Jump to content

User talk:ProcrastinatingReader/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Merry Christmas

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg Merry Christmas ProcrastinatingReader

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness.
– SD0001 (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:IRCCloud

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "IRCCloud".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 15:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, ProcrastinatingReader!

Happy New Year!

ProcrastinatingReader,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks 1234qwer1234qwer4, same to you! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, ProcrastinatingReader!

Happy New Year!

ProcrastinatingReader,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 02:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks Moneytrees -- happy new year! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Page mover

I nominated you at WP:RFP/PM for the WP:Page mover bit, since you're exhibiting too much competence at RM to do without it. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheers :) -- have replied there. And happy new year! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

When I read a talk page, I'd like for every comment to be followed by a (thank) link that would thank the editor for that comment, and a (diff) link that links to the diff of that comment. I figure this could be done with a script that would look up the revid for the page using the timestamp of each comment, and if there were more than one with the same timestamp, a text comparison could identify the correct one. I've noticed that this does not already exist, and I surmise there's a reason for that, and deduce that I'm missing something. So before I embark on a fool's errand, I thought someone like you who knows about this stuff might be able to tell me what I'm missing? Thanks, Levivich harass/hound 06:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your idea of just lazily matching timestamps is also much, much faster than actually checking revision text. There's also the niche case of people editing comments and not changing the timestamp (or actually changing the timestamp), which makes it hard to identify each comment without comparing revision text. It may be better to ignore these cases -- a couple of failures to identify a revision don't seem too problematic and the time for revision matching is probably not worth it (seems a bit like mw:Who Wrote That?, which is for articles only but takes a while to load up).
Initial thoughts, this approach seems reasonable to me with noted caveats. I don't do much with userscripts on MW though, so worth a ping to @Enterprisey and DannyS712 for thoughts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich User:Evad37/TimestampDiffs should add the diff links, if I'm reading things correctly. As for thanks, I would be hesitant to add such links because you should confirm that the script pinpointed the correct diff to thank for DannyS712 (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
TimestampDiffs would make it easy to confirm it's the right diff before thanking, plus the diff page will have a thanks link, so that makes it's a two-click "thanks" which is good enough (and better than the current find-it-in-the-history method I'm using). Thanks, DannyS712, PR, and Evad37, this saves me a whole lot of time!! Levivich harass/hound 04:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Category purge

Hi, someone on the Discord suggested that getting ProcBot to null edit Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax might be useful in helping clear the backlog - there are certainly some null edits required at the start of the category, and I suspect there are bound to be some further in amongst the other 6000 odd pages. Any chance you can run this as a one-off (or alternatively like once a week/month or something?). If it finds a few, it'd certainly save me some time, as I've already manually cleared a bunch! Many thanks --Lewis Cawte (Talk) 11:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Your closure of Talk:TikTok#RfC on "Chinese"

Hi, I appreciate that closing discussions is time-consuming and not fun. I'm just concerned that a couple of points in your closure summary might have been written a little hastily; I fear they don't reflect the consensus accurately:

  • In your summary, you said, There was some disagreement on whether viral should be mentioned.
This seems inaccurate. No editors came out in favor of describing the app as "viral". Every editor who addressed that aspect of the RfC opposed calling the app "viral".
So, it seems better to say, "There was consensus against describing the app as 'viral'."
  • You also said, most editors believed that the app should not be described as "TikTok ... is a Chinese video-sharing social networking service ...". Instead, editors believed that stating the ownership of the company (ByteDance) as Chinese would be more desirable...
The emphasis here seems to be the wrong way around. I think it would be more accurate to say, "Rough consensus emerged that the app's Chinese ownership should be mentioned in the sentence. Within that rough consensus, most editors favored achieving this by using the sentence both to state the name of the company that owns the app, and to state that this is a Chinese company. That approach was favored because it avoids repetition of the word 'Chinese' within the sentence."

If you would be willing to revisit that closure in the light of the above, I would be grateful. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble! Zazpot (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

As for #1, that's mostly correct (at least one only opposed the positioning of the word), but "viral" wasn't really the RfC question ("Chinese" was) and hence most participants did not actually address whether they liked the term. It came up because the 2 proposed variations of the lead happened to contain the word, because it's in the current text. I could not find consensus for eg "option 1", because there's no evidence that even the supporters who didn't mention objection to the wording or placement of "viral" actually support that wording. There's no evidence that they oppose it either. It seems they just didn't consider it, because it wasn't really what was being asked. So the point of that sentence, as I'd intended to clarify with the last sentence, is that this matter is not part of the RfC. Anyone can go ahead and change it in the live article right now, just as they can change any other piece of text.
As for #2, I think that's mostly a semantic difference, but I can appreciate it may cause some confusion. I've made some changes to the wording, for clarity. Does this help? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for this. Re: "viral", I fear your new edit to the closure is internally inconsistent. On the one hand, you note that where this was addressed by participants, there was opposition to using the word "viral". This clearly indicates consensus; and I think you are correct to say it. But on the other hand, you contradict yourself by also saying, this RfC close does not find any consensus on that matter. So, I would suggest sticking with the consensus that you yourself have identified, and just deleting the contradiction.
On the "Chinese" front:
  • There was consensus for describing the app's ownership as Chinese. Your wording acknowledges this. Thanks.
  • There was consensus against unnecessarily repetitive wording. (No-one liked option 2, and pretty much everyone who addressed repetition was opposed to repetition.) Your closure summary does not mention this, and probably should.
  • there was not consensus against describing the app as Chinese. However, your closure summary (again erroneously, I fear) suggests that there was. I think it would be better to say that there was no consensus on whether the app itself should be described as Chinese.
So, I think a further edit to the closure summary would be in order. I already proposed some wording in my initial comment above, but here is a more succinct proposal:
If you think my suggested wording is erroneous, then please could you say why? If not, then I would be very grateful if you could use it, as I think it will save future editors of the page much confusion.
Thanks! Zazpot (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
If I ask 20 people if they like beans, and they all answer yes/no, but 4 people also tell me they don't like peas, does this mean the whole group of 20 people decided they don't like peas, or rather that the other 16 people just didn't consider the question because they weren't asked it?
That applies here. The point of the question wasn't really the "viral" wording. So yes, whilst the people who talked about the wording said they didn't like it, the majority (est) supported an option which included viral wording without indicating any opposition to the wording. Does that mean there is consensus for the "viral" wording? I think no. I think it just wasn't addressed, because it wasn't the point of the discussion. So I can't say if there is or isn't a consensus for the wording, I simply don't know, at least not from that discussion.
Regarding Chinese: I generally do not implement the results of my RfC closes. I think it's better someone else does it usually, for a number of reasons. Here, it seems a couple of parties have understood the close and implemented it, so I'm not sure that the wording is misunderstood on the whole. Still, I'll read it over at some point and see if I can't tweak some parts -- a bullet point structure seems to be a nice way of presenting the outcomes neatly. I don't agree with your 4th bullet though, and I think the 5th depends on what you mean - as far as the lead sentence goes, there was explicitly consensus against starting with "TikTok is a Chinese video-sharing social networking service" by my reading. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Spider-Man (2017)

Hello, the Spider-Man (2017 TV series) page includes outdated information, as the continuity section states that only the third season of Guardians of the Galaxy (TV series) is set in the same universe as Spider-Man, and that the previous seasons go with Ultimate Spider-Man, despite the fact that the source that says that is from 2015. Cort Lane (president of Marvel Animation & Family Entertainment) confirmed in 2019 that all three seasons of Guardians is canon to Spider-Man, as he said this while discussing the third season of Spider-Man "the most epic conflict in the history of Marvel Animation. We planted the seeds in two seasons of Marvel's Spider-Man and three seasons of Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy, but you don't need to have watched them to be blown away by this colossal confrontation. While a ton of guest heroes will be on hand, Peter Parker's special link to Venom makes him the only hero who can tip the scales to save humanity." [1] I have been adding that to the page, but it keeps being removed. It also states that Ultimate Spider-Man appeared in Guardians, which is incorrect as he didn't. Is there anything you can do? Aaa11769 (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey. I briefly remember this dispute (if it's the same one). I solicited input from the WikiProject for it, but I will admit I have little specialist knowledge in this area to weigh in myself. Generally you'd follow the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - the overarching theme being you need to solicit input of more people, making an argument that convinces them to your view, and that will form a "consensus" for your preferred option. I'll look more closely in a day or two, see if I can't suggest something more specific. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Sidney_Powell#RfC:_Describing_Powell_as_conspiracy_theorist?

I believe this closure needs reconsidering. I think you failed to consider that most of the Support comments have come later into the RfC, as the WP:RS coverage of Powell as a conspiracy theorist has only grown stronger over time. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I see no evidence those support comments were motivated by a change in sourcing wrt the phrase. Although many editors chose to say "described using the label in countless reliable sources", few followed through with specifics. If any of those later supports provided sources addressing the main opposing concerns, it was only one (The Guardian source, by Patiodweller). I can only do with a discussion what I'm given, and I was not given something to give less weight to the GW concern. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Given that NonReproBlue posted several in the discussion section, and Neutrality listed multiple including a NY Times link, I think you need to re-read. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Right, but as far as I can see the NYT does not say she is a conspiracy theorist, it says she spread a conspiracy theory. This is ultimately what made oppose arguments slightly stronger: the label itself should be widely used by reliable sources. The rebuttal by GW making this distinction was, by my reading, not adequately addressed and didn't cause editors to reconsider their concerns. Further, some precedent in past RfCs has found these two things are not equivalent. After NRB's comment, only 3 comments came in (2x support, 1x oppose), and pinged opposers did not change their comments. As such, I do not believe it caused a material shift in opinions; it is ultimately the other participants who must be convinced of the sourcing, not me. As for other options going forward, my close did mention one other route to achieve consensus on similar wording in the lead, namely the Kiteinthewind wording. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
"but as far as I can see the NYT does not say she is a conspiracy theorist"?????? "Trump Weighed Naming Election Conspiracy Theorist as Special Counsel" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/us/politics/trump-sidney-powell-voter-fraud.html IHateAccounts (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I see. I was looking at the link labelled "NYT" in Neutrality's response (this). Sure, let me think on it and get back to you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience IHateAccounts. I've slept on this, re-read the discussion over twice, and amended the close accordingly. I do believe there was an error in my close which failed to address the support for alternate wording, rather than just relegating this to a personal note at the bottom of the close. The discussion was more nuanced than a binary question, and I think my original close failed to appreciate that fully. Regarding the specific question of the label, I'm afraid I still do not see consensus for inclusion (and believe me, I've tried). The point you make here was not made explicitly in the discussion. From my reading, GorillaWarfare rebutted the sourcing, and nobody explicitly (in reference to) rebutted GW. The distinction she claims has a basis in both PAGs and in past precedent, so I am afraid I cannot give it any less weight, especially as this is a BLP. Neutrality's comment, whilst he links to the cite, quotes something else. I didn't check every source myself, which is how I missed this initially. I think it's outside of my remit as closer to analyse whether I think this source meets the burden, instead my role is to analyse what editors thought, and I can only consider what is explicitly on the page. As what you're quoting here wasn't quoted in the RfC, I believe my role calls for pretending like it doesn't exist at all.
That said, there is a route to achieving consensus on this point which doesn't involve a future RfC: pinging the editors opposing and asking if the 'newer sourcing' has changed their views. The nature of 'support/oppose walls' in changing events is that it could be random, or it could be guided by a change in external circumstance, such that if earlier voters were to come back and reassess their comment (which they often don't), they would've agreed. If you want to ping in the oppose voters (and they are not obligated to respond), and they (as a whole) state they're convinced that a change in sourcing has rendered the label appropriate, then I think this is sufficient to say there's consensus for the label. If they disagree, or don't respond, I don't think there's a route forward here, at least on the label. That said, I have amended my close to better analyse the "promoting conspiracy theories" part (and the DUE arguments), so there is an immediate option to including that wording, at least in the interim. It may also be worth sticking with that wording until time passes, to see if the label sticks. If it does, that may also persuade some opposers who had long-lasting notability concerns. I hope this helps! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I am raising the objection directly on the talk page. As noted by CozyAndDozy, "90% (9/10) of the final respondents to the RfC" were in favor, and at least one initial opposer (soibangla) DID in fact reverse themselves on seeing the new WP:RS coverage. I have to say I'm disappointed as it seems every justification you put forth for your decision isn't supported factually. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, no problem. For your options, as I say, there's always the option of pinging editors who had concerns with the sourcing in order to achieve a consensus for the label and see if their views have changed. If instead you believe I misread the discussion, you can also request a close review at the AN (per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I can only do with a discussion what I'm given Just to note you weren't given anything. As far as I can see you took it upon yourself to close this RfC. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The phrase was figurative. As in, the close has to reflect the discussion. If the discussion was lacking, there's nothing a closer can (or should) do to apply a 'correction', in my view. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
No, I am asking you to not habitually use the passive voice as that makes you appear to sidestep responsibility. Your phrasing suggests the outcome is out of your hands, when in actual fact it is very much in your hands. In fact, not only is it in your hands - you actively and voluntarily put your hands there! Your replies are full of language essentially saying it had to happen as if it was inevitable when in fact every step of the way the outcome originated from your active decision to assume the role of closer. While this superficially shields you from criticism, it really isn't a proper defense. Now, I don't know if you just happen to be in the habit of sounding formal, or if you subconsciously distance yourself from your own choices, and I do not claim you are acting in bad faith. I am merely making a suggestion: if you use the active voice you assert authority (and responsibility) over decisions you have made yourself. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Specifically the close has to reflect the discussion We are not discussing a theoretical close, we are discussing a specific close done by you. there's nothing a closer can (or should) do We are not discussing a theoretical closer, we are discussing you. A phrase such as "***I*** made the call to do this or that" is much stronger than "the circumstances had to lead to this or that" and if you are unwilling to put yourself on this line of fire, then maybe don't decide to close discussions? Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't really understand if you have a specific objection with the close I might be able to address, or if you're concerned with my phrasing in my clarification above? Because honestly I didn't put as much thought into the exact words in the comment above as you are now, so it may well be that (strictly speaking) a different set of words would be a better descriptor, but I thought the point was still clear.
I'm responsible for the close and my interpretation, of course. I'm don't really think I'm responsible for what editors did or didn't discuss, though, and I don't think a closer should compensate by inserting their own external analysis into a close. Analysing the discussion is distinct from analysing the available sourcing beyond what editors did in the discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Oh well. There have been some changes, but then the replies by Qexigator have now proven that objections by others were offered not based in wikipedia policy but rather in WP:FALSEBALANCE trying to pretend that Powell's conspiracy theories have legitimacy. I'll give it another couple days but I guess it'll have to be filed to next challenge steps soon. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Taming talk clutter

I responded here; could you let me know if you got the ping? I pinged several parties, but I am unsure if pinging works on a post that long. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks and for the detail! Digging a bit around this topic. I think we can probably recreate the bot, but first it'd be nice to know what page everyone is on regarding this, and where bots may conflict, etc. Will reply in full there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

COVID cases template

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, would you be able to help with this template - Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/United_Kingdom_medical_cases_chart? I'm guessing it's based on a lower level template that's used by all the other COVID-19 country articles. We now have a problem, given the turn of the year, in that selecting data just for January pulls in both Jan 2020 and Jan 2021 records. Presumably selecting one of the month buttons causes the relevant records to be extracted from the data set based on the just the month element of the date (who would have thought back in March we'd still be bothered about a virus!) Anyway, if it's something you'd be interested in sorting out, that would be great, unless someone else is already working on it. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this is because the Jan [2020] and Jan [2021] have the same IDs, which only identify by month and not by year. Probably some editing to parse the year and change the ID, and possibly the display for clarity as well, will be needed. Pinging in Ahecht who wrote the module, since they will know their codebase better than I, and I don't really know graphs well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader and Arcturus: As a temporary fix, I enabled the |nooverlap=true option, which will at least fix the problem until January 15th. I'll have to think about the best way to modify the codebase to work after that. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks like Alexiscoutinho is working on something in Module:Medical cases chart/sandbox. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader and Ahecht: That's great. Thanks for looking at it. Arcturus (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Arcturus: An alternative temporary fix would be to invoke the sandbox function which works fine for the UK. It's your call though to use a changing (and potentially breaking) sandbox. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Alexiscoutinho: probably best to have a permanent solution. At least in the UK - and in fact in most countries - there were just a handful of cases in January 2020, so it's not a big deal if that month is displayed alongside the current month. I suspect the 'Last 15 Days' display is the option most users select, anyway. Of course as we move into February it will be much more useful to have the permanent solution. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Alahverdian deletion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:All-rounder's Test triple

I would like a WP:REFUND for the above template. The Cricket WikiProject wasn't notified, and similar templates have survived nomination. StAnselm (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't refund sorry, you'll need an admin for that. You can request undeletion at WP:REFUND. The refunding admin should probably create a new deletion discussion for it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions

Hi, ProcrastinatingReader,

This category, in the past, held between 3,000-5,000 soon-to-be stale drafts and it is now down to 1,353. Could you do whatever you do to refill it? I'm asking early because it takes a while after you do, whatever that you do, that it fills back up. If you (or your bot) could do this twice a month or every two weeks, it would probably be good enough that I won't need to pester you. Thank you so much! Liz Read! Talk! 20:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, PR. The category is up to 3,549 drafts now. Quick work! Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of ArbCom discussion

Hi, just making you aware that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Syrian_Kurdistan exists, since you commented in prior discussions on the issues raised there. GPinkerton (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

RE: Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

Regarding this, I would love to author an amendment request with you to just change the wordings to provide for any admin to be able to do an appeal. Would you be interested in doing that after, say, the 20th (to give arbs time for the Wander v. Flyer22 case)? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems L235 partially addressed this in Special:Diff/999572666: I'm willing to formalize this into our procedures if need be, but I'd prefer to wait for broader DS reform. We could do it, but it may also be better to raise it as part of a broader reform, which hopefully occurs later this year? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I actually feel like I prefer any user to be able to appeal. There's a case somewhere on my talk about a new-ish editor who was tbanned which I now think wasn't entirely fair. They probably don't have the expertise or the patience to navigate AE/ARCA, but another editor could do it with far less time investment. It's like expecting all people to be able to seek remedy of the courts equally, it's not true in practice. It's sometimes just easier for a newer editor to just quit, than invest time in making an appeal. So for DS particularly, I feel like any editor being able to appeal on someone's behalf, or at least with their permission, is ideal. I can see the downsides, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

2FA

Wait, what?! 2FA isn't making me safe? I thought that was the whole point. Goddammit. WTF is a non-techie to do? —valereee (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't mean that it's useless. I still use it on most of my accounts, but I don't think anyone should actually rely on it for security. If your password is getting breached in the first place, likely due to weak or reused passwords, or getting socially engineered, you have an underlying security issue. If you have a keylogger on your computer, this is mostly moot as you may as well have other malware on your computer too; your session could just get stolen or you could have a RAT. Besides, if you have a keylogger I think your Wikipedia admin account is at the bottom of the list of things to be worried about. Similar for an unlocked mobile device being stolen: if it were me, I'd be more worried about a malicious party going into my bank apps, than them using a wiki admin account to delete a page which is probably restored within a hour (not that a stranger on the street would know you have a wiki admin account, or care, in the first place). Further, if the software/servers themselves are compromised, nothing about your password or 2FA can save your account.
API keys are also basically passwords which are used to fetch sensitive data behind the scenes in software, without any extra security measures much of the time. A long password, 30 characters of pure randomness, is safe. 2FA is good for peace of mind for when all else goes wrong, but nobody should ever be relying on it. With decent security practices nobody will breach your password in the first place. But teaching and ingraining decent security practices is hard, so 2FA is a good buffer for if you mess up, but imo it's not much more than that. Statistically, though I haven't checked the data, I imagine teaching people good security practices is futile, so 2FA is probably effective in that sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Replace "you" with "one", as in the generic "you", btw. Not saying you're security-incompetent, of course :P ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit filters

Hi, can you please respond here? Thanks, Alaexis¿question? 08:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sidney Powell

I saw your crucial input on the Sidney Powell article and talk page. My news organization is looking to speak with a few Wikipedians anonymously about their thoughts and interpretations on this person for a story that covers current events like this alongside the birthday of Wikipedia and how wikipedians shape the discussion and shed light on the facts. Do you have a few minutes to spare over email to talk about your perspectives? Thanks very much. I look forward to hearing back from you. Kombucha Morning (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on MEDRS/RS debate regarding fringe lab leak theory

Your comment on whether MEDRS are mandatory before editing a claim implying the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy/fringe idea is requested by this Diff in this page, please take a look. Forich (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

blanked editnotices

Hi, about a month ago you blanked many edit notes for articles related to Covid-19 (since there are probably currently no page sanctions). Per [2] and [3] these templates could be deleted as G6, or do I misunderstand something? --TheImaCow (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, all blanked editnotices are eligible for G6. You can tag them individually if you want, I planned to just send a generated list to an admin regularly, every few months. Last one I made was shortly after your first link. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't tag them myself because you need Page Mover/Template Editor permissions to do so. But if you plan to suggest them for deletion at some point anyway, then everything is fine for me :) --TheImaCow (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible disruption, WP:Get the point

Hi. Could you please take a look at this discussion whenever you can? (motivated by a series of edits and reverts). It seems a user is not conducting himself in good faith. Thanks--Watchlonly (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven’t looked too closely but it looks like a content dispute. I suggest reading WP:DR for your options to resolve (in short: discussion). If possible, although you may feel it’s not required, if you can find a source saying 25 that may be the easiest and fastest option which pleases everyone. If you can’t, you’ll need to either convince others on the talk, or get the participation of more editors, in a regular discussion or a binding WP:RfC.
If it were a conduct issue you’d need to contact an admin (which I’m not) to resolve. That option is always open to you, but do note that I don’t personally think anything there needs admin intervention atm, and I imagine an admin might give you the same advice in the first instance. Good luck! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Categories not being filled

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader,

I remember posting on the Village Pump a month or so ago about categories not being filled by categories that had been tagged for deletion as G6s. Nothing came to mind when I was asked to be more specific and provide examples but I just came across these:

basically, all of the empty categories in Category:Use Irish English. One of the categories happened to pop up on Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories so I investigated it and found these other empty categories. Otherwise, it's likely that years would have gone by before an admin happened upon these categories.

Of course, deleting empty categories is not a high priority on the project. I just think that if these 14 tagged categories aren't appearing in Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion, it's probably the tip of the iceberg. There are thousands of similar maintenance categories.

Any ideas on a solution I could bring to the Village Pump so it looks like I know what I'm talking about? Thanks and happy holidays. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I suspect they just need null edits, but I'd personally prefer if we just waited for now. I'm curious how long it takes for the software to fix them itself -- it could be that they were just emptied recently and the software updates them in a few days or a week. Posting this on VPT now and I suspect someone will just null edit them to 'help', then it becomes hard to get an answer to this question.
If it takes the software too long, this would be related to (and solved by) Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_or_other_process_to_keep_categories_and_page_renderings_up_to_date. Though, not sure VPT can help further. That bot request is the only realistic solution to this problem, given the phab tickets are stuck for now (though, devs said they may resolve it later in 2021). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I didn't know about Wikipedia:Bot requests, there is another bot process I'm also concerned about that I'll inquire about. Liz Read! Talk! 23:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@Liz: quick update, see https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/51006. Basically what you're interested in here is "page_links_updated" (timestamp) and cat_pages (number of pages in cat). The page_links_updated should indicate that the cat wasn't empty as of the date it was checked (most of these are in December, one in late November). The next time the job queue tries to update the links, it should be added to the cat for deletion. I think that'll probably (hopefully) be by the end of this month, but we'll find out for sure I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, PR,
I got tired of waiting, so I just deleted somewhere around 60-80 empty categories that should have appeared in Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion but didn't....see my deletion log for a list. There is no way of knowing how many days or months these categories had been empty and tagged for deletion but I'm sure it goes back to some time in 2020. I typically only go through Category:Monthly clean-up category counter once or twice a year, looking for empty categories, and I doubt any other admin does this. Just thought that I'd update you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox station other_services

Do you think we could add something like other_services2 ? A bunch of stations have former and future/proposed services crammed into one section, I was wondering if we could split those up. Cards84664 01:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cards84664: Sure, we could add that. But I had a little concern with services in the station infoboxes I was going to bring up at some point (may as well do it now), and so I dunno if even more services sections are a good idea. Pinging in Mackensen too, for thoughts.
We have what I think is a slight issue with these on mobiles. Collapsing doesn't work on mobile Wikipedia (it automatically expands the collapse). And on mobile the infobox goes after the lead's first section. So the effect is that on some pages the infobox is a very long scroll until you can read the prose. Example (you'll need to be on a mobile, or resize your screen horizontally very small to see): [4][5]. I feel like this may be a slight UX issue. Whereas on desktop it's on the right hand side so it doesn't matter, on mobile it pushes the prose way down. I have no ideas on a solution, though... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I've seen other_services used for former and future/proposed, and also in some cases for connecting metro services at a mainline rail station (I consider that non-standard, but anyway). I haven't seen former_services used outside of the US, but then the state of things with US rail is somewhat unique on Wikipedia (English-language editors + English-speaking country + widespread loss of rail services). The UK handles this by generally (though not exclusively) indicating line succession, grouped by operator, with notes for closed lines/stations. That wouldn't work in the US at all. If we did implement additional fields I think I'd want to deprecate other_services in favor of explicit former_services and future_services fields, but even then I would have concerns about the first of these because it wouldn't make sense outside the US, and you can argue that the entire US approach needs a rethink. Mackensen (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mackensen: That was my main reasoning for keeping the parameters generic, since they could be interchanged for a number of unique headers case-by-case. Cards84664 17:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader and @Mackensen:, I've modified the testcase at Template:Infobox station/testcases#Los Angeles Union Station. Can that be implemented? Cards84664 15:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed you made a section at the template talk, I’ll try to review that change. Personally, I still wonder if these would better fit in the prose rather than the infobox (noting length, and also the fact that they can’t be collapsed on mobile). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Misunderstanding and advice on UKIM article

Is it normal for you to be quite so rude and hostile to a new editor? who is improving a very messy article? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a welcoming place to people of all genders, races and backgrounds? I think an apology is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Your contributions exclusively come across as pushing a POV against making any mention of devolution, including by removing references from the lead, blanking the lead, and changing section headers. I suggest you discuss on the talk page and not edit war. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Also if you had read my edits you'll see I haven't deleted anything I had just restructed into a more logical order and added to it to explain the nuance such as on state aid.

Okay, IP. I see you're now working iteratively on the article and adding sources as you go. We've perhaps gotten off on the wrong foot; I'll assume good faith that you're neutrally trying to improve the article and it'll all come together when you're done. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Do you know how I would add images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The syntax for doing it is like this: [[File:FILENAME|thumb|right|Caption here]], but it has to be uploaded first. There's a simple 4 small page tutorial at Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1 about it. Note it does have to be either freely licensed, or meet one of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Do you have a particular image in mind? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I was thinking some of the graphs from the institute of government's explainers, some of the maps from the Government white papers and images of people speaking on the matter during debates in the Lords, Commons and devolved assemblies. Do you think those sound sensible?

On content, you have to be careful with primary sources. Wikipedia generally works from 'reliable sources'. Secondary sources which analyse the policy, rather than government papers and think tanks etc, are preferred, especially on an article like that. I suspect you may get pushback from other editors on the article for using government white papers. Try news reports and academic sources?
But that's all about the text. For images, I saw you linked to this as an example of something to add. It might be a good idea, but it also has to meet licensing rules to be included. It appears to be licensed under WP:CCBYNC which is usually not an acceptable license on Wikipedia, but there are some weird policies around non-free images which may make it allowable. I don't know anything about them, though - images isn't really my area of expertise. Maybe ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse, someone there might know? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


Thanks that's really helpful. I'm going to take a break now, but I will check out the teahouse for further advice later. Thanks again for all your tips and sorry we got off on the wrong foot.

I should warn you, IP, about edit warring. I'm not going to report you myself, partially because I have a slight admiration for someone willing to push through with something, but you should note that someone else might report you, and edit warring can result in blocks from editing. I suggest reading at least the first two paragraphs of Wikipedia:Edit warring. When you end up at the "3 revert" point, you're supposed to engage in discussions on the talk page to develop a version which people are happy with. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I have posted about everything on the talk page. Anyway I'm going to take a break so if people revert it all, maybe it'll just be better to give up. But I do appreciate you could understand that was trying to make it better.

You've picked a difficult article to start out with :) -- It's been controversial with a lot of talk page discussion before (which I don't expect you to know about, but just to give you a bit of history). I think pausing is a good idea, since it gives people a bit of time to review the changes. A frustrating thing to learn about Wikipedia, as an open collaborative environment, is that sometimes you need to pace yourself to give other people a chance to review, especially on controversial articles. By the way, you can sign your talk page comments with four tildes "~~~~" to include your signature, so people know who wrote each message. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Who would guess that UK legislation would be such a hot topic! thanks again 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, do you have any advice for engaging with John Maynard Friedman and Cambrial I took JMF at his word and suggested a new longer lead as a compromise and Cambrial just instantly came back with nothing constructive, just a bunch of policies I'd breached with the proposal? 80.42.39.51 (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is a policy section that gets quoted a lot, so I think it's worth a read. The sources also don't appear to be reliable sources - I think for you the first half of this page may be useful too.

Academic Integrity at Princeton (2011): "Unlike most books and journal articles, which undergo strict editorial review before publication, much of the information on the Web is self-published. To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material before it's made instantly available across the globe."

I don't personally think a law firm's view, sourced to their website, should be included in the article. FSB is slightly better, but it should be covered to an independent source (say, a news article, or an academic source or analysis) to illustrate its significance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that, they are a well regarding law firm and I don't understand what the issue with citing a major organisation view directly is? surely a British newspaper is more likely to biased the Daily Mail, Guardian etc all have wild biases and not great reporting.

Anyway that wasn't what I was driving I was thinking more how to overcome the constant hostility. I tried to engage by suggesting a new longer lead but it just met with hostility not any constructive criticism. You were initially hostile but were open to reasonable argument. These just seem like a boys club that don't want to let anyone else play. an new one FDW is particularly rude and aggressive, I tried reaching out on his talk page to explain the old lead he restored still refers to the act as a bill and uses the present tense to refer to its passage (some of the more glaring problems with it) and he was very hostile and even deleted my comment and told me I was unwelcome. It's just tiring. TBH I'm thinking about just giving up on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what to advise, IP. The norm is to go onto talk pages and discuss, but in some cases that may just end in status quo stonewalling / 'no consensus' outcomes. You can keep slowly pushing, and maybe get somewhere, but as with all volunteer projects you have to decide for yourself which battles are worth your time. There are articles which are far worse to edit, for example Donald Trump (that's a real picnic). Some people enjoy editing those areas, indeed stick exclusively to them, and others don't. Myself, I pop in and out of them but don't particularly enjoy them - they're time sinks.
In short, what I'm saying is there's no real formula for breaking through the impasse you find yourself in. At least not as I see it. Their points are not entirely wrong, at least on matters of policy, but as far as hostility goes controversial/busy articles are not the best place to learn editing, and not the most fun places to edit even after that. If you wish to persist with this, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for your options (in short: either convince editors to your view, or solicit the input of more editors). The alternative is finding different areas to edit in; most UK legislation is uncontroversial, for example. Either way, I hope you stick around! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I just thought it was something I have a bit of expertise on so could lend a hand. At least I got some images in there! brighten up all that dense text a bit! If you have any views on the lead text I suggested in the "tidying up" section of the talk page I'd welcome it as i feel you'd at least be constructive with any criticism! I was trying to be as neutral as possible! Now I know how the BBC feels when all sides call them biased! Thanks again for all your advice 80.42.39.51 (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others

On 2 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in a rare leapfrog appeal the UK Supreme Court decided that insurance companies can be liable for business losses arising due to the COVID-19 pandemic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionTools

Hello,

The Editing team has scheduled a major update to mw:Extension:DiscussionTools (the new Reply tool) for next week's deployment train. Since you invoke the feature from a script (I do, too), you're probably going to see that update next week, before it's officially released in the mw:Beta Feature system. The new update will use a similar system for starting a ==New discussion==. As before, full-page wikitext editing will not be affected. There is more information on the project page at mw:Talk pages project/New discussion.

If you encounter problems next week, please ping me or leave a note on the talk page for the project. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Whatamidoing (WMF)! This looks very cool and excited to test it out here. The rest of the tool is pretty nifty so far! One thing I noticed at the demo is that it takes a long time to load after clicking "Add topic" -- hopefully performance will be faster on the live site ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
It should be much faster on the live site.
Supposedly we'll be seeing this towards the end of WP:THURSDAY, but I think it'd be safer to describe it as "not before Thursday". Last I heard, it was still in QA's hands. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF): One interesting thing I noticed at Template:Did you know nominations/Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others is that the tool doesn't seem to be active there. I'm guessing this is because DYK nominations are in the template namespace (which generally shouldn't have replying enabled), but it would make sense for pages with the prefix Template:Did you know nominations/ ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The user scripts that we're using are namespace-specific. I also find that they occasionally don't load. The Beta Feature is a bit 'smarter', but still won't display in the Template: namespace. (Should DYK really be happening in the Template: namespace?)
I suppose I should start a discusssion about getting the Beta Feature here. I can't imagine anyone really objecting, since it's already been used thousands of times here, and if there were going to be serious problems, they'd likely have already surfaced. I'll check with the devs next week, to see whether they expect any problems with the volume that will cause. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Should DYK really be happening in the Template: namespace? Probably not, but I think the last time it was brought up people decided the effort to move it all over, and make sure nothing was missing, was too much a cost. Possibly things like this would be a good reason to revive that discussion.
Re beta feature: that makes sense to me. Surprised it's not enabled already, heh. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Everything takes longer than I want it to. Three of the biggest Wikipedias are still on the list for the Beta Feature: enwiki, dewiki, and ruwiki. The French Wikipedia, which is very large, already has it, so it should be okay at dewiki and ruwiki, but enwiki's scale is unmatched. There are also about six Wikipedias that write simultaneously in two different alphabets, and almost all of the sister projects to go. On the other end of things, there are three Wikipedias that are already using the Reply tool by default for all editors, and an A/B test will turn it on for half of editors at 24 Wikipedias (maybe in 48 hours, about six weeks later than I'd originally hoped). That will include the French Wikipedia and a few other large Wikipedia, so the question for the devs on Monday will have to be whether enwiki's Beta Feature plus half of the editors at those 24 Wikipedias might be too much to throw at the system all at once. (They can scale up, and they will, but Ops usually prefers a little warning before anything dramatic happens.  ;-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd love to see it enabled as a beta feature. Could we also have it enabled by default for IP editors? See latest section on my talk page for an example; newer editors are sometimes not aware of talk page indenting and I don't really think, with everything else they have to pick up, it's really worth bothering them about. Not sure what your rollout plan is like, but I imagine that'd be most helpful and generate some interesting data! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I plan to update Wikipedia:Talk pages project and ping some of the other editors who have been using it. If we're all agreed that it's stable, then I'll make the case to the devs. They're kind of distracted at the moment (Did you know that they call the huge collection of weekly software updates a "deployment train"? Well, I guess you could say that the train's wrecked two weeks in a row, and not much can happen until that's fixed), but I think they'll agree. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF): One other thing. See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, the tool doesn't seem to work on this page. I'm guessing it's due to the formatting around the page, but the wikitext is still totally normal (view source). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Yup, it's probably due to the 'box'. I had the same problem at User talk:Iridescent until he removed his box for me, and I know the box/green background is the problem with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19. I assume that for the most part, editors will make individual choices about what works best/makes them happiest on any given page. I don't see it as a big deal. If someone doesn't get value from it, then why should they change the page's appearance (especially on a User_talk: page)? If they do want to use it, then they're free to make the necessary changes, but I don't think the WMF dev teams will be telling them that they're required to close their div tags just so the Reply tool can work (i.e., without screwing up the rest of the page, which is the primary alternative in practice). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

February 6th, 2020 ANI Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Admin-overturned RfC closure at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol. The discussion is about the topic Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidden Lemon (talk • contribs) 11:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hidden Lemon. I don't really see anything there requiring my response or comments at this time, but I will say here that I think you ended up in a sticky situation. If it provides any encouragement, there were elements of your close that I did like. For example the last paragraph requires deeper thought about the RfC question than just counting numbers to realise that particular nuance. I imagine many closers wouldn't have mentioned it (but it should be). So it seems like you're not stuck on solely counting numbers, at least, which I think means you'd be good at closing discussions some time in the future. For comparison, I think when I was around your activity level I was active in TfD holding discussions but hadn't really closed a TfD, so closing a 120 editor participation RfC is really jumping into the deep end! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the civility. Re my close, my rationale on Yes rather than No Consensus was that those who chose Wait largely had already “finished” waiting for the greater verifiable source material to arrive. The close should take that into account rather than statically organizing them with the No’s. Otherwise duplicating the RfC on the basis of new info would likely occur. In that regard for a contentious subject like this, it probably would have been more productive to decide how and where to characterize the event within the article if the question was answered piecemeal (e.g. RfC #1 Is it terrorism? Yes?; RfC #2 Should the lead state ‘...the event was X, Y, Z, and an act of domestic terrorism’?). That way the question of agreeing it is terrorism is already established (or not) and comments on the context of where to say that stay focused on the actual question of phrasing.

Anyways, I was hoping this kind of discussion would have been properly fleshed out via a more structured closure challenge. Oh well, no ill will about it all, I appreciate the positive message. Best of luck over there! HiddenLemon // talk 17:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'd guessed that was your reasoning. Some of the wait votes were qualified (not unless conviction, not unless RS' converge on a descriptor, being some common ones), so I presumed you believed those qualifications were met. Hence my question for the sources from the discussion, in the first instance, in case I'd missed something. Personally, from my read, I couldn't really see those wait comments being qualified satisfactorily by supporters. Usually when current events RfCs happen like this and new information comes out, a switch in the trend of votes happens (so, say, a wall of yes votes based on current sources). Changes like that during an RfC do weigh in on the close. But, as I say, I don't think that really happened here. Nor were those qualifications met in general, I think.

Two phase RfCs, as you describe, can sometimes work too (deciding on a more abstract notion, and then applying that to article texts via the normal editing process, BRD -> dispute resolution). But I don't think that quite works here. Labelling individuals as terrorists vs adding it to the methods in the infobox vs adding it to the opening sentence are all very different propositions, with very different policies to be considered (eg BLPCRIME may take a larger role in the former case). Some may be highly supported and others not. It's better for an RfC like this to be clear on what it's proposing, and for participants to have something tangible to analyse, otherwise it's just a barrage of opinions and feelings.
In my view, this RfC had too many critical flaws (some of which I describe in my close) to even be described as a consensus even if the numbers were better than they were. There's a little bit about fatally flawed RfCs at Wikipedia:Advice_on_closing_discussions#Common_results (a great page to read in general I think). It's often still possible to evaluate editors' thoughts, but in this RfC many were quite literally opinions. Honestly, I think this RfC was just poorly timed for when emotions were still quite high, and that reflected in the discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment on the nature of the RfC itself, though my view of the outcome of consensus may have differed. Thanks for the link too, I’ll check that out. Again, I appreciate the civility and openness to discussion. HiddenLemon // talk 22:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Closing

Hello! I was considering having a second look at your closing. Alot of of the Wait votes were really early on. I just don't know if I really agree with the logic of using that for no consensus. I see a decent consensus to use the term. Thoughts? Casprings (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

See section above for my comments (I don't believe the wait votes were accordingly qualified). Besides, the rate of growth of both the "no" and "yes" sections continued roughly the same at later periods in the RfC, and most of the yes votes were also early on. And even if the numbers were different, given that it's such a flawed RfC (paragraph 2 of the close) there's no substantive consensus that could be determined and it would only lead to confusion (as the previous close did). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Biden

Howdy. We don't do it like that in the infobox. If you're going to put in chairmanships, you do so in a separate title. You don't mix it up with the US Senate tenure. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I reverted simply because I gathered from the edit summary you didn't notice what it was outputting. No objection from me if you're intentionally removing it because you think it's poor form. The consensus of Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_14#RfC_on_the_infobox_length was to not have it in separate titles, so I think a valid step forward is either applying the current diff I did (which I proposed in the RfC) or removing them entirely. I don't really mind which of these two options is done, as long as it's not a separate title. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't think it looks so bad under the senate heading. I mean, his chairmanships are a subset of his actual senate tenure (can't chair a committee unless you're a senator). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
What you put in, makes it look as though Biden was the chairman of those committees during the entirety of his Senate tenure. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. To my eye I'm not sure it's likely to cause misconception, but I don't feel too strongly about it either way and it's certainly worth getting some more perspective on it. Should we copy this over to Talk:Joe Biden for more input? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I had to make adjustment there. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Works for me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Nature source

You have made a procedural error by reverting the material here. A disagreement has arisen over the bold removal of that sentence; therefore, the bold removal was reverted and the discussion went to the talk page. It's best for productive editing to follow BRD. If you could revert that edit, that would be appreciated. Let's make Wikipedia a fun and productive environment. It's great to meet you. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I've just looked for the long-standing consensus text in Special:Permalink/998539912 and preceding revisions, up to Special:Permalink/953874110. It says: Scientists such as U.S. molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright, who had expressed concern of previous escapes of the SARS virus at Chinese laboratories in Beijing and had been troubled by the pace and scale of China's plans for expansion into BSL–4 laboratories,[2] called the Institute a "world-class research institution that does world-class research in virology and immunology" while he noted that the WIV is a world leader in the study of bat coronaviruses.[11] I'm happy to revert to this consensus text, preceding all recent bold edits to change it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Procrastinating Reader, I saw your response to my paragraph in Talk at "Covid 19 misinformation" article, and I'd like to understand a little better. Leo Brennan (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Procrastinating Reader, I saw your response to my paragraph in Talk at "Covid 19 misinformation" article, and I'd like to understand a little better.

I'm surprised that you think there is no point in referring to pre-prints. Is there some history behind that view? I'm new to all this.

Re the other things you listed, I wasn't aware I was doing any of them, and indeed I hope I was in fact not doing any of them.

But willing to engage in civil exchange, if that is just my ignorance .. yours cordially Leo Brennan (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Preprints aren't peer reviewed and aren't acceptable sources on COVID. Anyone can write some nonsense and upload it to a preprint server. This restriction is also part of the COVID general sanctions, see [6], and WP:MEDRS may be worth a read to see an overview of better sources for such claims. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

OK I will look at the Covid general sanctions, I had not done that so far. But I feel sceptical of your comment "anyone can write nonsense and upload it" - the authors of the Cornell pre-print aren't "anyone", they include e.g. JJ Couey, a professor at a leading university; and the Cornell paper isn't "nonsense", as you can see if you glance at it. So I feel your comment is a bit like a "straw man" argument?

Also your initial comment suggested I was "misrepresenting sources", but I assure you I was posting in good faith and not seeking to mis-represent any source - was there a source in particular that you had in mind that you thought I had mis-represented?

Re the 2 links in your initial comment, the first was to a Washington Post news item of 29th Jan which I had not previously seen, so thanks for that. It includes a quote from Dr Ebright that seems to run counter to his inclusion in the Telegraph list, but I would suggest solution to that is to say something like "Dr Ebright has said X [source: Washington Post], though he has also said Y [source: Daily Telegraph], rather than prioritising one over the other. Would you agree?

Re your final link, to a BBC news story yesterday about WHO's Wuhan press conference, I would humbly suggests that is some way from amounting to showing that I am "ignoring science" (a bit of a sweeping statement imho! :-) ).

So, in summary, the Cornell paper was a pre-print yes but it has reputable authors; Dr Ebright can be quoted on both sides of the argument, but we can easily do so; and the BBC has reported a WHO press conference that says a lab leak is "highly unlikely", but that needn't mean that an article about the lab leak hypothesis constitutes "mis-information".

Are we edging closer to a common view point perhaps? Cheers - Leo Brennan (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

PS: have had a look at the general sanctions as you helpfully advised, I can now see the guidance is that pre-prints "should" not be used as references, which imho is quite a high standard! But I've had a look at the "lab leak hypothesis" article that started this off, as Bill Bostickson had archived it earlier & has published the link to that archived version on Twitter; I can see that that article does cite plenty of peer-reviewed papers - indeed the peer-reviewed papers are a central part of its argument; so am still puzzled as to why Wiki editors wanted to replace it by a re-direction to the "misinformation" article. Even before it was replaced, people were editing it in a way that seemed to me to be over-reaching, e.g. saying that the hypothesis was "discredited" by critics: I agree it has been "attacked" by critics, but to say it is "discredited" seems a value-judgment too far? Better get on with rest of today's chores now ...Leo Brennan (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi there. I have been following discussions at articles related to COVID-19 and I agree with your assessment of Arcturus' behaviour. Most admins, however, won't be that familiar with the goings-on there. In fact, those that are would likely be WP:INVOLVED. So I think you'll need to add some concrete evidence at AN/I – diffs etc. – if you want anything to come of your report. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: Yeah, you're right. I guess I'm a bit tired by the situation myself and don't currently have the time/energy to collate all the evidence currently, and present the situation succinctly as a conduct issue. Partially also because I'm low on hope that anything will come of it. Hence the somewhat driveby comment. Perhaps Alexbrn will have an interest in collating evidence. c.f. topic @ AN, and editor discussion @ ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. AN may be a step forward. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: I have to say I had the same thought. The problem has been long-term over several articles and the evidence is more of a pattern rather than one or two slam-dunk damning edits. Thus assembling the evidence would be a huge amount of work, and the effort to understand it is such, that the community has a good chance of not appreciating it. In the old days we had WP:RFC/U, which might have been an appropriate forum, but now there is no venue for discussing user behaviour short of a full ANI posting. Anyway, for now, I'm just hoping enough WP:ROPE plays out that an admin is going to notice at some point that action is required. Alexbrn (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: I think valereee and Wugapodes's comments on the threads are encouraging. If you (or someone you know, if there's particular people to ping in) can even paint half a picture I'm happy to pick up some of the slack and fill in the blanks from my memory. I withdrew from much of this crap quite quickly, with despair at my time being wasted, so I wouldn't be best placed to start. Alternatively, there could be enough support for a CBAN, rather than a GS TBAN, since skimming over archives I see a lot of different community members engaging once-off in frustration, but given the experience with SS it could be overly optimistic.
@admins: If you can be bothered to skim walls of text, I'd start at the talk pages of the pages linked @ AN (eg Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology), and their most recent archives. This isn't complete (since some of it is also forked discussions on noticeboards), but hopefully sufficient to demonstrate the problems. I can link single diffs of portions like this but I feel like it's quite hard to present POV/competence issues in a few out-of-context diffs. So I'm not sure there's a shortcut to appropriately presenting the issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
To add, I suspect the least invasive method, and most acceptable, is the sourcing restriction requiring MEDRS sources for [disputed] claims relating to [the origins of] the coronavirus. I wonder if that'll reduce issues, or at make talk page discussion manageable. For example, it would fix the entire "MEDRS again" section at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is currently over 50% of the talk page, and also split off into the further sections. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
And at least some comments are borderline Sinophobia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Mistake undo

I made a mistake and didn’t mean to undo that, sorry. Terasail II[✉] 02:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the note. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You have to be joking?

Given the way I've been treated since I started here you have the audacity to warn me? The toxic mansplaining is constant and I think FDW88 is geniunely on the verge of being an incel if he isn't already given his behaviour. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

These are just even more personal attack on another editor. Just a warning that this conduct will get you blocked, and if an admin saw it you'd probably be blocked already. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually, now at ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

EFR Backlog

Just a suggestion, but maybe click here? You're obviously qualified. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. Though, it's usually less work to just yell at other people to do something ;). I guess also it comes across as slightly self-interested, given my past voiced concerns on EFH gatekeeping (which I do honestly think is an issue, and I think the key to any backlog is to be more welcoming to people who can operate in them, or has the competence to be able to learn how to do so).
As an aside, you come up as one of the top % accuracy reporters at AIV in enterprisey's tool (see this proposal and data). You should take up this - wiki would be better off for it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

notice of noticeboard notice of noticeboard notice

AN rules say I should tell you that I mentioned you on AN, advertising your EFM discussion, no reply is needed at AN. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The quacking at the minsinformation page

Obvious, but unsure if JustStalin (caught before) or ScrupulousScribe (also needs a new account to email anyway), or someone else, so SPI seems quite useless as usual... —PaleoNeonate – 13:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the duck-like features and two most likely candidates. I think the dates are interesting, of the registration and first edit, compared to the block log. Maybe there's enough for a CU comparison. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
My Spidey Sense is definitely tingling. Mind you, surely nobody is daft enough to sock an account named ScrupulousScribe (SS) with one called TacticalTweaker (TT) ?! One thing to be aware of is that during these fringe "flare ups" there have sometimes been long-past users with long-held grudges who start participating mischievously merely with the intention of amping up the drama. Alexbrn (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The only infinite thing in the universe is human daftness (to not use the s word; you get the quote). The fact is, sadly, despite best efforts to the contrary, that the only way this is probably going to end is with A) mass block evasion (if this is not already the case); including copious amounts of Idonthearitis; or B) COVID ending (and even then, will take some time until all the nonsense calms down). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes that happens too, —PaleoNeonate – 16:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Both ScrupulousScribe and TacticalTweaker blocked indefinitely for socking. Quack-quack! El_C 14:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

User:El_C Shouldn't you have also removed email for Special:Contributions/TacticalTweaker, if they're a sock of SS? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done. El_C 18:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19

I don't normally have AN on my watchlist, but today I spotted a thread from last week where you raised issues about behaviour concerning the lab leak COVID conspiracy theory. Leave aside our disagreements about templates, I genuinely am more than willing to take admin action, including adding page-specific sanctions, where necessary to protect the articles. Please feel free to ping me directly or drop a note on my talk page if you encounter substandard editing behaviour on any of the COVID-19 articles – unfortunately, there are just too many for me to keep them all watchlisted – and I'll do my very best to resolve the problems. --RexxS (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

words and acts

The tedious reduction of the opera sidebars develops nicely. - I won't go to the arbcase request because I seem to have at least one language difficulty. To me, "inept" is a factual description (in German: unfähig), describing a lack of ability to deal with a certain situation, nothing personal and general. - I am more concerned with incivility in actions than in words, and perhaps you can offer a solution for the problem described in User talk:Gerda Arendt#spirale. (I can't talk to the user in question - normally my first approach - because I am banned from their talk.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed! looks like the opera template issue may finally be over soon :) I agree with you on incivility in actions than in words. I don't personally think single acts of frustration mean much other than, well, that someone is human. On the issue you link, going off your description of the issue, at least in my personal opinion I think those are difficult cases. I mean, generally (no IBAN) that is all acceptable and even encouraged (per WP:OWN etc), and my understanding of the main point of IBANs is first-and-foremost to prevent a conflict between two editors spilling into disruption, but not necessarily to prevent the parties from feeling annoyed at the other. Still, the way I see the spirit of an IBAN is to avoid interactions like that. If it were me personally I probably wouldn't have done it, but I'm sure it was in good faith to improve the article.
More generally, sometimes just because one can do something per policy and that singular action improves the encyclopaedia, doesn't always mean one should imo -- sometimes the knock-off effects are just not worth it. But there's also the principle that what matters most is what we output, and what improves the encyclopaedia for its readers. I haven't been able to fully reconcile these two thoughts of mine, yet. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I was out, it was refreshing. I concur that the encyclopedia is our main point. I don't know what "I'm sure it was in good faith to improve the article." means. He tagged "the article" for removing that section, and made a new one based on it. The conflict between the two editors is old. There was no reason to begin the new article now, and no reason to take the material (56+k of prose, images and references) at all, and subject it to a different design. The editor could have made a really new article and linked to the other, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt, FWIW, it wasn't the inept comment itself that was so problematic. We all occasionally lose our temper and say something we wish we hadn't. It was completely refusing to even respond to me when I posted to his talk the next day. If he'd just eventually bothered to respond and said something like, "Yeah, you're right, that was uncalled for, I apologize," I probably wouldn't even remember the incident. But then six months later I had a similar interaction...this time he accused of me partisanship, and when I asked for an explanation -- three times -- again no response. And even then I just let it go. So at any rate, it wasn't the words. It was the actions. —valereee (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I was out, it was refreshing. valereee, please read again: I may have language difficulties, - that made me stop and not even look further, at an early point. I have no time for 13 diffs. The other problem troubles me much much more, and my time is limited. I have known RexxS for nine good years, and never had a problem, and was worried when he came down with COVID-19. I like you, and don't like to see conflict between you and him, but really have no time to dig deeper. I had a good conversation with Hammersoft about it, in case of interest. - Any help with what troubles me? - I reduced DYK noms, thinking of you, did you notice? But right now, I am behind for 3 due today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Gerda, don't reduce DYK noms on my behalf! I hope you nom everything you create that has a good hook. I'm so happy to have so many new people helping with preps, which had become a crisis when Yoninah went MIA. I'm glad you got out! Our weather's finally breaking here, it's been near zero for a couple of weeks, and it's finally getting back closer to normal for this time of year. —valereee (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Personally, valereee, since the case filing I'm a bit annoyed at being compared to two ArbCom-banned editors and continued accusations in the next comment of me trying to intentionally deceive the community. I agree that in this case it was the actions that made me file the arbitration request. The normal & WP:AGF thing to do, if one believes they're right, is to open a WP:DRV requesting the close be overturned due to alleged procedural issues. Instead, the idea that admins can repetitively, in content disputes, threaten to themselves sanction editors unilaterally, or intimidate by threatening to propose such, is to me not right. In my eyes, admin intimidation can be as much an abuse of position as taking the technical actions. Perhaps myself or especially EEng won't be discouraged, but a newer editor might. Nobody really commented on diff 9 against Fylindfotberserk, but that was also beyond the pale: it's quite normal to request clarification, or generate consensus, on parameter usage in templates, and the editor was referred to do so by another admin. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
and especially EEng – Yes, beat me, spank me, make me write bad checks. I can take it. EEng 19:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Much of what I said to valereee applies to this as well. I didn't compare and accuse (I hope!), just noticed early that it was beyond what I could handle at this time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
PR, I understand. It sucks to feel like your motivations are being questioned. I don't know anything about template editing (I'm sure that's a shock) so I can't provide a sounding board, but in general in such cases what I would say is: if the people who are criticizing you are generally well-intentioned, experienced editors, try to take the criticism onboard. Feedback is a gift, even when it smarts (and if it smarts, maybe set it aside for a week or so and evaluate after it's stopped smarting <g>). Sometimes the people who will say these things are giving you the most valuable input. I hope that's helpful rather than otherwise. :) </g>—valereee (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I dunno, val, being compared to two ArbCom-banned editors and accused by an admin who I filed a case against doesn't really create the conditions for advice. Though, the lesson here may be that the template issue portion needs to go to the community via RfC, and that the TfD consensus was insufficient. The issue may also be that my explanation of the COVID portion at TfD came across as less clear to some readers than it did in my mind when I wrote it (which happens in written communication; asking questions or WP:DRV is the solution). But to say that the intent was deception? I don't subscribe to that. At the very least I know what my intentions are and at no point were they to deceive anyone. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Just an update: the above-mentioned situation found someone who approached the user on their talk, - you don't have to consider to help. More on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I see. Usual wise words from Hammersoft! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Community general sanctions

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, what do you think about working together to draft a community general sanctions regime (Wikipedia:Community general sanctions perhaps) similar to ArbCom's discretionary sanctions (obviously with adjustments to make it community based)? Once we've got a working draft we can look to doing an RfC to replace all of the current ones (the GS subpages) with a single system? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this Callanecc!! This whole thing has bugged me for a while, but I've rarely managed to convince someone to take an interest in this mess. Various people have different interpretations of what is and isn't the reality, and I think this confusion is bad for transparency/clarity. Whereas the practical impacts tend to be minimal in a principles based approach, things like the current WP:AN case show that this can occasionally cause practical issues.
When I've previously considered creating an "official community regime" of sorts, like WP:AC/DS, I've had these main concerns:
  1. I do not think the community is able to manage a full discretionary sanctions regime. Unlike any clear policy page, I think DS is really just a [complex] set of procedures allowing an undefined set of actions, whose 'correctness' is only determined on appeal, which makes it rather unique to any other PAG which is more concerned on principles. ArbCom often offers clarifications or amendments to WP:AC/DS (eg 2018 ARCA clarifications on awareness/page restrictions, 2013 DS review, etc), but the community fails at reviewing the system - I'm not sure if it ever has? Partially, I think, because community DS is less consequential than WP:AC/DS (ArbCom takes over the larger dispute areas, so GS is left with the smaller ones; only so many pages fall in scope), and partially because getting consensus on AN for such a complex regime is difficult or results in insufficient participation, verses having 15 arbs decide one way or another ('right or wrong', at least there will always be a clear and decisive outcome). Anyway, with a separate page such changes/clarifications wouldn't propagate to this new system automatically. I think it's important to 'stay in sync' with ArbCom than accidentally create forked sanctions regimes, which will be confusing for admins and editors alike if certain DS/GS actions are legitimate and others aren't: imagine trying to explain this to the avg sanctioned editor lol
  2. The easiest solutions to (1) that I could think of are:
    1. Create a new page and transclude WP:AC/DS, showing that full page, with certain text replacements for the differences. This stays in sync, while changing the differences (eg the venues for appeal). Downside: in a full page, it won't be immediately obvious to admins which parts are different if most of the page is repetition. Especially given the relatively low volume of GS-affected pages, I don't think it's feasible to even create the expectation that there is much different about the "two systems". I think this will just lead to confusion and less usage of GS.
    2. Simply saying on WP:GS/elsewhere that the formal regime is (something like): "WP:AC/DS applies, except that the venue for appeal is WP:AN, a different set of templates should be used, and GS cannot be used for page deletion". Then, remove the "Remedies" from the subpages (heck, in my opinion redirect all the subpages to a central WP:CGS_LOG like WP:AELOG, since the only useful purpose of the subpages nowadays is sanction logging, with notifications being automated. This fixes the problem permanently, and a single log is more convenient anyway).
    3. Expecting the community to, at AN, pass regular amendments like "the community approves ArbCom's motion/clarification/whatever". Realistically, I think we'll probably forget to keep doing this in a year time tops. It's also slightly bureaucratic.
I feel like my preference is trending towards something like #2 as the simplest option, but I'm open to any, and any other ideas too of course. I actually think your rewrite last month of WP:GS#DS summarises the status quo very well and in plain English (better than I imagined my own rewrite reading, in fact). It's also not overly complicated or verbose, and inherently stays in sync with WP:AC/DS. So maybe some kind of variation of that is an option to get consensus on, potentially on a new page which can explicitly be designated as a 'policy page'?
All the above are just some broken thoughts. What do you think is the best way forward? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I think #2 is pretty much what we need. Basically, a new sub-section policy at the top of WP:GS which effectively says that community general sanctions are exactly the same as AC/DS except the dot points at WP:GS#Discretionary sanctions. I agree that a central log is a good idea (WP:Community general sanctions log/WP:GSLOG?). To do this, I think we would need an RfC to:
  • authorise a community version of discretionary sanctions which is the same as the ArbCom one but with the exceptions dot points currently at WP:GS#Discretionary sanctions
  • convert all existing community discretionary/general sanctions to the new version
  • create a central log similar to WP:DSLOG and hence move any current sanctions (from the subpages) to there.
Thoughts? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan Callanecc. w.r.t. bullet #1: maybe make it (just the community DS part) on a new, separate page, then turn that into a policy page and transclude it into WP:GS? A bit like how AC/DS is transcluded into ArbCom's procedures page. Just a bit clearer than having an info page with a sub-section policy tag imo.
Whilst we're at it, may be worth thinking over some of the disadvantages of community-authorised DS (compared to ArbCom DS, in terms of outcomes) and see if there's possible fixes that can be bundled into the RfC? One key reason it's inferior may be that ANI is an inferior forum to AE? Another perhaps that community-authorised DS is less well known than ArbCom authorised DS.
On a smaller note, maybe it's worth addressing the semantic issue? Somehow, over the years, it seems community-authorised DS has become just "GS". Though maybe it's ingrained enough to stick with it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, a new page for clarity is probably good idea.
Maybe the disadvantages are something that El C and EdJohnston might have some ideas about. We've also discussed something similar before.
I guess the benefit of "community discretionary sanctions" brings the idea that suggests it's the same as the ArbCom one just a community version. General sanctions suggests it's a different things, it also has the downside that WP:GS is an overall term. I don't really mind either way to be honest. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Callanecc: looks like there's something on VPI about the broader issue. Maybe just worth leaving it for later?
If so, and if we still want to press ahead with this, could you do a first draft of some Wikipedia:Community general sanctions or similarly named & I can make changes? I think your policy-writing skills are probably better than mine. For the RfC itself I think the 3 bullets you wrote above hit the nail on the head. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Callanecc: Quick draft: User:ProcrastinatingReader/sandbox10. Thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Query

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader,

On a recent ANI discussion, you reported on the successful reporting rate at AIV and one editor in particular. Where do you find these kinds of stats? I know that there is a tool for reporting editor's voting record at AFDs but I didn't know there was any way to analyze successful reports on a noticeboard. I'd appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The raw data is from User:Enterprisey/AIV analysis. You can download those files and analyse them, but I just got the user results from enterprisey. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, PR. Much appreciated. And the G13 soon category is filling up regularly now, thanks for any help you did with that. Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Re this. I spend all my editing time improving articles for readers, and I do not appreciate you suggesting that I don't, even if you then delete your attack. Unsourced, unexplained changes are not and cannot be an improvement, and your zeal in defending this editor who makes them is quite incomprehensible. Andesitic (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

They're making correct edits in compliance with policy, have accordingly been judged to be doing so by AN/ANI, and their changes are correct. You reverted them, eg Special:Diff/1009126991[7], which makes the encyclopaedia worse for readers. You then chose to go through their contribs and indiscriminately undo more of their recent correct encyclopaedia-improving edits, on the basis that they don't have edit summaries and are marked as minor. You then chose to edit-war on a message added by an admin, Nyttend, when they unblocked claiming that it's "incorrect", which is false. What you're doing is disruptive and WP:HOUNDING, which is harassment. I retracted the message anyway before you posted, mostly because I don't think it adds much more. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
They are not "making correct edits in compliance with policy"; they are making edits in direct violation of core policy. They are not willing to communicate, which means that they cannot be part of any consensus, which is also a policy. Your personal attacks in the service of a disruptive editor are again noted. Andesitic (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack to say you're hounding an editor when you're doing exactly what WP:HOUNDING says. Please read WP:MINREF. Technically, you challenged the edits by undoing, but I doubt that counts because, well, tables usually don't contain cites anyway and didn't on the pages in the edits you reverted (although, in some, like Special:Diff/1009126991, the content was sourced to the given source [and accordingly you removed your unsourced comment in the edit summary, which just makes this an even more obvious case of WP:HOUNDING since it shows you don't really care for the content of the edits but the person making them]). Plus, you didn't really challenge the content but rather you dislike how the editor edits. You will note key parts of WP:V: Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. & If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. Please, do better and desist from doing what you're currently doing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Your continuing personal attacks and absurd allegations in the service of a disruptive editor are again noted. Andesitic (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Note away as it pleases you. Also note that if you keep following this editor's contribs and/or continue indiscriminately reverting them I will have to send this to ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Yet more personal attacks. Andesitic (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andesitic (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 04:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

There is evidence that valereee accepted an apology, and didn't support Teh Case any more. Could you perhaps restrict your "evidence" to what has happened to you, and leave her evidence to her? (... 'cause I am determined to not participate, and such things make it really hard to remain silent) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: You/someone can add evidence/analysis saying she accepted an apology. The evidence neutrally describes events and informs the Committee. As far as I'm aware, any editor may add any evidence even if they were not involved in the particular dispute (per the evidence rules), but am happy to retract should an arbitrator wish me to do so. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
There are days when I think I'm inept to be understood in English. I don't want to add evidence, per the advice of a friend ignore ignore ignore, and Hammersoft's wise: don't! I have articles to write, and my name is branded by the committee. The article to care about today is Uwe Pape, the person to remember Wolfgang Boettcher, the person to know Wilhelm Knabe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be good for you, or someone, to add supporting evidence where it exists. A one sided case is not good for anyone, Gerda. I'm limited by word count and imagine I'm naturally biased anyway, so I cannot do that myself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
spiral of justice, 1510
I normally stick to two comments, and just came to add the image. Making an exception: what is good for me is not for you to decide. Dealing with arbcom has been bad for my health, more than once, - I try to ignore ignore ignore this waste of time which will not improve kindness, nor any article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Allow me to rephrase: I meant it would be good for the case if someone (you or someone else) adds favourable evidence where it exists (ie replace ‘for’ with ‘if’). I wasn’t trying to say that it’s good for you particularly or your health. Sorry for any confusion in wording. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
You are right, it would be good for the case, and do you see that it makes the thing much much harder for me? Also rephrasing: what I said about waste of time, not improving kindness and articles goes for all of arbitration, not just this case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK

This was in memory of Jerome Kohl. I picked one in memory of RexxS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Koh Tao murders

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Koh Tao murders 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 Willbb234 -- Willbb234 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Another thing about the app

Can you check if the iOS app shows edit filter and spam blacklist messages? I have a sinking suspicion that it doesn't. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

My sock is happy to oblige. The edit filter says: "This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action" [it stops there, not me cutting it off]. A few issues with this, other than the message cutting off, and the issue that the user obviously won't know the abuse rule which their action [disallowed]. Namely, how on earth do you find an admin in this app?
The spam blacklist one is so long and reads like such a mess that I can't be bothered to type it out. It goes off my screen and has a lot of unparsed wikitext (such that you literally see [[Wikipedia:Spam blacklist|site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist]] (for example). Very long message that talks about URL shorteners and apparently is meant to be a list (judging by the amount of **s), but doesn't parse in the app. Totally useless message, basically. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! That's the default MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed, not our customized version (which links to WP:EF/FP). Which makes me wonder what happens with a custom warning. Can you try adding "Trafford Publishing" to Draft:Sandbox? That should display Mediawiki:Abusefilter-warning-selfpublished. Are the links clickable? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I can't add to Draft:Sandbox (non-article namespace links open in the mobile web browser, it seems, lol). I tried to add it to a mainspace page and it went through (Special:Diff/1009459510). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, the filter's been updated since I last checked. Try work=Trafford Publishing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It says: <abusefilter-warning-selfpublished> (literally, that's all). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
LOL. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
😂 ProcSock (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

And the Android app just told me (when it should have shown MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-selfpublished):

An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive. It may contain one or more of the following:

· Typing in all caps
· Blanking articles or spamming
· Irrelevant external links or images
· Repeating characters· Irrelevant external links or images

This looks to be hard-coded at https://github.com/wikimedia/apps-android-wikipedia/blob/master/app/src/main/res/values/strings.xml.

When it should have shown MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed, I got:

An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, or potential vandalism.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and only neutral, notable content belongs here.

Again hard-coded. And for the spam blacklist, I get the same unparsed wikitext you did. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

One weird thing about the iOS apps and Android app is that they're totally separate, and behaviour isn't mimicked on both platforms. It would've been smart to use something like React Native or Flutter to help with feature parity. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
We'll at least they're consistent when it come to blocks. See User talk:ToBeFree#Sock block requested. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I filed phab:T276139 and phab:T276142 for the Android issues. Can you file the equivalent iOS tasks? Also, see phab:T276149; I don't know how easy it would be for your to check if iOS has an equivalent issue, but I'm curious. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I have a feeling like iOS would have the same issue. I’ll test and file the relevant tasks when I can but it’ll probably be a few days. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: One thing re editnotices @ User:Suffusion of Yellow/Mobile communication bugs (which I think are very important to add). See meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Mobile and apps/Mobile editnotices. Various phab tasks for each platform I think, like T201595, T201596, T201597, T201613. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops, maybe I should have voted on that... But I don't see why we should have to beg once a year for bugs to be fixed. The community wishlist should really be to ask "Which shiny new things does the community actually want?" Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Over length evidence

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is over 1000 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Koh Tao murders

On 2 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Koh Tao murders, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the investigation into the Koh Tao murders and the subsequent trial were widely criticised by human-rights organisations, pathologists and legal experts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Koh Tao murders. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Koh Tao murders), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a good one, thank you. DYK that I nominated the TFA for today in memory of Brian Boulton? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda! Looking to get it to GA (see below). That's a nice article! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Good number of views for 2-a-days! —valereee (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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. Steve M (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

EFM Granted

Hello ProcrastinatingReader, per your successful request at WP:EFN, edit filter manager access has been granted to you. Please review the EFM policies before making any changes, especially related to the requirements for adding any disallowing filters. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 13:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks xaosflux! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations! I saw this and decided to clean up a script I've been selfishly hoarding locally for too long now. See User:Suffusion of Yellow/filternotes.js. I've got a few others ("show changes" and "test changes") I'll be cleaning up soon as well. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah, it’s amazing how quickly time flies ;). Will check out the script (speaking of scripts: first thing I’ve learned seems to be that the test interface seems kinda useless?) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Now for plug #2: User:Suffusion of Yellow/batchtest-plus.js, which allows testing against old filter hits, instead of recent changes. My workflow, since I stopped worrying about getting yelled at for sending hundreds of abusefiltercheckmatch API requests in a few minutes, is basically:
  1. Create a really broad filter, likely to get lots of FPs but few FNs (but don't go crazy and flood the log)
  2. Wait until it builds a few (or better yet, a few hundred) hits
  3. Create a more refined filter, and test it against the hits built up so far
  4. repeat steps 2 - 3 until I've eliminated most FPs
  5. set to warn/disallow
This is impossible (or at least hopelessly tedious) with the standard interface. I still sometimes use the standard /test as a sanity check before saving a filter, though. But when I'm messing around with layers of nested &s and |s, or doing something else I don't totally trust, I prefer to also set the filter to log-only for a few minutes at least. Knuth's old "I have only proved this correct, not tried it" comes to mind. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Installed that one - good plug! Your method is probably going to come in very helpful (probably worth documenting this somewhere, actually, perhaps at WP:EF?) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
While we're talking about scripts, enterprisey, User:Enterprisey/abusefilter-diff-check.js's "AbuseFilter test" button (from the more menu on a diff) doesn't seem to prefill the variables in the test interface. They're in the URL query but doesn't prefill anything. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Sidenote, Suffusion of Yellow, is there a trick for us to see deleted revisions? I know we can see revisions flagged as deny by a filter, but I suppose those aren't really deleted. I'm not sure what happens to log-only revisions that are deleted (guessing they stay visible)? What if a revision wasn't flagged by a filter at all? A couple of the EFRs seem to rely on deleted revisions for the filter request; just wondering if there's a way to actually see the content of those as well, via the filter logs (maybe the examine interface or something)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
If everything is working correctly, any time the edit saves successfully, the filter log entry is "tied" to a revision ID. This used to be very flaky, but seems to work most of the time now. If you can't see the revision, you can't see the log entry. I think the check is too aggressive at the moment, and even admins can't see log hits corresponding to revdelled entries, though that might be fixed soon. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. How do you write filters relating to issues where all the relevant revs are deleted, then? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Wait for an admin to get to it, or look for something that tripped a filter but didn't save. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Also any trick that allows you to see revdelled edits probably also works on oversighted ones, too, so should be reported as a security bug. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

special characters in URLs

In case it wasn't evident from the example given, special characters in URLs are URL-encoded. isaacl (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I noticed, but it didn't occur to me beforehand. Though, it probably should've... Interestingly, I also didn't know most browsers don't render sequences of spaces (e g) until Redrose64 mentioned it sometime last year. Always something new to learn :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm used to writing HTML by hand, so the collapsing of white space is no surprise. The exact handling of newlines and blank lines in wikitext is still a mystery to me. Sometimes a newline by itself is sufficient to trigger a new paragraph, but sometimes I need to enter two newlines (thus a blank line) to start a new paragraph. isaacl (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
That one trips me up a fair bit too. A bit less now thanks to the preview functionality in the reply tool (a single new line in here creates a new paragraph, or well a new indented line). Helpful tool to enable imo (need to add 
if ( $( '#ca-addsection' ).length ) mw.loader.using( 'ext.discussionTools.init' );
into your common.js) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Out of interest, what is the proper way to format lists where you have multiple paragraphs and start with a bullet? For example:

  • Comment #1
    • Reply #1
      • Reply #2
      Reply #2 continued
      Reply #2 continued

The above seems to be what BHG was doing (which seems to be the most intuitive method, but looking at the source I can see why it may be an issue)? In the continued reply comments obviously bullets on each part aren't desirable. I'm aware of the {{pb}} approach, which is what I think I used to try to use (before I started just using a reply script), but {{pb}} does make the wikitext much more of a mess to read. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Lists covers some different ways. The options are not great; it's a hole in the wikitext syntax.
Changing from a bulleted list to an unbulleted list (technically, it's not an unbulleted list, but it's what we have; you can read User:Isaacl/On wikitext list markup for details) isn't ideal but I think it's not too bad. A lot of people, though, seem to treat the colon as an indent/tab stop (in typewriter terms), and so do things like replace all of the characters with colons, and add on the character of their choice at the end. That can end up closing and opening a lot of nested lists. isaacl (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Koh Tao murders

The article Koh Tao murders you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Koh Tao murders 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 Willbb234 -- Willbb234 (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Annual readership & WikiEd

Two ideas, maybe this was discussed before (I really need to read through the previous deletion discussion...!) but (1) what do you think the community would think of converting the WikiEd template into an article milestones parameter? Considering that we include AFD there, I don't think there's any requirement for the milestone to be an upgrade/downgrade in status (e.g. FAC, GAN, FAR etc.). (2) I'm also considering bringing the {{Annual readership}} to TFD—I've never found any use for it other than clogging up the talk page. We already have page views in the article history which seems desirable as a more flexible and helpful system, thoughts? Aza24 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

On #1: I think we discussed folding various templates into article milestones here. SandyGeorgia said putting even vital articles into it would be a bad idea. Also, I think it'd be functionally more difficult to do (eg we can't have a milestone for every student editor).
On #2: I'm not actually sure what kinds of template reforms pass at TfD. It's usually a bit odd. In my experience, the nom usually doesn't pass but sometimes an alternate proposal does. But it still doesn't hurt to test the consensus, I suppose. If we're TfDing page view templates, there's also some template that is often embedded into talk pages that shows the views without a container, so they float left and it looks like a mess. Sorry, bad description, but maybe you know what I'm getting at? We should probably do something about that too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
On #1, please no :). Most students never even edit the articles, and they rarely improve them ... they are not a milestone in any sense, no one would do the actual adding to the milestones (since students rarely even know how to edit), and their entire utility is as a warning that experienced editors need to check the article, and not all experienced editors check the milestones. Once experienced editors have checked the student edits, those templates can be archived.
On #2, I would wildly support deleting the template and can see no use for it ... readership is available at articlehistory and doesn’t belong on talk.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I will abandon #1 then... on #2, PR & SandyGeorgia how does this sound as the nomination:
Banner blindness is a real thing ([8] [9]) and results in important information (arbitration notices, controversial warnings, talk header etc.) being overlooked or ignored. This page views template is a prime example of an unhelpful template that clutters the talk page. The information is already available in a more sophisticated, customizable and easier to use format at the top of the revision history page ([10]).
Should I explain the benefits of the pageviews website further? Also, I wonder what some of the arguments for keeping it would be? Aza24 (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I am not aware of arguments for keeping it ... doesn’t help readers, who rarely know what talk pages are, and editors do know where to find the pageviews in articlehistory, so they don’t need it. On the pageviews I need to check, I put them on m userpage (because whenever views spike it is usually because of some big news that I may need to work in to an article somewhere).[11]. I check them daily lest there is a new development ... so that is my customizable look, and I would not want to check on three different article talk pages. Also, just today, I had an issue with student editing where the template had been deleted and others did not realize it was student editing, probably also a COI. I am iPad typing and constrained by my computer being in repair, so please let me know if you nominate, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, I was just about to do a TFD with {{Decade readership}}, {{Page views double}}, {{Annual readership}} and {{Graph:PageViews}}, but the latter two are template protected. Since you have template editor rights, would you be able to help me set this up? Aza24 (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Lincoln

Missed you on IRC, but you asked about a good Lincoln book to read: my favorite read is definitely Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals". A little more hagiographic than some, but it does a superb job of putting Lincoln in context and examining the political landscape of the time, and the people around him. Definitely some lasting moral lessons from the book. And it was a fairly easy read I found; now I am a nerd, but it was a page turner for me. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks CaptainEek! GeneralNotability also recommended the same. Looks interesting; have ordered a copy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion

Regarding this edit: maybe we can discuss it elsewhere? It's not workshop discussion of the finding nor analysis of evidence. I've written previously about how the limitations of wikitext and talk page conventions kind of suck, but I don't think the arbitration committee needs to hear about it. isaacl (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Moved it to talk, because it does seem to stray a bit far from the point, but it may be tangentially relevant for the arbs in that (a) he'd fixed several comments himself prior to the edit war and (b) others were making the same errors in the discussion. Point (a) might make the situation look slightly better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I had mentioned it in my analysis, but after having to go through a painstaking process to collect and double-check the diffs for the sequence of edits I presented, I didn't want to do any more diff-hunting at that time. I didn't track down other examples of problematic list nesting in that discussion, but as a discussion grows larger, it becomes almost inevitable that there will be some. isaacl (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Ironically, the conversation following Bishonen's comment at the very bottom of this section also makes the same error. As I say, talk pages seem hopeless. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
On diff collection, try User:Evad37/TimestampDiffs.js (or my fork of it). Makes the process much easier by making the timestamps link to the diff. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Not sure how well that would work with an edit war, though... I used the interactive diff browser at the top of the diff page, but it's a bit of work to get the URL of the diff. Then I had to double-check all of the diffs and verify they were in the correct chronological order.
Hmm, must have missed the list issues after Bishonen's comment; I generally fix the nesting levels where feasible. For example, Littleolive oil interjected a comment that can't be fixed without actually changing the visual display. isaacl (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I just wrote a couple of user talk page notes regarding the conventions for discussion thread formatting, but I almost never do it, because the payoff-to-effort ratio is usually poor. (I wrote them this time as the situation seemed to make it more promising.) It takes time to explain the details, most editors aren't all that receptive to unsolicited advice (frankly including me, in a number of circumstances), and some just want to keep doing what they have been doing and see others do. isaacl (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

Your DYK hook about the Koh Tao murders drew 7,127 page views (594 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#March 2021. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

topics for which discretionary sanctions have been authorized

Regarding this edit: I suggest perhaps you would consider saying something like "the number of articles on the former perhaps don't add up to much"? As it is, it sounds like you're passing judgment on the articles themselves. isaacl (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to refer to (relative) quantity. I'll amend to make it clear. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Just realized I should have suggested "numbers of articles" so there's something to add, but I see you've amended your statement already... isaacl (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Proud Boys RfC

Hey, would you be able to close the other RfC at Talk:Proud Boys as well? It seems the RfC template has expired now. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested

Casting of ass
Persians[1]

Hey ProcrastinatingReader, I thought I might share this, this, and this for your interest. Take care. Tortetate (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thanks. Not much I can do about it, as it appears unlikely arbitrators, administrators or the community is going to do anything about these repeated personal attacks. So I guess they go unchallenged. It's so unfortunate that the cost of filing an arbitration case against an admin who threatened me with tool misuse in the middle of a standard content dispute and cast a bunch of aspersions, is having to accept blatant harassment from editors and administrators (!) who happen to be friends of that party. All the while folks think a dozen WP:ADMIN violations, including bad blocks against dozens of accounts, are not a problem. It's discouraging, really. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Redrose64 as the author of this comment, Kudpung as the author of this comment, and Ched as the author of this comment, in the interest of full transparency. 72.200.44.153 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  • @Kudpung: given that multiple users on your talk page have apparently decided that ProcrastinatingReader is a sockpuppet (whose?) and intend to take some kind of action against him, I think he's right to wonder at just what the hell is going on over there. That thread doesn't reflect well on its participants, as it stands right now. Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between "sockpuppet", "block evasion", and "fresh start". If you suspect this person is currently using multiple accounts, please go to SPI. If you suspect this person previously has been banned or sanctioned and cannot fresh-start, please go to ARBCOM (privately). Otherwise, I encourage people to keep their opinions to themselves. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • PR, chill, neither you nor anyone else knows what is discussed in emails unless the Arbcom has contacted you with information someone (definitely not me) has sent to the Committee, and as you are well aware, there is no rule against users contacting each other off-Wiki - you do send plenty of unsolicited emails yourself. Emails are normally kept strictly confidential, and as you correctly observed, nobody has taken anything to a noticeboard, and I don't see any intent to take action. but there's usually no smoke without a fire and there seems to be much more to it than meets the eye. However, I'm sure people will issue the correct apologies if it turns out they are wrong. I'll just point out however, that simply doing my investigative job as an admin got me desysoped (and pissed me off with Arbcom and case contributors) and I think that's why Redrose64, Ched, and Primefac had been exercising caution. Now please leave me out of it, I'm not an admin, and now that the issue of my friend RexxS is closed, I'm going back to retirement, and if you would like chapter and verse, please ask the others - who incidentally appear to be (if you have the gadget installed) either admins, bureaucrats, and/or arbcom members; they know more about it and I don't want or need to be made the scapegoat for this. FYI: 力, Mackensen, Primefac, Redrose64, Barkeep49, Beeblebrox, Moneytrees, GeneralNotability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    This isn't about whatever you've been doing off-wiki. It's about the on-wiki evidence-free aspersion-casting, by yourself and and others, all of whom should know better. Do y'all just expect to lob your little bomb and walk away? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
"Chill"? Can we just take a break from this please? Haven't the last few months been horrible enough? Instead of endlessly blackballing and politicking, why don't we take a deep breath and contribute to the 'pedia instead? Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 05:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
What Suffusion of Yellow said. Also I'm not sure what you're getting at with my email usage. Other than one yesterday, the last time I used the "Email a User" functionality was mid-Feb, over a month ago, and my lifetime usage is only to a handful of unique individuals. So haven't a clue how exactly this 'raises comment' regarding sockpuppetry. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, the originator of this thread is known for joejobbing. And then there was this recent attempt at email forgery. I would urge anyone who has received an email from "ProcrastinatingReader" to very carefully check the headers. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, please forgive me for venting on your TP, but some of the content from Kudpung here incenses me and in the interest of balance needs to be challenged. He has spent the last 12 months bemoaning the fact that he is no longer an Admin., fomenting negativity about the role of Arbcom and certain former members of it, and being an habitual grumbler about everything (except the protected species of Admin). He has now swiftly closed down his TP thread in a vain attempt to distance himself from the furore it is now causing. In his section above, 2 outrageous distortions of the facts, I would caution against regarding these standard observations as personal attacks and/or harassment. These are NOT "standard observations". Also, oh the irony, he frequently used this technique to curtail discussions about his own behaviour and construed PA against him in even the most innocent remarks. Second, I'll just point out however, that simply doing my investigative job as an admin got me desysoped. No. Kudpung was correctly separated from his prided official authority for reasons fully set out in the case [13]. In summary: making remarks towards other editors that could be interpreted as personal attacks. In disputes with other editors, making threats of retaliation. Failing to assume good faith regarding unidentified swaths of the community. Threatening or appearing to threaten specific users and reacting in a wholly inappropriate and bizarre manner when simply requested by a female editor to refer to her by her WP identity rather than her first name. These are the established facts, not the innocent caught with his hand in the cookie jar version. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I wonder if Kudpung can see the irony that, having spent his final admin years bemoaning a (possibly fictional) anti-admin brigade, he has, as a non-admin, become a (very vocal) anti-arbcom brigader... what's that saying about becoming the thing you despise? ——Serial 10:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • A belated note that I think you handled yourself very admirably in the case. It's not easy to call out well-connected editors, and I wish a blind eye weren't turned to the type of attacks and aspersions you experienced, but unfortunately that's the way it is right now. You did a good thing and I hope it will be another step towards improving the culture around here so that it won't be in the future. The perpetually-outraged crowd will continue to be perpetually outraged no matter what you do; just ignore them. – Joe (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ An oldie but goodie.

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the featured, good, and article assessment icons. Pbrks (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia accounts|collapsed

Hi. Regarding this revert, did you plan on putting that template up for deletion since you believe it fails NAVBOX? Also, that seems like a pretty outrageous standard for any NAVBOX with a huge number of links in it to mention the subject of the NAVBOX in every single linked article in the NAVBOX. That part of the guideline should probably be changed. The other four guidelines seem well reasoned, but that one is just ridiculous. I think just about every NAVBOX with a large number of links in it would fail with a standard like that including the other two remaining NAVBOX's on that page... Huggums537 (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I meant that Wikipedia:Bots isn't linked in that template, which means its placement on that page fails WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (not WP:NAVBOX #2; my bad). The bot link instead links to the Wikipedia:Bot policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I see. The revert makes sense, but don't you still agree there is a problem with that NAVBOX #2 thing now that I've brought it up? Huggums537 (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Maybe... Though, NAVBOX #2 usually helps keeps navboxes under control and navboxes that have too much going on have little navigational value for readers. I feel like {{Wikipedia accounts}} is such an example (but a mild, not egregious, one), it covers so many things and has too much going on, with links to essays and whatnot scattered within too. The most bloated navboxes usually get TfD'd. You can definitely have large infoboxes that still meet NAVBOX #2 (such as {{Barack Obama}}). There's probably some that don't meet it but are still good navboxes, but more often than not I feel like the problem is that the navbox doesn't know what it's trying to cover and isn't properly curated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, on a personal note, I hope you weren't offended by any of my comments at the Village Pump. I realize I might have come off the wrong way, and didn't mean to. Huggums537 (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
It's fine, people disagree on things. For what it's worth, the answer to your first comment is the second comment (too many options can turn an RfC into a WP:TRAINWRECK). I felt your option 4 (and others' potential option 4s) is part of option 3 (removing the text entirely and reverting to whatever one feels the status quo is). Three options is still closable as the closer can split it up into two binary questions: is there consensus to totally limit block reviews (yes [option 1]; no [option 2 or 3]). If no, then which of option 2 or 3 most closely represented consensus? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I gotta admit I'm partial to those who think in terms of binary options and if-then statements. ;) Huggums537 (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Spaghetti

Not sure if you saw, but I had a nice surprise today while searching for a page on MeatBall--snazzy new design and the pages can be edited again. If you've been thinking about meatball:HumaneInterface, I think your contribution would be appreciated. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, interesting, thanks for the heads up! What I find interesting is the general concept of 'humane' interface design. Broadly it comes in relevant in my line of work, and though I won't say I'm necessarily great at it myself, it's something I think a lot about and like to read around. I'll see what I can contribute though; I can probably add a bit around rating systems in particular.
Tangentially, I was disappointed to see the icon change proposal get shot down so much at VPP - I don't think the existing icons are great and I think some of the general concepts brought forward by Pbrks (such as the question mark) were improvements in intuitiveness. At the very least with design, my feeling is that one should be open to improvements, as accessible/intuitive design isn't exactly a staple of the WP interface IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
(Pretty!) Izno (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Easiest way for 1-time run of purge/null task over Category:CS1 maint: others

I expect most of the pages in Category:CS1 maint: others need to move categories to Category:CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) (and in fact I see a bunch of the pages themselves are accurately reflected, it's just the categories that need to be regenerated).

What's the easiest way to get a 1-time run over the one category? Izno (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Izno: Doing... Bot got up to letter E (# of pages in cat is down by around 7k) but then got too many timeouts on API requests and quit even with retries. I've set it off to run again but it'll begin from the start... Will see if it gets through the cat fully this time. ProcSock (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Izno: done most. Count is down from 22.5k to 10k. It stalls by ~ letter P, though, and I can't get around to properly investigating why ATM, so it could be that a couple thousand more pages need to be updated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you only run it directly from the contents of the category or can you run it from a list of pages or...? You might consider pulling the contents, chopping off everything above the letter P, and hitting go with that list. Izno (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

AFC G13 eligible soon drafts

Hello, Procrastinating Reader,

I just noticed that Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions was up to 4,669 drafts! I haven't seen it above 3,500 since last October or November when it regularly held 4,000-5,000 drafts (there is an official backlog when it hits 5,000). Over the past six months it sometimes got down to less than 500. It looks like whatever problem we had at the end of 2020 is satisfactorily resolved so thank you if you had anything to do with this category being refilled on a regular basis.

Of course it could just be that there are times of the year when new editors write a lot of drafts and other times when there are few but when I asked about this at WT:AFC they said that submissions are pretty consistent over the course of a year. But 2020 was hardly a regular year. Hope you are doing well. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, not 100% sure. The bot is running, but I commented a bit more on this here. Basically, sometimes the task completes, sometimes it doesn't (haven't gotten around to fixing the stability yet). When it completes it'll fix the category count. I don't track how often it completes or doesn't complete though, so possibly the bot is the reason it's working now, or possibly it's all a coincidence. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, a technological mystery. For some reason, I find this unpredictability reassuring. If this is a task of Joe's Null Bot, I guess I'm not surprised. It used to regularly move empty categories from Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories when they were eligible for deletion but that stopped happening over a year ago and that CSD category is always empty (ironic, huh?). Not a huge problem, just another one of those "CSD categories that don't get filled" issues like we have with CSD G6s and expired maintenance categories.
I'll probably come over to your user talk page again should the G13 category ever fall below 1,000 but that doesn't seem to be a problem any more. Thanks for the bot information. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Uyghur people on a "Wikipedia proposals" 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 07:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Random template question

You rock.

Hi! Do you know how to change {{uw-corpname}} so that it's not being placed in the hidden Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues? I think it's doing that because it's a wrapper around {{uw-username}}, which adds that category wherever it's used, but the category is meant to contain users and not warning templates. Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's in {{uw-username}}. I've just added a namespace check around the category in Special:Diff/1018788643; that should fix it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
You rock, thank you so much! DanCherek (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A Wikimedia t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi ProcrastinatingReader! I've nominated you to receive a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Aw, thanks! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pages using Infobox person with deprecated parameter home town

A tag has been placed on Category:Pages using Infobox person with deprecated parameter home town requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This was supposed to have been included in this. It is just a minor wording difference.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MB 16:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC closure

Hi. I would like to ask your what is the rationale behind this closure summary ― Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_335#RfC:_Kommersant? I would appreciate if you describe it in as much detail as possible. Thanks in advance.--Renat 22:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a particularly long discussion. What outcome were you expecting? Just as a poll 7 editors voted for option 1, and 6 for option 2. None for stronger outcomes. But to establish the difference between 1 and 2 (ie, the "additional considerations [that] apply") we need to look at the rationales. Several editors (Mikehawk10, Nyx86, CuriousGolden, Solavirum, feminist, Axonov) expressed concerns in relation to certain events (specifically those in which Russia has a special political interest), mostly inherently due to being a Russian paper. No editors explicitly made statements to the contrary, arguing that it had no bias in such matters. Outside that context and in a more general sense, several editors clearly expressed their view that this is one of the better newspapers in Russia and no evidence was provided to rebut such opinions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Answering your question: I had no expectations about the outcome.
You say that 7 editors voted for option 1 and 6 for option 2. Could you please name them? Both sides.
You say: "It's not a particularly long discussion". Have you thought about restarting the RfC instead of closing it?
If I understand you correctly, the main rationale for the outcome was the fact that "several editors clearly expressed their view that this is one of the better newspapers in Russia and no evidence was provided to rebut such opinions"?--Renat 23:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
By "it's not particularly long" I mean that it fits on one side of A4 and (surprisingly, compared to the average RfC) isn't particularly verbose, lengthy or complicated. In the same sense, it's easy to pick out the usernames in the signatures next to each boldworded vote and so I'm confused why I'm needed to do that. Do you suspect the RfC was misclosed and believe there's a different interpretation more valid (if so, which)? It's hard to address your concerns without knowing what they are. Same problem of lack of context applies to the last question. The quotation you gave isn't the 'main' rationale for the outcome because it doesn't explain half of the close (wrt issues involving the Russian government), which was explained in my first reply. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The main point of the closure summary is that the source is listed as generally reliable now. And this fact is much more than half of the entire content of the summary in terms of meaning. And obviously I expect some meaningful rationale behind that. Answering your question: at this stage of our discussion I still believe that "the RfC was misclosed and there is a different interpretation". But I might be wrong, right? So that's why I am asking you these questions to understand your though process.
About the number of voters:
Who voted: Mikehawk10, Alaexis, My very best wishes, Sea Ane, Emir of Wikipedia, Nyx86, CuriousGolden, SolaViram, Գարիկ Ավագյան, Renat, feminist, AXONOV, Steverci, Grandmaster. Total: 14.
Those, who clearly voted for option 1: Mikehawk10, Alaexis, Sea Ane, Գարիկ Ավագյան, Steverci. Total: 5.
Those, who clearly voted for option 2: Nyx86, CuriousGolden, SolaViram, Renat, AXONOV, Grandmaster. Total: 6.
And you say that 7 editors voted for option 1, not 5. How is that?--Renat 02:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I went by first preference, so for those who said option 1/2 I added them to option 1. I don't think the difference between option 1 and 2, solely as a label, is relevant for practical purposes. Many people prefix their comment with option 1 and add some caveats in their comment (ie they're basically saying "additional considerations apply"), and others prefix with option 2 but their additional caveats are only in a particular area. It helps to get a feel for where editors lie, but it doesn't remove the need to read the comment to see what the additional considerations are. In this case, that additional consideration was the fact that it's a Russian newspaper. It was accordingly accounted for in the close and in the WP:RSP listing.
As for the generally reliable concern, that's the default state of a news source anyway, per WP:NEWSORG. It takes a consensus in a discussion showcasing concerns and evidence to move away from that default state. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
"those who said option 1/2 I added them to option 1".
My vest best wishes said: "Option 1 or 2, before May 2019, but option 3 after". How is this can even come close to being interpreted as "option 1"? (That's my main question for now)
"As for the generally reliable concern, that's the default state of a news source anyway, per WP:NEWSORG"
Just because the entity is a news organisation doesn't tell us anything when we have good reason to doubt. Of course, when we have two entities and everything what we know about them is that the first one is a news organisation and the second one is a marketing organisation, highly likely that the first one is more reliable then the second one. But, if we have two entities and everything what we know about them is that they are both news organisations and one is in Turkmenistan and the other one is in Norway, highly likely that the organisation from Norway is more reliable than the organisation from Turkmenistan. Russia is not as bad as Turkmenistan, of course, but the point should be clear.
"It takes a consensus in a discussion showcasing concerns and evidence to move away from that default state."
First of all, it takes correct interpretation of the RfC results.--Renat 04:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay. Let's reword "None for stronger outcomes." to "One editor for option 3, post-May 2019". But that doesn't change the RfC outcome. Generally reliable doesn't mean absolutely reliable. I don't think the option I perceive you seek, some kind of "generally reliable but 2nd tier compared to top RS such as the BBC or The Times", whilst true, is actually any kind of WP:RSP value. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
It makes no sense.
My very best wishes voted for "Option 1 or 2, before May 2019, but option 3 after", which is obviously closer to option 2 than option 1.
You, for a reason unknown to me, came to the conclusion that My very best wishes voted for option 1.
I pointed out this problem.
And now you are telling me that he is in completely different category now.
Don't you see how inconsistent your rationale is? How many editors for option 1 now? Still 7? And if you think the other votes are okay, then no. The closure summary wasn't based on policies or consensus. The summary is the result of counting random numbers without any argument strength evaluation, nothing. I politely asked you to provide detailed rationale behind your closure summary and you couldn't even correctly count the number of voters. I just can't believe how irresponsible this approach is.
And what about the other editor who voted for option 1/2? Why did you think Feminist voted for option 1 and not for option 2?--Renat 15:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
When I gave you a count above, it was because I didn't know from what angle you were disputing the close (ie, if you were trying to argue the close should've been generally unreliable, the fact that no editors voted for that option in all cases, and only one did for a particular context, would be clear evidence against that premise). You've since made (slightly) more clear your angle of dispute, so it's (slightly) easier to tailor responses in that respect. But it's very difficult to answer a rationale for "why wasn't it closed as generally unreliable" without knowing that's your question, for example. You're asking for an answer to a question that isn't clearly formulated, which just leaves me guessing as to exactly what you want here.
I think I follow your concerns slightly better now, so let me break down my thinking a bit on option 1 vs option 2 and perhaps that might help. I don't see a strong distinction between option 1 and option 2 inherently by the labels. Option 2 is poorly labelled anyway. It doesn't make sense to vote for "no consensus", because an editor in the discussion can't possibly know if the outcome will be "no consensus" (unless they're psychic), as whether consensus exists (or not) isn't decided until the comments come in and a closer closes it. I consider both labels equivalent, and read them as "reliable in some or all contexts" and then I look to the comment to see which of the two it is. (In theory the label could also be used for "generally spotty reliability", but my experience of RSN is that editors vote option 3 in such cases.) If editors are torn on whether it's reliable, with both sides making reasonable policy and evidence-based arguments that aren't logically inconsistent, I consider that "no consensus". That wasn't the case here, because on the whole editors were happy with its general reliability outside the additional considerations.
WP:RSP does not directly correlate its entries with RSN's standard "option 1" or "option 2" format, or use these terms, and many closers (myself included) do not close RSN discussions with "option N" outcomes either. RSP does have labels of "generally reliable" and "no consensus/additional considerations apply", but there was not no consensus in that discussion. In this case an additional consideration does technically apply, but that doesn't necessarily mean the row will be coloured in yellow. For example, see HuffPost (RSP entry), CNET (RSP entry), The Daily Dot (RSP entry), The Diplomat (RSP entry), for other examples where the 'generally reliable' status is subject to additional constraints but the row is still green. Yellow is usually used when the discussion is either no consensus, or when there's consensus of general inconsistency (eg Bustle (RSP entry)). I suppose to some extent whether it's categorised as green or yellow, vs whether the consideration is just mentioned in the summary box, depends on how the relative quantity of additional consideration material to total output by the source. But that's just my guess, and one would have to defer to the RSP volunteers for an answer.
In any case, an RSN discussion does not prescribe a WP:RSP listing. WP:RSP is maintained by editors as a compilation of community consensus, and is not in itself consensus. If your concern is with how WP:RSP is interpreting a consensus discussion, including the colours it uses, then it would be better to raise that at WT:RSP. If your concern is with my RSN close, then I appreciate that you've politely asked me to expand on my rationale, and I've tried, but I admit I've been mostly a bit confused on what you're asking of me so apologies if the responses seem brusque. I think I follow a bit better, so perhaps the above answers your questions. If not, I suppose you can appeal my close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, as I'm not sure what else I can add other than the above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
You are going off-topic. We are discussing the rationale behind your decision to close the RfC the way you closed it.
First of all, your own views/preferences shouldn't affect it at all. If you don't like that WP:MREL exists or disagree how its worded, it shouldn't affect your judgement when closing the discussion.
WP:NHC clearly states, that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy."
And what was your answer when I asked you to provide the rationale? You gave me the numbers (counting heads).
Okay, at least I expect the numbers to be correct. But it turns out they are not, because you picked option 1 from answers "option 1/2" just because you think option 2 was poorly worded. And it wasn't poorly worded at all, it is a standard wording.
Next thing: closer is expected to transparently explain how the decision was reached. It is not clear at all how did you count the numbers. It is not my fault that you can't transparently explain it. My questions are very simple and clear: what is the transparent rationale behind your decision? What policy/rule/guideline is the decision based on? How many people voted for each option? Where is the analysis of the strength of arguments?--Renat 16:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
It's not about my 'views' of policy, the fairly comprehensive response contains my thinking process behind the close and my understanding of applicable policy and processes. I'm sorry, but I don't see what I can add further except restate in different words some of the things I've already said. If you feel the response is unsatisfactory I advise you to use the steps outlined in my final paragraph above to appeal further. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

dispute resolution

Regarding one of your comments on the universal code of conduct regarding dispute resolution: as you know, the dispute resolution noticeboard is a much more recent creation than the mediation committee, and was created to provide a lighter-weight, quicker means to help guide disputes to resolution. The different modes of operation are, in my view, a significant differentiator. The dispute resolution noticeboard is an entry point, whereas formal mediation was a more structured form of engaging the disputants to resolve a problem. But both do/did rely on the involved parties being willing to engage collaboratively. I agree with the need to improve dispute resolution to avoid conduct issues, and responded on this topic at Wikipedia:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultation § In what ways should reporting pathways provide for mediation, reform, or guidance about acceptable behaviours?. isaacl (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't actually know that. Most things I can piece together historically are from people mentioning them in conversations or in accessible archives. Still, considering the current DRN I don't really how much better a different non-binding process could be. Take one random 'recent' MedCom case from 2010, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Media Matters for America (and its talk), I see that there's more room having its own page but I don't see that as a meaningful differentiator. I mean, surely one could just ask a DRN volunteer to split the discussion into a separate page, or mediate on a separate page, and you basically get the same result? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Xeno listed the dates in the initial comment so I thought you might have seen them... Think of the difference between the arbitration enforcement noticeboard and the incidents noticeboard as an example of how structure can make a discussion more orderly. Then think of any situation where you've had a mediator guide a discussion through questions to specific persons, one at a time. My understanding is that the mediation committee's mode of operation was designed to be similar to real-world mediation, which means it would have imposed discussion constraints and ensured that each concern would be examined (as much as possible, anyway). A lot of English Wikipedia's modes of operation are influenced by the desire of many editors to get in and out of discussions as quickly as possible, rather than break down issues into separate aspects and work through them. There are advantages to this, but the price paid is that it's hard to reach resolution on complex disputes. isaacl (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't disagree that structure helps, I just don't see why we need a separate committee for it. WP:DRN already seems structured? Possibly a different structure would help in some cases, but since people are entering into voluntary mediation anyway, presumably they also don't mind the mediator taking additional structural decisions they feel will help reach an outcome. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
You can ask the question in reverse, given that the mediation committee existed first: why did editors feel the need to create the dispute resolution noticeboard? As I mentioned, it was designed as an entry point to point people to the appropriate venue of discussion, and to handle issues that could be resolved quickly. As a result, I'm not sure participants (including disputants and mediators) have the expectation of a mode of operation that requires sustained participation over a long period of time. For better or worse, most editors want to be able to discuss whatever they want, whenever they want. It's pretty hard to convert a forum that was permissive in this respect into one that is less so. isaacl (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination – Successful

A Wikimeida t-shirt!
A Wikimeida t-shirt!

Hey ProcrastinatingReader,

You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at merchandise@wikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks!

On behalf of the Merchandise Giveaway program,

-- janbery (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear ProcrastinatingReader,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

On 22 May 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. starship.paint (exalt) 15:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Not peer reviewed

RE this. Some sections of the yearbook are probably under editorial control. Look at the table of contents, articles like this and this are labelled as "Article Type: Research Article". But the Falk piece is inside a huge data dump of UN documents, under the heading "UN Docuements" (header on the top of all the pages in the 300 page dump). It is labelled as "Article Type: Other", The same as this statement by Donald Trump which is also labelled as "Other" (and an Israeli law, a PLO statement, and 300 pages of other UN documents). All the data dump portion is labelled as "other" and is just a copy of the original documents, with no review. 11Fox11 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Redrose64

Just a quick note, I know Redrose64 in real life, and he's definitely male. The username comes from the Red Rose of Lancaster. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I don't remember exactly why, but I think I got the mistaken idea a long time ago from the pronouns someone else used when addressing him. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Bot questions

Hi ProcrastinatingReader! Thanks for closing the SdkbBot BRFA; I've set it off clearing the backlog. Two questions: (1) It doesn't look like the flag is showing up yet in the edits. I found this, but it doesn't appear to address AWB. (2) Per the BRFA, my intention is for the bot to be triggered automatically daily. Is there any way to set that up with AWB, or do I have to trigger it to run manually and keep AWB open on my computer while it runs? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

On (1) I think the bot flag only shows up in recent changes and watchlists, not in contribs, and bot edits are tagged by default unless disabled. SdkbBot seems to be flagged as "mb" (minor & bot) when I check its edits in Special:RecentChanges.
On (2) I don't really use AWB so not entirely sure. I don't think there's a way to run AWB periodically, like you can with cron and regular scripts. Maybe Primefac can better advise? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
AWB is manually-run. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
​Thanks both. On (2), that's unfortunate. If there's any way to easily convert an AWB task to code that could be run periodically, please let me know, as I'd love to get it set up so that it's not dependent on me triggering it and can be better assured to run in perpetuity. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I think if you're just running a regex you can use one of the mw:Manual:Pywikibot/Scripts, and run it on a cron on mw:Toolforge. Possibly mw:Manual:Pywikibot/replace.py? Skimming the docs I guess it'd be ran as something like python pwb.py replace -regex -ns:0 -search:insource:... FIND_REGEX REPLACE_REGEX? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:ProcrastinatingReader/deletelist

If you don't need this anymore, would you mind WP:CSG#A7ing it? I would facilitate the reviewing of what links to Category:International Digital Organization for Scientific Information academic journals, thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I blanked & requested CSD. Seems to be from an old AN about a deletion issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom/Covid

Given your involvement in all of this, I feel only obliged to inform you of the open ArbCom case request. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of comments by other users

Removal of comments by other users in a discussion in which you are participating is not acceptable behaviour. Please cease doing this. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

And it looks like another editor has moved (not removed) it again. If you want to discuss the meta of the AfD try the talk page, or WP:AN or some such area. None of the WP:SKCRIT are met, and it's quite disruptive to attempt to derail discussion by creating a section calling for a "speedy close" on the main AfD page. It seems you want to skip the whole 'discussion' phase of the AfD and go straight to your preferred result, but that's not really how it works. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Global bot approval request for Neriah bot

Hello!

I apologize for sending the message in English. Please help translate to other languages..

In accordance to the policy, this message is to notify you that there is a new approval request for a global bot.

The discussion is available at Steward requests/Bot status#Global bot status for Neriah bot on Meta.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,
—Thanks for the fish! talk•contribs 14:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

AE

Is the staffing issue because of EI C's unavailability? I've been trying to get up to speed there, but as it's basically an entire new area for me, that's likely going to be slow going. —valereee (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it probably plays a part since El C was the most active DS admin for a while. To pick a random archive - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive279 - almost all the sections were closed by him. Although there are a few others who are active on-and-off too. My feeling is that El C was good at keeping it running smoothly due to the right mix of fairness, competence, and assertiveness (to avoid the report lingering on forever). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

NAC

Hi ProcrastinatingReader

I want to ask you to reconsider your decision to close Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 24#Template:Constlk.

This was an unusual discussion, marred by the decision of the template's creator to use a wide variety of procedural ruses and battleground tactics to crate a storm. I documented part of that in the discusison.[14]

However, your closure[15] does not address these attempts by an admin to WP:GAME the system. So, please can you leave the closure to an admin, who will be better-placed to assess the extraordinary shenanigans created here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

If there are conduct issues then ANI is probably the place to report them, but otherwise I don't really think it's appropriate for any closer - admin or not - to substitute their opinion in place of the participants'. As both sides' arguments were sufficiently valid, I don't think a different content consensus can be ascertained from that discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from, but I note that you didn't even mention the canvassing, which is a surprising omission. Failure to address the WP:GAMEing issues in the closure has the effect of giving a free pass to such antics. Obviously, I assume that it was not in any way your intention to do that, but kicking this over to ANI is not a viable remedy when the GAMEing occurred a week ago, because the incident is now historical. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it'd be appropriate or productive for me to apportion blame for conduct issues in the close. While I considered relisting, noting the sheer length/tone of the discussion and the fact that there were no new comments (bar one) in the past ten days didn't make me feel that would've changed much. But it may be worth trying DRV if you really see it differently, as arguably a reasonable close could've been made either way. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader,

This category has been going pretty well for the past few months but it is now down to 1800 drafts...when things are going well, there are around 3,000-5,000+ drafts in it. I'm not sure what you do to get the numbers up but if you could do it some time over the next week, that would be awesome. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm just going to fix the automation on this I think, but can't get around to it till next week or the week after. Drowning in too much programming & maths work these days so I prefer to spend my idle time doing something else. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, but we are now down to 1300 drafts. At 150-350 expiring drafts/day, this won't last much longer. We still have SDZeroBot's work to rely on but most G13 taggers rely on this category to find expiring drafts.
Is there any other tech-minded person here that you would recommend I could ask for help? Sorry that work is so busy for you these days. Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you know which ones are missing? Is it random, or the ones about to be deleted, or he ones 3 or so weeks away? I along with Liz am one of the principal users of this, and screening these drafts is my principal work here-- I usually find about 10 or so to rescue out of ever page of 200. I could find another working routine, but this is the sort of work which only goes efficiently if one has an established system, and sticks to it. Of course i recognize you;re just as much a volunteer, and we all have our own priorities and competing demands. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't answer with any certainty. The MediaWiki job queue, which is meant to do this job automatically, works in mysterious ways.
The complexity is in ProcBot task 5 being general-purpose for any category and having a buggy job handler which I need to rewrite. Writing a script to purge just the AfC drafts would just be a few lines and I suspect any bot dev can do it quickly. Probably I'll just do that - a short script just for AfC - in the meantime. I can get around to it in the coming week, but if you need something sooner you can probably ask any bot dev to look into it -- it's effectively just submitting a purge action with the categorymembers generator, running it in loop as long as more results are sent, and running it at around 15-20 pages per request. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I am extremely appreciative of your offer to get there next week!! DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, Wikipedia has an ongoing problem of some categories (I know a few CSD ones) that don't get filled sufficiently or not at all despite the appropriate pages being tagged correctly. I know I've mentioned it at the Village Pump before and I started a discussion with Xaosflux about it. I guess this is an ongoing system problem. I just didn't connect all of the dots on this. Liz Read! Talk! 19:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't mean to pressure you, this is just an update, but we are down to 490 drafts in the category now. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I suggest cross-posting to WP:BOTREQ for safe measure, since I don't know of my own reliability on this, specifically on my interest in maintaining this in the future. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I will take your advice. SDZeroBot, which is the other tool for AFC regarding G13s, is also down so we are in a little trouble right now. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 accepted and resolved by motion

The ‎Origins of COVID-19 case request you are a party to has been accepted under the name COVID-19 and resolved by motion with one remedy which supersedes the community authorized general sanctions with discretionary sanctions. Sanctions made under the previous community general sanctions are now discretionary sanctions and alerts made under the community GS are now DS alerts. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Lubov Chernukhin

Oh wow... just saw the literal overhaul edit on Lubov Chernukhin... I do agree with most of the points you left on the talk page for User:Kendalandrew. At a glance it looks like the most relevant policy breach (aside from the ones you mentioned) is WP:NOT. I may be cleaning that article up a bit. Didn't know what I stumbled into. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to open an ANI in a sec. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

KendalAndrew

Hi, I am on mobile and that makes it very difficult for me to get involved at ANI or delve into account histories etc. However, my dealings with RottenBoroughs (talk · contribs) some months ago also involved an editor seemingly obsessed with negative/denigrating OR related to MP bios. They were using primary sources to support statements that suggested corrupt behaviour, especially re the various registers of members' interests. Several admins got involved &, IIRC, the editor went away in a huff.

Now I wonder whether they did actually go away or just assume another identity! - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Sunshine

Sunshine!
Hello ProcrastinatingReader! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy first day of summer, ProcrastinatingReader!! Interstellarity (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Help

Despite your warning, User:Alluburam is reverting our users edits example: 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election , I am so tired of reverting again his revert. Kindly please take necessary actions. regards--Nahtrav (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

they have destroyed the table under major candidates they made colspan of 98 and now asking for reverting I had made this page and know they came and destroy it. some times they changed opinion poll data to their own preferences Alluburam (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The user you are saying is not me. Ask the one who did that. What u saying above is the one you had done to me Nahtrav (talk)

@Nahtrav and Alluburam: I'm not an administrator, you'll have to try WP:ANEW. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

every village needs an idiot

...but I didn't want to out myself too publicly. The discussion about namespace change at DYK...would changing the namespace prevent backlogs breaking the page like they used to before we went to the 60-120 pattern of switching from one-a-days to two-a-days and back? I have some dim understanding that the reason for the page breaking was that there were too many templates or something. —valereee (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

No, you blithering idiot.[FBDB] The limitation is that when one page includes a thousand other pages, and each of those pages in turn includes a bunch of pages (or citation templates, or whatever), you end up with a whole lot of inclusions and bytes and tokens and thingamajigs total, and if that total is more than a zillion then the earth stops turning on its axis. This issue comes up no matter where the pages involved are. (Except for some minor details, pages are pages no matter where they are; the various "namespaces" are mostly just an organizing convenience.) EEng 21:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Damn, I was hoping a namespace change would mean we could go back to just letting the backlog build up and remain on 1-a-days forever. :D Well, glad I didn't bring it up in that discussion. This way only you and PC know the depths of my iggerance. Right? —valereee (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
To be honest there are other telltale signs. EEng 22:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
hahahahaha —valereee (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Not sure exactly what issue you mean (I'm not very familiar with DYK operations) but sounds like either WP:PEIS or WP:EXPENSIVE, explained better in English by EEng above. In short they're limitations in the site's code to prevent excessive load on Wikipedia's servers. I think the same issue happens at WP:FAC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Amendment request

Regarding this edit: perhaps you can reserve it for a discussion on the scenario you referred to, since (as you stated) it does not relate to the request? isaacl (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I felt it slightly more relevant there than in the next perennial WT:RFA discussion (although almost certainly ineffectual either way). But if an arb clerk felt it too off-topic and wanted to move or remove it, I wouldn't object. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
It just feels like starting conversation on whether or not the sanction in question is relevant to code of conduct discussions is a potentially long digression that won't affect the outcome of the amendment request. The best place to discuss the topic is when it's actually raised in a code of conduct discussion. isaacl (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Academic sources

Please see United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 ChefBear01 (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Per your assent

I removed that bit from my comment, as well as our aside, here. If this is not what you thought I meant, or you just have second thoughts about it, feel free to just blanket revert me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Global bot approval request for InternetArchiveBot

Hello!

I apologize for sending the message in English. Please help translate to other languages..

In accordance to the policy, this message is to notify you that there is a new approval request for a global bot.

The discussion is available at m:Steward requests/Bot status#Global bot status for InternetArchiveBot on Meta.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,
--Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Indenting

Hi. I was not trying to be pedantic or anything when I changed your indent. It is just that the next person to post a neutral !vote at the RfA will have their numbering broken. It will reset back to 1. If another person want to post a neutral they will have to figure it out. I did try to preserve your indent as much as possible. Anyway I am not too worried about it as it will work out in the end. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It's okay, I understood what you were trying to do, it's just that your fix made it look like the final paragraph was part of my third bullet. I was just hoping there wasn't a second neutral. Seems like Kusma fixed it here - will remember that method next time heh. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
A useful template, I will have to remember that. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing ip vandalism on my RfA page

Groundless charges but no easy way for a candidate to wrestle with a pig... BusterD (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the comment for making unsupported accusations against BusterD, which I think constitutes a serious BLP violation, among other things. I removed your reply to it as well PR, because I didn't want to leave traces. Came here to apologise for removing yours. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. BusterD (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
No problem. In hindsight I should've just removed the trolling entirely, same as anywhere else, but it's hard to know what's allowed to fly at RfA these days. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Even worse for me. As a vandal-fighter I'm often the first person to jump in and revert. This formal process has even slowed my normal editing down, partially from uncertainty and partially my gumption is weak. Gonna be an editing party at my house this Friday one way or the other. BusterD (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

2022 Punjab Assembly Election page

User Alluburam is continuing his reverting in the 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election page you can see from the page's edit history, the whole article has been transformed into Alluburam's imaginary favourite article. He is just reverting other users edits without any summary or reason. Also Have a glance at his talk page and see several users compaining and opposing him for their content deletion.His actions may led to discouragement of Experienced wikipedia users which is nothing but hunting down of Wikipedia's Policies. Please consider this problem as soon as possible And also Why I am reporting to you is I already have reported him in edit warring WP:AN3, but because of unknowing the way in filling up the details there, no action has been taken, So I request you to help me in reporting this issue--Nahtrav (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The behaviour doesn't seem particularly collaborative, but conduct issues fall within the remit of admins and so I can't really do anything here. I'd suggest making a report at WP:ANI, highlighting that the user tends to mass-revert contributions by other users without any summary provided, does not participate on talk pages, and has already been blocked for edit-warring.[16] Make the report succinct, and an admin should be able to deal with it. Alternatively, could ping the admin that blocked previously (EdJohnston) and see if he can look into the latest events. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Motion enacted and Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 closed

The second motion at Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 has been enacted after it reached majority support. The enacted motion is:

The phrase "other internal project discussions", as used in Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("ARBPIA General Sanctions"), shall be construed to include requested moves.

Following the enactment of the motion, the request has now been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hi, yes I agree with you relating to the non-lifting of my ban. I don't know how to say, but users have had problems on Commons with me so I just want to leave for good --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 15:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

AttackTheMoonNow

Might be time to re-enable that edit filter for a little while - they're active again, but so far they appear to have confined themselves to messageboards and direct harassment. See the SPI [17]. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. The specific kind of editing the original filter targeted probably wouldn't work on what they're currently doing. I see Ymblanter protected Jess's UTP for now. I'll watchlist the SPI and can update/enable the filter if they become more widespread. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I know, but they just hit a recent article, so there's that [18] Acroterion (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Enabled in log-only. I think it's probably acceptable to set it to disallow temporarily, especially if volume increases, but due to the way the filter works IMO that decision is best made by an admin (ie, some may find it overstepping if I did it). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Logging is fine, they seem to be spreading themselves around. Acroterion (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

"Lab leak"

[19] - They do have a "pride". Meaning they feel offended very deeply by the existence of Taiwan, just like Putin felt offended by the removal of Yanukovych in Kyiv. But they are not stupid, let give them that credit (in fact all successful tyrants in history were smart). Collaborating with WHO to disprove the allegations would be their greatest and well deserved victory after all these claims by the Trump administration, etc. And it would be one thing just not to allow the inquiry [20], but imposing economic sanctions on other governments just for suggesting an inquiry and actively promoting such an obvious disinformation by their government officials (like "an obvious fact that COVID-19 has multiple origins and broke out in multiple places" [around the world] [21], which is an obvious BS) goes far beyond that.This is really a major disinformation and obstruction campaign by a major government on the international scale. What they hide must be huge. Honestly, I do not think this is just a lab leak. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Collaborating or engaging in discussion on it also gives the claims legitimacy. It's not uncommon and is reasonably effective to just not comment, as a way of showing contempt for an idea one believes to be disrespectful or absurd. I'm still not entirely convinced that China's dislike towards facilitating open investigations in this area is because they're covering something up. Overall I still think a lab leak is dubious. But I'm not a virologist and I wouldn't know the difference, and as far as I can tell there's very little hard evidence for either explanation. It sounds plausible I agree, but the best conspiracy theories are plausible and difficult to disprove.
I just think we need to cover it better on Wikipedia, because currently our article is pitiful and doesn't tell you anything about the theory other than it lacks widespread support in the scientific community. In fact, literally any RS talking about the theory tells the reader more about the theory than our articles do. In my eyes that's a sorry state of affairs and a complete failure of our purpose. I also think some of the arguments against inclusion are blatant policy violations, such as those made in the current move discussion, and rigidly sticking to policy is a good way to ensure there's no POV creep in either direction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I mostly agree. And yes, "to just not comment" is certainly a legitimate approach. But nothing can be further from that than obstructing work by WHO teams, actively promoting obvious disinformation, hiding information/data that are available to them and sanctioning other countries. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Documented consensus exemption

Are you still intending to hold this RfC, or have you abandoned the idea for the foreseeable? It's a sensible addition. Cambial foliage❧ 21:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Never got around to it but I think an RfC should probably be held. I was waiting to hear back on Ritchie as I was genuinely curious why he thought it was a bad idea. I'm not convinced personally, after all what's the point of consensus discussions if it's not safe to revert to the consensus version? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Re. Andersen et al. in the lab leak article

I made a poor and ineffective edit summary the first time round; sorry for that (irked a bit by the somewhat awkward description of the use of another paper as "WP:Gaming"). Basically, I don't think that a paragraph which consists basically only of selected quotes from that article is particularly relevant or helpful on the target article. The paper's conclusions (which are reported in multiple secondary sources) can be cited, but I don't think they warrant a separate paragraph all by themselves. Like other scientific papers, it's better if it is used to provide the necessary scientific context and rebuttals (notably, for claims of laboratory manipulation in some way or anothers) when describing the lab leak under its various forms. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Best to discuss it on the talk. There is more content in the review (pgs 308-309) but I left that for someone more familiar with the material to fill out. I actually think we should be discussing these studies, especially if they're in secondary reviews (and as they're covered in such). We prominently and repeatedly say what the scientific consensus is, but talk very little about how & why the scientific consensus is that way. That basically just smells of "trust me! I have a degree!" -- which is antithetical to science. The evidence/rationale needs to be discussed, so readers can learn about and understand it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I think it might be more effective to do so in the "debunking wrong arguments" as I have so far done in the #Deliberate engineering section [see how the CGG codon claim is written about as an example]. I concede, this is a bit harder to do correctly for the theories which haven't been entirely ruled out, and it might be more effective to simply describe the scientific position without framing it in the context of rebutted claims, although that's best left to the regular "improve it until everyone's satisfied" process. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The bioweapon theory is objectively misinformation at this point, and AFAIK nobody in the scientific community, or even reputable journalists, is seriously arguing for it. It's been considered and analysed with evidence. So that correctly fits under "debunking wrong arguments" and can be more precisely discussed. AFAIK the lab leak is more difficult to analyse (logically so; if one hasn't identified the spillover, theories like whether it rubbed off the shoe of a lab worker can't be proved or disproved - goes back to the 'easier to create theories than to rebut them' idea) and little precise (RS) discussion on it is possible. Still, per the primary source: Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible. ... More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another. Obtaining related viral sequences from animal sources would be the most definitive way of revealing viral origins.
Although it concluded we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible, according to the review Introduction of a polybasic cleavage site specific to hACE2 requires repeated sub-culturing of this virus in cell culture or animals with hACE2. But neither such progenitor virus nor sub-culturing based polybasic cleavage to hACE2 has “previously been described”. Hence, Andersen and colleagues concluded that SARS-CoV-2 is not generated or released/escaped from laboratory. Thus, according to these authors, without prior knowledge in public domain, we may not precisely identify the origin of SARSCoV-2. That reasoning should probably be mentioned in the article I'd say... And perhaps the preceding scientific details (pg 308) too. It's certainly more informative to the reader than just repeating how some ideas are "baseless"; I can't speak for every reader but personally when I'm learning about something I like to know how the conclusions were reached, rather than just taking them for granted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Re the paper isn't notable enough for us to single it out like that, personally I think The most cited article for its critical observation on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 was published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020. establishes DUEness. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Another proposed remedy for WPWP for the poll

Greetings, PR, and thanks so much for your involvement in the WPWP difficulties on the EN WP. I'm writing as a member of the WPWP International Organizing Team (Participating Communities Liaison). I have another element to propose as a possible remedy for disruptive activity by inexperienced editors:

  • "Limit participation on the English WP to only users with 1 year old account and at least 500 edits in mainspace on the English Wikipedia."

How can this be added? Is it a parenthetical type of "throttle" or its own case? I don't know the technical side of account and editing restrictions. Thank you for your advice! -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

We can do this with the filter, so formally it's just another example of option 2. Option 2 is pretty much any possible technical restriction short of disallowing it completely. My thinking is that if we achieve a consensus on one of those broad options it will focus discussion around the chosen remedy, rather than it being all over the place like it is now. If that chosen remedy is option 2 (which would be my preference) it would help us to focus on deciding and tweaking the specific restrictions and variables we want to try. It could be worth mentioning additional ideas of restrictions in the discussion, such as the one you mention.
Personally, while I think your option would probably reduce the disruption, it would also set up a wall against new editors joining in. Due to the importance of editor recruitment, I think we need to be tolerant to some degree of errors, so long as people are trying to learn and improve. The difficulty seems to be in finding the right balance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Regarding these edits on arbitration enforcement: separating the creation of rulings from their enforcement is a feedback loop. It allows the community flexibility to manage how rulings are applied in practice, and provides an ultimate check to reject a ruling that is diametrically opposed to community sentiment. This is of course subject to the shortcomings of English Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making traditions, like decisions varying depending on whoever happens to show up, as you alluded to and which I've discussed before. As long as the community base that supports decentralizing all decision-making remains dominant in discussions (as the views of the silent majority are unknown), I don't foresee any change, because they want that check in place. isaacl (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It was mostly a philosophical question - I've posed the question a few times and never really got a good argument for why the system works as it does and I was curious what Kevin (or anyone else) thought - so appreciate your view.
I'm not sure there is a separation between enforcement and ruling here, though. The remedy being enforced here is the idea that admins can take actions that usually only ArbCom (or consensus) can. The practicality of that makes sense, since ArbCom can't hear an American politics case every two weeks, but the community only delegated authority to ArbCom. ArbCom outsourcing that authority, and then refusing to consider the issues in full when appealed, just seems a bit backwards to me. AE admins are certainly scrupulous and good users, but my point is that nobody actually elected them to ban users by fiat. The only users elected with that responsibility are the 15 arbs, and even they can't take any unilateral actions in that capacity. Due to how ArbCom treats AE appeals, there's really no actual accountability mechanism for AE actions. ArbCom is literally far more accountable to the community than the people it delegates its power to, which doesn't seem right to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Just to add, I don't actually think there is any community flexibility in AE, since AE isn't even community venue. It's managed by admins, and even they don't have to obey the prevailing consensus, among their peers or among the editors commenting. eg policy allows unilateral action for dismissing requests and prohibiting the issue being raised again, even if their colleagues disagree. Heck, if there's a consensus of admins opposing sanctions, policy technically allows a single admin to implement a sanction anyway. It's literally a system of 'beating someone to the punch'. In practice, there's probably both admin and community consensus right now that CutePeach be given extra time, but as per the two admins who said they will close the AE anyway, any admin can ignore that consensus. Overall I just find it mildly ironic that ArbCom gets criticised for acting by fiat, but by delegating its powers to an unelected, unaccountable, non-consensus venue that somehow is classed as a "community venue", it manages to evade that criticism. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
In short, the community (which in my mind includes admins, so I think we're using the term slightly differently), wants it that way. (Though I also mean a preponderance of those who like to discuss such matters in the corresponding venues. I think it's quite possible if the entire editing community could be polled, they'd prefer a hierarchy, like most other organizations they're used to.) There is a vocal core who dislikes any hierarchy, and is unwilling to delegate authority. Arbitration enforcement actions can be discussed and be made the basis of a clarification request (or a new arbitration case). I'm not saying this is the most effective or efficient approach, but it's what we have given Wikipedia's history. isaacl (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I use "community" in the sense of our normal consensus processes; anyone can comment on an idea and their ideas contribute equally towards the result (or at least, any weighting is based on the soundness of the argument, and not the number of hats on their account). Of course admins (and arbs, too) are part of "community", but I think any discussion where a large chunk of editors is excluded from contributing towards the "consensus" is not a "community discussion". I don't think everything needs to be a community discussion either - fiat is good when necessary, but needs to be carefully designed IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Having authority to devise sanctions delegated to admins, with a forum where the community can comment, and to raise the committee's attention is the current balance of delegation it supports. I don't think it's going to favour greater centralization of this authority, both for practical operational reasons as well its libertarian leanings. isaacl (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I believe I understand the practical reasons now. I'm not sure they're necessarily the case (eg it seems 2007 ArbCom was churning out cases like a machine, and I suspect 2007 ArbCom also had a far greater volume of issues), but I don't expect a change. As I say, mostly a philosophical argument, especially since there is no practical issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
From a purely philosophical point of view, I think the community wants to separate enforcement for the original reason I stated, which also plays a role in how remedies are passed. There have been numerous times when admins have commented during cases that if the committee issues a given ruling, they won't enforce it. I believe this feedback helps shape decisions. isaacl (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding dismissing an enforcement request, I proposed having circuit-breaker rules to trigger a consensus discussion on whether or not an enforcement action is needed. However the arbitration committee at the time didn't pursue the idea. isaacl (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
That's certainly an interesting idea. Perhaps the two arbs organising DS reforms would be interested in looking into it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm... well Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021 review/Consultation § Dismissing an enforcement request garnered no comments, so it may not be on their radar to review. isaacl (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Banning question

Hello,

I have a burning banning question. Since you've taken part in my banning process, it is only fair that you explain where or to whom I can direct any queries about an appeal. Paradoxically, I am unable to do it under my user name. In fact, that is one of the more Kafkaesque aspects of the whole banning process within the confines of Wikipedia rules, that an appeal is "available" but it is effectively out of reach. I'll check back here if you feel inclined to answer this technical question. 2001:8A0:67CE:CB01:1AB:D528:DC99:AEFF (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know which banning process you're referring to, or who you are, so I'm not sure why you can't do it under your username. Usually you'd log into your account and post a request on your user talk page with the {{unblock}} template. If talk page access is revoked, you'd use WP:UTRS. In both cases your appeal would probably be copied to WP:AN for discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Guessing [22], and it's true the ban notice didn't explain how to appeal. EEng 18:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that's illuminating. Must admit though, in the discussion I didn't get the impression that Dynasteria actually wanted to not be banned. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Warning about disruptive editing

On July 18 you started what you characterized as a "procedural" AfD discussion. This was a not a procedural AfD; examples of a procedural AfD are when someone starts an AfD as requested by an IP or as a result of a DRV close. This AfD discussion has, unsurprisingly, been divisive and has produced thousands of bytes of text even if the consensus seems like it will be clear. A few hours before that you chose to move a draft that was part of an active MfD. This was done despite the MfD banner, which you choose to leave, explicitly noting that articles being discussed at MfD should not be moved. Taken together I find these decisions to be disruptive editing in a topic under discretionary sanctions. Specifically, rather than lowering the temperature in a contentious area you spread the conflict in new directions. Frequently I would end such a warning with a message like "I would ask you to think harder before taking such actions in the future" but from what I know about you I suspect that you actually did think plenty hard about it, so I will instead ask you to just not engage in this kind of editing in the future. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep. Thanks for your note. You’re right, I did think about them before doing them. While the actions were perhaps contentious, that’s not the same thing as disrupting the encyclopaedia, so I don’t quite agree with your characterisation. I’m afraid I can’t respond with diffs atm but here’s a brief response:
Regarding the move, ~ 1 week before doing it I said on the MFD exactly what I was going to do and why. Nobody objected and a couple people thank’d that diff. Before doing the move itself, I justified my reasons with a thorough 5 point response right below that comment, again on the MFD. please refer to that comment for my reasons. I don’t think an interpretation of a MFD on a draft prohibiting it going into mainspace is valid. Say it is, are you saying that if you AfD an article and it takes 6 months for it to close, it gets to remain in mainspace for that period and editing work can continue, but if you draftify it first and then take it to MFD, even if the majority is in favour of keeping, that article would have to wait 6 months before being moved? Doesn’t seem like a valid interpretation to me. Again, full rationale at the MFD.
As for the AFD. Last I checked it, and it’s been a few days since I have, discussion was calm and productive. Large volume and a highly attended discussion is of course not, in itself, disruptive. It was procedural because I didn’t want it deleted, and users were edit warring to prohibit any article existing there and simultaneously refusing to start an AFD, in contradiction with the DRV close. In the ‘merge’ discussion later created, the proposer effectively admitted they were proposing a deletion but didn’t want to go to AFD, which is plain forum shopping. An uninvolved admin agreed at the AFD that a consensus discussion there was appropriate. Surprisingly, despite many discussions at MFD etc, this is the first in the topic area to actually hit AFD. As per LOCALCONSENSUS, a consensus of a small number of participants does not overrule a broad community consensus, which is what that AFD provides. Any talk page discussion does not do that. AFD is a centralised venue. Had that AFD not been created, the article wouldn’t exist, even though there is a consensus for it to. Do you think that would be an appropriate outcome?
In both cases clear and detailed rationales were provided, beforehand or promptly after. If, as you claim, these actions were disruptive, it would help me for you to explain why those rationales are invalid. ProcSock (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. I admittedly had not watch listed this page and so didn't see this reply until now; just wanted to explain the slow response. To answer your question, just because you appropriately communicated does not mean the actions were not disruptive. In both cases you decided that you were unhappy with a status quo, unhappy with the lack of what you saw as a timely resolution to a discussion, and took aggressive actions to force the issue. The is what caused me to issue the warning and that sort of disruptive behavior, no matter how considered and well communicated, is what I am suggesting, through this warning, not happen again. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I get the feeling that you don't actually wish to discuss this, and not just due to the delayed response (which is my bad for the lack of ping; I usually don't ping on my talk), which is fine, so I won't waste much of your time or mine. Your comment is noted, with disagreement with your reasoning in both cases, especially the AfD one, and also with your premise that it's these actions that "spread the conflict in new directions". I'd also note that said AfD follows several other discussions where the same editors had openly decided they don't like consensus discussions, as in this case, and I'm disappointed to see a lack of condemnation against those who persistently and flagrantly violate the bedrock of collaboration; consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Saying not just due to the delayed response (which is my bad for the lack of ping; I usually don't ping on my talk) is a funny combination because it suggests I intentionally delayed my response (that is it's part of why you think I don't want to discuss it) and also suggests you didn't ping me (which is why I didn't respond). I am guessing that you're intending more the second part of it than the first. Still let's be clear: I am absolutely willing to discuss this, I just decided to focus in my response on the essential issue: why the actions were disruptive.
The rest of your message suggests you understand my thinking, even if you don't agree with it, which fair enough. As for I'm disappointed to see a lack of condemnation against those who persistently and flagrantly violate the bedrock of collaboration; consensus. this isn't an arbcom case where I am going to look at a case holistically or even AE, where I've seen you participate (but am not actively working because of my role of having to adjudicate appeals from there). I don't doubt that there is plenty of behavior that is worse than yours - behavior that would merit a logged warning, a topic ban, or even a block; this is part of why I voted to open a full case rather than just convert community GS into DS. But since I respect my colleagues who felt otherwise, I would suggest you can certainly file at AE if you feel that there are people who violating community consensus which is indeed a bedrock of Wikipedia. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I'm a bit confused what you mean by the first paragraph, perhaps I worded it poorly, but I'm not trying to imply you intentionally delayed your response, and I honestly don't ping on any comments on my talk (see above/below or in my archives). When I wrote the original reply it was quickly written on a phone without much proofreading, hence even less likely I would've thought to ping you.
I don't understand your thinking at all, to be honest. I meant it's noted to the extent that there's a warning (for something) from an uninvolved admin, and I'll keep that fact in mind. Usually I'd like to discuss further to clarify and take something useful from your comment, as I tried, but as I said I had a gut feeling that you didn't want to. I also figured this section was of the "strike 1" variety rather than the "here's some advice" variety. In part because, to the extent I know you, I'd expect a 'Barkeep warning' in this context to be somewhat helpful, i.e. an attempt at trying to understand what the editor was trying to do and suggesting a better/smarter approach of achieving that goal. Also because I think your original comment seems largely devoid of policy basis. For example, you talk about what the {{mfd}} template says, but don't mention that templates aren't policy, and that as the basis for the text it references a how-to page (aka an essay, and usually about technical instructions) which makes very clear that the moving of such pages is not prohibited and says the reason for the principle (Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion (both during the discussion and when closing using semi-automated closing scripts). If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator). -- which I did). I also think, even in the absence of that clarifying quote, it seems obvious the concept was never intended for the purpose of prohibiting the moving of AfC drafts to mainspace, so I don't know why one reasonably apply it to such. Especially while ignoring the substantive policy-based arguments I made to suggest it was acceptable, and the reasonable steps I took to discuss it first and minimise contentiousness (and only doing it after waiting, with no objections and several thanks).
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing says: Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. ... Each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (you cited none.) We might also turn to read WP:DISRUPTSIGNS as well. I'd be curious exactly which disruption sign these two actions were. Since both of those actions did exactly the opposite of everything on that list. Your claim is also not in line with the comments of multiple uninvolved admins who said the AfD had legitimate purpose.[23][24][25] As it turned out, the AfD at least let the article live long enough so that people came to appreciate it turned out "better than they'd expected". With the benefit of hindsight, it thus helped with the consensus building, perhaps decreasing scepticism/distrust, and also provided good opportunity to collect evidence of broad community opinion on the article. You imply that no level of "appropriate/well communication" would've made them less 'disruptive', which just seems... wrong.
Frankly I don't know what lesson you want me to learn from your warning. Stop trying to ascertain/build genuine broad consensus? Start edit warring instead and avoid consensus discussions, since that seems to be largely successful for those who do it? Yes, a bit tongue-in-cheek, but honestly, the actions are the best idea I had to get around what I think is, at times, the selective use (or blatant disregard) of policies to enforce preferred revisions. So far you haven't addressed anything I said substantively, or given me any reason to believe I was wrong and learn what I could've done better. If you have such suggestions, as you'll know, I'm always happy to hear them. Without better ideas I can only do the best I can. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the draft article, the recommended action seems clear: wait for a Miscellany for deletion discussion to close rather than moving the draft article under discussion. I appreciate you disagree with this recommendation, for reasons you've already stated, so no need to repeat them in reply. (No comment on the first raised issue, as without looking at it again I don't recall what it was about.) isaacl (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
You're correct I didn't offer a whole lot of guidance in my original message. That reflects that I had spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out the best way to handle a hugely attended MfD that had been rendered procedurally moot and didn't like any of my options. And then I really grappled with the AfD and suddenly I had an issue for which I did have an answer. So fair point that I didn't offer much guidance and I will keep that in mind the next time I'm leaving a warning while a bit frustrated.
Ultimately the answer in both these cases was for you to be patient and do nothing. You AfD nom wasn't actually an argument for deletion. That is it would have been eligible for being speedily kept until the first delete !vote came in. If you didn't have an issue with it existing let someone who thinks it should be deleted do the nomination or you could have created a merge discussion for which your nomination statement would have been appropriate. The MfD taking a while to close? So be it, it's a complicated discussion requiring a skilled closer and there aren't oodles of them around. I get that being patient is not always easy - I am myself rather biased towards action - but there is a good reason WP:BOLD notes the difference between article and mainspace with a SOFIXIT attitude. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I still don't think you've reviewed the preceding events to the AfD, the edit warring in the page history, the talk page, or the AN where an admin had to request 1RR. Regardless, I appreciate you have a different personal opinion on how to handle the situation. The same guideline also says This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. (Even if I'm not a 'reasonable person', I presume the other admins whose diffs I linked are.) So can you kindly clarify your current position on your original accusations of disruptive editing, as per the relevant parts of the guideline quoted in my previous comment. Was it disruptive editing (as defined by Wikipedia policy) or not? And if so, per the policy, can you treat each case independently and tell me specifically which policy or guideline each case violated? Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I would absolutely characterize what I've noted above as disrupt[ing] Wikipedia, knowingly or unknowingly (excerpt from the DE nutshell) and a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia (the FIRST sentence of DE). So it is in those two spirits that I labeled it disruptive editing. And yes I think you're a very reasonable person. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems an evasive response, Barkeep, and in my opinion disappointing involvement in the issue as a whole (as I think you're enabling the editors who wanted an article gone by force, who refused to create the AfD themselves, probably because they knew what the result would be) but it is what it is. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
You asked me to clarify my position around what politices or guidelines informed my warning. That is what I did. As I noted above I'm not trying to take some holistic view of what is going on in this topic or comparing your actions to those of others. The bottomline is that your forcing of these issues was itself disruptive and should not be repeated. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it appears you're doing a circular reference to DE, which is about a pattern of policy-violating behaviour, and openly refusing to actually cite any underlying policies or guidelines for your allegations. It's gobsmacking to see from an admin but, as I say, it is what it is. Your position and comments are noted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The attack

Not only do I disagree with your reading of consensus at Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Requested_move_20_May_2021 as we established in our commenting at the move review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_June#2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol, your involvement at the MR should have inhibited you from closing the RM once it was reopened per WP:INVOLVED. Granted there be no specific rule that says someone involved in a MR discussion should be considered as "involved" in the RM being reviewed, but there should be. In any case it's moot for this particular case now as I've started a new RM proposing a move explicitly to the title I believe was already shown to be consensus-supported in the RM you closed as "no consensus". Sigh. It's a shame anyone ever challenged the original RM which was originally closed so astutely by Onetwothreeip. Oh well, looks like it's going to be rectified, finally. --В²C ☎ 19:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI, you might want to weigh in here: Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Does_being_involved_in_a_Move_Review_discussion_of_a_given_RM_constitute_being_WP:INVOLVED_in_the_reviewed_RM_once_it_is_reopened?. --В²C ☎ 20:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey. On the assessment of consensus, your position may well be correct, as your experience in requested moves and article titles is far greater than mine. But I don't think I personally agree with cutting corners like that, at least not on an article with 13 RMs in 6 months and when the discussion had structural issues. If I get a chance to go find them again I recall a few old, interesting closes that I'd say are relatable by analogy (on a slightly smaller scale) that you might find of interest. As I mentioned in the close it may well be that the proposed title has consensus, but I think the RM you started is the way to go to determine that clearly (for the reasons in my original close).
Re involvement, it's an interesting question. I'm not personally aware of it being a problem, since I don't think it exercises an opinion on content merits, and in the past I've had a couple occasions where I opined on a closes' correctness and was asked if I wanted to reclose it. I did disclose in the RM close regardless, for transparency. As for the discussion, thanks for starting it, I will see where it goes. Whatever the consensus on the issue, I feel like the same should apply to RfCs (reviewed at AN) and XfDs (reviewed at DRV) too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
By the way, В²C, while I have you here what's your position on closes like Talk:Spanish_flu#Requested_move_21_July_2021? Specifically, do you weigh votes that cite a WP:SHORTCUT but provide no evidence for the claim? That was a discussion where a lot of oppose votes came in before any evidence did, and only two opposes clearly referred to evidence for the COMMONNAME assertion. It's more obvious when discrediting votes that make either no assertion, or a logically unreasonable one, (eg this RM), but seems harder when the rationale is plausible, maybe even true, but largely unsubstantiated in the discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with your call there. The main thing I’d add is the onus is on the nom and Supporters to show that the proposed name is now the COMMONNAME. That the current name was the COMMONNAME and still is is the default assumption, so opposers don’t have to prove that. Another issue is that official names and academic noted by nom/Support carry less weight in determining COMMONNAME. What’s the usage in well known reliable news sources? That’s what matters most in telling us what readers are most likely to search and expect to find the topic at. Thanks for keeping our disagreement about the other thing on the high road. Much appreciated. Always good to agree to disagree, respectfully. If you’re interested in how I came to value nuance in RM decision-making check out my Yogurt Principle essay: User:Born2cycle/Yogurt principle. —В²C ☎ 01:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

requesting user permissions

Regarding your comment on the awkwardness of requesting user permissions: there are two user permissions that would be/would have been useful for me. At one time I was publishing a monthly newsletter for a WikiProject, and so sending out monthly requests for mass messages to be sent. At that time, the criteria was kind of hazy (it's still a bit open-ended), so I thought I'd just wait to see if anyone thought I could benefit from the mass messaging permission, but no one ever did. (It kind of irked me that around that time, someone with very little editing experience requested and received the right, and I think failed to exercise sufficient due diligence before fulfilling someone's request.)

The other permission that would be useful for me is template editor, as I created a module to implement a template that unexpectedly became used on more pages than I anticipated. The template was semi-protected, and, after the template editor permission was invented, became template-editor protected. The protection level of the module was not increased for some time, but some editor was auditing for such situations, and requested that the module be template-editor protected to match. When I noticed, I discussed the matter with the admin who protected the module, who agreed to lower both to semi-protection.

I could have requested the mass messaging privilege, and I could go looking for template-editor protected templates that need improvements and work at implementing them to demonstrate my knowledge in the area. But I didn't have the intention to fulfill other people's mass message requests back then, and I only want the template editor privilege to maintain the module I wrote before the concept of template editor was invented. So requests for these permissions could be considered hat collecting, as I don't really need them (making mass message requests isn't too onerous, and should the time come when the module in question is template-editor protected again, I can always make edit requests). So I have felt/would feel awkward asking for permissions that I can (and do) get by without. isaacl (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's certainly a bit of a pain point. I think you might be overthinking hat collecting though - no one really needs any permission, but if it's useful to your work around here, then there's not really a good reason to not have it. It's not like having a permission costs the WMF money or anything. I think my mentality on this is at least somewhat shared by most PERM admins, from the lurking I've done there. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
When I got template-editor I was doing a bunch of template editing but had maybe like two months of editing under my belt. The 'official guidelines' stipulate The editor should be a registered Wikipedia user who has been editing for at least 1 year, which I didn't meet. I think I also had two userrights given at the time (only one of which I asked for, but the other came in helpful every now and then), which might've given off a hat collecting vibe. I think I took a flick through the archives at the time to see if there was any precedent for a successful grant with lesser tenure. I only remember reading two relevant ones (this one was okay. Then there was this which was just a pure horror story). Mostly I think I just got lucky with the responding admin at PERM, who quickly granted and thus took the request off the board. Really I just didn't want to ask for it as I expected it to be unpleasant, and perhaps if a couple admins didn't persuade me to (on IRC) I wouldn't have. (As a sidenote, and in connection to the offwiki servers VPP, I think things like that are one advantage of the offwiki venues.) I think I turned out reasonably fine (if nothing else, the encyclopaedia still seems to be in one piece without red error messages everywhere), which perhaps calls into question whether that requirement is useful. I probably would've preferred some admin just give it out if they felt I was competent enough.
Your comment about perms only to be occasionally used is interesting. For me that's page mover (it comes in handy, but I wouldn't have requested it myself). SMcCandlish actually kindly surprise-nominated me for it here. (I only really use it for TfDs/template related things, and sometimes if I want to do relevant RMs, but I think it still saves admin time, + making move requests feel like a chore.) I think that kind of system (informally putting peers forward) is a good gesture IMO, and feels more community-y (for lack of word). It would be nice to see it be more commonplace. I suppose there's nothing stopping us from doing it already, but it feels so non-standard that I don't think the idea occurs to us often.
I feel like I largely object to the "hat collecting" idea in principle (even if one is just doing it for the hats, if you're actually using them then... aren't you just improving the project? and even if you only use them infrequently, what's the issue?), but I haven't thought about it enough, especially in comparison to other communities. For example: some forums, game communities, etc., tend to have volunteer groups/ranks and (for some) the desire to work towards them can be a motivating factor which seems to produce output. In other contexts, like GitHub projects, I don't think Committer access is often really something to 'strive' for. On Wikipedia, I'm sure there are probably people that do things to help them gain a hat, and that perhaps helps output. Conversely, how many contributions have been lost because someone didn't want to go through our perms processes?
Certainly, I think that Growth team project is a good opportunity to experiment with a different permissions system. Especially since that seems like the kind of area where you want a lot of casual volunteers and peer-based work. If there are other editors who feel (like you or I) that they might not make permissions requests for occasional use then it would be rather damaging for the success of the mentoring project. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit old school regarding privileges: I don't mind the idea that they should be requested when their absence is a significant hinderance to the editor in question. From the other perspective, I understand why in an environment where we're all anonymous, grantors look for some indications of relevant abilities and trustworthiness. That can be through meeting certain criteria, or through recommendations from other trusted users (as in your case for page mover).
I think Editor of the Week is the biggest initiative I've worked on to encourage new editors. I feel trying to connect editors with active subcommunities, even if only as observers, would help encourage them to stick around. It's a bit of a catch-22, though: many of English Wikipedia's subcommunities need reinvigorating. In spite of the time zone clustering effect, it's where real-time communication channels may be helpful. isaacl (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the 'demonstrated need' school of thought. An example is WP:EFM. It is pretty much impossible for a non-EFM to show demonstrated need (except by saying "I want to create filters"). With page mover you can judge discussions and make move requests, and with template editor you can make TPERs (some types anyway; complex ones will be difficult to review). With EFM almost all the tools to help create filters are closed off to non-EFM. WP:EFH has access to a couple, so arguably that right would be a 'stepping stone' in demonstrated need? Well, EFN consensuses have established that EFH requests for that purpose should be denied, hence a catch-22.
It mostly becomes a trustworthiness thing, vastly improved by having an EFM (or an admin, I suppose) vouch for you. That's not really a problem, since trust doesn't come from thin air and it is an anonymous community, but I'd prefer if were just honest and said "get to know people" rather than just "have a demonstrated need". (generally, you don't even need a need at all if you have the former) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
My viewpoint is a slight step down from demonstrated need. (I'm also expressing a personal view, not one that I think should necessarily be adopted for all cases.) I think when a user is doing various tasks, demonstrating their skills, and has to continually get assistance from others with additional rights, they will be able to judge that the user would benefit from having additional privileges. You could do this with edit filters, by being involved in the process and developing the appropriate regular expressions, though I suspect that in practice it's granted on more of a vouch system. isaacl (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I think one can only develop basic expressions in filters without the relevant perms, the kind that any EFM could write themselves. To narrow them down to something more useful you need to be able to match against prior hits, which non-EFM can't do. I did author a filter once as a non-EFM after 3 months of a filter request lingering on the board; it took another two months to move it to warn. (Although that was mostly in a lot of delays between each request and waiting for results, rather than one long delay.) It's borderline make-work to author simple filters even if it did demonstrate need, and impractical to author complex ones and/or those probably just won't get reviewed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Areas highly dependent on a restricted toolset could benefit from an apprenticeship system. isaacl (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Elli, and with Isaacl's followup comment on "a step down from demonstrated need". If it would be useful and you have clue, then request the permission. Don't ask for it if you wouldn't use it. Further, consider having it removed if you never use it. E.g., I could get AccountCreator at any time (and did have it at one time) but don't have any intent to work on that for the foreseeable future, so I don't have that bit (now).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Couple of days late on this one, but some thoughts. I think "tenure" at PERM penalizes editors who recently signed up while overlooking those of us who made our accounts some time before we became active editors. I suspect Proc's early granting would be because he's technically a 2018 account, and my three-months granting of PMR was definitely because I'm technically a 2016 account, because I have that page watchlisted and routinely see tenure declines for literally a few days short of 180. On the specific matter of MMS "need for the tools", this is based entirely on how often you send mass messages, and coming in with the intent of fulfilling other people's requests is if anything somewhat discouraged. The actual WT:MMS work of fulfilling requests by people without the right is more or less all by one guy, which does open us up to a fair bit of bus factor, especially considering how niche the right is. (On the other hand, it's sparsely requested and the "backlog" is minutes or hours.) Vaticidalprophet 12:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

EFM Mailing List

Hey Proc, I'm not sure whether I was supposed to receive a confirmation that an email I sent to the list had been accepted by a listmod, but if so I haven't got it yet. Any ideas? --Jack Frost (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, we got the mail. Incoming emails for the list aren't subject to moderation so that could be why there was no confirmation. In regards to the substance of the email, I passed it on to an admin more involved in the topic area for thoughts earlier today. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. That's odd, I got an autoreply saying it was being held until list mod review. Cheers, --Jack Frost (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I may well be wrong on that then. I think MusikAnimal is a list admin so he may know more. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes all incoming emails by non-members are subject to moderation. If it weren't for that you'd be seeing a lot of spam ;) — MusikAnimal talk 16:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Ahah, thankyou both for indulging my confusion. Cheers, --Jack Frost (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Not entirely randomly chosen editor to close an RFC

I notice that you have closed other RFCs, so I may I press you into service? Would you close Category talk:Criticism of political correctness#RFC: Should this category contain individual people?, please? In theory at least, it should be uncontentious since there are no dissenting voices; the presence in the category of individual critics looks intended to bypass deletion of category:Critics of political correctness. The RFC shouldn't even be needed – if I put Whale shark in category:Marine mammals, I would expect immediate deletion – but this is a sensitive topic and it is useful to have a clear ruling that may be cited in edit notes. If you are happy to do the close, thank you. If not, I'll have to spin the wheel again. :-D --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, seems easy enough. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Dead diff

You may already know this but one of the diffs ([26]) in your comment at WP:ARC isn't working because the revisions have been deleted. I thought you might want to augment it (e.g. with Special:PermaLink/1037977774#What to do about BHG?) so non-admins can see it. Nardog (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Replaced with that link and the editor/timestamp of the comment I was referring to. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

RE your comments about me having a "financial stake in promoting a topic"

If you do some research, you will discover that 'Tell It Like A Woman' was produced by We Do It Together which is a non-profit film production company. Please ALWAYS do research before taking content down. Also, you took down previously added content from another user - please put it back.

Please REWRITE the content if you are not satisfied with it instead of jumping to conclusions. Here are the two projects that need to be added to Chiara's bio (plus the other content that was already there that you took down):

2019 -2021 'Tell It Like A Woman' film (nonprofit work with We Do It Together) March 4th, 2021 'One OF Us' (nonprofit work with We Do It Together in collaboration with the Consulate General of Italy, Frequency Production, Violetta Group, and the Italian Cultural Institute of Los Angeles )

NONE of these films were made for profit.

I believe in the vision of We Do It Together - we NEED more women in front & behind the camera. Please check out the company for yourself and write the article as you see fit. Here is their website: https://www.wedoittogether.org/


If I were getting "paid" to do this - I would have known how to avoid being flagged don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliRUSA (talk • contribs)

@EliRUSA: The template is a standardised message; the imperative phrase in it being "gives the impression". Non-profit entities often still pay people; The Wikimedia Foundation is non-profit and pays plenty of people for example. As for the removed content, you're getting me mixed up with someone else. I didn't remove anything; see the page history. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader - can you please just write the article instead of going back and forth? You clearly know what is allowed in it so please write it as I don't understand how it could possibly be misinterpreted or give any impressions. I wrote a basic update to her bio. A Non-Profit isn't owned by anyone - Chiara founded We Do It Together but doesn't own it. Any impressions were created by your viewpoint @ProcrastinatingReader and unfortunately, I can't control the way you interpret things. I don't have an alternate motive - I just want more people aware of projects done by women, about women. The industry is changing and people need to know. Please rewrite my content so it doesn't give anyone any impressions of murky motives. I sincerely appreciate it.

It's not really my topic area of interest I'm afraid, which is also why I didn't edit the article (except to add a notability tag). From a quick Google earlier I couldn't find much coverage in reliable sources. A lot of the content people removed was on the basis of it being unsourced, so if you can find a reliable source to verify it, you should be able to readd. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Christchurch

You are currently doing what I wanted to, but with more guts and skill. If you can think of a way to make the list of events by date in 'Related arrests and incidents' and 'Arrests and prosecutions' more informative and cohesive, well then I can move onto more rewarding pages. Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, you're too kind. Yeah, those sections also have a bit of a timeline issue. A new formulation wasn't immediately obvious to me so I figured I'd leave it for later. The person with a real knack for this kind of stuff is EEng; if we can onboard him the job is already half-done. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC) note: this is re Christchurch mosque shootings
@EEng: I'm also thinking some restructuring may be required, but not entirely sure. The article has a very loose structure (eg the aftermath and legacy sections are a bit intertwined). I figured the "preparation for the attack" sub-section should probably come before the section on the attack itself, but separating it out individually is a bit weird since the attacker wouldn't be introduced. Moving the whole "Perpetuator" section up might be a bit heavy, but could be a possible solution too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
While strict chronological order is seldom the best, the way it is now, jumping right in without almost no background, is jarring. But before any tinkering with sequence, the article really needs a machete taken to it. There's way too much tiny detail; my reputation precedes me, I am sure. EEng 15:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@EEng: Are you done with the machete or taking a break? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've been asked to proofread a friend's book, so I'll have less time for a few weeks. I may dip in now and then. EEng 13:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Query

Hey. What was EEng actually doing on June 4 if Swarm is the one who moved the page on April 20? Do you understand what's going on there? Thanks! El_C 01:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Swarm's move seems to be April 2021. (EEng's June 2020). Per this log entry I'm guessing EEng was reversing TheKenTop's move 3 minutes prior to EEng's, which was to the title The Death of George Floyd (history). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. What method did you use to locate the "Per this log entry" link? El_C 02:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@El C: That was just the move log of the "Killing of George Floyd" page, which EEng apparently deleted. It's usually a good place to look. The definitive place to look is the same user's move log; there will be a complimentary move entry at the same timestamp as the 'deletion'. (here). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

New MEDRS for SARS-CoV-2 origin

Can you please add this excellent review to the list of scholarly sources you made in : Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Scholarship? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017 The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review, Cell Journal. Thanks in advance, Forich (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: Sure, added. I'm happy for anyone to directly add to that list btw (& most of the entries were added by others). That seems like an excellent review at a skim, and I eagerly await its final publication so it can be used in the article. It also verifies several statements we added as obvious but didn't really have solid sourcing for. (Courtesy ping Shibbolethink; might be interested if not already aware.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
ooooh yeah this is desperately needed. I did know something like this was coming but I didn't know it would end up in Cell. I know a few names on there, they're good people who have been trying to contribute to the narrative and offer a scientific perspective. This doesn't solve any questions, really, but it does help us accurately describe one of the most prominent scientific viewpoints. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
It's especially helpful in describing the Lineage A vs B phenomenon in genetic sequences of the early outbreak, for which we were previously using News sources and twitter threads (lol). Definitely this MEDRS is preferable. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProcBot 9

Hi ProcrastinatingReader! I saw your comments on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProcBot 9. Excluding namespaces is definitely something that can be done, but where did you see anything about editing the user talk page not counting as activity for the purposes of WP:RESTRICT? Once that's sorted and there is something that I can point to, I can push the change. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: it's at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive: Activity solely on the users' own talk page does not constitute a return to activity so long as they have been blocked or otherwise inactive for two years or more, however restrictions should not be archived while there is an open unblock request on the user's talk page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Change implemented. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United Airlines Flight 175

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United Airlines Flight 175 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United Airlines Flight 175

The article United Airlines Flight 175 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:United Airlines Flight 175 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United Airlines Flight 175

The article United Airlines Flight 175 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:United Airlines Flight 175 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of United Airlines Flight 175

Hello! Your submission of United Airlines Flight 175 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for United Airlines Flight 175

On 11 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article United Airlines Flight 175, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after being hijacked, United Airlines Flight 175 almost had two mid-air collisions with other aircraft before crashing into the South Tower of the World Trade Center (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United Airlines Flight 175. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, United Airlines Flight 175), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Just wondering

I haven't looked into the template code at all, but do you know how much effort it would be to import the improvements made on {{Gs/talk notice}} back to {{Ds/talk notice}}? Don't put much effort into it – I haven't really talked to the committee about it – but it does seem like it'd be useful to do so, personally. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably not very difficult. Maybe Module:Sanctions/data would need a key to toggle between community and ArbCom authorisations, and the text should change slightly based on that. I can’t think of any other issues off the top of my head. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, been really busy, not editing

So I guess it's too late to substitute ... that the hijackers of United Airlines Flight 175 – which was crashed into WTC South during the September 11 attacks – were disappointed to find themselves drowning in a lake of putrid sewage for all eternity, instead of getting the promised bumper crop of virgins? EEng 04:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I like. It would definitely get more clicks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, even without EEng's help it managed over 150,000 clicks - the fourth most DYK views ever. Congrats! Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 175

Seems your hook was the fourth most viewed DYK hook of all time! nice work theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Could you restart task 2/2.5?

Could you restart task 2/2.5 on Category:Pages using infobox television with nonstandard dates? Gonnym (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to get around to this at some point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Belated disclosure

Hi, Proc. Thanks again for approving Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/'zinbot. Looking over some policy stuff today, I realized I omitted a required disclosure in that BRFA, namely that the bot runs from a server where someone else (namely TheresNoTime) has sysadmin rights. When she made the offer to host 'zinbot, partway through the BRFA, I consulted WP:BOTPOL to see whether I needed to disclose this. WP:BOTMULTIOP seemed to be the only relevant provision, and wasn't applicable since TNT would not be operating the bot. However, I recently realized that a provision of a different policy, WP:SHAREDACCOUNT, applies here, at least if one takes knowing OAuth info as tantamount to knowing a password. And under that policy I should have disclosed her theoretical access to that info at the BRFA. Specifically it says that the situation should be made clear and ha[ve] consensus.

So I'm belatedly making it clear now, and in a moment I will disclose it on 'zinbot's userpage. However, I'm not sure what I need to do about the "has consensus" part. Does the BRFA need be reopened, or alternately do I need to move 'zinbot to hosting of my own? To be clear, TNT has no actual role in operating the bot; it's just that, in theory, if she logs in to the sysadmin account she can see the OAuth info. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't personally think it's a problem that requires any special disclosures. It's akin to Toolforge root users having access to bot accounts, or at least running a bot on managed hosting. I remember last time it was discussed some other BAG members disagreed, so if you want to be on the safe side you could leave a note at WP:BOTN. There are several bots where multiple users have access to the underlying server though, and none ever need to be rubber-stamped by BAG or require any other form of "consensus", so my personal feeling is that the text suggesting such (at WP:SHAREDACCOUNT) itself lacks consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

  1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere
    The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
  2. Level of scrutiny
    Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
  3. Standards needed to pass keep rising
    It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
  4. Too few candidates
    There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
  5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

  1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
    Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
  2. Admin permissions and unbundling
    There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
  3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
    Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Main Page snapshots, ProcBot task 3 suspended?

Hi. I noticed that Wikipedia:Main Page history hasn't received any new snapshots since September 26. Is this something you'd be able to remedy? Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Checking through the server logs, apparently the installation of Ruby has disappeared on the server hosting ProcBot (among some other abnormalities), which is why the tasks weren't being executed. Doesn't seem to be disk failure, or any kind of compromise, so at a glance I have no clue what has happened here. I'll have to do some checks, but I'll see if I can get the bot up and running again soon. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator, in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified. You personify an administrator without tools and have gained my support already!

Greetings ProcrastinatingReader. Per my recent comment to you,[27] and the many other times I have observed your competence and clue, I am posting this message. Curiously, it seems like you should already be an admin. And this message is to urge you to consider an RfA for yourself. I have no doubt that many of our most respected administrators would be happy to endorse your candidacy with a nomination statement, and I sincerely believe that you would emerge successfully, as an administrator. The project would surely benefit if you did. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a trap, PR! Run! EEng 04:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words :) Your idea about encouraging the use of {{GetMop}} seems promising btw! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree. You'd be a good admin. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments on RfA brainstorming

Regarding this comment: although it doesn't really matter what "MP" stands for, perhaps for clarity you might consider expanding it? (I'm guessing you're referring to the main page?) isaacl (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, expanded. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Imia/Kardak RM

One of the partipants in the dispute collapsed the part about the canvassing issues. While I agree that it should be collapsed, I disagree with their caption, "Off-topic". Indeed, it is not off-topic. Instead, the caption could be sth like "Canvassing concerns" or sth similar. Can you do sth as a neutral editor? [28]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Like how ProcrastinatingReader said: "The discussion immediately above, however, is not as relevant.". Accusations against editors ≠ Content discussion. Note: the accusations aren't removed. Are collapsed while maintained in their place, to not interrupt the natural flow of the discussion. Since you are unhappy with the term "Off-topic" for it, then I will gladly replace it i.e. with "Problematic Discussion" like how it was done here: at this RfC here where you participated. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources box

Hello. What is the reason your COVID LLT source box is collapsed? This doesn't encourage editors to add more sources for consideration. LondonIP (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The "edit" buttons are quite prominent. I'm not sure what the issue is? If uncollapsed, it would create a significant burden for anyone scrolling on the various pages the template is used on. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Video timestamps

A question for a programmer: can we create an equivalent of Template:Page numbers for video timestamps? I would like to reference minute #, second # of this video, in WHO-convened report, as a reference for the reason Marc Lipsitch gave for signing the Science letter (it was to counter the WHO report). I believe this feature and a Template:Video timestamps needed tag would improve the WP:V of videos used as references, of which there are many (like it or not). LondonIP (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@LondonIP: Technically speaking sure, but I think this is more a referencing problem, which I'm not overly experienced in. I'd suggest asking at Help talk:Citation Style 1 -- a lot of technical editors there who are experienced with citation templates and referencing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

RfA review

Regarding this comment: I don't think it's a fair summation. I can be against steps that I deem would have insignificant effect without being against all possible incremental steps. (Which, in fact, I am.) isaacl (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It was intended as a question rather than a summation, but on the general point, I do think some people have the view of 'preferred solution or oppose' (see eg [29]), which I think is not productive towards building consensus towards something useful. That's, of course, unless one has genuine opposition to the compromise solution, which is fair enough, but I'm not sure why one might support a mandatory solution[30] but then oppose (as in, feel it would be worse than status quo) the opt-in one.
(courtesy ping Piotrus, if he wants to clarify his perspective) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The comment you replied to indicated that the editor was agreeable to taking incremental steps, but felt that the step being proposed was too small. It's fair to argue whether or not the step is too small, but I think it's somewhat confrontational to ask if the editor is against all incremental steps. isaacl (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit filter 1,159 (Chris Chan monitoring)

I'm seeing a lot of false positives attributed to this filter. I'm guessing it's because Chris is a common first name and Chan is a common Asian last name, and also because of people named Chris with surnames that start with 'Chan'. Is there any way that these false positives can be prevented?

Here are some examples of false positives:

wizzito | say hello! 09:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wizzito: Sure; I made a slight tweak which should reduce FPs, including 3 of the 5 diffs you linked. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing that filter! I've been tweaking it a bit lately, must've messed up my grouping. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

TFD thought

Just a thought for the future, if you relist a discussion with the intention of adding in extra templates, you should add those templates to the nomination (via {{tfd links}}) as well as tagging them. Right now, technically speaking, neither of them are actually nominated. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Good shout. Forgot some of the manual steps; somewhat spoilt by Twinkle and XfDCloser. Thanks for taking care of that for this discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, December 2021

Bots Newsletter, December 2021
BRFA activity by month

Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Maintainers disappeared to parts unknown... bots awakening from the slumber of æons... hundreds of thousands of short descriptions... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.

Our last issue was in August 2019, so there's quite a bit of catching up to do. Due to the vast quantity of things that have happened, the next few issues will only cover a few months at a time. This month, we'll go from September 2019 through the end of the year. I won't bore you with further introductions — instead, I'll bore you with a newsletter about bots.

Overall

  • Between September and December 2019, there were 33 BRFAs. Of these, Green checkmarkY 25 were approved, and 8 were unsuccessful (Dark red X symbolN2 3 denied, Blue question mark? 3 withdrawn, and Expired 2 expired).

September 2019

Look! It's moving. It's alive. It's alive... It's alive, it's moving, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, IT'S ALIVE!
  • Green checkmarkY Monkbot 16, DannyS712 bot 60, Ahechtbot 6, PearBOT 3, Qbugbot 3 · Dark red X symbolN2 DannyS712 bot 5, PkbwcgsBot 24 · Blue question mark? DannyS712 bot 61, TheSandBot 4
  • TParis goes away, UTRSBot goes kaput: Beeblebrox noted that the bot for maintaining on-wiki records of UTRS appeals stopped working a while ago. TParis, the semi-retired user who had previously run it, said they were "unlikely to return to actively editing Wikipedia", and the bot had been vanquished by trolls submitting bogus UTRS requests on behalf of real blocked users. While OAuth was a potential fix, neither maintainer had time to implement it. TParis offered to access to the UTRS WMFLabs account to any admin identified with the WMF: "I miss you guys a whole lot [...] but I've also moved on with my life. Good luck, let me know how I can help". Ultimately, SQL ended up in charge. Some progress was made, and the bot continued to work another couple months — but as of press time, UTRSBot has not edited since November 2019.
  • Article-measuring contest resumed: The list of Wikipedians by article count, which had lain dead for several years, was triumphantly resurrected by GreenC following a bot request.

October 2019

November 2019

Now you're thinking with portals.

December 2019

In the next issue of Bots Newsletter:
What's next for our intrepid band of coders, maintainers and approvers?

  • What happens when two bots want to clerk the same page?
  • What happens when an adminbot goes hog wild?
  • Will reFill ever get fixed?
  • What's up with ListeriaBot, anyway?
  • Python 3.4 deprecation? In my PyWikiBot? (It's more likely than you think!)

These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the January 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out!

Signing off... jp×g 04:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Editor retention

The editor retention project doesn't like to discuss purely speculative conjectures, either—well, at least I don't. isaacl (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep or delete the Monarch

Howdy. Just letting you know I've opened up an RFC at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, for all the Year in constituent country articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Happy St. Patrick's Day!
I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations.
Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk 

YGM

Hello, ProcrastinatingReader. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

Thank you multiple times!

AFD's

First off, I want to thank you for your works at Template editing, having said, I stumbled across some of the AFD's you have opened recently and it seems they are inundated with keep !votes, I do not necessarily see this as a failure on your part to do a proper WP:BEFORE as even the best of new page reviewers sometimes encounter such experiences, but rather, i see this as a gradual decay of the AFD process itself. This is a rather sad reality that Scope_creep noted a long time ago, when they stated “AFD's no longer works except it’s a slam-dunk AFD” In-fact, I myself (if it is not a promotional article) I too do not bother to nominate some non notable articles for deletion, rather I adopt the philosophy of John B123 where I just tag the article and move to the next article. My thinking is, if in the future you want to nominate an article for deletion, asking for feedback from here would prove very helpful. Celestina007 (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you're referring to the following three (currently unclosed) AfDs?
I would say in the first two the keep vote is false; both in the assertion of GNG and the supplied source(s) (to which I've now responded), and in trying to sell an essay as an SNG. In the third AfD, it seems the first keep editor agrees NCORP isn't met but feels the article should be kept anyway, and the second makes an argument based on the encyclopaedic-ness of the content. I don't really check an AfD after I nominate an article, though now that you've reminded me of them I've replied in the first two AfDs, but regardless of what the end result ends up being I do think they're all valid AfDs and the articles in question should be deleted as they fail WP:N, though I respect those who feel otherwise. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
You aren’t necessarily incorrect to sometimes nominate an article for deletion and then un-watch the article, in-fact, under Barkeep49, I learnt to open AFD's make a few comments and then walk away. AFD's or (NPP) in general are sometimes so tiring it has led to the retirement and vexation of Onel5969 who was one of my mentors(still is). You aren’t also wrong when you say some !votes are false, for example take a look at this AFD I opened, note how both editors (from WikiProject Ghana) are both !voting keeps without actually giving a salient reason. The decay in AFD's are so because knowledgeable editors who should participate in AFD’s aren’t participating anymore, hereby giving leeway to editors who aren’t grounded in policy to “play around” and yes you are correct all three named AFD's are valid, Later in the day I shall do a BEFORE and weigh in on them and cast my !vote objectively. Thank you for your time PR, do enjoy the rest of your day. Celestina007 (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Software is an interesting area at AfD. There are indeed many software articles that are lacking in RS coverage but I haven't nominated (and wouldn't) because I think they're encyclopaedic, which is why I respect the comments of those who are voting based on their view of the encyclopaedic-ness of the content. There are software packages that are used throughout the industry but don't really get coverage in mainstream RS and their articles are mostly sourced to changelogs etc. For example, Log4j probably didn't have amazing coverage in RS (although perhaps still enough for GNG) until recently when there was a major vulnerability that affected millions of users (see Log4Shell), also leading to a flurry of reliable source coverage.
Though I do think these particular ones don't meet the bar, of sourcing or encyclopaedic-ness. It's just cookie-cutter commercial software sourced to basically a singular review, and Macworld (given its scope) will review almost any Mac app that isn't completely awful. Some of the reviews are just straight promo [31].
Based on your example, I will express my view that I think AfD closers should treat comments that say Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as if they were never written. Unless a comment either explicitly links to sources, or valid links have been made earlier in the discussion, or it's blatantly obvious from looking at the sources in the article, those commenting at AfD should be providing the links to said "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources", otherwise they're just votes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I've lost faith in AfD. With only a handful of editors participating in any AfD, it's hardly a representative consensus of community opinion. Whilst in theory the discussions are policy based, in practice a few people, either for or against, can sway the result based on liberal interpretation on policy.
As far as NPP is concerned, a new article may not seem to be notable either because it's not notable or because the notability is not shown in the article. Whilst in an ideal world you'd search to see if the subject was indeed notable, the purpose of NPP is triage, so tagging and moving on is appropriate IMHO. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Holiday greetings (2021)

ProcrastinatingReader,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! All the best to you and yours as well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Books

Is there a residual project page for the Books: namespace and books that were userfied as a result? – SJ + 00:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Aha, I had to read Wikipedia:Books/archive#Subpages again to understand it -- odd that only 15 books were undeleted, and I assumed others had been userfied without leaving a record. – SJ + 00:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I guess it's possible some books were undeleted and then moved to the creator's userspace? eg I know David Eppstein moved his books to his userspace, albeit before the namespace's deletion. FWIW I didn't take part in the implementation of the closure decision, which was handled here, so Trialpears is probably better placed to answer implementation questions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I know a bunch of books we're moved before deletion. I have been looking to compile a list now and I believe User:Discographer/Books, David Eppstein's books, listed on hist userpage, Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry/Book and User:54nd60x/Books were all books moved before archiving. A few books have been refunded and not moved as you noticed. The following books have been moved from their archive location. Wikipedia:Books/archive/Fundamental_Data_Structures Wikipedia:Books/archive/Malaysia, Wikipedia:Books/archive/Ayn_Rand, Wikipedia:Books/archive/Electricity_Generation_using_Solar_Thermal_Technology, Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Books/archive/DIVYA_BHARTI, Wikipedia:Books/archive/Algorithms, Wikipedia:Books/archive/Carole_Lombard, Wikipedia:Books/archive/William_Holden, Wikipedia:Books/archive/Mental_health, Wikipedia:Books/archive/Michigan_State_Trunkline_Highway_System and Wikipedia:Books/archive/Managing_enterprises_with_advanced_ICT. I believe that is all moves prompted by the deletion process, but it doesn't include moves from bookspace before June 2021. --Trialpears (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

RfA elections

Hi. Whether you support secure poll for RfA or not, it's not the issue - I don't give two hoots about an alternative voting method either because there will always be a section to discuss the candidate(s) just like there is at ACE, and it would not be likely to prevent toxic comments. However, I am concerned that if an RfC were to be launched, it would provide the community with ample opportunity to decide which way they want to go. One is not compelled to vote 'Support, as proposer', how would you feel about co-drafting an RfC proposal? It's something I would not hesitate to do myself if I were not semi-retired and still had all my marbles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I think it's fair enough that there should be a good discussion on the issue via RfC. Personally though, I'm not enthusiastic enough about the elections idea to co-draft an RfC, and also am not sure I'm the best choice since I don't have a lot of experience with RfA. Maybe Worm That Turned (as the original drafter) or Wugapodes would make better co-drafters? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't ask them, because they have both been very busy lately with various RfC, but of course if they feel up to it they are welcome to do so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
That said, of course, Wugapodes has been elected to the Arbcom and will probably find it such a time sink that he won't have time for much else. You have been extremely busy in governance issues since you began editing 18 months ago, and I haven't since I retired from active editing, so perhaps you have an idea who might be approachable (perhaps TonyBallioni?). OTOH, the issue of RfA elections might simply be left to die a natural death if the WMF can't be goaded into making the secret poll software available, so it would be back to the jolly old status quo of RfA with all its trials & tribulations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
My massive policy RfC days are behind me. I will say this, the biggest hurdle to overcome if this is held as an independent RfC will be overcoming the very entrenched idea that RfAs aren't votes, even though they obviously are and always have been. Consensus can't redefine the English language. Trying to overcome the English Wikipedia's 20 year attempt to redefine what the word "vote" means to somehow exclude a discussion with strict numeric thresholds for succeeding will be much harder in an RfC on only one issue. Those type of things are easier to get through in omnibus RfCs when the people who would ordinarily oppose them on those ground might focus on other issues/not notice.
On the idea itself, I agree with Risker's assessment somewhere that a secret ballot will decrease the passing percentage since the public nature of RfA actually makes people nicer than if it was private. See the one and only set functionary elections we held on en.wiki as an example. If you want to go down the election route, the way I would do it would be to have public elections held twice a year with strict numeric criteria for passing (let's say 70% and minimum 100 supports or something like that.) People would put in a statement at the beginning and then you'd vote with public comments. Anyone meeting the numeric thresholds would be elected with no maximum number being able to be promoted each election cycle.
You'd have to work out the kinks, and I doubt it'd pass as a standalone RfC, but if anyone is interested in pursuing the elections idea, elections with public voting is significantly more likely to increase the promotion rate than elections with private voting, in my opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I knew ArbCom would be a time sink, and even still I underestimated how little time and energy I have left for other wiki tasks. My two cents, PR, is that your disinterest would make you a good drafter. On issues like this where there are entrenched ideological differences, it is hard to find a viable consensus if a proposal is only written by those on one side; having diverse views at drafting helps prevent surprises during consideration. My concern is that major changes be unambiguous and well thought through. Very often we only have one chance at major experiments like this, because it is hard to recover from failure. In the best case, it fails and serves as evidence against any similar proposals. At worst we're stuck with a broken process for years. Your disinterest in the actual substance means you're more likely to focus on the practical rather than philosophical aspects of an electoral system, and that's an asset. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
In that case sure; Kudpung I’d be happy to co-draft with you. Let me know how you want to organise it. It probably helps that a discussion was already had on the issue, which means it’s easier to identify the main areas of community concern, and of course there’s the analysis you’ve already done too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I would like to thank TonyBallioni and Wugapodes for their valuable input. They both highlight fundamental issues surrounding such an exercise. Like all well intended RfA reforms before it, although Barkeep49's project identified the same most likely possible reasons for the dearth of admin candidates as all the other discussions did before it, it failed to result in any solutions directly related to it. Moreover, due to its structure, it evolved more into a reform of minor, non-RfA aspects of adminship where it did find some resonance. Much of the knowledge gaps which need to be filled are those that are still being bridged by popular conjecture. One needs to re-examine and establish what the core issues are without all the white noise, before expecting the community to join another big debate. I've emailed you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with Tony that I think passing this as a standalone will face a lot of challenges and that if it were to pass support %s would plummet. But I wish good luck to anyone who is embarking on it - we need to make the process of appointing new admins better and this is one way that has some clear level of current community support to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:, FWIW I've never been fond of omnibus RfCs. I was taught many years ago that it's better to address one thing at a time, and indeed that's what seems to work best on Wikipedia, at least in my experience. Besides, one would have to wait another 5 years before throwing another time consuming multi-faceted RfA project at the community. They tire easily and there's also a lot of questions going to be raised this year about the other one: ACE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays


Rlink2 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

)

KendalAndrew Strikes Back

Hey, I've been reverting edits made by User:Kendalandrew (a la [32]). They keep trying to add content similar to their other edits to Robert Courts like they did before. I'm worried that it's basically an edit war at this point. Would you mind helping out a bit? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@PerpetuityGrat: filed an AE; see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Kendalandrew. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Continued from AE

Continuing from my comment: In revision deleting the list of accounts both from AE and the user's talk page, I needed to revision delete the diff you mention, which I'm not overly happy about as it makes your complaint less transparent - so for context if needed in the future, I quoted three words from an email I received from Encyclopædius, which I believe to be well below the threshold of potential issues mentioned in Wikipedia:Emailing users#Reposting emails publicly. You are however correct in both cases; it is not against policy, but it is somewhat frowned upon.

I should note that all of my revision deletions have little to no standing in policy, and I am relying on WP:IAR - if anyone complains, I will revert myself without challenge.

On a personal note, I really do try to give people the benefit of the doubt - I don't always get that right. I hope Encyclopædius reconsiders -- TNT (talk • she/her) 10:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, the alt accounts are out there now. And just as well since it smells like there's been UPE. Probably this needs WP:SCRUTINY. Alexbrn (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
With emails, my view is that there's probably a reason the editor hasn't made the comments onwiki. For some reason or another, they want to have a conversation off-the-record or express something they would feel less comfortable doing onwiki, and while there's no policy obligation to respect that I still think it's good practice to do so.
Regarding the accounts, my concern was pretty much just what I said at AE. A lot of CUs might've disclosed incidental findings off the bat, and I don't think that's good practice unless there's concern of misuse but it's common enough to be considered acceptable, but you didn't and I think you're a thoughtful functionary so I felt the need to express my concern. I think you handled the expressed concern very well, and I'm aware you were under no obligation to do it that way, so thanks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ProcrastinatingReader/Archive_2&oldid=1067621757"