User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Barkeep49. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

That could change as we tell those with ARBPIA bans they have to appeal to ARBCOM, which I've started doing. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point though I don't think it changes the overall analysis of my point since the comment I made was presuming a heavier workload. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That's only if the admin says the appeal has to be heard by arbcom. I'm not sure how much that will come up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Well at least one admin is saying he's doing it. And perhaps more will given that the most frequent admin in the topic area is becoming an arb. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Really? That sounds like a bummer. That guy was pretty cool. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: I haven't been keeping tabs on exactly what you've been doing lately. I know you were a first-rate new page patroller, and trainer of other people wanting to do that well, so if you're still doing that, great! I believe, from my own limited interactions with the committee, and from what other people have told me, that you were an excellent arbitrator, so I guess it would have benefitted the project if you had kept on doing that, but I'm sure you have your own reasons for stepping back from that and I would never want to put pressure on any contributor to work on an area of the project that they don't want to. Wherever you do it, I hope that you will continue sharing your extensive knowledge and encouraging contributors new and old.
2. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently: I can't think of any. There are things you do that I would probably do differently from you if I were doing them, but that's more about the different ways that different people interact with each other. One of the things that keeps this community working is the diversity of our contributors, their different perspectives and ways of doing things are a great strength. So, yeah - even if I occasionally take a different perspective on something from you, I wouldn't want you to stop and seeing things your way.
3. (Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep: when are you going to take that vacation in the UK?
4. (Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know: it seems like a long time ago now, but you should know how much I still appreciate the help you gave me back in 2019 when I was going new page patrol school. Your friendly, patient and thoughtful guidance was excellent. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed your voluntary recall page has a typo on it. It says "immeadiately". My inner OCD cannot leave without pointing this out :) OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

For my level of educational attainment I am an atrocious speller and there are some words I can never spell right. That's one of them. Thanks for point this out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned that three admins (User:ScottishFinnishRadish, User:Extraordinary Writ and User:Vanamonde93) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Raladic are considering a logged warning for both sides for edit warring, based on a single example supplied by Extraordinary Writ. In the previous AE on this area here Barkeep explicitly said "If people have concerns about anyone other than [the subject] they should file their own AE report" but here we see admins take it upon themselves to widen the scope of "those who may be sanctioned" to include the filer, for an issue separate from anything they wrote in the AE filing statement. And doing so with a single example that if that was all a typical user posted when filing a complaint, would result in a swift dismissal of "Nothing to see here, come back to us when you can offer an strong pattern of problematic behaviour". Once again I get the feeling that the rules about evidence are for other people. If you are going to arbitrarily take it upon yourselves to inspect other users' behaviour, why not also then any others present. What a jeopardy you have created, that being a filer of the complaint escalates hugely the risk of being sanctioned yourself, because those other guys could be 100 times worse than you, but you have to be perfect.

The statement at the last AE: "There was also a rough consensus among uninvolved administrators that there may need to be other AE requests to handle other problems raised during this discussion" was a strong encouragement to the community to file additional reports on problem users. Which is what User:Void if removed did.

About my own AE... The filer basically made shit up and was caught out by the reviewing admins for doing that and yet... there were no consequences. Barkeep's rationale for that was that bad faith misinterpretation was not "limited to Snokalok". Quite bizare for me to read that because there are other bad editors, the filer isn't sanctioned for making claims about me that are patently untrue. So the lesson then was you can come to AE and post any old shit about an editor and hope the admins find some other fault in the subject (tone say).

The lesson from the Raladic AE, if you follow through, would seem to be that if you complain about an obvious activist at AE, you'd better be an absolute saint, or better still, not have any edits in the area to be examined, because if you make any mistakes, you'll get a logged warning back at you. And if one can get a logged warning because an admin finds a single diff, then presumably the next escalation is you get topic banned for one more mistake. (We warned User:X and they didn't heed the warning). I'm not provoking you to go find two or three diffs. But Void is one of the better players in this field, and of all the people at that AE, a long way from being those most in need of logged warnings.

I get it that boomerangs is a thing people do on Wikipedia. And at times it is useful to avoid vexatious filings from editors who are actually the problem vs the subject. But you guys explicilty asked us to make more reports, and it turns out Void was stupid enough to take you up on it.

This area is overrun with activist editors on all sides who use revert regularly and with impunity. That a medical editor trying their best to use WP:MEDRS might let their frustration lead to mistakes is somewhat understandable. Of the editors on both sides of this debate, I think Void if removed and Sideswipe9th are the only two I feel properly grasp that "other opinions exist and are valid, even if I disagree with them" and who understand our policy and guildeline limit and guide what we need to write in article space. Both of them are fully capable of understanding the other side's POV and fairly describing it. Unfortunately Sideswipe9th is no longer editing, and I am quite certain this AE will do the same for Void.

I fail to see why any reasonable editor would either file any more AE requests against activists in this area or even bother to edit in this area at all. I'm not aware of any other medical editors who edit articles in this topic. One or two post the occasional talk page comment. It will be left to the activists (on both sides) who lack any concern for building an encyclopaedia.

Colin°^Talk 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Colin: putting something in quotes which is an accurate summary is a problem, but does not mean they (in my mind) basically made shit up. Beyond that I cannot comment on the current report or what that means for the patterns of yours, Void's, and this one until I have had a chance to read it. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you made a typo there, and meant to say "inaccurate summary", which is a very generous description. -- Colin°^Talk 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you please block for 3 days with talk and email revoked. We'll see what happens after that, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale I had been planning to indefinitely block you tomorrow but have done this request instead. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, what's happened here? Why is Crouch banned/blocked? I haven't yet located any discussion or anything related to this...  — Amakuru (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Crouch,_Swale_ban_appeal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing:
   • You know how to disagree without being disagreeable. This is an important skill.
   • You don't seem to judge people by single comments/actions/events. I appreciate that about you.
2. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/things I wish Barkeep would do differently:
   • In an effort to de-mystify U4C, I would like you to consider frequent small contributions to the The Signpost. For example, the dewiktionary dispute could explain things like "Some communities only have a small number of active admins, which makes disputes difficult to settle because there's literally nobody else around. In that case, help is available from the global community by requesting..." or "Not every community has a rule like WP:INVOLVED, but we recommended a resolution that was in line with that principle". Or you might say "2024 report: Only one case was received."
3. (Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep:
   • Does your username represent a past profession or a future ambition?
   • How much wood would a woodchuck chuck?, assuming any rodent would engage in such a behavior?
   • Can You Tell Me How to Get to Sesame Street?
   • Do You Know the Muffin Man?, and were you ever disappointed to learn that the muffins of the song weren't sweet, cupcake-like American muffins?
4. (Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know:
   • When the words high quality are used to describe an noun (e.g., a high-quality source, the high-quality content), it is supposed to be hyphenated. I no longer know what my first (IP-based) edit was, but I suspect that it was fixing punctuation in an article.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @WhatamIdoing. That's an interesting suggestion. I did a fair amount of UCoC blogging (EG drafting, Charter drafting) so doing it on the U4C seems natural. I will have to think about this as I definitely have observations and learnings (for instance there is a "trying the community's patience" block procedure from Turkish Wikipedia which I find fascinating) that enwiki (and perhaps others) would find interesting. Clearly I should have limited it to two optional questions ala RfA but that ship has sailed.

Does your username represent a past profession or a future ambition?

Speaking of RfA I answered this one there. I made it for another place, which no longer exists, and where it made much more sense in context.

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck?, assuming any rodent would engage in such a behavior?

Enough to build a racetrack in Saratoga, New York.

Can You Tell Me How to Get to Sesame Street?

Tune into PBS or have a Max subscription (at least in the US)

Do You Know the Muffin Man?, and were you ever disappointed to learn that the muffins of the song weren't sweet, cupcake-like American muffins?

I was not disappointed. And I can't think of the Muffin Man anymore without either thinking of Shrek or Arrested Development.

Gosh I must drive you nuts because my grammar is so lacking. But I will endeavor next time I use the phrase high quality to actually use high-quality. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

(watching) WhatamIdoing, you deserve high praise for this comment in the disccussion mentioned further up: all positive! I woke up thinking about calling your attention to the other discussion as well, but it seems to be resolved, sort of, so never mind. I'll call you if it happens again ;) (always hoping it will not happen again) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I am entirely satisfied with your answers, but I point out that "high quality" only gets a hyphen if it is used as an adjective: "the high-quality source" but "I prefer sources that are of a high quality". And, no, it doesn't drive me nuts, because your grammar is actually good, and I'm used to being an outlier where punctuation is concerned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Barkeep, I greatly respect you as an editor, and I wanted to respond to your concern regarding not taking the BN route - just not at the higher-profile page. If I hadn't had that spat with the roads people, I think I would have gone through the BN route. That made me think this would be potentially controversial for re-adminship, in a sort of PROD vs AFD analogy. And with the idea that this would be potentially controversial, it didn't sit well with my conscience to take the BN route, when the 'crats wouldn't likely wouldn't know that there was a reason that I was thinking it was possibly controversial. So it just felt, well, sneaky to me. I think a lot of this is from my rural Missouri Southern Baptist farm kid background; it's just a whole different mindset from how most people view the world. Hog Farm _Talk 03:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The crats are the sole people - not even arbs - entrusted to determine if something is under a CLOUD. There is a waiting process so editors can bring up reasons it might be a cloud and the crats can then weigh it. The community has thought this through and come up with a process that minimizes drama and the amount of time asked of it. If Worm hadn't just done this I wouldn't have even said anything. But I've seen how standards creep up at RfA and I want to fight it where I can because it's bad enough already. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess my only concern is - it sure feels like the answer to "my conscience isn't quite okay with this" is to do it anyway. Unless we're going make not having an overactive conscience part of the general expectations for adminship, this feels like the only valid option then for someone in my shoes is just to not ask for the bit back. If it's problematic to go through the RFA process again, and the editor has valid ethical heartburn about the BN route, they're really backed into a corner. Hog Farm _Talk 04:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps some perspective here is useful. Right now you are seeking the opinion of up to 34,000 people who have a watchlist and are active editors. The BN has about 1400 watchers, of whom about 300 have reviewed that page in the past month. The majority of those watchers are also regular RFA participants. What is the case for you to ask the opinion of thousands of people, when you are eligible to get the same opinions at a single noticeboard that doesn't light up the watchlist of thousands of people? You could make exactly the same disclosure of your concerns at the noticeboard as you have in your RFA, and I think you'd get an accurate read. People who are fine with you don't even have to say anything, whereas they'll feel obligated to click "support" now. Risker (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The whole point of the 24 waiting period at BN is to deal with potential controversy for re-adminship. That's the correct venue. I really don't think you've considered that watchlist issue. I saw "new request for adminship", clicked through and saw the name Hog Farm, thought "Hmm, could have sworn they were already an admin, and then clicked through again to find out that you are already an admin and are just asking for the tools back. I'm sure there are many other people who are going to be as annoyed as I am. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

So I've been thinking about your answer quite a bit @Hog Farm. The frame of personal conscience is an interesting one. When a large community should respect or at least tolerate actions of personal conscience if they're disruptive to the community is a complex one (see the varying ways countries, sometimes even the same country, handle conscientious objectors during war). In this particular case I do respect your need to do what is right but have two thoughts. The first is that my objection is about this turning from a random one off of Worm into a pattern of you and Worm into a standard practice; if there had been more time between the two of you I'd likely have made my comment in support similar to what I did there. And the second builds on that: what else did you consider as a means of doing this in a way that would assure you that you were doing the right thing? Because the RfA is turning out the way it has was certainly predictable to me (it's why I made the comment when the RfA was 3-0-0). Did you consider asking a handful of people who you think have a good sense of the pulse of the community and who you feel would give you honest answers (rather than merely flattering you) what their thinking was? Or did you consider some other community way of going about this, perhaps asking at ORCP or even going to what's left of the road's project to ask? In other words, did you consider things to assuage your conscience before settling on RFA as the only way? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I really truly did strongly consider going the BN route. As to asking other editors - my go-to would have been SandyGeorgia, but she has been much less active recently. Another would have been Vami IV, who has sadly passed on. I had forgotten than ORCP existed; that would have been a good route to go as a check before then going on to BN if I had remembered it. Going the roads route really felt to me like intentionally kicking a fire ant nest; I also don't know that the views held there are representative of the community at large, especially given my understanding is that most of them left because they found that their views on OR and notability were no longer as mainstream in the community as they once were. If some of the ideas [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Making_voluntary_"reconfirmation"_RFA's_less_controversial|here] were in place, namely having the discussion be more widely visible and it being longer than just 24 hours, I would definitely have gone the BN route. Hog Farm _Talk 21:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this comment: I assume the third sentence should read "This RfC feels like..."? isaacl (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 15.ai. 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. – The Grid (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 15.ai. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregariousMadness (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: You are overall an amazing admin, keep up the good work!
2. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/things I wish Barkeep would do differently: As a regular Signpost reader, I agree with Whatamidoing that some Signpost contributions in regards to the U4C would be appreciated.
3. (Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep:
4. (Optional) I consider you to be one of the best admins on the site. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

   Thanks @QuicoleJR for taking the time to think this through and leave some feedback. I am hoping to do something around blogging about the U4C - more to come there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

On the Main page today Jean Sibelius on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's Fifth from the opening of Notre-Dame de Paris. We sang in choirs today. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

What pretty choral spaces. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! - Rehearsal was difficult - too many new pieces, too little light - but the singing, with raised vigilance, was good. - What do you think of this edit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Listen today to the (new) Perplexities after Escher. - Do you expect to see the places of birth and death in an infobox, - that is the simple question. Do you have time to say yes or no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The Samuel Barber situation looks resolved. I still find it sad that it happened at all, wasting time of five editors. I understand that you are busy, but in the new year, I want to engage arbitration to get to terms with editors still thinking that edit warring is a method to prevent information that our MoS displaced from the lead, such as places of birth and death, and recently honorific suffix. Where should they go if not in an infobox? - I will see an opera tonight! By the composer with the ongoing RfC!! The trailer (in my story) looks spectacular!!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

So one of the great joys of not being on arbcom is I get to decide what I want to spend time on. And at least at the moment that isn't infoboxes. I know it remains on your mind but between the u4c and what already sucks me in I have a full plate of project work (especially relative to the content I've done lately). I am on team "edit warring about them is bad" so I wish good luck with cutting down on that in the new year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

One of the great joys on Wikipedia is that the Barber case has now (overnight) been completed nicely. May it be for a bright future. Enjoy the seasons, and me not bothering you again. On Beethoven's birthday I recall a DYK from 2020 (when his 250th bday was remembered). I fondly remember when Worm That Turned (who had co-written the infoboxes case) installed the community consensus. I thought that possibility of a compromise would end the conflict, DYK? - Right now I'm working on 6 Bach cantata GAs parallel, almost too much of a good thing, but they all turn 300 years, and Christmas in Bach's Leipzig was on 3 days, each with a new cantata. I love creating content! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the community consensus provision has shaped and dulled the conflict even as it hasn't quite eliminated it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Listen today to Beethoven's 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - I picked a recording with Antônio Meneses, because he was on my sad list this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I come to fix the cellist's name, with a 10-years-old DYK and new pics - look for red birds --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to post in your talk page regarding this, but would relisting the AfD be a possible outcome? I spent a lot of time digging up those sources, and I don't know if I can rewrite the whole article with the new sources without the previous version of the article. I'm just hoping that my time and effort isn't going to waste because I truly do believe that my argument is solid enough to establish GNG of 15.ai. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisting is absolutely a possible outcome. Feel free to suggest it at DRV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I had already done that, sorry for the confusion -- what I meant was since you were able to change it from "no consensus" to "delete", would it be possible to change it to "relist" to gain a better consensus on the sources? Or is that an inappropriate question to ask? I apologize in advance if I shouldn't have asked that. I just can't remember what the article used to look like and the logs don't exist.

And also, should I tag the users that I mentioned voted Keep? For example, I wrote "Schützenpanzer changed their vote from Weak Keep to Keep, JarJarInks voted Keep, Aaron Liu expressed his Keep vote (but didn't bold it)" without using the User tag. I don't know if this would be considered canvassing, so I thought I'd ask you before I did anything like that. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 23:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not discussing with you on your talk page before creating the deletion review. I didn't know that it was considered polite to ask and then bring it to DRV, and sadly Liz hadn't responded by the time I had already posted it on DRV. I think it's too late for that now, but I would have asked you to reconsider de-weighting EC's arguments because I feel like I gave a pretty good one. I really, really think that moving it from "no consensus" to "delete" was incorrect, so if there's any alternative that could keep the article intact so I can edit in my drafts, I implore that I be given a chance to do that. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 12:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Navigating Wiki procedures can be a challenge. One general tip is to read the full set of instructions (where discussing with a closer was mentioned) and not just the "how to" (which I know is itself intimidating). In this case it does not matter as I could relist but I stand by my re-close of the topic. While I appreciate your passion and the work you did on the article and it certainly had an impact, I think there was a consensus (but not a vote) to delete this article. As discussed, I do think giving you access to the deleted text (if it stays deleted) is appropriate as there might be another place you could use the writing and incorporate your further research. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

People seem to think that the new article is a copy of the old 15.ai article, but it isn’t since I spent all of last night writing this one. I’d really appreciate it if you could clarify that for anyone who thinks that. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Following the suggestions of @WhatamIdoing & @QuicoleJR in my solicitation for feedback, I have now started a U4C blog. You can read it at User:Barkeep49/U4C. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the way someone with your profile has engaged on the HF/WTT RfAs - we might have different views, but you set a standard worthy of emulation. Thank you and regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. I know on this kind of position I'm part of a wiki minority but I also believe consensus can change and I work to try and change it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

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 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, I noticed your extensive research posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence and your followup notes in the workshop. I'm usually the writer for The Signpost's Arbitration report and it caught my eye. Would you be interested in collaborating on a writeup for the next issue (~January 7)? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure @Bri. How could I help? On a different note someone has suggested that the Signpost might be interested in User:Barkeep49/U4C. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Cool! I'm most interested in the hypothesis you mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop#Analysis of Barkeep49's evidence. I'll leave it up to you how you want to present that, the data gathering, and how you decided your hypothesis was falsified. Maybe my part is to do a succinct introduction and wrapper describing where we are at with PIA5? What do you think?

I've put a shell in place at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next next issue/Arbitration report. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Now that the final 2024 issue is done, I've moved this to "next issue" space for next Signpost issue: WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Arbitration report. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know if you need anything further from me but absent feedback from you I don't have any expansion plans (though am happy to do so if you think something needs expanding). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm correctly following the recent discussion, but did I do something wrong? I tried to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion but I might have gotten too carried away. Is there any chance that the AfD will be speedily deleted? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 04:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Each individual post of yours is defensible but the total number of edits has been a lot. Obviously not so much I've yet said anything, but you're playing with fire each time you past. As for deletion it's possible some admin could come and close it as speedy deletion but I think that's unlikely at this time both because it's unlikely an admin will notice it and because even if they do, they would have to explain how it met the criteria. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

But most of my edits are me just editing my own messages in quick succession right after I submitted one… I don't think I made 52 separate comments as BusterD said. I want to respond to their comment because I want to defend myself but I don't know if I should. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 10:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You have painted yourself into this corner, GregariousMadness. It is your behavior, not content of those individual edits, which has made such an impression on me. On Wikipedia, it's usually better to make your point with sources, not argumentation. It's a forgivable newbie error. What I said at the AfD is what I believe any closer might say when they come to this discussion. Remember I started this process neutrally, disinterested in the outcome, as an admin should be. But as page creator, I'm a page watcher as well. I have a wide difference of views from many of the !voters, but I have largely sat quiet. Your behaviors in this process wouldn't reflect well on any participant. That you can't see that is precisely the handicap under which you're laboring. BusterD (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it's usually better to make your point with sources, not argumentation. I'm really confused by what I did wrong because I thought all of my arguments were based on sources I was finding. I have 17 comments in the AfD total right now. I tried being cautious so as not to bludgeon and I was told that commenting new sources as a new comment would not be counted as a bludgeon, which was why I was happy to make my point there. I'm asking you, as a veteran editor, how I can improve going forward, and explicitly pointing out where I went wrong would be very helpful to me. But right now, I am just too scared to say anything in the AfD. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 11:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@GregariousMadness I count about 90 replies. You having about 1/5 of all replies is an issue. Your % of bytes is even more disproportionate - coming in at 1/3 (the # of edits you've made is even more disproportionate but that reflects your habit of making tweaks to edits you've made as much as anything). My recommendation going forward is not to post. And where you feel you must do it on the talk page. I'm really trying to give you leeway - I'm here to create not delete stuff and so letting the best case possible be put forward for a marginal topic is something I value - but you're basically out of that leeway and if you can't show good judgement about when to post I will force the issue through a partial block. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm really sorry. I'll stop posting, but again I don't think I have 90 replies. I counted them one by one, and the reason my reply count seems so big is because I have a habit of making trivial edits after I've made a post. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 00:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

There are ~90 total replies so your 17 is about 20% of the total replies. As noted here and at the AfD by bytes you have a higher proportion. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

And as for the last reply, I did it because I originally brought to topic to HyperAccelerated's talk page, but they told me to continue the conversation in the AfD instead. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 00:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. 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 ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency, I will say that I received several substantive pieces of feedback offwiki.

• Continue doing: this feedback pretty closely matched the feedback offered on wiki. If someone's really interested I'll go into details but it feels ridiculous to summarize this publicly.
• Start/stop: There was a theme among some that I am, at times, more abrupt/curt/hard line/cutting in my off-wiki communications than I am on-wiki. This is summarizing feedback by three different people which was offered in quite some depth (which I appreciate).

  For the feedback which came more from my work on arbcom, I certainly can understand where the feedback came from but I'm not so convinced that I should do anything differently were I to be on arbcom again. For the feedback which came from people's personal encounters I've given it a lot more thought and it is something I'm going to try and act differently with. The people who gave me feedback are all people who I am friendly with and who also had nice things to say but the question for me is whether there are others who felt impacted but didn't feel comfortable giving feedback. In the specific instances given as examples (which applies more to the abrupt/curt/cutting) I certainly knew that I was writing in a different tone than how I'd have said something on wiki. Some of that is because off-wiki is more casual, some of it is because I didn't invest the same amount of time I would have on wiki. Knowing the impact it had means I'm going to approach such situations at least more carefully and perhaps all together different.

Overall I'd say this was a successful process. I got positive affirmation and some meaningful feedback about things I might want to do differently. I would definitely encourage other admins to consider. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ralston College on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of political parties in the United States on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 16:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 1960s in history. 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.

also: 1970s in history, 1980s in history, 1990s in history, 2000s in history.

Sm8900 (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep, you closed this thread/report at SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz#7 January 2025 with no action. Was that because it was filed by a sock account or because you determined Boksi and BePrepared were not sock accounts?

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS I only considered the BilledMammal element of that filing substantively and closed the rest of it on "it was filed by a sock" grounds. You can see at the SPI below it I do substantively consider BePrepared (and there is a new SPI open about them as well). Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I see, thank you.

Do you think the concerns and evidence I presented [1] warrant an SPI filing for Boksi? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Nevermind for now, there's not much to go on in what I added alone. I do think they are a likely sock however, perhaps I'll gather more info and file an SPI another time. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Spworld2 has asked for a deletion review of Thajuddin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 16:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey Barkeep! I saw you were reviewing History of Székesfehérvár at the same time as I. I noticed the page was created in one edit with "clarification needed" tags and all, so I made the edit summary of this: [2]. Is there anything else that needs to be done beyond having that statement in the edit summary for attribution? I didn't see any notice at the source page of Székesfehérvár, which hadn't been edited since October 2024 and the split came about in December 2024. Thank you, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Utopes. I thought I'd seen attribution of the clear split but obviously didn't; your post facto comment suffices under the license. If I was feeling more motivated I'd have linked it back to the main article better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Scott Ritter on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 16:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
• AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
• Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
• WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
• Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
• The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
• The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
• Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
• Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.

• If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Universal Code of Conduct annual review: provide your comments on the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

Why tag an unblock request as "CU needed" when it says right above that there's an SPI associated with the block already? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)\

@Jpgordon this could show my inexperience in working unblocks. What is the standard way to indicate to other CUs that a consult is needed in order to evaluate the unblock request (which is that I got it wrong and they are not the same editor)? There would be no reason to do that at SPI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I think using the CU needed tag on the user talk page is correct. The SPI is already closed; the CU tag denotes that another check /second opinion is needed in order to review an appeal of the CU block. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Feminism and Folklore 2025 starts soon because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page has). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Now: Liebster Immanuel, Herzog der Frommen, BWV 123, my story today 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. Dada Masilo will be my story tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I managed a few more pics and the first precious ;) - If you have a few seconds please look into the Sacrifice trailer, see her speak ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. Great collaboration, Storye book found the pic, MONTENSEM wrote the lead after adding detail, and I feel you know a lot about the person after reading just that. (No discussion about an infobox, as for an estimated 95% of composers' articles. They have become normal, project opera removed the "no infobox" recommendation from its style guide in 2019, did you know?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Today we have the next composer of the kind, mentioned in my story with two others. When I saw the TFP of Mr. Balfe, however, I was inclined to help him to more accessibily but dropped it when I looked at the article history. I try to avoid conflict. I only step in when someone new to the strangest "contentious topic" I have encountered on WP gets treated as a warrior. I wonder what could stop that, - assuming good faith should be the first approach, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Good faith is so often the key to avoiding and diffusing conflict. But it's understandable why in moments it doesn't happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Today's focus is another composer because he would have been 90 today, Georg Katzer. There was a discussion in 2019, still on the talk, in case of interest in the study of good faith. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I wrote the article about his opera, and smiled when quoting from it "We pounded at the doors of the mighty; unheard remained the heart-wrenched agony, our people's mournful fate!" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Today a violinist from Turkey, Ayla Erduran, whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton (who also wrote The Rite of Spring). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Today I have a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who became GA yesterday, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before but precious was hugely important to me as an editor and as part of this community. I appreciate the work you do in giving it out (and commemorating it). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I love to do it. While I slowed down in giving, the daily routine of remembering things to be thankful for is an uplifting exercise ;) - Today, my first objective was to upgrade an article that I brought to the Main page (in poor shape, but I was too tired yesterday), - it's nominated for GA now. My story today. I'll make a story for Dada Masilo, although my first article this year is already off the Main page. - The second was to help finding a FA suitable for TFA on IWD. The third will be to turn to today's article, another recent death. Then a round of telling others the same things, and then I'll probably be too tired to give the first precious of the year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Well there is no deadline for telling someone they're precious, but it certainly remains appreciated by me and a highlight of my wiki creer. That other stuff is good too - all . On a different note I've read through the Rimsky-Korsakov RfC and am considering doing a close (if I do I'll need to read it through at least once more entirely). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, I don't care how that will be closed, seriously. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The choreographer is my story today, although her all-too-brief on the Main page was on 5 January. Her work mentioned is based on The Rite of Spring. I wonder if you are aware that one of the key debates of the infoboxes arbcase is now in Talk:The Rite of Spring/Archive 3 (there were two earlier), - for background or entertainment, as you like it. It contains the key argument against an infobox (at least as I see it): "Please let's not add another eyesore to another beautifully crafted article." - I think the discussion remained civil, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Otto Schenk today who directed lasting performances --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have more vacation pics to offer, and today's story of Werner Bardenhewer. I took the pic, and it was my DYK on his 90th birthday, in both English and German. He spent the day in Africa, and after his return said - chatting after a mass of thanks he celebrated at Mariä Heimsuchung - that we'd have to talk about these articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

For bailing on the discussion on the PIA5 talk page. Lot of real life stuff came in the way but I shouldn't have left that hanging. This goes to @CaptainEek too. Mach61 01:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mach61 ultimately ArbCom decided not to fork. That was the right decision and I was glad that's where it was. Our more academic discussion on whether they could or should have in light of the community consensus became moot. So there might be another chance to have the discussion again in the future. Do not feel bad about being a volunteer and acting accordingly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll take someone who gives a great quote as the compliment it is, and who knows reporters is objectively true, so I see why you'd assume there's a logical connection from there to they get quoted a lot, but in fact there isn't. None of the journalists to quote me about anything Wikipedia-related have been people I knew previously, and in most cases they were the ones to reach out to me (the one exception is Aaron Bandler, who I emailed after he wrote about the ADL RfC close). I don't even know if any of the journalists to write about me in a Wikipedia capacity have been aware of anything about my life beyond Wikipedia. I don't want to distract from your main point at Talk:Tamzin Hadasa Kelly § COI and notability tags by nitpicking about this, which is why I'm leaving it as an aside here, but it is something I'd like to be clear on, because it's an important ethical matter for me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 17:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gaza genocide on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 09:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Reminder: first part of the annual UCoC review closes soon because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

• Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
• A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

---

Re: A.Savin (A)

This is one of many such incidents I experienced from him:[3] (I have since changed my name to sound less wimpy.) I do not want this made public.

Krok6kola (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lady Gaga on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Jewish fascism is not a movement that ever existed, contrary to what we’re implying with that article. At first I was interested in the idea of a link between fascism and Judaism, but the article is using the term to negatively spin a loose collection of right wing Jewish movements. No sources contain information about a group of Jews who supported (for instance) Mussolini.

I know we use fascism loosely in modern political discourse as a general term for right wing political movements. But there’s a big difference between the Lehi (militant group) and Hitler (For instance, the former was a terrorist organization and not a governing body).

We are blurring lots of lines and terms with this article and I don’t think it’s contributing meaningfully to an already contentious discourse. IMHO the amazing thing about Wikipedia is the ability to honestly lay out facts and I think this article does the opposite.

I was originally trying to edit this article into something that might be salvageable, but I’m not sure that’s possible given the general framing. Any advice? I’d love to hear your perspective on the article. DuckOfOrange (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Duck I'm not interested in getting involved here with the content. If there are content issues I recommend the normal process, including BRD (with the D for discussion being especially important as parts of this page are a contentious topic). One other option could be to try for a WP:TNT deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the advice. DuckOfOrange (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey, User:24.153.184.58 has confessed on their talk page to purposely vandalising. I'm not sure where to report this, but I thought you might know. Also, I just wanted to say that when I was a beginning editor (Under @3OpenEyes), I remember you helping me out. My Wikiversary is coming up, and I wanted to thank you for helping me find my way around Wikipedia :) Have a great day! (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 15:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Acer-the-Protogen good to see you again. That message was from 2021. They were subsequently blocked for 3 years. If they continue to vandalize after sufficient warning you can go to WP:AIV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

They proceeded to change "Early life" to "sigma boy" on a BLP. I'll go ahead, thank you. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 16:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all the thoughtful closes at the admin elections, really helpful. Valereee (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

	The Admin Elections barnstar
	Thank you for your timely and thoughtful RFC closes at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections. I appreciate your time. Sincerely, –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully you both still feel that way after reading my close for q20... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Bit late here, but I love your close at Q20, that was the most detailed close statement, and I guess it was the hardest to close as well. Thanks a lot! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I came to say the same thing! Got beaten by such a close margin... ^[Joke] But yes, thank you for closing so many discussions. I am aware that closing even one takes quite a bit of time, and every minute is appreciated. —Sirdog (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

What they ⇈ all said. I'm happy with almost all of the closes themselves, albeit not so much with what the consensus turned out to be for many of them.

A possible exception is Q20 - ironically one of the overall results I'm most pleased with. You write that you split the difference between the overwhelming choices A (6 months) and C (4 months) to come up with 5 months, which neatly deals with my primary concern; but option C was presented as only every 3 months. Somewhat concerned that this'll end up being challenged on that basis. —Cryptic 23:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cryptic I did not actually split the difference between 6 and 4. I'm glad you're giving me a chance to clarify that. Instead 5 and 7 months were offered as alternative lengths to ensure seasonal rotation and the 5 month option did seem to capture the consensus expressed. I did have a typo in how I listed the options, but accurately considered it as 6 and 3 months in other aspects of the close (including as I noted on the talk page in the mathematical weighting I did). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Well done. Has it been 5 months since the last one? Not yet, I guess.... Risker (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

+1 to what everyone else said. I am very pleasantly surprised with the speed at which these closures were conducted! Thank you Barkeep. Soni (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Add me to those expressing appreciation. You gave a master class in clueful determination of consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• I wanted to add myself to those expressing appreciation for your thorough and thoughtful closes. I especially want to highlight your close of Q20 which I think accurately reflects the consensus despite it not being one of the listed options (or my preferred choice). Eluchil404 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I apologize, I just realized my reply to Toa Nidhiki 05 has me now over 500 words - I would have rather been done with my part of the proceeding but they were mischaracterizing our conversation. I... don't think... cutting text and linking to a diff of what used to be there is an appropriate way around the word limit. How would you prefer me to proceed? Simonm223 (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Gave you an extension. If you need to reply to anything further please ask there first. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

thanks Simonm223 (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey Barkeep49 - I'm sorry to ask this, but I feel I absolutely need to make a very, very brief response to the claim Simonm made with their extension - I think it's misleading. I only need 111 words to explain this. I'm aware I've responded a lot. Toa Nidhiki05 16:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 can you make the request at AE or WT:AE? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Barkeep49. Do I just request in the thread itself, or the talk page? Toa Nidhiki05 16:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 either one is fine. Since you're asking (and I know I will see it), go ahead and do it on the talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Just posted it - thanks again for the super prompt response! Toa Nidhiki05 17:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The arbitration clarification request that you filed has been closed and archived. The consensus of participating arbitrators was that arbitrators have no special standing when commenting at arbitration enforcement in an administrative capacity. SilverLocust 💬 18:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Secondary School Certificate 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 06:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 16:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Upcoming Language Community Meeting (Feb 28th, 14:00 UTC) and Newsletter because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

Hello everyone!

We’re excited to announce that the next Language Community Meeting is happening soon, February 28th at 14:00 UTC! If you’d like to join, simply sign up on the wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting where we share updates on language-related projects, discuss technical challenges in language wikis, and collaborate on solutions. In our last meeting, we covered topics like developing language keyboards, creating the Moore Wikipedia, and updates from the language support track at Wiki Indaba.

Got a topic to share? Whether it’s a technical update from your project, a challenge you need help with, or a request for interpretation support, we’d love to hear from you! Feel free to reply to this message or add agenda items to the document here.

Also, we wanted to highlight that the sixth edition of the Language & Internationalization newsletter (January 2025) is available here: Wikimedia Language and Product Localization/Newsletter/2025/January. This newsletter provides updates from the October–December 2024 quarter on new feature development, improvements in various language-related technical projects and support efforts, details about community meetings, and ideas for contributing to projects. To stay updated, you can subscribe to the newsletter on its wiki page: Wikimedia Language and Product Localization/Newsletter.

We look forward to your ideas and participation at the language community meeting, see you there!

MediaWiki message delivery 08:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The first round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As a reminder, we are no longer disqualifying the lowest-scoring contestants; everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned from Wikipedia. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. Unlike the round points in the main WikiCup table, which are reset at the end of each round, tournament points are carried over between rounds and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far.

Round 1 was very competitive compared with previous years; two contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 500 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,168 round points, mainly from 4 featured articles and 4 good articles on old military history, in addition to an assortment of GA and FA reviews.
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, mainly from 2 FAs, 2 featured lists, 8 GAs, and 16 Did You Know articles mainly on historical topics.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions), with 866 round points from 20 GAs, 23 DYKs, and 2 In the News articles primarily about athletes.
• Sammi Brie (submissions), with 846 round points from 16 GAs about radio and TV stations, 45 GA reviews, and 3 DYKs.
• Hey man im josh (submissions), with 816 round points from 5 FLs about sports and Olympic topics, 46 FL reviews, 3 ITN articles, and a large number of bonus points.
• MaranoFan (submissions), with 815 round points primarily from 3 FAs and 1 GA about music, in addition to 9 article reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 18 featured articles, 26 featured lists, 1 featured-topic article, 197 good articles, 38 good-topic articles and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 23 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 550 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2, which begins on 1 March. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

On the main page Edith Mathis, who portrayed young women by Mozart, the video of a 1993 interview has videos of her performances, - yesterday's story. - "places" come with food and flowers, - sharing with you ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I point at a composer today, as the main page does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

a robin pictured --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

		The Constitutional Barnstar
		For all you've done. FWIW, I hope it isn't G7'd. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Stealing this from Pppery, good luck on your RFB! Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks though a bit ironic because based off the last RfB Pppery might oppose. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

whoops I stand corrected I stole it from Sennecaster Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep, since the only userright (patrol) of the patroller usergroup is already bundled in the sysop usergroup, does it make sense to just untick patroller for yourself? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces, you'll find the answer to that one in Barkeep's user rights changes log. -- asilvering (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Specifically here's the link. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

18:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

• Jarry1250
• Lethe

CheckUser changes

• AmandaNP
• Drmies

Oversighter changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
• A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
• A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.

Technical news

• A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
• Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.

---

Hello Barkeep49! I am pleased to report that I have closed your RfB as successful. Welcome to the 'crat corps! 28bytes (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

While they just received the title, I believe Barkeep has always has the soul of a bureaucrat. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I look forward to you becoming level-headed, boring, and uncontroversial . Sdrqaz (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You're one of the few who agrees that I haven't always been this way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Con-crat-ulations! Worm^TT(talk) 15:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a shame you don't get to break that pun out more often. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Welcome to the corps. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• Congratulations and welcome. Useight (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• What Worm said. Congratulations! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• It's been hectic IRL and I completely missed the entirety of your RfB, so please accept this belated support and congratulations! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  Always a pleasure to hear from you Amory and I appreciate the support and congratulations. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• Congrats on becoming the first new crat in three years. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 20:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• Congratulations. Well deserved. Donner60 (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Welcome to the crat corp, may your bureaucratship be long and boring, and perhaps leave a fine tunnel behind it. ϢereSpielChequers 10:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Congrats! QuicoleJR (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Universal Code of Conduct annual review: proposed changes are available for comment because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Universal Code of Conduct annual review: proposed changes are available for comment because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 19:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Universal Code of Conduct annual review: proposed changes are available for comment because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 15:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what was the point of this edit.

The reason I decided to create a full essay is because 1) the term "BRIE" had already been referenced at ANI without meaning any specific arbcom case and 2) I like making essays. Indeed, the concept of "being right isn't enough" is sufficiently general and could apply just about anywhere, that it makes sense to send it to an essay that can be referred to all over the project without going anywhere near any specific arb activity. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 having an essay is, of course, useful. But the shortcut came into use as a pointer to the arbcom principle. This is why when the concept was incorporated into WP:CIVILITY a different shortcut was used. And Ritchie, your accusation that my change was "unexplained" is plainly false, I explained in the edit summary, and your revert against the idea of BRD, with you instead choosing to revert rather than discuss. I will do what you failed to do and take this to RfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 00:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Five Star Movement on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 22:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 17:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Watching a discussion you're having on another page, and it reminds me of one of the most unsolvable problems we have wrt civility. If Editor A is minorly snarky to Editor B (say a 1 on the Snarkometer), we don't want to stick our noses in, because people are mildly snarky so often that the whole place would get bogged down. (I really don't think the "solution" is to warn people for this.) If Editor B responds with a level 2 snark, it seems unfair to "warn" them for responding to snark with snark. When Editor A dials it up to a 3, the same theory applies, as it does when Editor B responds with a 4. etc. Soon, we've got people hurling insults. Somebody needs to step in at some point, but whatever point it is, they get the inevitable "the other guy was doing it too". And we've incrementally reinforced to the warned editor that this place isn't "fair", and they're being picked on.

I have no solution, only recognition of the problem. That's not quite true, I think a step in the right direction is a quiet word from a friend (instead of an authority figure of some kind) saying "you're letting yourself get baited". or "be the bigger person". Or something. But few friends ever do this. I've tried just now, but (1) it's public, so not quite what I'm advocating, and (2) I don't think they consider me a "friend", so I don't have much faith it will work.

Definitely a puzzle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful words @Floquenbeam. As I think you know I'm a huge proponent of the impact friends can have. And yes I think you're right about the spiral being a tricky problem. I too wish I had answers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Once in a while, I try to [pretty glibly] think about game theory and difficult cooperation problems on Wikipedia. There's a really solid strategy called generous/forgiving tit-for-tat with some relevance to these cases. Tit-for-tat -- in a game where mutual cooperation is beneficial, mutual defection is bad, and asymmetrical cooperation/defection is very bad (think prisoner's dilemma) -- means you start off trying to cooperate, and continue cooperating as long as the other person is cooperating, but if the other person defects, you defect too. Copy the other person's last action, basically. It can be prone to spirals. So there are modifications. There's the grim modification where as soon as someone defects, you defect in every interaction with that person forever. In some cases, that winds up working better than regular tit-for-tat. But even better is a generous modification where you start off cooperating and are prepared to forgive one act of defection (i.e. continue to cooperate until the other person defects twice). Turns out when you iterate a game like the prisoner's dilemma, generous tit-for-tat is a really effective strategy: generosity is beneficial. Of course, introducing a moderator/referee to this kind of changes the whole game, but it makes me wonder about ways to get Wikipedians to forgive one instance of snark. If Editor A is minorly snarky to Editor B and Editor B responds without snark, does it make sense to give that person a barnstar? Editor A might be miffed, but does it matter? Speaking of not mattering, maybe what we need is an essay along the lines of "De-escalation doesn't have to be fair" explaining that when you feel a sense of unfairness because de-escalation happened with disproportionate regard for relative Snark Factors, don't worry -- odds are, you'll wind up on the other end sometime. PS: maybe try the generous tit-for-tat thing." :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

One approach is to politely ask them both within their discussion to focus on the relevant topic, rather than escalating the undesirable behaviour. This gives them a way to save face with anyone following the thread, as they don't have to appear to be giving in to the other. A problem though is that many editors who fall into this cycle are inclined to only take advice from, if anyone, those with whom they've had previous positive interactions (and for me, I'm literally on just one editor's Christmas card list ;-). isaacl (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Something went wrong when I sent this to AfD. Would you mind taking a look and seeing if it can be corrected? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Onel5969 maybe someone else already fixed it but I don't see any issues: the page itself looks ok (XfDCloser recognizes it), it's not he article page, and it's on the list of AfDs opened today. What was the issue you had? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for checking. Looks like Spiderone fixed it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

New month: today is the birthday of Chopin and Ricardo Kanji, see my stories of today and yesterday, with dream music by the first and Bach played by the other. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Today: Carmen turns 150, as the main page and my story tell you. I chose a 1962 concert of the Habanera, - enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

On Ravel's birthday, we also think of a conductor and five more composers ;) - plenty of music to greet you as a new bureaucrat! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Today I could have written five stories off the main page, and chose Sofia Gubaidulina. I find the TFA also interesting, and two DYK, and a birthday OTD. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Today: an opera, 100 years old OTD, on Bach's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Today, 300 years of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1! We sang works for (mostly) double choir by Pachelbel, Johann Christoph Bach, Kuhnau/Bach, Gounod and Rheinberger! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it shows that there remain issues among "repeat players" in the topic area which isn't a surprise to me (nor am I guessing to you). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there are the repeat players opposing, but almost all support names were new to me. - Should someone with that depth of involvement have closed, that is one question, and if, then without a sign of having looked at arguments, that is the other. Your voice is not needed (I asked when there was no comment yet, and I thought that you know the topic), but welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Ignore all this, it's open again, restored by the closer - as I had hoped. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

See also User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi#February music for context --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

And still another layer of history: the unanswered question --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Two RD stories to say bye to March --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Final proposed modifications to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter now posted because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 15:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).

Administrator changes

• Giraffer
• Goldsztajn

Dennis Brown

• Cyclonebiskit
• Nohat
• Someguy1221

Bureaucrat changes

Barkeep49

CheckUser changes

0xDeadbeef

Oversighter changes

GB fan

Moneytrees

Miscellaneous

• Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.

---

I enjoyed the "Don't be a hero" essay, but shouldn't you add a "See also" link to Phoenix Jones? Polygnotus (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not a connection I'd have made but it's in Wikipedia space so people can add stuff like that without worry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the snap shot. I reacted like it was on my watchlist and didn't perform the needed follow through. Their reversion and your discussion move was much cleaner. I complained to one of our mutual friends about hogging the monitoring. Many of us need to be ready to do it. I haven't been able to spend most days at the keyboard this week. BusterD (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

RfA monitoring is an important job and hopefully an admin or two steps up to do it. But Fortuna pinged the crats and the solution was clear so I went ahead. It certainly is a bit of a grey area in terms of IP participation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2025: Invitation because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

Please help translate to other languages.

Hello, dear Wikipedians!

Wikimedia Ukraine, in cooperation with the MFA of Ukraine and Ukrainian Institute, has launched the fifth edition of writing challenge "Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month", which lasts from 14th April until 16th May 2025. The campaign is dedicated to famous Ukrainian artists of cinema, music, literature, architecture, design, and cultural phenomena of Ukraine that are now part of world heritage. We accept contributions in every language!

The most active contesters will receive prizes.

If you are interested in coordinating long-term community engagement for the campaign and becoming a local ambassador, we would love to hear from you! Please let us know your interest.

We invite you to take part and help us improve the coverage of Ukrainian culture on Wikipedia in your language! Also, we plan to set up a banner to notify users of the possibility to participate in such a challenge! OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk)

16:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Vote now on the revised UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

Hi, hope you're well. If you used your new script to close LP03's RFA it left a duplicated line right at the bottom, both inside and outside of the close box. Stephen 04:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks like more than just an extra line, it missed the entire bottom section. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I have a question more than a bug report - should there have been a rationale at the close or did you just want to say it ended with no formal statement? Primefac (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Primefac I'm not aware of closing statements for RfA. IF you think this needed one please feel free to amend. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

In the commented-out part of the top section, WHEN CLOSING THIS RFA, REPLACE THIS PART WITH {{subst:finaltally|[OPTIONALMESSAGE] OR [result=successful] OR [reason=SNOW] OR [reason=NOTNOW] OR [reason=WITHDRAWN] OR (blank)}} SEE TEMPLATE FOR MORE DETAILS. It is also listed in our procedures. No it is not strictly required but I don't think I've seen a close without even an "unsuccessful" as the reason. Primefac (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I have opened up a 'crat chat for EggRoll97, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EggRoll97 2/Bureaucrat chat. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 17:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Barkeep49 -- thank you and congratulations for becoming a bureaucrat. I appreciate how you continually take on new roles and adventures in the Wikimedia world -- you bring thoughtfulness and energy to all of them. MMiller (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Marshall for the kind words. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

Tout est lumière --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Check out my talk: for a great woman's Johannes-Passion (listen!), our music in detail, and three people who recently died and are on the main page (where she isn't). My call for collaboration has the first "no". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you think of this Easter vs. 1 April discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Nothing happened. - My story is about music that Bach and Picander gave the world 300 years (and 19 days) ago, - listen (on the conductor's birthday) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I wrote my story today and then found it's the person's funeral day. - I hated to see DYK for Johannes-Passion (Gubaidulina) today instead of Good Friday, but it seems also right in the context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I finally managed to upload the pics I meant for Easter, see places. - Also finally, I managed a FAC, Easter Oratorio. I wanted that on the main page for Easter Sunday, but no, twice. You are invited to join a discussion about what "On this day" means, day or date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,233 round points from 24 good articles, 28 Did you know articles, and one In the news nomination, mainly about athletes and politicians
• Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 1,127 round points, almost entirely from two high-multiplier featured articles on Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) and Grace Coolidge, in addition to two GAs and two reviews
• History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from four featured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and a good topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
• Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Vote on proposed modifications to the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

The voting period for the revisions to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter closes on 1 May 2025 at 23:59 UTC (find in your time zone). Read the information on how to participate and read over the proposal before voting on the UCoC page on Meta-wiki.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community in your language, as appropriate, so they can participate as well.

In cooperation with the U4C --

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein am I losing my mind or is some of the recently added content at Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein problematic? Have been surprised no other editors have seen issues with it so just looking for a gut check. Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of activity there and just haven't had time to look. I will try and spend some time later today looking at the BLPN discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2025).

Administrator changes

Rusalkii

NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

• Master Jay
• Orderinchaos
• Roger Davies
• Tinucherian

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
• An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
• An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---

MediaWiki message delivery 20:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Call for Candidates for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

The results of voting on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines and Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter is available on Meta-wiki.

You may now submit your candidacy to serve on the U4C through 29 May 2025 at 12:00 UTC. Information about eligibility, process, and the timeline are on Meta-wiki. Voting on candidates will open on 1 June 2025 and run for two weeks, closing on 15 June 2025 at 12:00 UTC.

If you have any questions, you can ask on the discussion page for the election. -- in cooperation with the U4C,

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Wondering if you would be willing to have another look at this SPI. You stated there was not enough evidence to justify a check. Not only name styling similar, but Addz7777 just did the same behavior as documented in the SPI. I can wait to refile when they do it a few more times but hoping you would be willing to have another look. Thanks. CNMall41 (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41 you should file it, let me know, and I'll endorse it. I don't have time at the moment to do a complete investigation but there is enough to warrant a real look at this point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking closer this looks like more of a farm for Star Networks so lumping a few more accounts in and filing now. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Filed. There are probably more accounts and I can dig up more differences if you feel necessary, but I think the ones I listed should turn up quite a few (as well as sleepers possibly?). --CNMall41 (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

BK, I'm unfamiliar with this...AE, with (I assume?) a rough consensus, can declare an article requires only editors with at least X edits? Can you point me at that? Valereee (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) From WP:CTOP: "A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any restriction from the standard set and any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I was thinking there'd be many who felt 10K wasn't reasonable/proportionate, but maybe I'm wrong. Valereee (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I suppose those hypothetical "many" would then have to head to WP:ARCA. -- asilvering (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

It's a reasonable objection. I think it'd depend on the situation, and in most case a lower number would be more reasonable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah basically as long as a rough consensus of administrators is convinced that 10k is appropriate for specific articles (only arbcom could do it in a topic area) then there's nothing stopping them. Practially speaking 10k might not be obtainable as the right place to start such a restriction but I would guess there is a number that could get consensus at AE for some reports in certain topic areas. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Could you please delete this revision because it includes a mobile number. Thanks. --Karim talk to me :)..! 18:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@كريم رائد for the future, it would be best if you followed the procedures outlined at WP:RFOS to avoid drawing attention to the information that should be suppressed. Barkeep and other Oversighters have numerous people who watch their talk pages for recent edits, and they may look at the oversightable information before an OS can expunge it. So asking for suppression should be done as quietly as possible via email or IRC. Just wanted to let you know for the future. Fathoms Below (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 20:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has opened an arbitration case titled Indian military history in response to an arbitration enforcement referral. You are receiving this notice because you are a named party to the case and/or offered a statement in the referral proceedings.

Please add your evidence by June 5, 2025, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage.

For a guide to the arbitration process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § RfC ongoing regarding Abstract Wikipedia (and your project) because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 Selection & Call for Questions because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

More languages • Please help translate to other languages.

Dear all,

This year, the term of 2 (two) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.

The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Governance Committee, composed of trustees who are not candidates in the 2025 community-and-affiliate-selected trustee selection process (Raju Narisetti, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, Lorenzo Losa, Kathy Collins, Victoria Doronina and Esra’a Al Shafei) [3], is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2025 trustee selection process and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].

Here are the key planned dates:

• May 22 – June 5: Announcement (this communication) and call for questions period [6]
• June 17 – July 1, 2025: Call for candidates
• July 2025: If needed, affiliates vote to shortlist candidates if more than 10 apply [5]
• August 2025: Campaign period
• August – September 2025: Two-week community voting period
• October – November 2025: Background check of selected candidates
• Board’s Meeting in December 2025: New trustees seated

Learn more about the 2025 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page [link].

Call for Questions

In each selection process, the community has the opportunity to submit questions for the Board of Trustees candidates to answer. The Election Committee selects questions from the list developed by the community for the candidates to answer. Candidates must answer all the required questions in the application in order to be eligible; otherwise their application will be disqualified. This year, the Election Committee will select 5 questions for the candidates to answer. The selected questions may be a combination of what’s been submitted from the community, if they’re alike or related. [link]

Election Volunteers

Another way to be involved with the 2025 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page [link].

Thank you!

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Results

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter

[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Committee_Membership,_December_2024

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles

[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/FAQ

[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Questions_for_candidates

Best regards,

Victoria Doronina

Board Liaison to the Elections Committee

Governance Committee

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

Recommended reading today: Christfried Schmidt, a story about patience. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

check my talk today for two pics of Margot Friedländer --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

one was replaced by a pic of May Abrahamse (with uncertain licensing), and Vakhtang Machavariani is nominated --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

musings on 15 May --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

all Verdi today: tenor Luigi Alva and the premiere OTD of his Requiem, see my talk--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

A first: two stories about two people who worked together and died the same day --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, born 100 years ago, described by Alan Blyth --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: I've read It also seems like the very real concerns about any message (something I'm rather sympathetic to) that all of these specific proposals will be more for ourselves than the WMF. several times and I'm not sure what you mean. Were you trying to say something like "It also seems like there are very real concerns that the message being sent by these specific proposals will be more for ourselves than the WMF."? isaacl (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I was saying that if I were to !vote on whether or not to support sending a statement I'd currently lean oppose. That is I'm sympathetic to the reasons listed by people opposing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Although I'd seen indications of this viewpoint in your other statements, I confess I didn't get this from the sentence in question. To me it feels like you said "it also seems like X (something I'm rather sympathetic to)" and then ended the sentence without saying what it seems like. isaacl (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 21:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Indian military history. Due to an influx of evidence submissions within 48 hours of the evidence phase closing, which may not allow sufficient time for others to provide supplementary/contextual evidence, the drafters are extending the evidence phase by three days, and will now close at 23:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC). The deadlines for the workshop and proposed decision phases will also be extended by three days to account for this additional time.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2025).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

Technical news

• A new feature called Multiblocks will be deployed on English Wikipedia on the week of June 2. See the relevant announcement on the administrators' noticeboard.
• History merges performed using the mergehistory special page are now logged at both the source and destination, rather than just the source as previously, after this RFC and the resolution of T118132.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 17 June 2025. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in June 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Vote now in the 2025 U4C Election because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

User:Adam Cuerden has nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Raladic (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 - Call for Candidates because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

More languages • Please help translate to other languages.

Hello all,

The call for candidates for the 2025 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection is now open from June 17, 2025 – July 2, 2025 at 11:59 UTC [1]. The Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's work, and each Trustee serves a three-year term [2]. This is a volunteer position.

This year, the Wikimedia community will vote in late August through September 2025 to fill two (2) seats on the Foundation Board. Could you – or someone you know – be a good fit to join the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees? [3]

Learn more about what it takes to stand for these leadership positions and how to submit your candidacy on this Meta-wiki page or encourage someone else to run in this year's election.

Best regards,

Abhishek Suryawanshi
Chair of the Elections Committee

On behalf of the Elections Committee and Governance Committee

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Call_for_candidates

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal:Bylaws#(B)_Term.

[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Resources_for_candidates

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

18:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 19:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! I just wanted to point out that where you reverted that G10 request stating it was not an attack page, I think that you might not have noticed a directed personal attack under "Known Enemies", which is likely what Magnolia677 meant by "attack page". -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@DandelionAndBurdock I did indeed see that section. I had not noticed the user listed there (compared to things like "Citation Needed"). That obviously should be removed and I have done so now. However, G10 requires that it be an attack page not an attack line and so I stand by my decline of that speedy deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

Stravinsky pictured on his birthday + Vienna pics - but too many who died -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

While you are of course invited to check out my recommendations any day, today offers unusually a great writer of novels, music with light and a place with exquisite food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Sister Projects Task Force reviews Wikispore and Wikinews because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.

Dear Wikimedia Community,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees assigned the Sister Projects Task Force (SPTF) to update and implement a procedure for assessing the lifecycle of Sister Projects – wiki projects supported by Wikimedia Foundation (WMF).

A vision of relevant, accessible, and impactful free knowledge has always guided the Wikimedia Movement. As the ecosystem of Wikimedia projects continues to evolve, it is crucial that we periodically review existing projects to ensure they still align with our goals and community capacity.

Despite their noble intent, some projects may no longer effectively serve their original purpose. Reviewing such projects is not about giving up – it's about responsible stewardship of shared resources. Volunteer time, staff support, infrastructure, and community attention are finite, and the non-technical costs tend to grow significantly as our ecosystem has entered a different age of the internet than the one we were founded in. Supporting inactive projects or projects that didn't meet our ambitions can unintentionally divert these resources from areas with more potential impact.

Moreover, maintaining projects that no longer reflect the quality and reliability of the Wikimedia name stands for, involves a reputational risk. An abandoned or less reliable project affects trust in the Wikimedia movement.

Lastly, failing to sunset or reimagine projects that are no longer working can make it much harder to start new ones. When the community feels bound to every past decision – no matter how outdated – we risk stagnation. A healthy ecosystem must allow for evolution, adaptation, and, when necessary, letting go. If we create the expectation that every project must exist indefinitely, we limit our ability to experiment and innovate.

Because of this, SPTF reviewed two requests concerning the lifecycle of the Sister Projects to work through and demonstrate the review process. We chose Wikispore as a case study for a possible new Sister Project opening and Wikinews as a case study for a review of an existing project. Preliminary findings were discussed with the CAC, and a community consultation on both proposals was recommended.

The application to consider Wikispore was submitted in 2019. SPTF decided to review this request in more depth because rather than being concentrated on a specific topic, as most of the proposals for the new Sister Projects are, Wikispore has the potential to nurture multiple start-up Sister Projects.

After careful consideration, the SPTF has decided not to recommend Wikispore as a Wikimedia Sister Project. Considering the current activity level, the current arrangement allows better flexibility and experimentation while WMF provides core infrastructural support.

We acknowledge the initiative's potential and seek community input on what would constitute a sufficient level of activity and engagement to reconsider its status in the future.

As part of the process, we shared the decision with the Wikispore community and invited one of its leaders, Pharos, to an SPTF meeting.

Currently, we especially invite feedback on measurable criteria indicating the project's readiness, such as contributor numbers, content volume, and sustained community support. This would clarify the criteria sufficient for opening a new Sister Project, including possible future Wikispore re-application. However, the numbers will always be a guide because any number can be gamed.

We chose to review Wikinews among existing Sister Projects because it is the one for which we have observed the highest level of concern in multiple ways.

Since the SPTF was convened in 2023, its members have asked for the community's opinions during conferences and community calls about Sister Projects that did not fulfil their promise in the Wikimedia movement.[1][2][3] Wikinews was the leading candidate for an evaluation because people from multiple language communities proposed it. Additionally, by most measures, it is the least active Sister Project, with the greatest drop in activity over the years.

While the Language Committee routinely opens and closes language versions of the Sister Projects in small languages, there has never been a valid proposal to close Wikipedia in major languages or any project in English. This is not true for Wikinews, where there was a proposal to close English Wikinews, which gained some traction but did not result in any action[4][5], see section 5 as well as a draft proposal to close all languages of Wikinews[6].

Initial metrics compiled by WMF staff also support the community's concerns about Wikinews.

Based on this report, SPTF recommends a community reevaluation of Wikinews. We conclude that its current structure and activity levels are the lowest among the existing sister projects. SPTF also recommends pausing the opening of new language editions while the consultation runs.

SPTF brings this analysis to a discussion and welcomes discussions of alternative outcomes, including potential restructuring efforts or integration with other Wikimedia initiatives.

Options mentioned so far (which might be applied to just low-activity languages or all languages) include but are not limited to:

• Restructure how Wikinews works and is linked to other current events efforts on the projects,
• Merge the content of Wikinews into the relevant language Wikipedias, possibly in a new namespace,
• Merge content into compatibly licensed external projects,
• Archive Wikinews projects.

Your insights and perspectives are invaluable in shaping the future of these projects. We encourage all interested community members to share their thoughts on the relevant discussion pages or through other designated feedback channels.

We'd be grateful if you want to take part in a conversation on the future of these projects and the review process. We are setting up two different project pages: Public consultation about Wikispore and Public consultation about Wikinews. Please participate between 27 June 2025 and 27 July 2025, after which we will summarize the discussion to move forward. You can write in your own language.

I will also host a community conversation 16th July Wednesday 11.00 UTC and 17th July Thursday 17.00 UTC (call links to follow shortly) and will be around at Wikimania for more discussions.

-- Victoria on behalf of the Sister Project Task Force, 20:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The third round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 June. This round was again competitive, with three contestants scoring more than 1,000 round points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,314 round points, mostly from articles about athletes and politicians, including 20 good articles and 48 did you know articles
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,197 round points, mostly from military history articles, including 9 featured topic articles, two featured articles, and four good articles
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 1,055 round points, mostly from television station articles, including 27 good articles and 9 good topic articles

Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 4 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 9 featured-topic articles, 149 good articles, 27 good-topic articles, and more than 90 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 18 In the News articles, and they have conducted more than 200 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 19:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2025).

Administrator changes

NuclearWarfare

Interface administrator changes

L235

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, speedy deletion criterion G13 has been amended to remove "Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text."
• WP:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts was upgraded to a guideline following a RfC discussion.

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
• Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!

---

MediaWiki message delivery 18:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep. Very few users have the in-depth, all round experience and institutional memory that you do. Few have been so engaged on various policy-changing projects. I once thought I did, but the interest waned somewhat 6 years ago and I've been pretty much put out to pasture by the new generations. I still follow a few things though and write the occasional article, and looking at the lineup for this year's scramble for the two community seats on the BoT election, while the contenders all mean well, apart from a couple it's more like a modern quest for takers for Arbcom (where you are missed). I'm sure though that you will turn out to vote, so if you do, here's my take on it, and I make no apology for canvassing. Warm regards, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kudpung: it's strange that I am now one with insitutuional memory becuase when our work first intersected that wasn't the case. I appreciate you sharinf your guide. I'm curious about our ommission of James Alexander. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

No, it wasn't the case, but people who are heavily and passionately engaged in a project tend to learn its history quite quickly and unconsciously. J. Alexander - no personal reason, but I am of the absolute conviction that it is not appropriate for past or present employees to be on the Board. Call it COI, if you will. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

If you like Brahms, I recommend the streaming of yesterday's concert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Alas it's not available in my country. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I heard the same about Australia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Today is Bastille Day, commemorated by a DYK as my "story" and a visit to the Bastille Opera in "music". I like the interview coming with the story, on the day before the big event, but for pomp and circumstance, the affair with 600 singing children and orchestra, and the singer dressed in the national flag, was also captured on videos, much slower. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Check out places for a great smile, - he had just stepped in to play Chopin's Piano Concerto No. 2, successfully! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Three Ukrainian topics were on the main page today, at least at the beginning, RD and DYK, - see my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Three of "my" recent deaths bios are on the main page right now, one my story today, Gary Karr, and I loved to find his breakthrough concert in 1962 as a video. In my music today I match it with 9 other double bassists, 7 conducted by a person who's birthday is today - coincidence ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Béatrice Uria-Monzon and her story, Julia Hagen and her no story --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

On Bach's day of death, I decorated my user pages in memory of his music, and my story ends on "peace". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Jahrhundertring remembered, with the picture of a woman who can't believe what she has to see - I used that once for an argument, pleading, for Götterdämmerung. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Elizabeth II on a "Politics, government, and law" 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 17:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mohammad Shahjahan (footballer). 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. Owen× ☎ 12:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

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/Transgender healthcare and people. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 11, 2025 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 21:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Was the closure of 2nd AFD nomination on Maryanne Oketch correct? I didn't notify the members of related WikiProjects, which might have led to the "no consensus" outcome. Well, the evidence to counter the BLP1E/BIO1E assertions has been presented, but I'm unsure whether it's enough to balance the claims out. Well, the bots of the WikiProjects list the article under Article Alerts, but I dunno whether the vistors of the WikiProjects can browse through long list of articles and other pages in the Article Alert pages/sections. George Ho (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

As I hate to admit, (dunno why) the AFD turnout was very low, considering visitors from other pages (WikiNav), internal (like Survivor 42 and parent article about the series itself) or external. (WikiNav is unable to count visits to the 2nd AFD nomination.) --George Ho (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@George Ho do you have evidence of inappropriate canvassing? Because a bot notifying a project and/or a page appearing in a project's article alert list is not canvassing, else we wouldn't be permitting bots (and deletion sorting tags) to do those functions automatically. Absent evidence of inappropriate canvassing, I am left with the actual participation in the AFD. Often at such AFDs BLP1E/BIO1E weighting will mean that even in an AfD divided as Oketch was that there be will be a delete/redirect consensus. However, in this case the participants favoring keep gave policy based reasoning, with sources, to dispute the criteria of that which is how I ended with a no consensus outcome. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Once this SPI is closed, would it be possible for you to reconsider your no consensus close? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jeraxmoira I am happy to reconsider it when that SPI is closed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It's closed now. Please check when you get the time. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jeraxmoira are you prepared to do the merge? If yes I'll close that way, if not I'll close as redirect while noting merge - I find merges coming from AFD often sit forever unless there's someone who has agreedt to do it (which is what normally happens in a normal merge discussion). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I have never actually merged an article during my time here, so I think the latter option is better. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

	The Admin Elections barnstar
	Thank you very much for being a backup scrutineer at WP:AELECT2. We did end up using one of the backup scrutineers, so this is an important role. Thanks for stepping up! –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Please look at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems for July 26, 2005. Krok6kola (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Krok6kola are you referring to the thread about the user page (which was eventually deleted) and 1989's conduct? If so thanks, it is evidence we're thinking about. If something else can you link me more directly? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It is related to 1989's conduct. A.Savin called her a bitch in Russian and posted that image on his user page, she said. It was discussed on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. As I recall, she was not blamed for her behavior. The image was deleted. 1989 has semi-retired, so may not have seen your post. Krok6kola (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that we knew about this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

[4] Krok6kola (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2025).

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
• Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

• Administrators can now restrict the "Add a Link" feature to newcomers. The "Add a Link" Structured Task helps new account holders get started with editing. Administrators can configure this setting in the Community Configuration page.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Indian military history has been closed.
  • South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
  • The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
  • The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 31 July.
• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 11 August.

Miscellaneous

• Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.

---

Regarding your comments on community feedback for development proposals: I appreciate your voicing the same concerns I have. I worded my comments as open-ended questions as I didn't want to be unduly negative towards initiatives that ideally would be helpful. But I think expectations have to be tempered about the quality of feedback that can be received from a self-selected group. isaacl (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I think I've been around you enough that I could interpret the thinking behind the questions, because I had little doubt of your stance on it all. I agree the ideas are good. What I don't think they do is combine to deliver the results desired to the problem identified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 19:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 21:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

The last four stories were about Bach's Mass in B minor (because I heard it), and about three who died, including two women. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Today a great singer, pictured on my talk twice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Today's story - short version: ten years ago we had a DYK about a soprano who sang in concerts with me in the choir, - longer: I found today a youtube of an aria she sang with us then, recorded the same year, - if you still have time: our performances were the weekend before the Iraq war ultimatum, and we sang Dona nobis pacem (and the drummer drummed!) as if they could hear us in Washington. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Check out my talk for an Independence day, or: the pic of Oksana Lyniv was taken on 24 August. There's listening and reading in today's story, and I like both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

On top of my talk: birthday of a great violinist and Requiem for a great friend. We sang Paradisi gloria from the Stabat Mater in the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The fourth round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 29 August. The penultimate round saw three contestants score more than 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,175 round points, mainly from sports-related articles, including 17 good articles, 27 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles
• Arconning (submissions) with 1,090 round points, mainly from articles about athletes and politicians, including a featured article on Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics, 9 good articles, 28 did you know articles, and a wide assortment of featured and good article reviews
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 854 round points, mostly from a high-scoring featured article on the Indian leader Rani of Jhansi and two good articles, in addition to 13 featured and good article reviews

Everyone who competed in Round 4 will advance to Round 5 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for Round 4 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 9 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 98 good articles, 9 good topic articles, more than 150 reviews, nearly 100 did you know articles, and 18 in the news articles.

In advance of the fifth and final round, the judges would like to thank every contestant for their hard work. As a reminder, any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. In addition, note that Round 5 will end on 31 October at 23:59 UTC. Awards at the end of Round 5 will be distributed based on who has the most tournament points over all five rounds, and special awards will be distributed based on high performance in particular areas of content creation (e.g., most featured articles in a single round).

Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges – Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), Frostly (talk · contribs), Guerillero (talk · contribs) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) – are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 18:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

• Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find. T393240

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
• An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

Hello,

I believe there must be a misunderstanding regarding this. I am a very neutral editor who created Gaza genocide, Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel, Palestinians as animals in Israeli discourse and many other articles about this topic. None of the articles were deleted except one. The article for which you are currently topic-banning me is also being voted as a notable article and most likely will be kept. So I believe this topic ban should be reconsidered. Thank you and best regards.Crampcomes (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Crampcomes Since your message, there has been further participation. I would be willing to reconsider the topic ban if the article is actually kept. Actually in truth an indefinite topic ban might have been too strong period given the evidence. Let's discuss after that closes as I do think some modification - or even revoking it - would be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Crampcomes while I have indicated an openness to re-evaluating the topic ban, it is currently in place and so you should not be commenting, including at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparisons between Hamas and Nazi Germany. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey there. Just wanted to say that while I do support deletion and do think this article is probably a POV fork I don't think it is disruptively such so much as it is a matter of someone who has, in their eagerness to catalogue rhetoric, has maybe just been a bit too much like Icarus. This is to say that I'd hate for my !vote to delete that article to be used to justify the topic ban if it is something you would otherwise consider lifting. I'm not aware of the full context beyond the AfD and your comments there so I can't speak to if there are any other elements to this topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Simonm223 for the comment and feedback. The topic ban was not just about this article, but the pattern is decidedly different if the community feels this article should be kept and so the appropriate action for me to take here should also be different. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the consideration Barkeep49 and Simonm223.Crampcomes (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Crampcomes with the AfD closing as delete, I'm going to modify the topic ban to a 3 month topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much!Crampcomes (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 01:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)