MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) →The Signpost: 20 March 2023: new section Tag: |
Tag: Reply |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:::::I suggest to remove autopatrolled from them and see how the reviewers deal with their articles for some while, so they can see where we see deficiencies in their articles or where they can improve themselves.[[User:Paradise Chronicle|Paradise Chronicle]] ([[User talk:Paradise Chronicle|talk]]) 14:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
:::::I suggest to remove autopatrolled from them and see how the reviewers deal with their articles for some while, so they can see where we see deficiencies in their articles or where they can improve themselves.[[User:Paradise Chronicle|Paradise Chronicle]] ([[User talk:Paradise Chronicle|talk]]) 14:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::Will you have any final say @[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]]? You mentioned stub creators are not ideal for autopatrolled, you also noticed they were seemingly granted the right not knowing for what it is...Just to say, they keep on creating stubs like before, lots of technical info with no use for the average reader, practically no prose, and no image. Or they create an article without a source like [[Draft:Jean McDonough Arts Center|this one]]. [[User:Paradise Chronicle|Paradise Chronicle]] ([[User talk:Paradise Chronicle|talk]]) 00:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC) |
::::::Will you have any final say @[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]]? You mentioned stub creators are not ideal for autopatrolled, you also noticed they were seemingly granted the right not knowing for what it is...Just to say, they keep on creating stubs like before, lots of technical info with no use for the average reader, practically no prose, and no image. Or they create an article without a source like [[Draft:Jean McDonough Arts Center|this one]]. [[User:Paradise Chronicle|Paradise Chronicle]] ([[User talk:Paradise Chronicle|talk]]) 00:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::::@[[User:Paradise Chronicle|Paradise Chronicle]] truth be told, I have not been able to give this tons of time. The established procedure is to post at ANI to request removal and that is likely what is needed at this point because I'm pour nearly all of my wiki focus into the open ArbCom case. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== ''The Signpost'': 9 March 2023 == |
== ''The Signpost'': 9 March 2023 == |
Revision as of 15:37, 20 March 2023
Autopatrolled for stub creators
I saw your response at the reviewers talk page. Since your are one of the admins formerly or currently involved in Autopatrolled, I am interested in your opinion in a specific case.
I came across Pvmoutside, who is a prolific stub creator since over 10 years. At the beginning of his wikipedia career he also created some start class articles. Pvmoutsid was given the autopatrolled rights by an editor who is no longer editing since 2012. I have also requested advice of another admin involved in autopatrolled but as to the 1 March 2023, he didn't respond. I wonder what your conclusion is here, but I would remove autopatrolled rights from Pvmoutside, but explain to them that it is beneficial to their articles to get a review. Then the reviewers could tag their articles for too technical, no image, lead to short etc. if deemed necessary.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- The admin gave me autopatrol rights because I also maintain articles which use the move and swap functions. I'd like to continue using those functions....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Pvmoutside autopatrol doesn't do anything around moving and swap - that sounds more like WP:Page mover to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- As long as I can continue to move and swap, I'm OK with anything you guys decide to do, although I do see a backlog at new article review, and I try to be careful with not making errors, but there are a couple of editors that watch me in case zI do..if it ain't broke.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest to remove autopatrolled from them and see how the reviewers deal with their articles for some while, so they can see where we see deficiencies in their articles or where they can improve themselves.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Will you have any final say @Barkeep49? You mentioned stub creators are not ideal for autopatrolled, you also noticed they were seemingly granted the right not knowing for what it is...Just to say, they keep on creating stubs like before, lots of technical info with no use for the average reader, practically no prose, and no image. Or they create an article without a source like this one. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Paradise Chronicle truth be told, I have not been able to give this tons of time. The established procedure is to post at ANI to request removal and that is likely what is needed at this point because I'm pour nearly all of my wiki focus into the open ArbCom case. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Will you have any final say @Barkeep49? You mentioned stub creators are not ideal for autopatrolled, you also noticed they were seemingly granted the right not knowing for what it is...Just to say, they keep on creating stubs like before, lots of technical info with no use for the average reader, practically no prose, and no image. Or they create an article without a source like this one. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest to remove autopatrolled from them and see how the reviewers deal with their articles for some while, so they can see where we see deficiencies in their articles or where they can improve themselves.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- As long as I can continue to move and swap, I'm OK with anything you guys decide to do, although I do see a backlog at new article review, and I try to be careful with not making errors, but there are a couple of editors that watch me in case zI do..if it ain't broke.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Pvmoutside autopatrol doesn't do anything around moving and swap - that sounds more like WP:Page mover to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- The admin gave me autopatrol rights because I also maintain articles which use the move and swap functions. I'd like to continue using those functions....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 9 March 2023
- News and notes: What's going on with the Wikimedia Endowment?
- Technology report: Second flight of the Soviet space bears: Testing ChatGPT's accuracy
- In the media: What should Wikipedia do? Publish Russian propaganda? Be less woke? Cover the Holocaust in Poland differently?
- Featured content: In which over two-thirds of the featured articles section needs to be copied over to WikiProject Military History's newsletter
- Recent research: "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust" in Poland and "self-focus bias" in coverage of global events
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
Summary of arguments
It only took 11 years. I'm so happy :D Maybe in three more years, we'll start granting administrative privileges based on reaching a consensus on the pros and cons of the candidate. isaacl (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well in fairness, it was really Wugapodes who advocated for that with Primefac also heavily supporting it which is why they're 2 of the 3 drafters on the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't really think my proposal was actually read or remembered by anyone involved in making this choice... I just was surprised that something resembling it has actually come to pass. I think this type of approach can help make cases more concise to follow and thus demand less time from those interested in participating, which should also de-escalate contentiousness. But it does place a high demand on time on those summarizing, which is an obstacle. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi I’ve just moved this work in progress to draft but I’m concerned about the “Research” section, which is clearly cut and pasted from somewhere. I wanted to request a revdel of the edit that added the material as it’s pretty clearly a copyvio. Trouble is I can’t find a source for it so the curation tool won’t let me log that request. I wanted an admin to take a look and decide what to do. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just passing by and saw this, Mccapra. I found the first bit at the website for the labin which she works. The rest is probably interviews in various magazines, as I saw bits and pieces elsewhere. Does this help? Risker (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
March songs
![]() | |
my story today |
Thank you for watching over Mozart. Did you see this? I linked to my arbcom sentence in a later response, imagine, but no response. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah I've just been keeping an eye on the info box situation. I did not see your WikiProject notification (which obviously makes sense). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- You didn't look. - Sense is what I'm missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oh I did see your thematic battleground invocation if that's what you're referring to :) Barkeep49 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- You didn't look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- It was collapsed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt I'm sorry about what happened here. I did look. Twice. You're right the first time that I missed it wasn't you who made the notice. But I saw the battleground invocation both times. What I didn't see was the conversation that followed because I just read your diff. For that I'm sorry. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- No problem. I "meant" the diff, for which I had no words. (But Floq had.) I listened to my own edit notice which helped. After the ongoing Mozart RfC, I want to talk to the arbs about how this can end, and perhaps you can help then, - I don't speak arbish as the infoboxes case showed. - Were you around when I noticed the problem that shouldn't be one, on Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, 2012 and still on the talk, some still the same players? I voted against an infobox then, DYK? Was "converted" for Samuel Barber (discussion). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Marek Kopelent died, and it's Saint Patrick's Day --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- As I think I have mentioned before I don't know much about music so thanks for sharing that biography. I would be happy to try to translate into arb speak but what is your idea for ending things? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Let's wait for Mozart to end. Do you feel tempted to close? - I have some ideas on my talk, about strictly no personal remarks, the other further up about WP:BRD enforced, we could also revive the 2 comments per discussion limit that I invented and then the arbs turned it against me (and I have come to love it). I could imagine a group of arbs to volunteer to listen to complaints. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Mixed thoughts: I'd like everybody repeating the aspersion of my battle ground behaviour to provide evidence. Because the infoboxes cases doesn't offer it. I came for the introduction of {{infobox opera}} which first was hated by some, but made it into 1,5k+ operas (and you probably didn't know we have so many). I have not edit-warred in my whole career, - the closest I came was when I installed the consensus for Sparrow Mass, weeks after the edit war. In the arb case (my one and only, - they didn't manage to drag me into the later civility case, as much as they tried), we had a productive workshop, - at least I thought. Good wording for dealing with the conflict by Voceditenore, 2019. Why do we still argue about 5 extra lines that don't take anything away? I don't know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have no intention of closing Mozart. I will keep watching it, but almost all my wiki time is occupied with the current case. Those are some interesting ideas worthy of discussion around infoboxes. As you point out some of it just boils down to have a couple admins who are willing to just do real enforcement. At another time I could be one of those admin, just not at the moment. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, please no enforcement! Just some who see the cruelty of the Wehrmacht comment (for example), and talk to the user with authority. He doesn't listen to me. The language of war needs to stop - among colleagues. That seems like a minimum step. Especially as there is no war. We have many readers who are just surprised of the heat in some discussions because they don't know there ever was one. Whenever you ask the community, beginning with Beethoven in 2016, they basically say that an infobox is the normal thing to have. Perhaps we can create something like a protected area for the few articles where a few editors (with strong voices) say (in many variations): "Please let's not add another eyesore to another beautifully crafted article."? - Today we remember the 150th birthday of Max Reger, who saw the horrors of a world war right when it began in 1914, while others were still in high patriotic moods. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have no intention of closing Mozart. I will keep watching it, but almost all my wiki time is occupied with the current case. Those are some interesting ideas worthy of discussion around infoboxes. As you point out some of it just boils down to have a couple admins who are willing to just do real enforcement. At another time I could be one of those admin, just not at the moment. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- As I think I have mentioned before I don't know much about music so thanks for sharing that biography. I would be happy to try to translate into arb speak but what is your idea for ending things? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt I'm sorry about what happened here. I did look. Twice. You're right the first time that I missed it wasn't you who made the notice. But I saw the battleground invocation both times. What I didn't see was the conversation that followed because I just read your diff. For that I'm sorry. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oh I did see your thematic battleground invocation if that's what you're referring to :) Barkeep49 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- You didn't look. - Sense is what I'm missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
GA mentor
Hello, I'm working on my first GA Review here and I was wondering if you could look over it to make sure I've done things alright.
Also, what's he best way to check for plagiarism? Just copy and paste the page somewhere? -- Zoo (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ZooBlazer normally I would love to do something like this. But pretty much all my onwiki energy is going towards the Arbitration Committee and so I would urge you to go to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for someone to take a quick look and for advice on copyvio - there are several different strategies and by going there you could learn more than one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
FAQ?
This is probably the most convoluted Arb Case I've ever seen. Initial arguments for the case have been removed from the case's proposal within the final case (including the initial posting by GeneralNotability). My name in particular is listed in Arb responses to remarks I made, but were not included.
Second, I would argue that the FAQ isn't clearly linked as a requirement (it isn't mentioned beyond the header nor is it linked as part of the directions) nor is the paper clearly listed as evidence already in submission. If it is, the FAQ should clearly say so.
Third, it isn't clear that the paper is being considered. If it is, then I have no issue and look forward to the ruling. If it is not, then people should be allowed to submit it as evidence and then make arguments in reference to it. ArbCom can accept, reject, or address such arguments as they see fit.
Lastly, it sounds very much like what you are looking for is arguments, not evidence (which is putting the cart before the horse). If you are looking for someone to rehash the paper and re-make the arguments regarding editor behavior that were already made, but in some sort of wiki format...that seems incredibly redundant and unnecessary. Is that what you're looking for? Buffs (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- You're correct that the FAQ should be linked on the evidence page itself and not just the header @Buffs and so I have done that.
- The decision to move preliminary statements to a subpage was made last year, not for this case. You're right it does create some awkward situations. We could probably do better with that. I wasn't involved in the reasoning for why that change got made, but I will ping @GeneralNotability, @L235, and @Dreamy Jazz as the three who I believe did work around that for thought and consideration.
- The intent with the paper is to not just have a person dump the entire thing into evidence. Instead the idea is that a person will use specific part(s) tied back to policies and guidelines. The paper clearly spurred the case in the first place so we're not oblivious to it - and indeed it has two seperate questions in the FAQ - but just saying "here consider everything in this paper" isn't useful to anyone (there's a reason we put limits on the size of evidence submissions, for instance) and particularly unfair to the parties named who I know have rebuttals to large sections of it. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I can confirm that the moving of preliminary statements to a subpage is something that was done a little while ago and before this case. This hasn't been applied retroactively to older cases from my understanding.
- The rationale for this change was the the preliminary statements were not seen as important enough to be at the top of the main case page. These reasons, in my opinion, include:
- While preliminary statements, by being on the main case page, are therefore more prominent than the evidence, workshop and proposed decision which often can include more detail and evidence than was initially posted before the case was opened.
- Because these were above the final decision this means that (especially for cases that had a lot of discussion before opening) scrolling down to the final decision takes a bit of time. Referencing the final decision after a case is closed, including for contentious topic designations, is the main reason to continue to link to a case. As such having the preliminary statements at the top is in most cases less helpful (unless the section is linked to specifically).
- Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to me that a collapsable box might have been better and I offer it as a suggestion for clarity. Thanks for the feedback @Dreamy Jazz:
- For the FAQ, thank you. Buffs (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Interaction bans as contentious topics restrictions
Hi, Barkeep. I have a concern about contentious topics. Per this, I-bans can be imposed as contentious topics restrictions by a single uninvolved administrator. But how does that work with the alerts the users have been getting? Is it enough that they've received the {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} template about some topic, or have otherwise shown awareness of the contentious topics system? And would it only apply to topics in the ct system altogether? Several topics are involved in the case I'm thinking of: I don't want the users to interact anywhere on Wikipedia. The I-bans wouldn't be much use, and very easy to game, if they only applied to certain topics. Can I do that, and how should it be worded? And here you thought the new system would be less bureaucratic than the old discretionary sanctions! Bishonen | tålk 14:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC).
- @Bishonen standard disclaimer that you're only asking me, so I am only offering my individual opinion and that if you wanted a formal opinion ARCA is that a way. In order to have a sanction placed against them they definitely needed to have gotten the /first template about some topic and some notice that there's CT about whatever topic they're being sanctioned for, perhaps with the /alert template. Of note, you can issue logged warnings without an editor previously having been aware of CT but not an actual editing restriction. And crucially - here's where the less bureaucracy comes in - once an editor is made aware they are presumed to stay aware, no re-notification necessary. If the editor is appropriately aware and there is an IBAN imposed, the interaction ban is a standard WP:IBAN, it's not limited to the sanction area. Does that answer all your questions? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps you are not watching this page?
Just noting that there are some questions here. Perhaps this is not the talk page to post them? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have had very little time for Wikipedia Tue - Thur and it put me behind. I did a sweep of talk pages today but missed the FAQ talk page. Will answer that soon. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Ambit of evidence
I am not sure about why ER is posting evidence about Aryan Valley, etc. which is squarely outside of the purview of the arbitration case. Do note that they fail to ping the "two other editors" who were apparently colluding with me in that article. I will request that arbitrators enforce some minimum standards. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @TrangaBellam when you make that request please do so at either the evidence talk page or the main case talk page so it can be seen by all arbitrators. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I should note that going through their evidence #1 on my to do list when I next have a large chunk of time to spend summarizing evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Now at the evidence t/p. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @TrangaBellam I am not sure why what you emailed was emailed to me. Was it perhaps to avoid violating the interaction ban (for more on that please see the message I left to Elinruby below)? If so, I get it but that's not going to really work. Outside of very limited exceptions for OUTing type material, participation in this case needs to be done publicly. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes; I am unsure of interacting outside ArbCom venue. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @TrangaBellam I am not sure why what you emailed was emailed to me. Was it perhaps to avoid violating the interaction ban (for more on that please see the message I left to Elinruby below)? If so, I get it but that's not going to really work. Outside of very limited exceptions for OUTing type material, participation in this case needs to be done publicly. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Now at the evidence t/p. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I should note that going through their evidence #1 on my to do list when I next have a large chunk of time to spend summarizing evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Those editors
They are not parties. The link is out of scope but there for the pattern. It will probably be removed as unnecessary from what I am seeing. Plenty of pattern in Poland. Aryan Valley is the AFDed article referred in the intro. But yeah.. go and delete if you see fit, Barkeep. I have plenty of examples. Note that @TrangaBellam: did not ping me to this discussion. Elinruby (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Elinruby and a good thing that TB did not ping you because such a ping would be a violation of the topic ban Bishonen has imposed on you two. Frankly what's going on at the case could itself be over the lien. Some participation in an ArbCom case falls in the
Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution
exception but I think you two might have pushed beyond those boundaries. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)- Well she never did before anyway... just lurked on my talk page threateningly. I looked it up after that and that's why I didn't ping her. But I just realized we're talking about different things. At *this* point I hadn't registered the part about the ping, right. I have now though. what I am talking about below is on the Evidence talk page. Sorry to give you headaches; it just pissed me off that she made stuff up about me, so naturally in demanded that my nose be cut off to spite my face. But just let me know what you want me to do.
As to the interaction ban, how about she doesn't post a screed about me on the talk page at ArbCom hmm? I tried to at least not address her directly, but what am I supposed to do about that? I'm actually trying here but what I have here is a stalker who claims that *I* stalk *her*. I'm new at this level of craycray but meanwhile she's singlehandedly caused a huge amount of harm. Obviously right now I am collecting diffs but I assure you, my goal here is to put her on someone else's radar and live happily ever after without her coming around to beg me to take her to some Noticeboard. Elinruby (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Evidence/Analysis
Sorry to bother you, but I might have been a bit clumsy here. If I understand the way the material is organised, I should have left just a short line with diffs in the "Evidence" page and placed my analysis/comments in the "Analysis" page. Is this correct? If so, should I remedy now by moving the analysis to the "Analysis" page? Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking @Gitz6666. Leave it for now. Having some context for what people are trying to prove with diffs is important. If necessary it can be copied over to the Analysis when it's summarized. If you have future questions about the case along these lines, please use the Evidence or case talk pages. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 March 2023
- News and notes: Wikimania submissions deadline looms, Russian government after our lucky charms, AI woes nix CNET from RS slate
- Eyewitness: Three more stories from Ukrainian Wikimedians
- In the media: Paid editing, plagiarism payouts, proponents of a ploy, and people peeved at perceived preferences
- Featured content: Way too many featured articles
- Interview: 228/2/1: the inside scoop on Aoidh's RfA
- Traffic report: Who died? Who won? Who lost?