→Precious anniversary: thanks |
→Questions: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 439: | Line 439: | ||
Dear Barkeep49, would be you please explain this to me: I've asked the Clerks twice to remove the uncivil language and personal attacks (false accusations) on the page of my arbitration request as off-topic and offending. Although I received "awaiting moderation" notices on both communications, there has been no further response. The false accusations are still there. Even a new attack against scholars in the comment space of one of the other parties remains without being recognized as such, even though it could be added to the evidence. So losing confidence in the proceeding two days ago, I decided to withdraw my case and explore a suggestion by user Robert McClenon, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Response_to_comment]. However, the arbitration request is still there as if active. Is there a special reason for keeping all the insults in place and treating the case as active? It's somewhat ironic that one of the voters advised me to go check this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility] while at the same time several of the items listed as rude and uncivil are disrupting my request on the Arbcom page. Thanks.[[User:Saflieni|Saflieni]] ([[User talk:Saflieni|talk]]) 15:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC) |
Dear Barkeep49, would be you please explain this to me: I've asked the Clerks twice to remove the uncivil language and personal attacks (false accusations) on the page of my arbitration request as off-topic and offending. Although I received "awaiting moderation" notices on both communications, there has been no further response. The false accusations are still there. Even a new attack against scholars in the comment space of one of the other parties remains without being recognized as such, even though it could be added to the evidence. So losing confidence in the proceeding two days ago, I decided to withdraw my case and explore a suggestion by user Robert McClenon, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Response_to_comment]. However, the arbitration request is still there as if active. Is there a special reason for keeping all the insults in place and treating the case as active? It's somewhat ironic that one of the voters advised me to go check this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility] while at the same time several of the items listed as rude and uncivil are disrupting my request on the Arbcom page. Thanks.[[User:Saflieni|Saflieni]] ([[User talk:Saflieni|talk]]) 15:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
:@[[User:Saflieni|Saflieni]] - your request to withdraw the arbitration request was retrieved and was passed along to the clerks. Per Arbitration Committee [[wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Withdrawn_case_requests|procedure]] there is a 24 hour waiting period which we are now in. As for the personal attacks, I'm sorry you didn't receive an acknowledgement of your emails. This is always tricky and the new committee is committed to doing this right but also is on its own learning curve as us new arbs learn the ropes amidst one of the busiest times of the year for communication.. Your request about the attacks were indeed received and generated discussion and I'm sorry we didn't circle back to you. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:27, 4 January 2021
arbcom
Congrats! I know you'll do great. —valereee (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Costco_Bear_Lineup.jpg/400px-Costco_Bear_Lineup.jpg)
- Thanks Valereee. I plan to work very hard at it and my hope is that will indeed mean I do great :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I can honestly say that I don't think anyone could be better suited to the role. Thanks for putting yourself forward, you mad, impetuous fool. Good luck. GirthSummit (blether) 20:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I know several people better suited to the job. Say Newyorkbrad? Fortunately I will get to serve, and learn, alongside him. I appreciate the wishes of good luck. I will take all the luck I can muster :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad? Pshaw. He's probably a sock, you should totally pull his PERMS. [FBDB] GirthSummit (blether) 22:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations, of course! Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations on your election to Arbcom! Best of luck next year. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Congrats my friend! I know you'll be an excellent arbitrator. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Arbitration Committee
Congratulations on your success in the election and welcome to the 2021 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.
Please use the EmailUser function to indicate:
- the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business, and
- if you wish to assigned CheckUser and/or Oversight for your term.
Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned CheckUser or Oversight permissions, you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L37) and the OTRS users confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L45), and your name must be listed on the Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. If you haven't signed the agreements, please do this promptly. Instructions for signing can be found here. Again, if you want CheckUser or Oversight permissions during your term, you must sign both agreements listed in the instructions. If you have signed but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.
Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.
Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.
For the Arbitration Committee,
- Thanks Katie for reaching out so quickly. I have sent my email. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations, Barkeep49...and good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Liz. Your wish of good luck is also definitely appreciated :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nice! I was dissapointed when you didn't make it last time, Barkeep, so good on you to blaze it up this time! As promised, I call voter fraud on In actu (Guerillero) not making it. Grr. El_C 22:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I was disappointed last year too. Making it this time with the level of support is all sorts of things. Overwhelming. Gratifying. Puzzling. Inducing a sense of commitment to not let down the people who've trusted me. I've already felt the need to reread WP:MUSHROOM. Thanks for your good wishes El C. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nice! I was dissapointed when you didn't make it last time, Barkeep, so good on you to blaze it up this time! As promised, I call voter fraud on In actu (Guerillero) not making it. Grr. El_C 22:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Liz. Your wish of good luck is also definitely appreciated :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations, Barkeep49...and good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
2021 Arbitration Committee
The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 01 January 2021:
- Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- BDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bradv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- CaptainEek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Maxim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Primefac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the CheckUser and Oversight permissions.
We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2020:
- DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Joe Roe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mkdw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:
- Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2020 at their own request:
- Oversight: Joe Roe
- Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
- All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
- DGG, Joe Roe, and Mkdw will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Katietalk 01:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations; I' m glad you will be there to replace me (and that goes for the other new people also). We may overlap on one case. and if there's one thing I like, it's giving advice. . DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- My congratulations to you. A more worthy candidate I have yet to see in fifteen years of being here. My only advice, for what it's worth, don't forget your roots! Well done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- I was just talking last night that I need to figure out how I can keep doing content creation. I need to be in a particular mindset to do content creation and 2020 sapped a lot of that from me. I worry that even if I carve out time for content, easy enough to do on the whole, that I won't be productive with it. Long story short, I won't forget my roots but I worry about how well I'll do engaging with them these next couple years. I am just hopeful that acknowledging this issue will help me to confront and overcome it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- CONGRATULATIONS! The result was a foregone conclusion. With such an impressive score, if ever the Committee had a chair (it doesn't) you would be the best candidate for that too. I sincerely hope that you will be a strong voice there, not simply go with the flow, and do your best to make the Committee a more equitable place. I do also hope that you won't now leave NPP high and dry without your superb leadership - I would hate to see nearly a decade of my work go to waste. So I'll dive back under my blanket now it's all over. Stay well, my friend. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Throwing my congratulations in amongst the throng as well. Good luck! Onel5969 TT me 12:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Joining in, congrats! — Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • Talk∕Contribs 14:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- All the congratulations. Very happy for and proud of you. - JDL. Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- If it isn’t my tutor !!!!! Congratulations Captain, boy am I glad!!!!!! Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm certainly glad too. Look forward to continue seeing you around the way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Celestina007, Captain? Aren't you getting confused with another newly minted arb? Merge and redirect to Captain BarEek49. GirthSummit (blether) 20:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit, lmfao I’ve always referred to Barkeep49 as “Captain” since forever.
- The merge and redirect part got me laughing and tearing up. Happy holidays to you both. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Celestina007, and to you - have a great one! GirthSummit (blether) 20:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Finally!! A ray of hope and sunshine bursting onto the scene!! Congratulations, Barkeep - it's where you need to be and well-deserved. Atsme 💬 📧 19:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
My reflections
I just took some time to write my reflection on ACE. I wrote there that I would be OK if no one read it but all things being equal I'd prefer people to read (and react) than not. I always feel a bit pompous posting to my own user talk to gather attention but since there aren't a ton of ways to advertise such things here I am. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- BK, you did yourself a disservice by putting this up at a time when it is lost amid the Holiday greetings taking over watchlists (not to mention that watchlists have become unusable because of increasingly unhelpful bot activity, causing one to miss important edits, but I digress). My reflections on your reflections:
- Unhappy people: In my guide, I admitted I was happy with the 2019 Arbcom, even though I initially was not. But one of my candidates still didn't make it, so ...
- Candidate statements: Agree (I paid a good deal of attention to them this year).
- Extended statements: Agree.
- Candidate questions: Made all the difference in my votes and recommendations, but agree they are underread.
- Non-admin candidates: Agree that this has not been well tested by a strong candidate.
- I agree with you on 'crats. I think they are an unnecessary super-class. On clerking, I find it somewhat useful; an unhelpful inattentive clerk is not likely to make a good arb.
- I don't think guides made a difference this year, but that is a reflection of the makeup of the candidates. This year was a foregone conclusion except for one slot (where I think we missed it, and will come to regret not having either Ballioni or Guerillero in the final slot). I think it is wrong to say there haven't been years where they did make a difference. I won't single out where they were most certainly particularly helpful in the past.
- Content creation: From historical (seeing the misrepresentations and hounding of Eric Corbett) to the more recent (the failure to understand in some quarters the severity of the impact on content creation by the WPMED dysfunction) means we need arbs who really understand the issues and work in the trenches of content creation. Your success this year, I believe, proves me right, as you were a candidate who bridges both (admin and content experience). The same problem we see at RFA (those who have climbed the grease pole by checking all the right boxes) affects the arb elections. On the other hand, I have seen arb guides that focus ONLY on content creation, which is equally problematic.
- Personal experience, yes.
- Now back to guides. These were fine when an individual user could put up a guide for their Wikiassociates and talk page stalkers, in place of having to answer the question "who are you voting for" over and over. At some point in the past, it became required to link them to the template, which gave them a prominence that was never intended by ... at least people like me ... who only wanted to be able to answer the question among the circle of editors who follow and share our concerns.
- Merry Christmas ... you shoulda made this post a few days later ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- You're right from a "how can I get the most people to read this" perspective I should have waited. I also appreciate your general thoughts, but I would stand by my general assessment of guides going back years and my conclusion that we spend way too much time talking about them. They are what they are and we should just kind of let them be at this point, in my mind. FWIW I think one reason content creation has been underrated as an asset is because of the content creation focused guides (though I think we're pretty close to agreement on this point). Merry Christmas to you and your family. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Here are my initial thoughts about the first items:
- Unhappy people: If we wanted to reduce this behavior, we would ridicule it. Imagine that we stop responding with hand-wringing and justifications, and instead keep a box at the top of the page that says "It's been ____ days since someone last declared this ArbCom to be the worst ever" or replied with "Congratulations, you're the third person this year to declare this ArbCom the worst ever!"
- Candidate statements: I don't know if these are massively underrated. They seem pretty useful, and people seem to think they're pretty useful.
- Extended statements: I have no opinion.
- Questions: I wonder whether a formal process is necessary. What if there wasn't a central location, we stopped pretending that this was supposed to work like a real-world legislative election, and if I wanted to ask you something, I just asked you on your talk page, exactly like I would normally do?
- Non-admins: The reason is that some of us have enough sense to avoid things like that. If you have enough sense to avoid RFA, then you also have enough sense to avoid ACE.
- I agree with SandyGeorgia about clerks.
- I also have my doubts about how valuable these are in general, but some of them can be valuable to a small number of people. I think there is a lot of potential for harm in writing these. If you write that Alice and Bob are bad candidates, they're likely to remember that for years to come.
- The other two didn't hold my attention as well. However, on the subject of content creation, some folks in the past have found it helpful to dedicate a specific time for content creation. If you intentionally plan to write content every Saturday morning, then you are likely to get some done. The automatic ritual of it helps make it happen. For myself, I find that it helps to start every day with a content-oriented page. I usually see WT:MED before I check e-mail, and sometimes before I even get out of bed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Here are my initial thoughts about the first items:
- You're right from a "how can I get the most people to read this" perspective I should have waited. I also appreciate your general thoughts, but I would stand by my general assessment of guides going back years and my conclusion that we spend way too much time talking about them. They are what they are and we should just kind of let them be at this point, in my mind. FWIW I think one reason content creation has been underrated as an asset is because of the content creation focused guides (though I think we're pretty close to agreement on this point). Merry Christmas to you and your family. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy holidays
This year, many people had COVID to fear,
The holidays are getting near,
One thing that will be clear,
We will still have holiday cheer,
Happy holidays and happy new year!!
From Interstellarity (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Yo Ho Ho
Season's Greetings from MrLinkinPark333
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this messageMrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Articles for deletion/Priya Ramani
Hi, I am writing to follow up on the deletion of Priya Ramani's article, so I can better understand the reasoning. I had made substantial updates to the article in an attempt to address the concerns raised by the nom and all of the comments preceding my comments and additions. I was wondering if instead of deletion, the article could be relisted for additional discussion so the deletion could be reconsidered in light of the updates to the article. If the discussion continued, I would make a case per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, and note the additional sources added after my most recent comment. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Beccaynr:, when I'm evaluating AfD I only read the discussion there. It wasn't clear to me from your comment that you had done significant improvement. Given that I'm happy to restore it and relist it to see if more people agree with you now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Slow as Christmas!!
![]() |
Yo Ho Ho
Merry Christmas
No images, fancy backgrounds or fancy code in those curly bracket things. Just a boring old plain text note wishing you a very peaceful Christmas season, and a Better New Year. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 11:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas & Let's See the Year Out
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! |
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! In this toughest of years, thank you for continuing to care about others - both in your editing, your words, and just in your being. For you in particular, thank you for stepping up in multiple areas to help us all, even those who won't know it. Roll on 2021 and I'll see you there! Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Merry Christmas
File:Christmas tree in field.jpg | Merry Christmas Barkeep49 |
Hi Barkeep49, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
Happy holidays
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! |
|
Merry Christmas!
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! |
Hello Barkeep49, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Greetings of the season
Happy holidays | ||
Dear BK, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy".
|
Merry Christmas
File:Christmas tree in field.jpg | Merry Christmas Barkeep49 |
Hi Barkeep49, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
Merry Christmas!
Hello, Barkeep49! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}
User page deleted of Sergio de Jesús Muñoz Lara
Hi. Please explain to me why you deleted my user page? Well that's not right, you explain to me or if not, I will. Thank you -- Sergio de Jesús Muñoz Lara (talk) 20:48 December 25, 2020 (UTC)
- @Sergio de Jesús Muñoz Lara: can you email me and I will explain? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hey I already tried to press the "email" button but it tells me that I have to log in, but I am with the account open. -- Sergio de Jesús Muñoz Lara (talk) 21:10 December 25, 2020 (UTC)
- @Sergio de Jesús Muñoz Lara: try now, I changed a setting for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Where is the stage? -- Sergio de Jesús Muñoz Lara (talk) 21:18 December 25, 2020 (UTC)
Deleted article recreated
You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero Concept last year. Now it is back with just as poor (if not worse) sourcing. Please see Hero Concept. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- @IceWelder tagging it with the appropriate deletion criteria is indeed the way to go. I'll just note that after a year it's possible notability could have changed and so in some cases it might be necessary to do a new AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 December 2020
- Arbitration report: 2020 election results
- Featured content: Very nearly ringing in the New Year with "Blank Space" – but we got there in time.
- Traffic report: 2020 wraps up
- Recent research: Predicting the next move in Wikipedia discussions
- Essay: Subjective importance
- Gallery: Angels in the architecture
- Humour: 'Twas the Night Before Wikimas
Happy New Year
Happy New Year 2021 I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind. Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk |
16:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Exasperated
... and time for a long walk. Could you, or an independent admin TPS who may have the time and patience, please look at User talk:Oshwah#Please undelete User:RobertFindling and User talk:RobertFindling? These are good faith editors who have exhausted my patience for the day, and I am beyond my non-admin knowledge of what needs to be done next. Time for me to push back in frustration that I was trying so hard to catch up on other work just when this hit ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Never mind... the message was finally absorbed, and dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia except isn't it still a COPYVIO? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Arrrrrrgh ... I hadn't even looked at that. So, revdel ?? Sheesh, I have this ability to hyperfocus, but when I am trying to get through content work requiring focus, I should learn NOT to look at those blippity-blip-blip pingie thingies at all. One of the many reasons I hate them. I should not have even looked until I was done with the content work I had planned for this morning. Appreciate you looking .. if it need revdel, probably better at this point anyway ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- You can turn off all pings in Special:Preferences, or convert them all to e-mail instead of web. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Turning them off sounds dangerous ... but converting them to email had not occurred to me ... if I do that, then I can look at them when I am not going to be frustrated by 85 little thingies pinging at me! Thanks, WAID ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- You can turn off all pings in Special:Preferences, or convert them all to e-mail instead of web. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Arrrrrrgh ... I hadn't even looked at that. So, revdel ?? Sheesh, I have this ability to hyperfocus, but when I am trying to get through content work requiring focus, I should learn NOT to look at those blippity-blip-blip pingie thingies at all. One of the many reasons I hate them. I should not have even looked until I was done with the content work I had planned for this morning. Appreciate you looking .. if it need revdel, probably better at this point anyway ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia except isn't it still a COPYVIO? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
To go along with the big bucks you get for mopping up :) Happy New Year! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC) |
Happy New Year!
Empire AS Talk! 18:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Barkeep49!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
My future adminship
I want to be an administrator, but what do I need to do to become one? Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your interest in adminship Ssjhowarthisawesome. I'll give you a few specifics but the first thing I'd do is encourage you to read Wikipedia:Really simple guide to requests for adminship. In your case you don't have the activity level that the community expects. Generally successful candidates will have had a couple hundred edits each month for at least 12 months. The community also generally looks for some sense of how to do content - writing a good article is a great way to show that. Those are a couple baseline examples of the kind of work you can do if you have your eye on becoming an admin. Out of curiosity what does the Ss stand for in your username? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Cute_grey_kitten.jpg/150px-Cute_grey_kitten.jpg)
Happy new year :)
Tatupiplu'talk 05:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello
Hi, I've been continuously learning about the Wikipedia guidelines, and I'm practicing it every day. I think now I can perform the NPP operations with full efficiency.
If I qualify for a one month trial for NPP permission, Can you monitor and be my mentor? - Tatupiplu'talk 06:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Tatupiplu sorry I am not taking on new Wiki commitments at this time as I sort out how much time and energy being an arbitrator will take up. Good luck in your pursuit of the NPR user permission. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 No worries, :) -Tatupiplu'talk 16:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Looking for an online admin
Can you help? Pmelo1 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am using this new account after receiving a veiled threat about a separate deletion request involving another page and am using this alias out of an abundance of caution
According to thus afd a decision was made to delete and salt the (misspelled) page in question. The page has magically reappeared here at yet another page that was deleted and salted (see below). As in the previous articles all of the contributors are either sockpuppets or SPAs. This re-creation of a deleted and salted page seems to have occurred when an unknowing editor mistakenly transferred the creation of another intentionally misspelled page ending with the Roman numeral ‘I’ and transferring it to the original deleted and salted page without waiting to re-create it until a consensus was demonstrated in support of re-creation.
Therefore, the present article should be speedy deleted (which I can not nominate due to extended page protection) under G4 especially since the most current and most recently edited version of the article is substantially identical to the deleted version (save the mention of the subject’s death). Also the content was not undeleted via a deletion review or was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion (the only exceptions for a G4 waiver).
On top of that, the article falls under WP:BLP1E, lacks individual notability, and is apparently a hoax. Coverage is primarily based in local media and therefore may fail depth of coverage and is (with few exceptions) definitely not persistent. Google News searches return 4 results with no significant coverage. Other results indicate significant decrease in coverage from 2015 until the subject’s death in February 2020.
The article is a re-creation under a deliberately misspelled title most recently created in November 2019 and previously created and deleted multiple times with multiple spellings, including on August 18, 2013, which was later re-created, G4’d and salted on August 29, 2013 with a reinforcement of the salting on February 13, 2015.
Under another spelling, the creation, deletion and salting happened in February 2015. Yet another attempt was also salted.
The central claim for notability for the subject is this man’s court case against a state social services department and legislation drafted based on the allegations in the case with the occasional news story. The court case was the subject of another AfD on August 18, 2013 resulting in delete. Many years later the case and/or the legislation is not mentioned on the department’s article and that only strengthens the argument that the threshold for this man’s individual notability has not been met.
The individual sources on the article prove the lack of independent notability, depth, and persistence of this low profile individual:
1,2,3,4,9,10,11,24 – relate to illness and death of subject, in itself not sufficient for individual notability and no mention of anything to cross the line of WP:BLP1E
5,6 7,8,12,13,14,15,16,25 - local coverage rehashing or retelling reasons for or events in his court case or legislation (that was directly prompted by same court case) which do not grant individual notability
17,18,19,20,22,23 – mention in passing regarding court case or associated legislation. Proving the fact, but not individual notability
21 – op-ed written by subject about same exact legislation and court case; an op-ed does not give rise to individual notability
Therefore, the article likely falls under WP:BLP1E and lacks individual notability. Coverage is exclusively in local media with the exception of his death which was put out from a local AP wire, and therefore fails depth of coverage and is (with one or two exceptions) not persistent. News coverage from 2015 is non-existent except for the mention of his death and a reintroduction of the same legislation in 2020, neither of which proves individual notability. Even if we put aside the aforementioned we are still guided by the policy that “Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article.” The principles for BLP1E that the “person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual” and “the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented” also apply.
As an aside it must be noted that the page was re-created after being deleted and salted without going through the proper channels as it was not re-created with a consensus that demonstrated a support of re-creation.
Therefore, in conclusion, because of the multiple circumventions of deletions, saltings, G4s, and the lack of individual notability, this article should be speedy deleted. Also each incarnation of the page was created by a banned user in violation of G5. Pmelo1 (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I know just enough about this topic to know that I am not the right admin to consider this request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Deletion review for Youth Against Rape
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Youth Against Rape. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Ahluwalia
You have closed the discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fateh Singh Ahluwalia and even deleted the article.
[1] [2] There are so many refs in Google books for "Fateh+Singh+Ahluwalia"+1758 All these talk about this military general and king. I have no idea why Sandstein thinks that Government of India website will falsify history about an important historical person, Sandstein has made an incorrect assessment. Don't forget that the state speaks Punjabi language. The article should not have been deleted. Can you change your decision to keep or to relist the AfD so that I can post these refs for others to consider. --Walrus Ji (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
![]() | |
Two years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Questions
Dear Barkeep49, would be you please explain this to me: I've asked the Clerks twice to remove the uncivil language and personal attacks (false accusations) on the page of my arbitration request as off-topic and offending. Although I received "awaiting moderation" notices on both communications, there has been no further response. The false accusations are still there. Even a new attack against scholars in the comment space of one of the other parties remains without being recognized as such, even though it could be added to the evidence. So losing confidence in the proceeding two days ago, I decided to withdraw my case and explore a suggestion by user Robert McClenon, see [3]. However, the arbitration request is still there as if active. Is there a special reason for keeping all the insults in place and treating the case as active? It's somewhat ironic that one of the voters advised me to go check this: [4] while at the same time several of the items listed as rude and uncivil are disrupting my request on the Arbcom page. Thanks.Saflieni (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Saflieni - your request to withdraw the arbitration request was retrieved and was passed along to the clerks. Per Arbitration Committee procedure there is a 24 hour waiting period which we are now in. As for the personal attacks, I'm sorry you didn't receive an acknowledgement of your emails. This is always tricky and the new committee is committed to doing this right but also is on its own learning curve as us new arbs learn the ropes amidst one of the busiest times of the year for communication.. Your request about the attacks were indeed received and generated discussion and I'm sorry we didn't circle back to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)