WP:CITESTYLE: Wikipedia does not have a single house style." Yet because the wording of the close may be overly broad, I'm hearing editors mistakenly say it now is compulsory and official house style.

I'm wondering if the wording of the close could be adjusted to address this point — that it is only about this particular citation template, and that the close is not mandating a single house style that must be used in all footnoting across Wikipedia.--Tenebrae (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Just popping a quick note to acknowledge your message and I’ll respond within 24 hours. A bit tied up IRL atm. Thanks. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 08:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Tenebrae:, thanks for your message. I’ve spent some time re-reading the RFC, and my close. The wording of the RFC itself was “Should the names of websites in citations and references always be italicized?”, and I also see that the RFC was widely advertised at other relevant citation pages, the MOS talk page etc. The wording of my close was based on the text of the RFC as proposed, however I take your points raised above and see others in the discussion opined about this being specific to citation style 1. Therefore, I am more than happy to clarify my RFC close to clearly defined the scope, and will do so now. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 09:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I have amended my closing comments, let me know if you have any further questions or would like me to clarify further. Thanks! Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 09:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Steve. Your amended wording is clear, neutral and I think both accurate and fair. I appreciate your graciousness in letting me discuss this with you. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps your clarification should be reverted and, when real-life permits, re-clarified. The question posed by the RFC was not, as Editor Tenebrae incorrectly states, about a single footnoting template, Citation Style 1's "cite web". The RFC question does not name any of the 23-ish cs1|2 templates, nor even name Citation Style 1 and / or Citation Style 2, yet your 'clarified' close says, in part, this consensus [is] limited to this citation template only and Other styles of citing sources that exist on Wikipedia are unaffected by this RFC... As far as I can tell, the question of the RFC was not constrained to cs1|2, nor was the question, as so often happens, modified (the initial edits that posed the question).
I am not opposed to clarification, it can make my life easier, but clarifications made in haste, as it appears to be the case here, does no one any good.
I only know about this clarification because I just happen to watch WT:MOS; don't RFC closures deserve the same amount of publication and notification as an RFC requires? After all, a lot of editors participated in the RFC, don't they all deserve to know about and participate in discussions regarding the closure?
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
To answer Trappist the monk's question: I followed the directions at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, which states, "[C]ontact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard." I'm not sure it's appropriate to imply I was somehow doing something untoward or sneaky by following the appropriate directions. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe that I have written anything to impugn your integrity. I do believe that your expressed rationale for having Editor Steven Crossin reword or clarify the RFC close is mistaken. That I believe you to be mistaken does not at all suggest that you are doing something untoward or sneaky; had I believed that, I would have said as much. My complaint is the lack of clarity in Editor Steven Crossin's clarification and so to request that the clarification be re-clarified. I do object to settled closures being reworded in an archive after the fact and out-of-sight from almost all editors unless they happen to be watching this page or the archived page.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The way I read some commentary in the RFC, some editors that have supported the italics noted it was specific to Citation style 1, which was the location it started at. I guess the question here is - how does this get resolved? We have editors that feel this RFC changes Wikipedia's standards across the site (and in turn, the RFC) and others that think the scope is narrower. It could honestly be cut either way here. I'm open to suggestions. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 12:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
[How] does this get resolved? Fine question, that. And, it is one that I cannot answer, but, since you are the closer, barring intervention via WP:AN, I suspect that the burden is yours. As first actions, were I in your place, I would:
  1. revert your changes to the archived discussion
  2. unarchive the discussion back to WT:CS1
  3. close this discussion
  4. move the content of this discussion to a new subsection below, and part of, the RFC discussion so that this discussion isn't hidden away out-of-sight-out-of-mind
  5. Editor Tenebrae should advertise the new discussion in at least the same places where the RFC was advertised
  6. at the new discussion location, solicit input on whether and / or how to proceed.
  7. make a determination based on that input and clarify (or not) your closure
  8. ????
  9. Profit!!1!
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
From the above post, it sounds as if Trappist the monk is determined to create a Wikipedia house style based on his novel claim that all organizations' websites should be italicized, as if they were magazines or newspapers, which they are not. This is not a style used by any mainstream footnoting, such as Chicago Manual of Style, ALA or MLA.
If my supposition were not true, them why is he being so vociferous that this RfC — conducted at a technical help page for a template format — applies to every citation in Wikipedia from now on, rather than just to the single discussed template ("cite web") that uses the disputed field "website="? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Do not put words into my mouth that I have not spoken. I have not written anything in this discussion in support of or opposition to a Wikipedia house style; I have not written anything in this discussion about organizations; I have not written anything in this discussion about citation style; I have not written anything in this discussion asserting that the RFC ... applies to every citation in Wikipedia. I do believe that your claim that the RFC is about a single footnoting template, Citation Style 1's "cite web" is wrong and that Editor Steven Crossin's clarification, based on your incorrect claim, was hasty, and should be re-clarified.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I see it both ways, honestly. The wording of the RFC question was rather broad and advertised widely to related pages. At the same time, where the RFC was held, along with my reading of some comments, favours a more narrow implementation of the consensus. I’m currently travelling; but the course of action I intend to take is to rewrite the RFC close, confirming there is indeed a consensus to italicise, but the scope of applying this consensus needs to be defined more clearly, and then I’ll hold a discussion solely on the scope of application for 30 days, and then close that discussion to answer the scope question, since it is honestly open to interpretation here, and if this is indeed to be a broad change, it would be best for it to be clearly defined to avoid discussions such as this in future. I won’t be able to get to it until at least tomorrow, however. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 23:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Apropos of this, I think it's important to note the RfC may have been decided in part based on an editor at 22:19, 18 May 2019 falsely claiming policy requires websites to be italicized. The editor alleged that MOS:ITALICWEBCITE says, "When any website is cited as a source, it is necessarily being treated as a publication, and in that context takes italics. Our citation templates do this automatically; do not abuse unrelated citation parameters, such as |publisher=, to evade italicization of online work titles in source citations."
In fact, MOS:ITALICWEBCITE says not a word of this. It does say, "Options include either of Wikipedia's own template-based Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2, and any other well-recognized citation system." (Emphasis added. Also, speaking as a professional journalist/editor, I need to note that the word "other" in that sentence is grammatically and factually incorrect, since CS1 and CS2 are not themselves "well-recognized citation system[s].") --Tenebrae (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tenebrae:, @Trappist the monk:, I've unarchived the RFC, amended the close to state I continue to find a consensus in the discussion to italicise, but noted the breadth of application is not clear. I've started a subsequent discussion at that page, can I ask you to ensure this is widely advertised, and I'll close the discussion in 30 days. Thanks. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 13:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Same forums notified as were notified in the original RfC.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Italian as Minority Language[edit]

It appears to be your turn either to say something or to close the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Steven Crossin,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 727 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.


To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up[edit]

Hi, Steven. It's been over 30 days since Help talk:Citation style 1#Follow up discussion - scope of application of italics in citations RFC was launched, and there's been much discussion. Where do we go from here? Thank you again for taking the great deal of time to continue your work on this.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I've had a look through the discussion and am reviewing to see what next steps to take. Thanks. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 08:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Steve enlisted my assistance in closing this one. I've thoroughly looked over the discussion, feel I comprehend the consensus even where it conflicts, and will be leaving my findings here shortly. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Coffee – umm, before you do, are you sure that it is a good idea for you to close this discussion? You participated in the preceding discussion so it might be that some will object because they believe you to be an involved editor...
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: I think you're confusing me with Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · contribs). I assure you, I'd not even edited the project during the time this discussion was held. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
yep, comment stricken, my apologies.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Coffee's recommendations[edit]

While not unanimous, the clear consensus is as follows:

On the matter of italics in citations: Italics are to be used for all publication titles in citations, regardless of the medium used for delivery (there is no journalistic/editorial difference between the electronic version and printed version of Barron's (newspaper), yet there are more current stories available through the electronic medium). As to whether certain websites are reliable to use as sources (such as whether Rotten Tomatoes follows "journalistic standards" or not), that is an entirely separate discussion. As of yet, websites that lack the journalistic standards of certain news outlets are still considered allowable as sources in certain circumstances. If editors believe they shouldn't be permitted as sources, then those editors need to take that up in a separate RFC directed specifically at WP:RS/WP:V.

On the matter of which title to use when referring to a publication on the internet: Website URLs are used for navigating to the publications and should not be italicized or used in place of the name of the actual content publisher: i.e. work=CNN.com should not be used in place of work=CNN. While humans frequently use shortened website urls (like "Expedia dot com") as names to refer to publications on the internet, it is important to remember that website URLs are referring to how one navigates to the publication on the publisher's machine via a series of routers and DNS servers... essentially citing a website name is the same as citing the IP address... and in older terms that's a bit like writing out the address of the publisher's office every time the publisher's name is used. Not only is that time consuming, it is technically redundant... and as such doesn't play well with the current long standing de facto consensus that work and publisher names in a citation should not be used together when the information is redundant.

I further recommend that due to the discussion's visibility not being as high as some would have preferred, that it be closed without prejudice against new findings of consensus in a more widely distributed RFC. However, I would not restart the RFC as it was advertised at CENT for two whole months. Drawing issue with the wording at CENT is not a good reason to restart a RFC that was advertised for twice as long as usual (and technically has allowed discussion since May until now), which is more than enough time for our community to have changed the wording. Overall I find Steve's original consensus determination to not be far off the mark, indeed the basic conclusion takes into account what our community consensus has been for a long time, it is just refined.

Lastly, I have no issue with you drawing from my wording here directly in your updated close, in fact you have my express permission to without attribution. I hope this close doesn't ruffle too many feathers, but I'm sure you've got the knack to handle it Steve. It's always a smart idea to rely on our peers when we need another set of eyes, and I appreciate you choosing to utilize mine. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Made slight adjustment to text for clarity. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Fantastic, thanks for giving your opinion Coffee. This is along the lines of my original close, so I'm glad that you've come to a similar conclusion. I also agree that an RFC shouldn't be re-started, it was well and truly advertised long and wide enough for people to give their opinion. I believe that without an overwhelming consensus to overturn the result of the RFC, the outcome is clear and should remain in place. I'll write up my close in the next day or two (you of all people know how insanely hectic my life is) but I will get to it soon. Thanks. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 23:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
You're very welcome. And yes, insanely hectic only begins to describe your life. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

editToken[edit]

Hello Steven Crossin,

Your scripts User:Steven Crossin/testcode.js and User:Steven Crossin/DRW.js are no longer functional because they attempt to get an editToken from mw.user.tokens. The scripts should instead get a csrfToken. editTokens were removed from mw.user.tokens on October 3, 2019 at Phabricator during this edit as they were redundant to csrfTokens.BrandonXLF (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)