Jump to content

User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

do not hold for me

At yet another funeral on my iPhone saw your question to me at rfc no need to hold for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, thanks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
can you put the civility agf etc ani restrictions somewhere on the rfc page? With notifications or something at bottom? WhatamIdoing ... people got pretty rude at medlead rfc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, good catch. I'd intended to do that and had forgotten. Yes I will do that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

children's biography as suitable source?

Hi Barkeep49, how are you doing? I noticed that you recently did the Good Article review for Stephanie Meyer and it got me thinking about work I've been doing. I've been editing the Orson Scott Card page and one of our sources is a biography of Orson Scott Card written for children and teenagers (Orson Scott Card: Architect of Alternate Worlds). Do you think this is a reliable source? I could replace it if necessary. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Rachel Helps (BYU), yes nonfiction written for children can certainly be RS. It was published by Enslow who is a legitimate enough publisher. I don't see any reason it can't be used. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thank you! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Rachel Helps (BYU), I meant to write before but if you'd like feel free to ping me when you're ready to nominate this as I know some about him and might be able to pick-up the review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I will! I'm also happy to help with any GAs you have in the queue. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

User rights

Hi @Barkeep49:, as an new page reviewer I've reviewed 742 pages in past 90 days, I hope my contribution was helpful for enwp community. You may review my work and re assign the rights if you wish to me continue. You also may assign file mover rights to help community which I've on wikimedia common and bnwp. Thanks! Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

ZI Jony, 742 articles in 3 months is a substantial body of work. Thank you for that. Given how many articles you've reviewed I choose to examine about 20 reviews concentrated among your most recent reviews and those coming at the beginning of January. Generally what I expect to see when checking another new page reviewer is some clear evidence behind their thought process. I admit this was hard in a bunch of cases. So for instance you have two albums created by the same editor - Worship at Red Rocks and 20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Hank Williams which don't immeadiately show evidence (that I see) of passing SNG/GNG. Did I miss something? Did you find other evidence that suggests they're notable? For Helenów Park in Łódź it's an unnoted translation of a polish wiki article. No issues with notability, but I would generally hope an NPP would note the lack tag for the references which work on Polish Wiki but which are broken here or for even noting that it's a translation, as required by our license. Similarly there was no tag on Jacqueline I Am Coming which has an amazing number of problems for so few sentences. Plus it was an orphan - something that should have been picked up during NPP. But at least those two were notable.
I have others but don't want to demoralize you. Could you talk about your process in general specifically how you assess notability and how you go about tagging? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Growth team updates #12

Welcome to the twelfth newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

General news

  • A training for mentors has been published. The training was first tried with the Czech community, and went well.
  • Growth team features have been deployed to Hungarian, Ukrainian, and Armenian Wikipedias. If your community is enthusiastic about welcoming newcomers, we encourage you to contact us so that we can verify together whether your wiki is eligible. Then you can go through the checklist to start the process of configuring the features.

Productive edits from newcomer tasks

We deployed the basic workflow for newcomer tasks to our target wikis on November 20, and the early results are exciting.

Suggested edits by type of edit.
Graph captions (top to bottom):
■ Copyedits
■ Add links
■ Expand article
■ Add reference
■ Advanced edits
  • About 1.5% of newcomers who visit their homepage complete the workflow and save a suggested edit. So far, this has amounted to over 450 edits, on all wikis, coming from both desktop and mobile users.
  • When we look at the edits that newcomers make, we see that they are largely positive! We are pleased to see that this feature does not appear to encourage vandals.
    • 75% of the edits are productive and unreverted.
    • 95% of the edits appear to be in good faith.
  • Most of the edits include copyedits and adding links, with some newcomers also adding content and references. Copyedits are suggested most strongly.
  • Click here to learn more specifics about the results so far.

Topic matching deployed

The results from our user tests showed us that newcomers are likely to do more suggested edits if they can choose articles related to a topic that they're interested in, such as "science", "music", or "sports".

  • On January 21, we deployed topic matching on our pilot wikis. Newcomers are now using it. We expect it to cause more newcomers to try suggested edits, and to keep making more of them.
  • In the coming weeks, we will be making improvements to the accuracy of the algorithm used to topic matching, which is part of the ORES project.

Next steps for newcomer tasks

Prototype of how the help panel will "peek" from the bottom of the page to offer guidance on mobile.

Because we are seeing positive results from newcomer tasks, the Growth team plans to concentrate our efforts on improving the workflow and encouraging more newcomers to use it.

  • Guidance: next, we will be using the help panel to provide guidance to newcomers as they do suggested edits, and to prompt them to do another edit after completing their first one. In user tests for this feature, demo videos were one of the favorite features, and we will think about how these might be added.
  • Starting the workflow: only about 20% of newcomer who visit their homepage begin the newcomer tasks workflow. We are going to be trying out different layouts of the homepage to encourage more newcomers to try newcomer tasks.
  • Additional task types: we are researching methods to recommend more specific tasks to newcomers, such as specific links to add, or images that could be added to articles from Commons.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

page deletion

You deleted "Draft:Prime Suspects: The Anatomy Of Integers And Permutations " But this is being created by a friend of the authors of this book. How can we give the page creator permission in a way that will satisfy Wikipedia? Please email response to andrew@dms.umontreal.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.204.251.254 (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Information about donating text to Wikipedia can be found here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Review training program

Hey, I would like to enrole myself for the New Page Review training program under you. Please let me know if you have some slots left. The9Man talk 11:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The9Man I happened across one of your recently created BLPs earlier and removed a ton of inappropriate, unreliable sources here. I would take a read of WP:BLP], WP:RS and WP:V before requesting any advanced perms.Praxidicae (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The9Man, thanks for your interest in New Page Patrol School. I have to agree with Praxidicae that it's a little early as I see some issues with RS that I would wnat to be a little stronger before someone starts. You're still pretty early in your Wikipedia career so that's not too surprising. Take some time, learn some more and come back in a few months. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Thank you for your reply. I appreciate that. The9Man talk 05:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Ghana NPPSGRFC

I think that the Ghana RfC is as ready as it's going to get. I don't know if you wanted to wait until a less busy time to start the RfC or if you're ok with me pulling the trigger. For reference, I will have limited computer access this weekend, but otherwise will be around and able to help the discussion run smoothly. signed, Rosguill talk 22:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I am 100% onboard with you launching when convienant. Thank you for all the work and sorry I have not been shouldering more of that load. So appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Cool, in that case I'll either start it very soon, or else wait until next Monday. signed, Rosguill talk 01:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, I saw that you added information about redirects to the newsletter. Two things. First I've tweaked the wording - there's been a lot of negative feedback about us "pressuring" people to do NPP so I rewrote it to make it more of an "ad". See what you think. That said I'm wondering if now is the right time to send it. We're near or at a six month high and if I had to pick one I'd pick people doing article patrolling over redirects. On the other hand this could draw some people back in and then maybe they'll do some articles as well. What do you think? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
hmm, maybe we can try to tweak the wording to make it more of an appeal to new reviewers? My thoughts are that having new reviewers do more of the (easy) redirect patrolling would free up time for me and other more experienced editors to do more article reviews. Alternatively, we could abandon trying to promote it in the newsletter and instead promote it as part of the NPP Tutorial, where redirects are currently relegated to what is essentially a "see also" link. signed, Rosguill talk 22:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, What do you think of the current wording? I tweaked it to specifically add an appeal to new editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I like the new wording! signed, Rosguill talk 03:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually, here's a thought, maybe we should time the RfC and Coordination newsletter so that the RfC goes up the day before? signed, Rosguill talk 17:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing

Hi, Barkeep49! I see you have a lot on your plate right now, so I'll be brief. I've been "reviewing" articles for a couple of months now, and wanted to gauge whether I had come close to what's expected of a reviewer. I have to say that of the stuff you highlighted before, due to the fact I started from the back of the queue, I haven't gone through many CSDs (I think I remember just one or two, although I have performed a few more PRODs). In any case, I believe my grasp on most policies is fairly decent. I'm quite happy with my AfD record, although I wish I could've done more in some cases. Sometimes the keep/delete debate feels too binary. Anyway, I really appreciate you giving me some feedback again, and I'd completely understand if you're too busy. Best, PK650 (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

PK650, just want to apologize that I haven't responded. I hope to have a more complete response soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
PK650, I think your work at AfD is strong and builds on the positive contributions I'd seen before. I have granted you NPR for 1 month. If you haven't already please read WP:NPP. During the month use the flow chart and other resources to do some reviews (30+ is ideal). When you feel like you have a good body of work, even if it's before the month is up, feel free to go to WP:PERM/NPR to ask for an extension/to make it permanent. If you have questions as you begin reviewing - and I had lots of them - please don't hesitate to reach out to me or other reviewers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for your patience while I found time to take a look. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
No problem at all, Barkeep49! I quickly learned Wikipedia had its own rhythm. Thank you for the above; that flowchart is particularly useful and I'm sure I'll return to it often. My first question is whether the Page curation log is the only way of looking at one's reviews? Or is there a tool like the AfD one? Best, PK650 (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
PK650, your two choices which each have pluses and minuses are patrol log and Page curation log. Nothing as nice as AfD (or AfC). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 17:05:38, 12 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mserikajones


I've edited my draft significantly and wish to replace the existing sf.citi wiki with my version. I have been paid for formatting NOT writing. sf.citi has revised the copy so it does not read like a press release. Studying other organizations wiki, this new version seems okay. Can you help? I don't want to irritate anyone. Thank you! msjones (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

msjones (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) msjones Please see the reason for your draft decline. You may edit the current article of Sf.citi with your version. Have a look at Help:Editing - The9Man | (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks The9Man. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Thank you Thank you! msjones (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Barkeep49/Archives,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

No quorum in deletion discussions

Hi there - I recall being involved in a conversation some months back about relist versus WP:NOQUORUM soft deletes - if I remember correctly, the gist of the conversation was that there was a strong consensus that an AfD discussion with no keep votes should be soft deleted rather than relisted. The opposite has happened to me a couple of times lately - once where there was a single delete vote in addition to my nomination, and another where there were no other votes either way, but it became clear (by his own admission) that the author of the article was the manager of the subject (a non-notable musician) - in both cases, an admin has relisted them. I'm not planning to wade in and start an argument with them, but my recollection is that this is discouraged, and if there's a thread where this was clearly established, I thought I might just politely point the people concerned towards it for future reference. Is my recollection faulty, and if not, would you be able to point me in the direction of the discussions where this consensus was established? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006#Disruptive AFD clerking by User:SS49 and Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure#Changing NAC Deletion Closures from last March? Levivich 18:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Levivich - that second one was indeed the very one I was thinking about - I knew I'd read it somewhere, but couldn't remember where/when it was. Much appreciated... GirthSummit (blether) 19:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Levivich for chiming in. Girth Summit there are a few sysops who are regulars at AfD who in my experience are relcutant to enforce NOQUORUM and will relist instead. I will, if a participant, ask sysops about whether they considered a NOQUORUM close. This is definitely on my list of "things that mildly irritate me when I come across it." I admit to straight-out irritation when it happens with a NAC mainly beacuse NACs in general at AfD are things I dislike. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah - 'mildly irritate' is probably about right. I'm all for consensus over arbitrary action, but when it's obvious UPE...
While I've got you online - I've been talking to a new editor about a draft for a BLP about a singer/artist/author. I suspect her strongest claim to notability is through NAUTHOR, as her work (children's books) seems to have had some reviews. I imagine you know the RSes in this area well - if you saw this and this, would you be thinking 'clearly notable'? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 20:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit: Yes those kind of capsule reviews are not OK in movie reviews but are a definite sign of notability from book review journals like SLJ and Kirkus. Similar type reviews from Publisher's Weekly are not, in my opinion, signs of notability - unless it's a starred review. Also some Kirkus reviews are paid for - these are clearly labeled (can't think of one off the top of my head) and so would obviously not count for notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks. When I originally reviewed the draft as an AfC submission, there were no sources at all; since then I've had a couple of conversations with the author about sourcing, and I'm at the point where I'm convinced she's probably notable as a children's author (despite some dodgy refs currently used in the draft). If you fancy reviewing with your 'children's author expert' hat on, it's Draft:Tyler Clark Burke. Latest round of conversation is near the bottom of my talk page. No pressure if you're too busy. GirthSummit (blether) 21:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit, I was getting ready to accept but then ran into the failed verification issues that I noted in my decline. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks for taking the time. That's roughly where I was - probably notable, but too many assertions and sources that didn't check out. Hopefully they'll take my advice, trim the dodgy refs, focus on the good ones, and resubmit. GirthSummit (blether) 23:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence

Seems like you might be involved in some sort of AfD/DfV thing. Are you impartial to the subject? Like, the subject doesn't matter you're just going to evaluate arguments based on how they match up to our rules? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher, what do you mean involved? Do you mean WP:INVOLVED or just that I'm taking part? When closing a discussion my goal is to reflect back the consensus (or lack of consensus) expressed by the participants of the discussion. If in the process of closing I find that I have something to say, I will generally participate rather than close. I am confident in this case that I am appropriate closer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
taking part, not INVOLVED. I take it that you mean reflect back consensus of people making policy/guideline based arguments, and discounting people who's votes are not. If so, great! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Appropriately weighting !votes is an important part of determining consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

On Maryna Tkachuk article

Greetings, Barkeep49. From ArnabSaha's talk page I discovered you decided to involve yourself in the situation over the article I recently published and that recently got G12 speedy deleted. Thank you for that! I beleive a misunderstanding occured and an impartial party would be very useful in this matter. While I tried negotiating the matter with Justlettersandnumbers who actually deleted the article, we seem to be unable to reach any productive outcome. Therefore I think it would be useful to plead my case with you.

What I'd like to point out that the article presented is actually a translation of an existing article on Ukrainian Wikipedia that has been around for like a year or so with no concerns from anyone - https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%87%D1%83%D0%BA_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%96%D0%B4%D1%96%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0 ; I'd also like to point out that the article was not created by Ms. Maryna Tkachuk or the person related to her and was based on written sources, among those an encyclopedia on Ukrainian philosophers (in Ukrainian). Ms. Maryna Tkachuk is a historian of philosophy of note in Ukraine as well as a known educator and administrator.

The whole misunderstanding started when biographical facts from that article were used for resume-style information at the website of her university. So first, it was posted in Ukrainian and shared similarities with Ukrainian Wikipedia article. Then it was translated into English and posted on the institution website. And then it was adapted (not "direct copied") for an English Wikipedia article. And that's when the problems started.

Another misunderstanding is that Ukrainian Wikipedia seems to have "everything goes" policy - noone troubles themselves much with references, notability, copyright infringment, conflict of interests etc etc. So you probably understand my reaction to how bureaucratic the enviroinment of English Wikipedia really is.

Currently I face what I would call nitpicking from Justlettersandnumbers - the photograph that existed in Ukrainian Wiki for a year and never troubled anyone is now marked for deletion, and he voiced doubts over the notability of the person in the first place. This weird logic that I can't understand entirely must have derived from administrator's desire to defend his uninformed and hastily made decision.

What I'd like to point out is my only desire is to clear up this misunderstanding and to get the article undeleted. Wikipedia will never face any copyright infringement claims either from Ms. Maryna Tkachuk, from NaUKMA and from myself even. I can get you any needed declarations whatever from the institution or the person itself if you find those are necessary. Just let me know what I can do to get this cleared up. This situation has already been more annoying and awkward than it needs to be. Many thanks! Flchans (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Flchans, welcome to my usertalk page. Justlettersandnumbers (JLAN) has a speciality in copyright and so it's not surprising that I agree with him. What happened on Ukranian Wikipedia doesn't matter in this particular case so it doesn't concern me. The issue with the deleted page is that it was basically a translation of her university biography. In order for this text to be used on Wikipedia there are two real options. One, the webpage itself could use an appropriate license. JLAN explained which ones could work. Second the text could be donated via e-mail. You can read more about that here. Without one of these two thing happening we cannot use this kind of resume like article. A third option is to write original content, in English, that uses good sourcing rather than just translating something. Your sources may be in any language. To do this you might want to read more read this on paraphrasing and this on writing your first article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess I'll have to cite the sources once again, even though they are in Ukrainian and thus of little use to you guys. But it can be done only after the article is back. For now I trust that upon receiving the email of copyright release from the university incorporated email for all the links JLAN is concerned with you'll take the appropriate action. Flchans (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Review training programme

Hi. I want to get enrolled in this programme under you.  S A H A  10:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Great. I'd love to see you get a little more experience in deletion first. Choose either AfD or CSD (you could do both but that's a lot to bite off) and spend the next 4 weeks or so diving in. That should give you some necessary background experience, after which I suspect you'll be far more ready for New Page Review training. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Arnabsaha2212. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@ArnabSaha: You might want to fix your signature as it's kind of hard to ping you right now. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Is my signature very long and complex? Shall I shorten it? Or I remove the ?  S A H A  17:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@ArnabSaha: Your user name is listed in the sig as Arnabsaha2212 when it's not. That's what I was suggesting be fixed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Oh. I changed my username recently. Check this new one. Is this one correct? Also, can I know your timezone? Mine is +5:30 (IST) ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
ArnabSaha much better on the signature. I don't think i"ve posted my time zone before and since I like to be careful with what personal identifiable information I post on wiki I apologize for not answering now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: OKay, no problem. I want to proceed with WP:CSD first. ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Sir, I have read WP:CSD. Waiting for your next instruction. ❯❯❯ S A H A 13:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

ArnabSaha, Great. Now the trick will be to get some experinece doing it. You can use Special:NewPagesFeed to look at new articles. If you find a COPYVIO, Spam, A7, or other speedy deletable article tag it. Watch the article and see if it gets deleted or not. I hgihly recomend using Twinkle for this as you can also turn on a Speedy deletion log. Keeping a log is considered best practice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, ok sir. i do use twinkle, and how to turn on Speedy deletion log? ❯❯❯ S A H A 08:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
ArnabSaha, you should find them at Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, OK. another question sir. what if anyone deletes the CSD template? what to do then? ❯❯❯ S A H A 12:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
ArnabSaha, who is deleting it? If it's the person who created the page (in most cases) that is not allowed. If it's a different editor that is a signal that the tag has been declined. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, it was the creator. it was a copyvio. later the guy changed the subject, and it is no more copyvio. ❯❯❯ S A H A 15:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
ArnabSaha, what article? If it was a COPYVIO it needs to be revision deleted even if the article wasn't completely deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, West Bengal Commission for Women this one. after the creator removed the deletion template, i removed the copied content from the article. ❯❯❯ S A H A 16:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
ArnabSaha, it's been taken care of thanks to the always great Dianna. [[User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js is a great script that can help you request revdel should you find copyvios in the future that need removing but the whole article doesn't need to be deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49,ok sir. so, when to tag G12? ❯❯❯ S A H A 13:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
ArnabSaha, if there's not any substantial text worth keeping. Basically the entire article was copied from other sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, ok ❯❯❯ S A H A 16:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Sir, see this one. The article was a copy from a website (99%). So, I tagged CSD G12. It got deleted, and the creator left this message in my talk page. Please see: User talk:ArnabSaha#Speedy deletion nomination of Maryna Tkachuk ❯❯❯ S A H A 06:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
ArnabSaha, I've now read the message, looked at the deleted article, and the source. What is your initial thought about how to respond? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, My response- "Since the article was a copy from external source, it violates copyright rules. You can only copy from the websites, which have CC BY SA 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0 licenses. Or you can donate the copyrighted materials WP:DCP." ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
ArnabSaha, that mostly is strong. How do you address the idea that it's a translation of a Ukranian Wiki article which would be licensed with CC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, if the ukranian article is just the translation, then that one violates the copyright rules. but i have no idea how to address it formally. ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
ArnabSaha, I would just go with "Different Wikipedias have different policies and on English Wikipedia...." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, ya, this one is best. simple in 1 line. so, shall I reply that guy? ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
ArnabSaha, well I think it's two parts. The different wikipedias and your original comment. And yes you should reply :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, check his reply. ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
ArnabSaha, he replied to me below. You can feel free to reference that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The Osborne Collection of Early Children's Books

Noted the copyright violation - listing items in a collection is difficult without reusing the words from the list. I am working on a revised list that won't trigger copyright warnings I have moved the page in any case (as corrected by you and others) to Osborne Collection of Early Children's Books to meet the MOS advice on the use of the definite article in page titles.Johncosgrave (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Johncosgrave, sounds good. Just a warning that I'm not sure the collection is notable so don't be surprised if it gets nominated for deletion. Do you have evidence of this being covered in secondary sources like an indepth write-up in the Toronto Star or the Globe and Mail? If so it would be helpful to include that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

My Country Mobile

Hi Barkeep49, well, that was interesting. Thanks for cutting that Gordian knot. I'm disappointed that so few experienced editors participated. Probably a case of TL;DR, which is my fault. I had hoped for close along the lines of: "a larger number of editors suggested to keep, but their suggestions were not in accordance with policy, specifically WP:NCORP". Do please keep an eye out for CoI editing. I'm looking into a sockfarm that is based in Rajasthan. All the best, Vexations (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Vexations, yeah I understand what you were going for. When I close a discussion I don't normally go to the article itself because my goal is to reflect the consensus (it's one way I try to avoid making any sort of Supervote) but I would be very surprised to see anything approaching NCORP standards. In general if there are only two delete !votes (including nom) I'm likely to lean towards SOFTDELETE which clearly wouldn't have been appropriate in this circumstance even if I was inclined to weight the keeps at zero - which I don't think is backed up by policy/guidelines having looked before the closing. Perhaps in a couple months it would strike the fancy of a couple more experienced editors and a better AfD discussion could be had. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Typos

Hi, just letting you know that you misspelled my username in the close at the redirect whitelist. It's Clovermoss: think clover and moss. Although clever is a nice nickname. :) I've found that people usually use clover instead to refer to me, so you can use that if you'd like. Clovermoss (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that Clovermoss. Should be all fixed now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW

Friends: bearkeep49 - Natureium

You also misspelled your username. It should be bearkeep49. If it helps, it's the place where the costco bears are kept. Natureium (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I am the worst. Thanks for pointing that out Natureium. Best, Bearkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Archiving of closed Redirect Whitelist requests

As one of the two main NPP coordinators, alongside Rosguill, I thought your talk page would be the most appropriate place to ask this question on the archiving of closed Redirect Whitelist requests. At the Redirect Whitelist talk page, it says closed requests will be archived after "a few days." In a helpful an edit summary reverting my good-faith edits, DannyS712 said to leave closed requests "for a bit." A few and a bit are a bit vague...what would be your and Rosguill's preference for the minimum closed requests should remain before archiving? Two calendar days or two business days? Three calendar days or three business days? I just thought maybe it would be helpful for any other editors wanting to assist with archiving closed requests to sort of quantify a suggested minimum such requests should be held before archiving. Once we know that, one of us could update that wording at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist#Guidelines.

Cheers,
Doug Mehus T·C 22:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I don't really have a strong opinion on this issue, particularly since I'm usually the one approving requests and thus archive delays don't really affect me one way or the other as I'll have already attended to the issue. I think 3 calendar days is reasonable. signed, Rosguill talk 22:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, Yeah, I know you're definitely the most active there as the patrolling, and granting, administrator. That was my thought as well—3 calendar days. Business days seems too formal, since we "work" on Wikipedia on weekends. Doug Mehus T·C 22:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
3 calendar days also sounds good to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon Doug Mehus T·C 23:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
another argument against business days is that different countries (and even states within countries like the US) have different business calendars) signed, Rosguill talk 23:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

AfD for My Country Mobile

This might sound a little ranty but I'm fed up with the type of response you provided. You say that you can find no policy/guideline which would allow you to weigh certain !votes at zero, so effectively all you did was count !votes (which is specifically stated to *not* be the way to close AfDs) but call it "evaluating consensus". That's a total cop-out! How can it be "evaluating consensus" if the arguments being used are an incorrect understanding of our guidelines? How, for example, do you weigh up a !vote such as "It is one of the biggest company and has several newspapers mentions in Dubai" when none of the statement is supported by references (about being "biggest"), the editor didn't bother to provide references and no other editors could even find a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability as per the appropriate guidelines WP:NCORP? Or what about "It is a major telecommunication company and they have sources offline newspapers, which passes WP:GNG", again with no links to references and an incorrect/incomplete understanding of the criteria for establishing notability for companies as per WP:NCORP? Or how exactly do you disqualify !votes in order to "evaluate consensus"? What about polcies/guidelines such as WP:NRV when clearly none of the claims made by the Keep !voters provided were verifiable or verified? What about topic specific guidelines such as WP:NCORP which state that "multiple references" are required which must meet the criteria for establishing notability and must contain Independent Content - these were points made by a Delete !voter (me) that were never responded to or countered - did that not get "evaluated" for "consensus"? HighKing++ 14:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) HighKing in fairness, I think what BK49 was saying was that there isn't a policy that allows him to weigh their !votes at zero because they have an unusual record of voting. You could argue that he should have weighed their !votes as zero because they indicated a flawed understanding of policy, but his comment was specifically about the voting record - I don't think you can conclude from that statement that all he did was count !votes. GirthSummit (blether) 14:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
HighKing, I'm not so worried. It would have been nice to get more editors involved in the AfD. Lack of participation makes closing those articles really difficult. I'm happy to take the blame for not articulating clearly and succinctly why that article needed to go. I made some notes on the talk page that weren't considered in the close, so perhaps that's something that I need to do differently. Let's just clean it up. If a black-hat SEO firm is involved in creating and maintaining the article, we'll catch them eventually. Vexations (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
HighKing, I don't think Wikipedia is as committed as it should be in many places to fighting the scourage of Spam that faces us. However, this opinion doesn't matter when I close a discussion. When I close a discussion I my sole goal is to reflect the consensus (or lack of consensus) of the particiapnts in the discussion, as appropriately weighted according to our policies and guidelines. I don't think policy allows me to just say that the keep !voters don't exist at all. I went looking for a policy that would say as much, and the closest that comes is WP:NOQUORUM but that is expicitly about "few or no comments" which again I don't think I get to say. You can see how much weight I put into those keep !votes by the fact that I did not close as keep (I mean a strict headcount would be 7-3 keep) but I felt constrained enough by policy and guidelines that I could not just give them no weight - for reasons I explained in the discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks for explaining, but I think the guidelines are pretty clear that multiple references are required that meet the criteria for establishing notability but not a single reference that was provided met that criteria. One editor argued that the sources were "reliable" but that is a small part of the criteria and my rebuttal of that point went unanswered. I even placed a comment that none of the Keep !voters were addressing the argument that none of the references met the criteria and that too went unanswered. Say what you like about evaluating according to policies/guidelines but I don't understand what weight you put on the complete lack of references. Even the counterpoint about there are many off-line sources doesn't seem credible for a modern company - if it was a company from the last century then it might be credible but not for something this modern. Anyways, it's done. Although I might disagree with you now and then, thank you for all the admin work you do, its appreciated. HighKing++ 13:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Blue-cheese or Pabst Blue Ribbon

I have closed the Race and intelligence DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 12, and noted that the consensus is for you to be involved in the blue-ribbon committee to reclose the AfD. The other admins named are User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, User:RoySmith, User:Mazca, and User:Scottywong. I am approaching them all to let them know. Enjoy! SilkTork (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

New RfC on Bruno Bettelheim

Thank you for summarizing the previous RfC last June. You may want to hold back potentially to summarize this one, or jump on in, however you choose. That is, if you have the time and interest of course! The specific question is:

Should our lead sentence describe Bettelheim as a "self-proclaimed psychologist"?
RfC on lead sentence
started: Feb. 25, 2020

Again, any time you wish to spend will be most appreciated. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter, thanks for the ping. I will likely sit this out and let someone else close. Good luck with the RfC and I hope unlike the last one, consensus can be found. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome. And good luck with your other projects. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Reason for the 'thank'

Hi Barkeep,

The reason for my thanking you for that edit was because sometimes, other editors, find my prolific thanking helpful for catching typos. Your closing statement was well written, to the point, and useful, but it had a number of typing whoopsies I thought you might want to take a second look at and, so, thought the ping would help do that.

Cheers,
Doug Mehus T·C 00:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, it would have never occurred to me that a thanks was really a "you've got a typo" alert so I'm glad you posted the message. Should be all fixed now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, no problem. Me either, except when Serial Number 54129 pinged me in this edit summary at WP:DRV, which prompted him to amend a key word in their reply to another editor. Doug Mehus T·C 01:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Dmehus, I am not seeing what I spelled wrong in my support for Jo Jo. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
LOL, thanks for the reply. In this case, it was an actual 'thanks' for your well-worded, accurate, and concise supportive argument. Doug Mehus T·C 00:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks and phew. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This thread is an excellent illustration of why it's not recommended to use the thank button to alert editors to typos. Levivich (talk) 04:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
  • England Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
  • United States Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
  • Somerset Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
  • Pirate flag CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
  • The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included United States L293D, Venezuela Kingsif, Antarctica Enwebb, England Lee Vilenski and Nepal CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. 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.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Showing off

Hi - just here for a bit of friendly bragging, check out my new user page bling. :) GirthSummit (blether) 18:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, how awesome is that? You should be bragging it's quite an accomplishment. Congrats! And since you're here I'd love to know your thoughts on the PRICES-like NSPORTS RFC discussion a couple sections up. Blinded by all the bling, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks! As you can tell, I'm rather chuffed. I'm about to make dinner, but I'll take a look at that discussion tomorrow. Cheers! GirthSummit (blether) 19:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit, these are the kinds of things to be chuffed about. And thanks for taking a look. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter correction

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; United States L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, United States Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The blue-cheese close

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination). That works. Good close. Sums up and explains the main policy points that were discussed, and reaches a logical conclusion. Well done. SilkTork (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Wow, I concur completely with SilkTork. This close appropriately captures the prevailing consensus of the discussion and the key issues with the article, which are not specifically reasons for deletion but rather, to cleanup and/or other options. I don't have much else other than to say this was an excellent group close. Doug Mehus T·C 17:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. It was a team effort, with Scottywong, RoySmith, and I all adding value. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Section blanking

I see you've mentioned that you're going to monitor the race and intelligence article, and thanks for doing that. Could you please examine the recent edit warring to blank a section of this article? As I'd predicted, the decision to topic ban Peregrine Fisher but not Dlthewave has meant that this is continuing, and I don't think it's ever going to stop without some sort of admin intervention. 2600:1004:B105:F5A1:A997:5864:C95E:CEE5 (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

2600:1004, I noticed that too and have issued formal warnings. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I have a query

For my new user page --Chandravanshi - II (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Chandravanshi - II, I don't understand your question. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, please do visit my user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandravanshi - II (talk • contribs) 04:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Indeffed for provocations. El_C 04:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Race and intelligence sourcing

While I think it's a step in the right direction to restrict sourcing to the best sources, I hope you understand that when you make a determination as broad as "specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers", you invite the POV-pushers to insist that the sources supporting their fringe theory are peer-reviewed and therefore must be acceptable. After all, many fringe theories manage to get their views published in some journal or another, or have authors who publish theories completely rejected by mainstream scientific view.

I work a lot in articles under the aegis of WP:MEDRS and I'm very familiar with that sort of behaviour at Acupuncture, Chiropractic, and others – not to mention unscientific POV-pushers at Abortion and marijuana-related articles. MEDRS needs over 5,000 words to explain the importance and necessity of sticking to only the best quality sources, and I've been grateful for all of those at one time or another.

I'm pleased that you're committing to monitor the sanction at R&I, and hope that you'll be willing to make use of some of the proven advice given in MEDRS in the likely event that you have to tweak the sanction in the future. --RexxS (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts RexxS. Doug Weller raised similar concerns about this at AE, using the example of Mankind Quarterly. I was persuaded by the response that Paul Siebert gave that the sanction could work. I will be happy to say, and put it here with an easy to point to diff, that just because something is in a peer-reviewed journal or an academically focused book does not mean that it has to be included. That remains an editorial judgement for which a range of policies and guidelines, including NPOV (specifically DUE), matter. As you noted I plan to continue to monitor the article, am happy to receive feedback from you and other editors about the sanction, and will modify the sanction if/when it is necessary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reflection, and I agree 100%. May I add that for these purposes, WP:PSTS is even more pertinent, and WP:Verifiability #Original research bullet point 3 sums it up succinctly. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd like you to please clarify something about the new sourcing restrictions. On this page it says, "Anyone found to be misrepresenting a source, either in the article or on the talk page, will be subject to escalating topic bans, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." When someone is misrepresenting a source, where should that problem be raised? I anticipate some difficulty handling reports about misrepresented sources at Arbitration Enforcement, because a lot of sources are behind paywalls so most admins won't be able to access them.

As I and a few other editors have pointed out, Levivich is misrepresenting a few sources on the article's talk page in order to support his proposed move. For example, he is claiming that this paper by Myserson et al. supports describing research about race and intelligence as a "myth", and while the paper does discuss race and intelligence, it is using the term "myth" for a separate hypothesis about the limit of IQ's ability to be improved by education. It would be useful to establish a process for handling complaints about this type of situation. 2600:1004:B114:998F:FCCA:1F19:F350:4F83 (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

2600:1004, I don't have time to look into the evidence you're presenting so I will answer the question you start with. If someone violates the discretionary sanction and you think there should be a sanction against that editor you can appeal to AE, with the kind of report you gave here, or you can appeal to an uninvolved administrator (doesn't have to be me, though it can be). Any uninvolved administrator can enforce the sanction. Additionally, AE does not have to be closed with consensus - any individual administrator can act on evidence presented. Though I would take heed of Guerillero's warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
2600:1004: I have looked at this example. This is not strong enough evidence for me to say Levivich misrepresented the source in a sanctionable way. It's not even enough for me to issue him a formal warning. I agree that the source says what you say it says. However, I don't see Levivich attempting to argue it does - I don't see him disputing your characterization or claiming subsequently that it says something else. Further, I see that the next time he uses sources he includes specific quotes to support his position. The idea of misrepresenting sources is not a "gotcha" over the normal range of editing. Instead it is meant to avoid a problem you've identified - claiming a source which fits the general requirements of high quality and which many of us don't have access to says something it doesn't. There needs to be either a pattern of such behavior or a singular example of blatant (or maybe egregious is the right word) misrepresentation. At least for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It sounds as though the new restriction about misrepresenting sources does not change very much, because repeated or severe misrepresentation of sources was already actionable under the regular discretionary sanctions that have always existed, correct? 2600:1004:B14B:BF17:DD28:947E:9154:ADCF (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
2600:1004, yes that's fair. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

A query on Foloosi page reviewal

Hello Barkeep49, I got a notification today that mentions your name saying 'The page Foloosi has been reviewed'. Can you help me with what it is about?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamHaseeb (talk • contribs) 10:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

IamHaseeb, new page review is a process where Wikipedians ensure that certain minimums are met for every newly created article. I reviewed Foloosi as a bit of procedure - all articles nominated for deletion are automatically eligible to be reviewed. I hope that answers your question. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Note about your comment on talk page of Race and intelligence

Sorry to have to bother you about this topic. I saw your comment, and wanted to add some thoughts. Not sure whether it was best to post here or in there, I figured here was better since it is more of a comment on the process than a comment on a particular aspect of the page. Hope that is OK! ^_^

Twice did the environmentalist editor camp of editors seek out and got opposing users barred. This strategy is just the continuation of their recent campaign. As I recall the moves in recent time: 1) try to delete all the sources to the hereditarian viewpoint one at a time, 2) try to get the entire page deleted, 3) try to get the opposing editors blocked or banned, and 4) try to rename the article in violation of WP:NPOV. Currently, (3) is what you are commenting on. Their efforts at moves (1) and (2) both seems to have failed. So far with (3), Peregrine_Fisher (indef topic banned), and Oldstone James (I think he is indeffed right now? There was some appeal and reblocking) have been blocked, and they filed another motion against Jweiss11, but it closed with a warning to both filer and accused. With two active editors removed, and one scared, they can continue their work on (1) and (4) with less resistance. I don't understand why this kind of behavior is allowed (I understand you said this is not appropriate, but seemingly it works and is tolerated). It is certainly not something that gives others trust in the system. I suspect they have a group of people sitting on a chat somewhere coordinating these moves, but of course that is just speculation. Just my thoughts! I don't really know what systems are in place to deal with this strategy. I assume something similar is happening at other high profile disputed pages, e.g. Donald Trump, so I guess they have some process over there to make it not effective. --AndewNguyen (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

AndewNguyen, I certainly welcome your comments here. In fact here, or a conduct noticeboard (which AE is one of) is a better place for these comments than the talk page where the focus should be on content rather than user conduct.
Digression on the value of trump
I think there are things to learn in this article from Donald Trump as there is from Acupuncture which RexxS mentioned above. Trump is complicated in a different way because the content is undergoing rapid changes as his presidency continues. As Race and intelligence remains politically fraught but also has scholarly content in a way Trump won't for some time.
As you might have noticed I was one of the panel of sysops who closed the most recent attempt to delete the article so I am aware of the history and current situation. As an uninvolved sysop my goal is to help create an environment where consensus can be reached on appropriate content. I will continue to do my best to ensure that our policies and guidelines are appropriately applied. This means not considering which "side" an editor is on when considering conduct. I think you see very different conversations around Oldstone James than Peregrine Fisher for a reason and still different conversations when Jweiss was brought up. The concern you expressed here is exactly why I felt it important to leave the warning. The discussion about the move request has been mostly productive, the discussion over Sulfboy's changes has gotten off to a good start, and hopefully that trend continues. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

New message from TheLongTone

Hello, Barkeep49. You have new messages at TheLongTone's talk page.
Message added 15:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheLongTone (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

PRICES-like NSPORTS RFC

Maybe you can't comment on this because of your ongoing involvement with the currently-ongoing drug prices RFC, but you're one of the few editors (only?) who has been involved in both discussions. What do you think about a discussion RFC, in the format of the current drug prices RFC (with a series of questions for discussion, no explicit questions to !vote on), for NSPORTS, or for the SNG-v-GNG question altogether? Sort of an open-ended solicitation of opinions and discussion, with an eye towards later proposing some concrete policy language changes (if necessary) based on those discussions? Levivich (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, it's an interesting thought (though I will point out that I'm not INVOLVED involved with MOSMED). I think that RfC has been largely a good one but am curious to see how it closes out before wanting to necessarily replicate it in a new place. As Djsasso points out, and we both also know, NFOOTY is its own little world and has enough passionate editors that an RfC, even one like you're suggesting, could be derailed. This is a long way of saying "Yeah I think this could work but I'm not quite sure we should do it yet." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Yep, FOOTY has derailed any attempt to adjust NSPORTS in the past. But it isn't necessarily even just them. There would be editors who have nothing to do with sports editing that think we already allow too many sports articles and so on and then people who want to protect their own favourite sports criteria. It can get messy fast. I am all for getting a nice clear mandate on it. Just assume it will be one big shit show. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
(No, not INVOLVED involved... WP really needs to start using something normal like "conflicted out" instead of the overly-vague/re-defined "involved", but, well, that's Wikispeak...) (1) Any such RFC would have to be about NSPORTS in general, and not about NFOOTY in particular. None of the examples can be from NFOOTY. We shouldn't even type the letters N, F, O, T, or Y, just to be safe. (2) _eah, I agree, we sh_uld see h_w _he prices R_C plays _u_ and wha_ less__s ca_ be draw_ be__re _ryi_g it _u_ agai_ s_mewhere else. Levivich (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: I agree. Als_ _ha_ks __r maki_g me smile. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Although there are vocal dissenters, the viewpoints described in the FAQ have been affirmed by consensus over and over again at the sports notability talk page (and that's why I wrote a FAQ to answer those questions that get frequently asked). The problem is that commenters at deletion discussions only refer to the specific criteria for the appropriate sport, and closers only take into account the mention of the criteria. Some (many?) people think if that's what's happening at AfD, then that's what we should be documenting in the guideline, since guidelines are supposed to be descriptive and not prescriptive. That would mean shifting to an achievement-based standard, and as Djsasso mentions above, would attract the disapproval of the many editors who think there are far too many sports articles. So if enough of the AfD participants show up, it might be possible for an RfC to reverse the long-held consensus, but trying to set achievement-based standards is going to face a lot of opposition and indeed be very divisive and messy. isaacl (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I've always thought the current approach was the best way to have a useful guideline that lets people create articles with minimal arguing, both amongst sports fans and those who don't want any exceptions to the general notability guideline. But given that for some reason, people want to argue the general philosophy over and over again, rather than just work on improving the specific sports criteria (after all, if the football guideline becomes an standard-based achievement achievement-based standard, it doesn't fix any of the problems that some currently perceive), maybe the time has come for change. Somehow, if the arguing can be restricted to the specific sports under scrutiny, and leave out the sports that have worked assiduously to make their criteria effective, it would save a lot of time. isaacl (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
mini-rant: I'm so tired of people treating the guidelines like legislation: "you say you meant that, but you wrote this, so my interpretation of this is correct". All the past discussions are available and people have explained what they meant. If the wording is imperfect, it doesn't mean people secretly meant something else. isaacl (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Isaacl for chiming in. Lots of good thoughts in general about all this. I agree with you that being able to reference the original discussions provides important context and we do ourselves a disservice at times by not referencing back to it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
IMO all our PAGs would benefit from being re-written to be more legislative. The problem is they're too long; too many words leaves too much material to interpret, and thus too much room for interpretation. They should be short, simple, direct, declarative, and above all else, very, very clear, so there is no room for interpretation. 10 Commandments-style: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt always have a source for controversial statements in a BLP, etc. Every sentence should be footnoted with a link to the RFC that confirms the global consensus being documented. Some of our PAGs do a better job of this than others. On my wikibucketlist is putting together a brain trust of our most veteran users to review all PAGs and suggest re-drafts for community approval, so that every PAG is short and simple enough that (a) editors actually read them, (b) editors actually understand them, and (c) editors actually follow them. Someday. But maybe NSPORTS is not a bad place to start. Levivich (talk) 04:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if you've read much legislation... it's typically not short, simple, or direct. The English common law system (which underlies the legal systems of many places that were originally settled by the British) is based on precedents, so there's a lot of law not based on written legislation. If you haven't read it already, consider reading Clay Shirky's "A group is its own worst enemy" and see the problems with hierarchy-less online communities. They start out thinking they can have simple, clear rules that can easily be judged by consensus. But as more nuanced situations arise, they add more elaborations. Eventually it becomes easier just to have a hierarchy to make judgment calls rather than try to cover everything in advance. isaacl (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Since I suggested the above "discussion" RFC, I also wanted to leave a note here suggesting something very different: a multiple-choice "temperature-check" RFC (non-coronavirus-related), that would ask editors to pick one from a series of statements, such as:

A) All articles should satisfy GNG. If at least two GNG-satisfying sources cannot be found after an AFD, the article must be deleted. No exceptions apply.
B) All articles should satisfy GNG. If at least two GNG-satisfying sources cannot be found after an AFD, the article should be deleted in most cases; but editors may make exceptions on a case-by-case basis. However, meeting an SNG, alone, is not enough for an article to be kept.
C) All articles should satisfy either GNG or an SNG. If an article at AFD is shown to meet an SNG, it should be kept, regardless of whether it satisfies GNG.
D) All articles should satisfy either GNG or certain SNGs but not others. The community may decide (by RFC) that a certain SNG is an alternative to GNG, such as NPROF.
E) All articles should satisfy either GNG or an SNG or be about Levivich. Articles about Levivich are inherently notable.

If the community comes out, say, with B, C, or D, then we can go about proposing changes to the various guidelines to bring them in line with this consensus. Another question is whether to do this for all SNGs or just start with one, (like NSPORTS... or maybe not NSPORTS, maybe better to start with another SNG). Levivich (talk) 04:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is what is a GNG-satisfying source? That's in part why there are all these subject-specific notability guidelines: to sort out the difference between passing mentions and actual notable coverage. And the ultimate problem remains: if closers only consider the specific arguments made during a deletion discussion, all of this is only advisory. Commenters will continue to provide their opinions based on their own internal evaluation of what subjects should have articles, and closers will continue to close discussions based strictly on these expressed opinions. isaacl (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Except, as you point out above and in many other places and times, consensus is hard to come by. I think we'll always have some healthy disagreement over what sources satisfy GNG. That's OK. Closers reflecting the consensus of the discussion at hand is predicated on making sure that the quorum of editors who show up to AfD discussions (broadly speaking) are competent to do so. And I don't have a great solution for things on that front. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Temperature check RfCs are interesting but even with just four choices getting a consensus of editor agreement would prove difficult. If there was a distribution of editors along the lines of A - 10% B - 20% C - 30 % D - 40% (to make up some numbers) what have we learned? How does that help us move forward to a more effective system? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
We will have learned that 70% of editors do not favor making GNG a requirement, i.e., there is clear consensus against options A and B. So then we run a second RFA just on options C and D ... i.e., should all SNGs be an alternative to GNG, or just some? The second RFC might have these two options:
(A) All articles should satisfy either GNG or any SNG. If an article at AFD is shown to meet any SNG, it should be kept, regardless of whether it satisfies GNG.
(B) All articles should satisfy either GNG, or only those SNGs that the community has determined by RFC to be an alternative to GNG.
Most likely, the 30% who voted A or B on the first RFC will vote B on the second RFC, and you'll have, for the second RFC: A - 30%, D - 70%, and then D is the winner. Then we can update GNG and all the SNGs accordingly ("must meet GNG or a specially-designated SNG). We might run a third RFC along the lines of, "The following SNGs are alternative to GNG: ..." and let people !vote on that. Then we could explicitly say which SNGs are specially-designated and which are not. Mind you, this is what I believe is the actual status quo, with NPROF being the only specially-designated SNG; however, even if we went through this process and ended up at the status quo, we could at least add some language to all the guidelines making it explicit, with a footnoted citation to 2020 RFCs; thereby confirming stability, clarity, broad acceptance. For example, I think having these aforementioned hypothetical RFCs would have made a difference at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yun Chol (weightlifter). Levivich (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I think a few more SNGs than NPROF might survive as alternatives to GNG (NUMBERS with the best chance and BOOKS with a chance). It's an interesting thought for an RfC. I'd want to think on this some more and would be curious what anyone else who is watching this page might think. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Many subject-specific notability guidelines already defer to the general notability guideline. I don't think the payoff is worth the effort to try to create generic meta-guidelines on how to create guidelines. If the guidelines are already not treated as having the force of consensus at AfDs, I don't think meta-guidelines will have any effect. Making rules is often not the problem; the problem is how decisions are made. Consensus only works when everyone has strong alignment in goals, and that is rapidly unlikely as a group grows in size. (They aren't wrong or right; just different. For example, some might think that Wikipedia should be written at a grade 5 level, for greater accessibility, while other might think it should be written at a grade 8 level, for greater conciseness.) So guidelines can't be enforced, because the consensus of the day isn't bound by them unless it agrees to be bound by them. The only way out is for some form of hierarchy to exist, so a direction can be established and adhered to. This would in essence bias article content in that direction, and of course many of today's editors will object to ceding control to a subgroup to decide. So we are stuck with endless discussion, at least until they all start to deadlock, at which point the community might be convinced to try a different way of making decisions. isaacl (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I would love to start from scratch at defining what should have an article in an encyclopedia/almanac/gazeteer. Set up specific criteria for each subject area/topic type. Then only rely on GNG for any article that doesn't meet its type's specific criteria or doesn't have a defined type. (I would also like a rule that article creators must specify the justification for the article on its Talk page.) Ah, dreams... Schazjmd (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. I think that an RfC on this is a noble ambition, and if done properly it would be a good thing, since our notability guidelines are scattered across many different articles and can be difficult to navigate; however, I can see a risk of a discussion becoming difficult, with objections coming from lots of different directions (not just a simple deletionist/inclusionist dichotomy). Some random thoughts:
NPROF versus GNG - this deletion discussion taught me that many experienced editors believe that NPROF trumps GNG, and they are happy to have an article based pretty-much exclusively on self-published/affiliated sources, provided the subject's citation index is stellar enough.
NCORP persus GNG - NCORP is really just a beefed-up, better spelled-out version of GNG, but it can seen as being more restrictive than regular notability - no bad thing, given the amount of promotion dressed up as articles that we get. If GNG we able to trump NCORP, would it make fighting spam more difficult?
Sports - we have thousands of articles about olympians and similar, which are basically one or two sentences, sourced to a list somewhere. Discussions I've seen about those articles tend not to revolve around whether it's actually useful for us to have the article, or whether the sourcing is adequate, but around whether the subject has 'earned' or is 'worthy of' an article. People often see it as western-centric for us to fail to have articles about sportspeople from small countries, where the sport is perhaps less developed and the individual is less likely to have been written about in RS; indeed, I get the impression that they think it's borderline racist of is to discuss deleting such an article.
So, yeah - it would be good to get some more clarity on all of this, but an RfC would have to be crafted very carefully, and go in small steps if we are to hope to achieve a consensus - people will be pulling in lots of different directions. GirthSummit (blether) 17:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Yun Chol was one example, here's another ongoing, where participants clearly have very different views of what the notability guidelines require. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Query about A7

Hello Barkeep,

I would appreciate some clarification for future reference. I was under the impression that book authors were not inherently notable and that reporters do not inherit notability from the magazines they write on, even if those are notable per WP:JOURNALIST. Does WP:A7 automatically not apply to any of those two cases? Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon, a credible claim of significance is a much lower standard than notability. In my mind CCS is the question "based on this information, best case scenario is this person notable?" If the answer's yes then there's a CCS. Now even with this standard I Tushar Kumar might have been a bridge too far (as none of the movies are blue linked). Akiko Ichikawa (fashion consultant) might have a lesser claim to real notability but a stronger CCS as strange as that is. Does that help? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response. To clarify further, for Akiko Ichikawa what would be the credible claim of significance, being a book author or being a reporter for a notable magazine? are all book authors or all reporters of notable magazines not elegible for the A7 criteria? Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Crystallizedcarbon, in that instance I did not check her books (in general if something is published by a notable publisher as opposed to self-published/vanity press that makes a difference for A7) but instead based on the claims of having written for notable magazines. A7 is a remarkably low bar for people to clear and, with our current rules about who can make drafts, is one that is only cleared infrequently. Hope that helps. Please keep the questions coming if you have more. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Understood, thanks. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

New Page Review training programme

Sir, Due to some personal reasons and mentally sad, I wont't be able to continue this. I want to dropout from the programme, temporarily. I will notify you whenever I come back. Thank You. ❯❯❯ S A H A 17:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

ArnabSaha, thanks for letting me know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Hey Barkeep, there is a discussion that may be of interest to you as NPP coordinator. I pinged you but I'm not sure if you have them turned on, so I'll notify you through your talk page as well. --MrClog (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping MrClog. I would likely not have seen it otherwise. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card nominated for GA

Hi Barkeep49, I've finished my latest batch of edits on Orson Scott Card and nominated it for Good Article. I know the page has some weak points and I'd like your feedback on it. I might be slower to respond these next few weeks but I hope to continue to improve the page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) One small critique: His last name is used 286 times in the article, way too many times as the first word in a sentence. Probably should refer this to the Guild of Copyeditors. John from Idegon (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest! The use of a subject's last name as the first word of a sentence is not a Good Article criteria. I know it's a common problem though, so I copyedited the biography section with that in mind. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
While this is strictly true that this might not cause a GA to fail I would push pretty hard for this kind of writng to be fixed in a GA. Anyhow I am completely overwhelmed with other stuff at the moment . and don't know when I'll have capacity to be on very much. But when I am, I will definitely swing by to pick this up for review if someone hasn't. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) - Whilst items aren't strictly speaking part of the GA criteria, it's always best practice to try and improve the article (that's what we're here for). For example, there's a couple times there are ref order issues ( theater.[15][14], "overly prolonged."[55][2], Fleet School.[63][64][62] for example) - whilst not part of the GA criteria, it's such an easy fix it's worth doing. I would totally change some sentences round to remove "Card did X. Card married Y." Such as at (In 1977, Card married Kristine Allen.[20] Kristine Allen is the daughter of Mormon historian James B. Allen, who helped Card with research for some of his works relating to Mormon history.[10] Card and Kristine had five children.) It's unlikely to fail a GA because of this, but worth making some changes.
There's also a couple refs in the lede and infobox. These don't look like specifically contentious things to cite, so I'd remove them, and have the info cited in the prose. It'd also be a little more careful with what is a quote, and what isn't. The themes section has proper nouns as quotes "Ender's Game", "Happy Head" etc, which they shouldn't be. Then you have actual quotes like "through discipline and suffering" and "lonely and manipulative Messiah-figures" which need attributing. Overall it's a nice article and would likely pass with a copyedit and a few tweaks. I hope that's helpful in some way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, I had always been under the impression that source ordering was a best practice but when this was last discussed at GA (in a discussion I couldn't find quickly and don't have capacity to really look for) opinion was far more divided than I had thought on the topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
It is best practice, but not something that should effect a GAN. Realistically though, it's an easy fix. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I understand being overwhelmed! Thanks Lee Vilenski, I didn't realize that Wikipedia's MOS requires italics for short stories. I submitted the page to the Guild of Copyeditors too. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

seriously?

Lots and lots and lots of people used that coronavirus cases page. Very disappointing! MB298 (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

MB298, I understand you're disappointed. I think any close would have disappointed some. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I made this account just to ask you to put it back! Please and thank you. Clodiusdidnothingwrong (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 just closed this discussion, he's not going to change his mind an hour later. Your recourse is to file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I, too, am surprised at this decision but it looked like he weighed the arguments and came to his decision. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that's pretty bad advice, and contrary to our usual practice of discussing closes with the closer prior to appealing them. A closer may very well change their mind an hour later–or, the discussion may take more than an hour–but we shouldn't assume that "he's not going to change his mind" nor should we discourage editors from discussing closes with closers, nor should we encourage editors to skip that step and go straight to DRV. WP:DELREVD #1 is pretty explicit about encouraging editors to engage in discussion with closers first. Also, "engaging in discussion" doesn't mean posting a note on the closer's talk page registering your disagreement, and then going to DRV if the closer don't change their mind. So comments like "I'm disappointed" and "put it back!" are totally useless. That's not discussion, that's complaint. A discussion means you say why you think the close was wrong, instead of just saying that you think the close was wrong. In any case, this ship has already sailed here, unfortunately. Good close, BK, and brave, too. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I was wrong. Thank you for the correction. But it looks like this has been taken to Deletion review. Liz Read! Talk! 17:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Good close, Barkeep. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Ditto. Very nuanced. ——SN54129 11:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Impeccable call. - The9Man (Talk) 12:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I too have my concerns with this decision. With regards to the claim that Barkeep is "not going to change his mind an hour later," WP:DRV explicitly says to talk to the closing admin before opening a case there. It's good to see this instruction was actually followed, when far too often it's ignored. Smartyllama (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no issues with this being taken to DRV. However I will suggest what happened here was not attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as I was away from Wiki virtually the entire time there was this section. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Good call, as I said at the DRV. This is an ever evolving situation and really runs afoul of BLP imo. Praxidicae (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Clodiusdidnothingwrong, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry it took an action you disagree with to do so, but hope that you stick around and find ways to improve the world's knowledge (a mission I deeply believe in). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of people with coronavirus disease 2019

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of people with coronavirus disease 2019. 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.--Launchballer 12:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, if I ping you, is it necessary to leave this here?--Launchballer 12:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Launchballer, there are certain places like WP:ANI where it's a big deal if you don't leave a talk page message. There are other places, like most talk page discussions, where a ping is considered more than enough. DRV is more like ANI than a talk page discussion - notification is listed as step 3 afterall in the listing process. The reason that a ping is not considered sufficient in some instances is that people can mute some/all pings. Hope that answers your question. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I totally disagree with your closing at that list, but I have to respect your bravery. Be well.

Bearian (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Bearian, thanks for taking the time to do this. It's appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


many users were for keep of this list. Why was it deleted ? --88.70.214.139 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there IP. I laid out my reasoning in the closing statement but let me offer a bit more explanation of our process in general here. There are only a few things on Wikipedia that are a vote. Most are considered discussions and we attempt to find WP:consensus. Consensus on Wikipedia, as with many things, means something a little different than you might be used to. This was a discussion and note a vote and my role as a closer was to reflect the consensus of the participants.
During discussion, at least those that we formally close, we generally encourage well formulated points of view. We give those more weight - or consideration - when closing. In most instances these a well argued point of view will be supported by a guideline or policy. These are the structure we've given to Wikipedia and have broad agreement. Policies are a little more important than guidelines. To quote the page I linked you Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow...Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. So I considered the arguments and counterarguments made by the various people, in consideration with our policies and guidelines, to come up with a consensus. I hope this explains a little more background about the why that I listed at the close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

List of people with coronavirus disease 2019

Hello Barkeep, while I realise that restoring a page is normal during DRV, that would (afaik) serve the purpose of restoring the history so editors can review the deleted article. However, when it comes to List of people with coronavirus disease 2019, the history has not been restored; the page has only been recreated with the template by a non-admin (not restored). That's why I requested its speedy deletion. --MrClog (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

MrClog, you're correct. I have reverted my decline. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I don't normally deal with BLP/list articles, so I didn't comment (I was really neutral), but after reading the AfD discussion and the related policies (WP:IINFO, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDIR), the policies seemed to warrant deletion, but the discussion was all over the place (WP:ILIKEIT seen far too often). I think people would easily disagree with your decision no matter what decision you made (The DRV discussion can be proof of that) so you should be commended for having the guts to close that one. Username6892 04:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol School

Hi there, I'm interested to see if you could help train me in the New Page Review training program. Is this possible? Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk to me∕What have I been doing 12:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Berrely. Thanks for your interest in NPP. Tell me a bit more about what you're hoping to get out of NPP School. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Previously I was granted the New Page Reviewer right but it was soon revoked because I was making decisions that weren't correct, like putting up pages for speedy deletetion that shouldn't have been. I got confused with some of Wikipedia's speedy deletion and reviewing policies. Idealy, I would like to eventually we apply for the permission and make better decisions while reviewing. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk to me∕What have I been doing 15:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Berrely, yeah I wanted to hear more from your perspective. With your permission I would like to setup a page for us to work on in your userspace. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, sure! Tell me when you've done so. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk to me∕What have I been doing 15:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Well several, actually. If beer isn't your tipple, you should be able to swap those in for something else of your choice (alcoholic or non-alcoholic) at your own bar.

For sticking your head above the parapet at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 and making a decision. "No consensus" would undoubtedly have resulted in an immediate refiling; and either "keep" or "delete" was always going to wind up at WP:DRV. Only two days in, but that DRV might beat the AFD for repetition, verbosity, irrelevance, and sheer length - however, its result should be final!

...for at least a week... Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert, thanks for the kind words. FWIW, as I was reading through it seemed like no consensus was a distinct possibility and if that is how I had read the consensus that's how I would have closed it. With a strong "don't refile this for a couple months" I think ending back up at AfD could have been avoided. My goal when closing is to reflect back the consensus - even if that is no consensus. Anyhow I appreciate the kind words (and the beer - I don't normally drink beer and had just gotten back from the market as I needed some for a recipe). A week is a long time and so there could yet be more swings at DRV. As I wrote in response to a comment by Deb, no matter what I will learn from the feedback I've received. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Narky Blert, that picture looks like my kitchen cupboard. There wasn't any loo roll or fresh food left in my local supermarket yesterday, but I panic bought the essentials! Stay safe (if not sober) out there... GirthSummit (blether) 19:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: Amateurs. Some people have no idea of what the essentials in a crisis are. Narky Blert (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-neutral RFCs

Barkeep49, I've raised a matter in Robert McClenon's user talk that I think should receive your attention. Could you please decide what the appropriate course of action is in this situation? 2600:1004:B101:7BCC:8C98:20E6:5BB5:D75 (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

2600:1004, I am not seeing something that causes great alarm. Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint? is broad but falls in the yes/no dichotomy that RfCs handle well. Saying which specific sources would be effected is probably helpful in the longrun - that way someone doesn't answer yes if they're willing to defend some/all of those sources. What am I missing?
Regardless of what I'm missing I think your best option per our RfC page is If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An {{rfc}} tag generally remains on the page until removed by Legobot or the originator. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met.. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
As I said in Robert McClenon's user talk, part of what is non-neutral about that RFC is the statement that I statement that I have "persistently advocated for lending credence to white supremacist sources". The RFC also states, "some editors have successfully been promoting scientific racism and white supremacist views, notably at Race and intelligence".
I consider the statement that I and other editors have been advocating white supremacism to be a personal attack. While there is no denying that research about race and intelligence is popular among white supremacists, it also is something that's studied by professional psychologists, and my own motivation for participating in this article is because I want Wikipedia to accurately describe the scientific controversy over this topic. I suspect that is also true of most of the other editors who have been opposing NightHeron's actions.
Also, you are misunderstanding the reason NightHeron listed those sources. He is listing all of the sources that he thinks supports his fringe/pseudoscience designation. While some of these sources are reliable, others (such as the Angela Saini source) are journalistic sources that fail the new sourcing restriction. And in any case, he's cherry-picking sources that support his point of view; someone like myself or AndewNguyen could just as easily provide a list of reliable sources that argue for the opposite perspective.
As someone who NightHeron has accused of being a white supremacist, I think that I'm very unlikely to accomplish anything by discussing this matter with him directly, so I'm asking if you could address this issue yourself. 2600:1004:B119:69DD:7878:F00B:B93:ECD (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I understood you were looking for action from me. I don't think policy offers a whole lot on the RfC front. What I can do is separate out with a section heading the RfC "question" and his !vote, which can certainly be as non-neutral as he likes. So the some editors line comes from his !vote not the RfC proper. Given the formatting I think this was indeed confusing and so hopefully this assuages some of your concerns.
The other place where I might be of help is on the behavior front. Do you have a diff where he accused you of being a white supremacist? I ask because the characterization at the RfC has persistently advocated for lending credence to white supremacist sources does not ascribe white supremacy to you only to the sources - a characterization you can obviously disagree with. But if there's been a different diff - I have not read much of the talk page of R+I for the last week (as you can see I had limited activity in general the last week) I would like to see it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think he's directly accused me of being a white supremacist, but he has implied it, and has also has made that accusation more generally against other editors who disagree with him.
[2] - In this diff, he said that "the discussion has been dominated by a small number of editors who seem determined to have Wikipedia give credence to white supremacist views."
[3] - On this diff, he said that "an IP-editor might be less inhibited in making white-supremacist or anti-semitic comments." This second comment is probably referring to me. If you read the entire discussion about whether to exclude IP users from commenting on this page, it was pointed out by multiple users that this proposal was directed against me in particular.
There is another concern here, too. NightHeron's comments on this article have repeatedly claimed that researchers who have studied race and intelligence such as Linda Gottfredson, Heiner Rindermann, Davide Piffer, etc. are white supremacists. While these people aren't Wikipedia users, they are still living people, and NightHeron has generally not cited any sources to support these allegations. Is making these allegations against living people without a source allowed under WP:BLP? This part of BLP policy says that the policy also applies to talk pages, not just to article content. 2600:1004:B119:69DD:7878:F00B:B93:ECD (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
2600:1004, without getting into the specifics here (though I will but as part of processing the novel Night Heron wrote below), BLP applies everywhere. So, and again I'm speaking generally not specifically, committing a BLP policy violation can be actionable anywhere on Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there going to be an ArbCom case? In the arbitration enforcement report that was just closed, you, user:Guerillero and user:Robert McClenon all suggested there should be a case, but the closing admin (user:Swarm) didn't say anything either way about whether the case should go forward or not. 2600:1004:B10A:935A:2532:FDAA:165E:2D22 (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Uninvolved admins do not issue rulings or mandates on whether there "should" be an Arbcom case. That decision rests with Arbcom. Any individual who believes there should be an Arbcom case may ask Arbcom to consider one at their leisure. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Swarm is correct. Any editor (including you as the page is not protected) is welcome to file a statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The committee could then decide what the proper response would be, including reopening to a full case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. However, I don't have enough experience with ArbCom to be comfortable requesting a case myself. I'm also not 100% sure I want there to be an ArbCom case, because while it seems like it could be helpful, I don't know all of what a case would involve.
I guess what I'm really asking is, do any of the people who proposed that solution at AE intend to request a case? 2600:1004:B107:1ADB:5505:22D0:7BF8:80D2 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I can't speak for others only that I do not have enough time for Wikipedia right now to put a case together. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, the word 'fringe' and links to WP:FRINGE are thrown about on often on WP, and in my opinion inappropriately at times. NightHeron has raised a mostly compelling claim of WP:FALSEBALANCE but also a broad generalization as pseudoscience. Considering the actual text of that guideline, WP:FRINGE/PS and the overriding core WP:NPOV policy, what is the actual outcome of a 'yes' vote on that RFC? fiveby (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Fiveby, that's a great question. Unfortunately I can't tell you in advance. Instead it would rely on how the closure closes it. There could be more or less nuance in the close and obviously that will have different effects. So in your participation I would say yes (or no) and what effect you would like it to have. In this way you're helping shape the consensus and thus the closing statement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry about contributing to cluttering your talk-page, but since the lengthy complaints are directed against me, I feel that I have to defend myself, at the expense of brevity. First, concerning the RfC, I thought that by putting *Yes as OP between the RfC statement and my argument in favor of my yes-vote, I was making a clear enough separation between the two. But I agree that your separation of discussion into a new section was a good idea. Next, concerning the proposal to ban IP-editors from Talk:Race and intelligence, I was not the editor who proposed this. Here is the text of the diff (offered as evidence of my making personal attacks) in which I voted and argued (somewhat weakly) in favor of that proposal: Support per jps and dithewave, although that restriction will probably have only a minor impact. My impression is that, historically, the problematic editors both on the article and the talk-page have not been predominantly IP-editors. On the other hand, (1) just one or two IP-editors can do a lot of bludgeoning, and (2) an IP-editor might be less inhibited in making white-supremacist or anti-semitic comments. Both (1) and (2) are general statements, not referring to any individual. In fact, worry (2), which is far more serious than (1), is based on my experience with other IP-editors on other pages. Once on an abortion-related article I had edited using a source written by a woman with a Jewish-sounding name, it was reverted by an IP-editor with an edit summary calling it a "kike lesbian source." More recently, after I reverted some extremist vandalism on Talk:White privilege (later removed from view by an admin because it called for violence against editors), a few minutes later the vandal using a different IP-address came to my user talk-page threatening me with hate speech. Given that there's been alt-right off-wiki canvassing (for example, for the recent AfD for Race and intelligence), I thought that the same type of threat that I'd seen on Talk:White privilege could be repeated. That explains my vote and my reason (2) for it.

I did not accuse the complaining editors or any other editors of being white supremacists, only of wanting to give credence on Wikipedia to white supremacist views, such as those of Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, Piffer, and Gottfredson. I agree with the concern expressed by the Southern Poverty Law Center that certain articles on Wikipedia have advanced the white supremacist agenda by giving a false balance between those authors and mainstream authors.

Concerning the three authors mentioned (Gottfredson, Rindermann, Piffer), it's true that I did not always give sources during talk-page discussions, but such sources are readily available in Wikipedia and RationalWiki articles. On Wikipedia the BLP for Gottfredson mentions the controversy over her being funded by the Pioneer Fund, which the University of Delaware, where she worked, tried unsuccessfully to block. (The Wikipedia page Pioneer Fund says: The organization has been described as racist and white supremacist in nature,[1][2][3] and as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[4]) Rindermann is described in his BLP as a frequent contributor to the white supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly. (The first sentence of the article Mankind Quarterly, supported by 3 sources, says: Mankind Quarterly is a peer-reviewed academic journal that has been described as a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment", a "white supremacist journal", an "infamous racist journal", and "scientific racism's keepers of the flame".) As far as Davide Piffer goes, the most extensive information I've found about him is from RationalWiki, which identifies him as a racist and pseudoscientific crank and quotes him as follows in reference to African immigrants: Italy is in deep shit and we still have to use hotels to quarantine gorillas getting off the boat, as if we didn't have enough infected at home.

I've been editing Wikipedia only 2 years, and still don't know many things. I wouldn't have thought that your personal talk-page was the appropriate place to complain about an editor's conduct. When I was a newbie, a mainspace article written mainly by me was initially deleted at AfD, and then that was reversed at DRV. At that point, within a half-hour of the reversal by uninvolved admins, an experienced editor edited the restored article down to a stub and again proposed it for AfD in stub form. I went to the talk-page of an admin who'd been helpful to me on another article, and asked what I should do. I didn't ask for his intervention, only advice. The experienced editor came there and said I was canvassing, and that if I had a complaint against him the right thing for me to do was to take it to WP:ANI. Like the naive fool I was at the time, I did that, and of course you can guess what happened. A WP:BOOMERANG, and I was t-banned for 6 months. That whole experience makes me wonder: Was that experienced editor lying to me, or was he correct? Is coming to your page with a misconduct complaint about me and request for intervention a form of canvassing?

I note that in the above discussion I had no opportunity to respond to the accusations, because I was certainly not watchlisting your personal talk-page, and no one pinged me. Thankfully, User:Fiveby referred to my user-name in a way that caused me to be notified. Perhaps one reason not to encourage complaints about editor conduct to be brought to an admin's page is that there's no requirement of notifying the accused.

Concerning the question raised by Fiveby, the term pseudoscience is used repeatedly in sources and in the lede to the article Scientific racism. However, the statement of the RfC does not use that term, but only the term fringe.

Anyway, thanks for your patience. NightHeron (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@NightHeron:, first 6k bytes is quite the massive post. So apologies if I don't address everything. Starting towards the end: you are of course correct that this is not a formal behavioral forum and you will notice that I have in general not found anything actionable in what's been discussed here. The most admin like action about you is my expressing an interest in diffs - whose existence allow me to continue to say that I'm not seeing anything actionable in regards to the IP. I think having a place where editors can ask questions about fraught topics is helpful and can decrease the overall tension. As you yourself noted, ANI is quite a different environment. It has its purpose but so does lower visibility discussion. I have quite a few sysops and other editors who I respect who watch this page and I haven't gotten feedback that what I'm doing is wrong. If that were to change I would reconsider.
So as to the other pieces, I do think, now that you're here, that you need to be very careful when describing people as white supremacists. More careful than you've been to date - the stuff on Piffer is not nearly strong enough, for instance. Strong claims (which calling someone a white supremecist certainly is) requires strong strong evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I realize that you did not decide that actions should be taken against me. I feel very lucky, since you were able to decide that without my having a chance to defend myself. Maybe next time I won't be so lucky. Wouldn't you say that debating whether someone should be sanctioned on an admin's personal page without informing the accused is a little irregular? In this context doesn't decrease the overall tension mean talking it over without the participation of the accused? Don't you agree with the policies at places like WP:AE requiring notification?
If someone believes that on average white people have superior genetic endowment for intelligence than black people, why can't I call them "white supremacists," since that's what they are? Various Wikipedia sites, some of which I mentioned above, use the term and give highly reputable sources that use the term. It's funny that you object even to calling Davide Piffer a white supremacist. It's not enough that he calls Africans "gorillas"?
In a discussion on the talk-page (now in archive 100), Toomim accused me of McCarthyism, conducting a witchhunt, and being morally reprehensible for mentioning Piffer as an example of someone (author of a source) who's racist. If that's what you're implying, then I would hope that you would recuse yourself from using your admin powers in connection with this article. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed that in addressing the IP-editor you sarcastically referred to what I wrote you in my own defense as a "novel" -- telling him that everything I was writing was fiction. I really think you should recuse yourself from using your admin powers in connection with this and related matters, since you've made your bias clear. NightHeron (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
NightHeron, I did state that what you wrote was a novel - as in long, certainly not as fiction. You are welcome, because as we've both agreed this is not a formal behavioral forum, to disregard my suggesting that you be more careful than you've been describing people as white supremacists. I didn't write not to do it. I wrote to be careful (or rather more careful). This is why of the 3 people identified by the IP, I only noted one of them specifically as not having the strength of evidence (sourcing something to RationalWiki) needed for the strength of claim. I don't know where the McCarthyism line came from and I don't see how telling an IP editor that I don't think you've done anything actionable necessitates my recusing myself in an administrative capacity from the article. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I was going by the English meaning of novel (a fictitious prose narrative of considerable length and complexity from dictionary.com). I had already apologized to you for the length. But the word novel obviously means more than "long," and undoubtedly the IP-editor understood the word in the sense of its English meaning. As far as RationalWiki goes, they give a link to Piffer's tweet calling African immigrants "gorillas," so you don't have to take their word for it. If you look for Davide Piffer on Wikipedia, you'll be redirected to OpenPsych. Please read that page, and then tell me whether or not there's strong enough evidence to use terms like "white supremacist," "racist" and "pseudoscience" about him. NightHeron (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
NightHeron, I am aware of the English meaning of novel; most of my content writing revolves around children's literature for a reason. So we don't disagree. I am glad that in this instance I could clarify my intent behind using the word, focusing on the length rather than fictitious. However, just because you apologize for something does not mean that I did not have a obligation of meaningfully trying to process and respond to 6k bytes of writing and cannot have feelings about that obligation. I too can be long winded and I too have apologized in advance of writing at length. I just know that when I offer an apology that's the action I can control and have to, as I had something to apologize for in the first place, be willing to accept a wide range of responses.
I am not saying Piffer is not a white supremacist. I'm not saying you shouldn't say he's a white supremacist. I am saying you should be careful in doing so. You can consider this advice or not. And if you do consider it you can accept it or reject it. It seems like in this instance you did carefully consider it, so great. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I now realize that your word choice was just a slip, and you did not intend novel to be understood the way I, and most likely the IP-editor, understood it. Concerning the sourcing of my statements that certain authors are white supremacist, I have a question. There's some unclarity in the following statement from WP:BLP: BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. Suppose that here on your talk-page I write the words "the racist David Duke" and don't give any source other than the link to the Wikipedia article about David Duke. (No need for "suppose," since I just did write those words here.) Do the exact same policies apply to any mention of David Duke in a talk page discussion as apply to the editing of the David Duke article itself? Did I just violate WP:BLP by not giving sources? Should I have dug up sources (or cribbed them from the David Duke article) and directly cited them here? My own answer to that question is that it should be sufficient to link to an article on Wikipedia or RationalWiki or somewhere else, where anyone can quickly see well-sourced evidence. But do you interpret the policy to be that any time I refer to Davide Piffer as a white supremacist I should give a list of RS (such as those used at RationalWiki or at OpenPsych)? NightHeron (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
NightHeron, I think anytime you refer to someone as a white supremacist you need to be ready to provide strong sourcing to back up your claim; when challenged here you were definitely able to provide sources (and could use that diff if challenged elsewhere as an initial response in the future). The SPLC saying that Open Psych promotes scientific racism is strong evidence - SPLC is considered a reliable source when used in this way. RationalWiki, as another wiki, is not strong evidence but the sources it contains might be. Does that help clarify? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that makes good sense. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Late Follow-Up

Maybe this comment is too late to be useful, and maybe this controversy has already blown over. I do not have any particular involvement in the Race and Intelligence article dispute, and am satisfied and relieved and pleasantly surprised if it has gone away. My original involvement in the controversy was only that I tried to avoid being involved in the controversy. I had closed a request to open a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, for various reasons including that it appeared to be a one-against-many dispute, and that I preferred not to work with unregistered editors using shifting IP addresses. I was then asked, first by the unregistered editor and then by administrators, to reconsider the exclusion of unregistered editors. I explained the exclusion, and that I was willing to make an exception but did not think it would be necessary. Some editors, including myself, then said that, since multiple efforts to resolve the dispute both by the community and by the Arbitration Enforcement administrators had failed, it might be necessary to punt the matter back to the Arbitration Committee. I don't know what other editors thought would be the role for the Arbitration Committee in an evidentiary case, but I thought that the Arbitration Committee might take a two-pronged approach. The first would be to identify any particular offenders and topic-ban or ban them. The second might be to develop improved draconian guidelines for dealing with the subject of race and intelligence. (I will restate that my opinion is that, with regard to areas of battleground editing, draconian remedies are often what are needed.)

User:Barkeep49, User:NightHeron, User:Fiveby - You were the registered editors who discussed this controversy. At this point it appears that the case may have blown over. If there is no active dispute, then there is no need to send the dispute to the Arbitration Committee. Maybe the RFC can take care of it by labeling the whole association as fringe (in which case the RFC is presenting the issue to the community in a way that the community can address). (I agreed with the thesis that the connection is fringe science.) If the matter becomes troublesome again, any conduct dispute should go to the Arbitration Committee. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely that the dispute is over for good. For the time being everyone's attention is focused on the RFC, but the problems might resume after the RFC is concluded. However, I agree it's reasonable to wait and see what happens after the RFC before requesting arbitration. 2600:1004:B140:1416:68A3:F469:4750:75AF (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Help

Dear sir, I create an article in my draftspace about a female leader and when it get completed I tried to move it to article page but there someone previously uses her name and redirects her name to new name (his husband's name).

Here is my draft, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Heena_Shahab

Her husband (which redirected from Heena Shahab) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Shahabuddin

They both are diffrent person. (Husband and wife)

Help me sir. Sturdyankit (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your extraordinary effort

The Admin's Barnstar
With appreciation, to Barkeep49, Wugapodes, and Ymblanter; thank you for your tireless (and underappreciated) work in seeing through the pharmaceutical drug pricing RFC. It was admirable of all of you to have taken on this necessary admin task when no one else would touch it. And sorting through my verbosity could not have made a difficult task easier! Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: I hope you and the other MED editors find the RfC useful in moving forward. Thanks for taking the time to post this (especially because I think we have evidence I can go toe to toe with you in terms of verbosity). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Nah, I still reign in unnecessary bytes consumed. But I hope I am improving. Old habits die hard! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Sandy, I also suffer from BS (byte syndrome). X-) I should probably create a template for a slightly modified version of Blaise Pascal's quote: I have made this comment longer than usual because I lack the time to make it short. Atsme Talk 📧 16:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

+1 (per Sandy) and have a cupcake. -- Colin°Talk 16:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Why was "List of people with coronavirus disease 2019" deleted?

What is the reason behind this?   ApChrKey   Talk 15:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I don't think anything outside what was said in the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 is required here ApChrKey. Looks like a well thought out close, that was endorsed at WP:DRV. In addition, I don't think it's particularly suitable to have a list of BLPs who have a disease if it isn't extremely well cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
ApChrKey, Lee pretty much explains it. If you'd like to read the deletion review discussion you may do so here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For the willingness to close tough AfDs as you have recently. At some point, we've got to balance our desire to be informative on current events with some clear understanding that in most cases, we cannot know enough to remain accurate at this point in an unprecedented series of events. John from Idegon (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks I do my best to be of aid to the community through my closures. I appreciate your recognition of this effort. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I would recommend dropping User:QuackGuru as they are blocked and have been for the last 40 days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, I am aware (I participated in that AE discussion). They are only blocked for 3 months and this case might not be over by the time that expires. Even if that's not the case, I think there is evidence of misconduct over a sustained period by Quack which should be examined by ArbCom if this case is accepted Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Yah. Difficult being involved in an arbcom cases when blocked though. I imagine the arbs will find a way to involve them if they have not fully retired. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Doc James that is certainly the case. As an AE block ArbCom could obviously choose to revoke it, suspend it, or find some other way for Quack to participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I should be added as an involved party. Given Doc James' behavior (IDHT, BATTLE, RIGHTGREATWRONGS), as well as that of his enablers, I don't think anything other than ArbCom will resolve this. I've been concerned about the behavioral problems since I first ran across the situation back in September, and raised the need for ArbCom by at least December. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, you can certainly make a statement to that effect; ultimately ArbCom decides who is/isn't a party to a case. I could have listed a whole slew of people and needed a way to cut myself off and decided to just limit myself to the template. You were, however, a person I sincerely considered adding as a party. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've not paid much attention to the ArbCom process, so thought it best to check with you first. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep, procedurally, how does one add parties? Is that part of one's word limit? DO we just add them to the list at the top? How does one go about doing that? I hope to catch up there as soon as possible, but ... all the usual life issues ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, you could theoretically add them yourself and do the notifications. Or could you could write in your statement that you believe that they should be added as a party. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
So, one has to expend part of one's 500 words on listing parties :/ :/ ... there are gobs of them ... word limits are a problem. Thx, Barkeep ... will go partial, then, and see what feedback I get. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I think we should just add them in to the Case. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Now that we have indications that an arb understands the full scope of the case,[4] and saying it is OK to add others-- along with clarification [5] from Ymblanter in response to Colin,[6] correcting James' unique interpretations of the RFC as referenced by Tryptofish on the arb request-- I will add the expanded party list. First, though, I need to re-examine history to make sure I miss no one, and want to add diffs to my statement so there is some understanding of how other parties are related. Hipal, do I understand you to be saying here that, when I expand the list, you want me to add your name as well? Let me know so I don't have to make my typical ten-posts-for-the-price-of-one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I think in an expanded party list Hipal (nee Ronz) should be listed. Sandy you have more institutional knowledge here and could better identify all such parties no matter what positions they take in the dispute(s). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
In process. I am pretty sure I missed some, but brain fog has set in, and I want to leave this topic for the day. Ping me if I miss anyone please? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I am going to keep discussion about involved parties in this one place, as that proved a good approach during the RFC formulation. My apologies to Barkeep, who should charge rent. :)

Tryptofish, when adding the second list of involved parties, I quite intentionally excluded you, respecting your stated desire to retire from Wikipedia. But in spite of your desire to retire, you have posted multiple times to the case page, and continued today.[7] I have avoided mentioning you or statements by other parties that, IMO, misrepresent your involvement, and I was happy to leave it that way. If you are not retiring and are actually planning to be involved, then I should add you to the involved parties. What say ye? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I say that I do not appreciate your battleground attitude. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
To give you a dispassionately factual explanation of what I intend, I have been commenting on the case request page, but I do not intend to give evidence, comment on evidence, participate in or comment on the workshop, or otherwise participate in the case (if they accept it), unless somebody forces me to. But if I am forced to, I will not be intimidated. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Battleground attitude ? Perhaps I did not write with clarity as often happens to me? I do not know what you are seeing here that I did not write. I was indicating I was respecting your wishes, and asking if you have changed your mind. Please clarify why you read this as battleground so I can strike or rephrase as needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I don't chase people off my talk page and welcome discussions had without me, but I would really suggest that this conversation, now that we're back to normal Wikipedia and not the ANI consensus, would have been better served at User talk:Tryptofish because it was really a question (acknowledging that Trypto seems to have to seen it differently) you had for them. I wonder if part of that different reading was because it was done here rather than there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sandy, this is exactly the kind of discussion that I'm trying (ineptly, it seems!) to extricate myself from. I think my post today rubbed you the wrong way, because I expressed a view that is clearly opposite to yours, but I don't think that it's anything that amounts to my being disruptive or doing anything that should make me a named party. In case I did not make it clear enough, I am not finding fault with you for having added more named parties. My sole concern was what I see as a lack of clarity about what does and what does not have community consensus, because I do not want ArbCom to start a case looking for violations of consensus, when such consensus still needs to be worked out. You don't need to strike anything here for my sake. If you would like, I will link to this clarification on the ArbCom request page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep, I hope that is all it was … I don't know how my good intent went so badly wrong and was so misconstrued :( :( I won't post here again, so sorry :'( Trypto, I tried to do the right thing. I guess I Failed. You have misinterpreted. Please do not project your own persepctive or interpretations on to me; nothing had rubbed me the wrong way, but something did rub you the wrong way, and I am sorry for whatever I wrote that led to that. I will not continue discussing here, to honor Barkeep's request. If you would clearly read Barkeep's own statements many times, being a named party does not imply misbehaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Motion

Since we have no word limits here SandyGeorgia I'm curious abut why you think a motion wouldn't work. I think DS around Medicine could work and could be a nice compromise given the concerns about the case in the middle of COVID. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The page says clearly we have a 500-word limit, no one has answered me differently, and I have edited edited edited and re-edited to try to stay within that. To explain what KIND of motion would be needed to deal with the entire interference with dispute resolution processes being driven by external apps would take a lot more than 500 words. I FULLY agree with you that, if these HUGE issues could be dealt with via motion, that would be preferable to a case during a pandemic, but remember there are two factors: part of the case is IDHT, so quite a motion would be needed, and second, with the external projects dominating dispute resolution, DR can't work for anything anywhere on any of the issues, and is affecting not only editors, but content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Oops, I see that by "here", you mean here on your page … I thought you meant on arb request page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, was quite distracted. Does this answer your question, or should I add to it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Toot-toot

Thanks for taking up the baton to close the DRV for Southern Pacific 9010; I was having bets on which way it would go. More seriously albeit a minor point I think you have left the Template:Delrev on the article; this might be related to the face the tag was placed under the Template:Short description and not at page top. While I could remove it myself because of my involvement and recent edits to the article I'd prefer you or a neutral did it. Thanks and regards, Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark happy to have removed it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, updated the Template:Old AfD multi on the talk page to reflect the DRV outcome. Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello again!

Request WP:REFUND of Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi and associated talk page to draft with suppression of image due to (unanswered when I last look 12h ago) copyright concern. There's a bunch of history going on here and I think you're way far stupid and you'll be aware of most of it. This is a Deobandi movement article and as per ANI there is an unanswered concern about the original csd nom. targeting Deobandi based articles. I think the csd was removed by a nom creator and re-instated by an NPP. That said the creator classically gave no reasons as to why the article was improved and may have been trying to circumvent DRV. And the copyright claims on the image seem dubious but that is a matter separate and independent from the core prose article. Strictly non-admins can't see the previous page to see if G4 is valid on the new incarnation though some may have rememberance and sometime it may be available on internet archive; the original csd nom. made no reference to this. The article attracted much attention under CSD, which tomy mind resulted in an unhelpful citebomb, but I did notice a article from "the Hindi" dated Nov. 2019 and post the previous AfD that looked significant (It counted against by monthly free read count from that publication so I marked it as limited as a warning to others). I has toyed with removing the CSD and toyed with a "technical" presentation to AfD as I think it has a chance there but that would have hand-tied me from voting in that discussion. Anyway I believe the article topic has a chance of achieving notability so a refund to draft is requested. Please indicate if article salted. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: I honestly don't follow India editing issues on Wikipedia all that closely even at ANI (maybe especially there). I stand by the deletion of that article as G4. However you are indicating that you think it could be improved or otherwise shown to be notable. Fair enough. As such I have restored it to User:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi. You are welcome to improve it there. When you think it demonstrates notability you can appeal for the move and create protections to be lifted at DRV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for WP:REFUND, I would have preferred draft as it will be a special team collaberative effort to look at this; but I'll acccept userfication and it may be better I steward it. Expect a question on Ds/alers and related things when you next goto arbcom. One way of looking at it is various parties seem to knock blocks at each other and off each others articles, though that may be an unfair viewpoint. Anyway by the look of it something else loosely Grand Mufti related has kicked off again this UTC afternoon; I've got some Irish article stuff to sort first though.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you again, can I have the talk page as well please to User talk:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi. Thanks. 19:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Djm-leighpark  Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Fiona Stewart (event director)

Just a nit on your DRV close. It should say, "userspace", not "draft space". -- RoySmith (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

RoySmith, fixed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Cubesmith Lubricant

Hello, I saw you reviewed this redirect. How is that possible? From my notification history, the page has already been reviewed by ‪DannyS712 bot III‬ two days ago. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

1234qwer1234qwer4, that's a great question. Redirects and articles are seperate reviews. When a redirect becomes an article it needs to be reviewed again. And for technical reasons when a redirect is nominated for deletion it becomes an article and thus eligible for review. My review was purely procedural - when something is at RfD/AfD it does not need further reviewer attention. Does that make sense? If not ask me some follow-up questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


Question

Hey Barkeep49, I noticed that you reviewed my article for Spencer Wood sport psychologist. This is the first page that I've attempted to create, so I'm not completely sure what that means. I know it's up for deletion, so I'm assuming your review has something to do with that? Do you have any recommendations to ensure that it stays around, as I believe Wood is a notable enough figure to have a standalone page? Are there any next steps I should take after your review? Sorry for all the questions, just want to make my article as good as possible and educate myself for future write ups! YaBoyReid (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

YaBoyReid, I welcome questions. New page review is a process to ensure that articles meet Wikipedia basics including notability. As you suspected my review in this case was procedural because it was up for deletion. As for advice, I would read WP:THREE. It will give you some advice about what you can do. If after reading that you have some follow-up questions I would be happy to try and answer them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Message from Glittershield

Hi Barkeep, My page Colive was tagged for Speedy deletion and it was deleted today. After the tagged was placed I got the Unambiguous advertising or promotional content removed, still the page was deleted. Could you kindly recheck the page and let me know if your decision could be reversed. Thank youGlittershield (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Glittershield, hi Glittershield. I know having a page deleted can be upsetting. I did review the page after you had made the changes and did just look at it again. The article included things like funding, products, and a non-notable award keeping it primarily promotional. I hope that helps. If not please follow-up with more questions as I really do want to be responsive to you given the deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much Barkeep for patiently reviewing my page again, your reply did help.Looking for an advise, kindly let me know if I can retrieve the page Colive and after necessary changes can I republish it, or will it be againts wikipedia policy to re-create the page by removing the promotional content.Thank youGlittershield (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Glittershield, sorry for the delay in reply - I had missed this before. I would be happy to REFUND the article but first can I ask what your connection is to the company? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much Barkeep,I have no connection with the company. I just have a personal interest in reading news. So when I came across something called co-living space this term was new for me and it caught my attention. So I thought like me people might search for co-living space in India, and I happend to write about this company as it was in the current news which I happened to read.Thank you Glittershield (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Glittershield, I have restored the page and moved it to your userspace at User:Glittershield/Colive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much Barkeep for Refunding my page. ThanksGlittershield (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Luženičky and InCruises LLC

Hello Barkeep49. Thank you for deleting InCruises LLC. However, an earlier revision of the article (Special:Diff/782621746) had content for the article Luženičky. Could you either transfer the content from the earlier revision to Luženičky or temporarily un-delete InCruises LLC so I can? Thanks, userdude 03:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

UserDude, I thought from the discussion that had already been done. Fixed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

little help

Please - you happen to be the first on my watchlist whom I see active - look at Gösta Winbergh where I new user added unsourced, badly formatted pov, about the singer being one of the greatest. They did that a third time while I explained on their talk. It shouldn't stay but I won't go beyond, even for almost-vandalism, - also you might have better words to explain. I don't want to see them blocked because of ignorance of our guidelines. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, it seems to have stopped. I placed the "unsourced welcome" on their page as well. Hopefully they ask questions of one of us or go to the Teahouse. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, and Voce is also watchful ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine opened

You were recently listed as a party to 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/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Is the discussion of prices still under sanctions wrt editor behaviour? Clearly the edit war at simvastatin and reverts at ethosuximide directly provoked the Arbcom request. At Talk:Ethosuximide, User:RexxS has posted comments that I feel would previously have earned a comment from you, asking for text to be struck through. It begins with the misrepresentation of what I said wrt where general discussion should take place. Continues with an allegation of bad faith "If you are genuinely interested in finding areas of compromise, rather than insisting that your own view should prevail, then..." The battleground language: "you don't seem to have done us the courtesy of indicating the sources that support your assertion, and that really isn't helpful." which isn't in fact a correct statement (I sourced all my assertions). Further allegation of bad faith: "If you were to try to find some common ground, you would find that over-egging a reasonable argument (20-year-old prices) merely serves to diminish it." My removal of the cost section is contrasted with "Alternatively if you want to improve the article..." with the clear implication that my edit did not improve the article. An edit that was universally approved in the RFC and confirmed by the closing admins. I find, frequently with RexxS, that every response he makes contains many inaccuracies about what I just wrote, and those inaccuracies are then used in ammunition against me, that the conversation then tediously descends to arguing about what I did or did not say, rather than constructively focusing on article text, sources, existing agreements and longstanding policy and guideline. I also note WhatAmIDoing and others frustration that James continues to cherry pick what has been said, ""selective" to the point of seeming dishonest" as WAID puts it. An environment of mutual respect and honesty with each other is surely a fundamental for parties to engage on this project. Arbcom, assuming it isn't kicked into the long grass, will be a lengthy process anyway. What can be done now to reign in editors who's behaviour is a problem? I think one reason the RFC was so good-natured was that editors were reminded and required to be on their best behaviour. -- Colin°Talk 09:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

As usual Colin presents a distorted picture of his interactions with other editors, and with me in particular. At Talk:Ethosuximide #Moving forward, I believe I was making progress in teasing out the areas where editors had been disagreeing, but Colin arrived with the opening remark "RexxS, I don't think it is helpful to contemplate further areas of agreement/disagreement on drug prices in this Ethosuximide talk page." It is quite disingenuous of him to then complain when I replied that I didn't find his intervention helpful. If he goes trolling for a reaction, he mustn't be surprised when he gets one.
He claims first that there is only one secondary source mentioning the cost of ethosuximide: "... a secondary source making passing mention of the cost of ethosuximide (for that is all that has ever been shown for this drug)" without naming the source, and then goes on to tell me that "the price in the UK had increased 40x since 2011, and this had been noted by an epilepsy charity and by neurologists" which clearly suggests that at least two secondary sources (the unnamed charity and neurologists) exist that discuss the cost of ethosuximide. Nowhere in that post does he deign to cite the sources he's referring to, which I complained of. That gives the lie to his assertion above "which isn't in fact a correct statement (I sourced all my assertions)", and anybody can see that he did not source any of his assertions. There's not a single link to a source in his comments.
The entire Cost section has already been entirely removed from the article at least once in the last week, and I am trying to establish what that section should contain as a first step. Colin's post does nothing to move that forward.
I am afraid that I cannot assume good faith with Colin. His misrepresentations and inability to seek any compromise are damaging to article improvement. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices set out three examples of statements in the lead, and asked whether they complied with WP:V, WP:DUE, WP:NOR, WP:NOPRICE, and WP:LEAD. Of the 281 comments in that RfC, 43 were made by Colin. His bludgeoning of the discussion, particularly his back-and-forth contradictions of editors who voiced an opinion he disagreed with, meant that I decided against participating, knowing that whatever I wrote would lead to a prolonged dialog with Colin, and I was unwilling to do that.
Colin is now attempting to use that RfC as a weapon to remove content that it never addressed. The RfC contained much commentary about the lead and very little about cost in the rest of the article. The RfC contained clear agreement about the difference between 'price' and 'pricing'. Yet attempts are being made to remove well sourced pricing information from the lead of an article, and to remove entire Cost sections.
You only have to read my opening post at Talk:Ethosuximide #Moving forward and Colin's reply to it, to see which one of us is "constructively focusing on article text, sources, existing agreements and longstanding policy and guideline", and it's not Colin.
I am perfectly happy to continue to explore with other editors how we can resolve differences of opinion on what should be in a Cost section, and consequently in the lead, but I am hampered by Colin's battleground attitude, especially toward Doc James. Why does Colin ask me the question, "Are we really on this project in a stage where we must all wait for James to consent to the removal of that nonsense." This piece of tale-telling merely diverts me from useful work, and typifies the difficulty of trying to find consensus once Colin enters a discussion. If anybody needs to be reined in, it's him. --RexxS (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I am quoted selectively. The sentence above continues "...in this Ethosuximide talk page. This is an article surely that until a few days ago was likely on a couple of people's watchlist" My comment is not to dissuade further discussion of pricing issues, but that general discussion belongs in a general forum rather than on the talk page of a drug few will even have heard of, never mind watchlist.
I do not claim "there is only one secondary source mentioning the cost of ethosuximide". I claim "a" secondary source making passing mention of the cost of ethosuximide is insufficient. "a" as in "any one".
"Nowhere in that post does he deign to cite the sources he's referring to". What I wrote was "Given what I posted today, that the price in the UK had increased 40x since 2011, and this had been noted by an epilepsy charity and by neurologists, and given the restrictive aspects of price James was actually Googling for" (italics added). My earlier post that day contains all the sources and I was summarising my earlier comments. It seems very clear that the information and source RexxS desired was offered in "what I posted today" (earlier).
At the RFC, I made nearly identical number of posts to WhatAmIDoing and similar quantity of text.
So now we have "disingenuous" and "trolling" an open admission of bad faith.... -- Colin°Talk 11:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Colin and RexxS: I have limited time at the moment. So I will answer the original question: the requirements of the ANI close, including centralized discussion and strict enforcement of selected behavioral guidelines (which I'm not sure how strictly I ever enforced as I think strict enforcement is code word for blocking regularly which I didn't do) is no longer in effect. General Wikipedian behavioral guidelines are, obviously, still in effect. I will look more at the dispute, which I haven't been keeping track of since I opened the case request, later when I have more time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Colin: You are fully aware that to make progress on Talk:Ethosuximide, the participants will have to agree on some general principles before we can find some agreement on specifics, yet you insist on "kicking the can down the road" by attempting to stall discussion on that page until some "general discussion" at some unnamed "general forum" has taken place. We'll make progress at the article talk page, and if any general areas of agreement emerge, we know we can use them elsewhere when similar issues arise. That's how Wikipedia works - not by top-down rule-making, but by incrementally finding areas of agreement and reusing them. Of course your attempts to shunt off discussion to another place has the effect of dissuading further discussion of pricing issues at the article talk page. When you say one thing and do another, it further erodes any confidence that one can have trying to work with you.
You wrote that "... a secondary source making passing mention of the cost of ethosuximide (for that is all that has ever been shown for this drug)". How is anyone to read the phrase "a secondary source" juxtaposed with "for that is all that has ever been shown for this drug" to mean anything other than only one secondary source has discussed this drug?
"Given what I posted earlier today" is a perfect example of the sort of problem I continually face with Colin. He knows what and where he posted earlier today, but leaves other editors with the puzzle of trying to figure out from his contributions what that was and chase around to find it. That's unacceptable game-playing, and you'll note that I scrupulously quote my sources in every interaction. That's the sort of courtesy I expect from other editors who are trying to help each other to find common ground, and I've have consistently found that an impossibility with Colin.
At the RfC, more than one in every seven comments came from you, Colin. On a quick scan of the discussion, I spotted 42 different contributors – that's an average of less than 7 comments per contributor. You made 43 posts, more than enough for one each for every contributor. If that's not bludgeoning the discussion, I don't know what is.
AGF is not a suicide pact. When you write "RexxS, I don't think it is helpful to contemplate further areas of agreement/disagreement on drug prices in this Ethosuximide talk page." and then complain when I strongly disagree with that, I'll call you out on it. When you begin your post with a statement whose only purpose is to provoke a reaction, I'll call you out on it. I'm not going to be bullied by you. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't find a single reasoned request to move general discussion to a general forum as "insist on" or "disingenuous" or "trolling". Let's be clear, by "further areas of" I mean "new areas" that aren't directly related to resolving the disputed article text in the light of the recent RFC. You'd created a mini RFC with seven questions for discussion. This on a talk page that had previously had zero discussion. I don't think it unreasonable to suggest another forum might be better, and you can disagree with that without accusing me of bad faith or of suppressing discussion.
That you frequently misread what I wrote is now apparently "game playing" on my part? I can't win. If I repeated what I wrote earlier, I'd get accused of more bludgeoning, so I referred back up the page. It isn't hard to find "what I posted earlier today" in my contribs or by moving the scroll bar up the page a bit. Btw WhatAmIDoing made 40 posts to my 43. She made 72 edits to my 46 and Sandy's 42 and SMcCandlish 40. I added 58,916 characters to WAID's 55,201. It isn't hard to understand why I and WhatAmIDoing were top contributors: I'm the one who got his ass dragged to AN/I over this dispute and have an interest in resolving it. -- Colin°Talk 14:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I haven't read through the length above, but I saw this episode take off, and want to offer one piece for contemplation. After Colin provided a solid analysis of all of the sourcing problems (as it typical for Colin, who always has a solid grasp of policy) RexxS appeared to not fully digest Colin's post, while it appears that I correctly followed what Colin was saying all along. But Colin was forced to re-explain that which he had already stated, but he had to go even further and do the math for everyone else. This is precisely the pattern that leads to these claims that Colin "bludgeons", where I see him explaining and re-explaining things that were apparent to me the first time. He then had to further explain the last five words of his sentence, where again, he was correctly saying that there are meta-issues that are better resolved elsewhere, not on this particular drug article page. OK, so why did I understand those posts and yet Colin had to explain and re-explain? Is that not a classic example of there being a lack of willingness to understand what Colin is saying so that he doesn't have to repeat and repeat and repeat? RexxS, if there are times when you don't understand what Colin is saying, instead of escalating, could you just ask for clarification? It seems apparent (to me at least) that there is no lack of intellect or understanding of policy on Colin's part, and AGF means ask for clarification before you risk escalating a conflict because you misinterpret his words, miss a point he already made, fail to read full sentences, etc. If we embark from a place of assuming good faith, we can perhaps better understand the meaning of a person's writing, without this need to constantly re-hash things that to me are easily understood in that conversation. Asking beats attacking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

But Sandy, when Colin posted "the price in the UK had increased 40x", he omitted to mention that was based on his OR that the figures given by NICE on page 7 were wrong. That's just playing games. I had looked at the figures previously and, taking them at face value, didn't think they had changed all that much, so I quoted the NICE figures in my next post and wrote "I'm not seeing a forty-fold increase.". Please tell me what you think is so wrong with that. It wasn't until his next post that he claimed the NICE figures were wrong. I'm sick of him playing "Gotcha" like that, just trying to score points, rather than clearly explaining his point.
What makes you think I didn't understand what Colin was saying? I understood perfectly that he was saying there was a forty-fold increase, but I couldn't see that and said so. What more should I be expected to do? I didn't misinterpret his words; I didn't miss a point he'd made; I didn't fail to read a full sentence, and I strongly resent your implication that I did.
I'm going to ask Barkeep49 to read the first four posts at Talk:Ethosuximide #Moving forward and tell me whether any reasonable editor should be expected to work out from Colin's post how there was a 40x price increase. Barkeep, is it fair of Sandy to accuse me of "this need to constantly re-hash things that to [Sandy] are easily understood in that conversation"? --RexxS (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, I am as time permits reading the conversation at Ethosuxmide and am a substantial way through. I will have more comment soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Just to note, that I didn't notice the NICE figures were wrong until Rexx questioned mine and I double checked. Then I saw the NICE footnote (which I had used) didn't correspond to the text (which RexxS had used). This isn't a game of Gotcha. There are simple good-faith reasons why we briefly disagreed on price. I didn't omit to mention anything, as I made it clear I was referring to an earlier post that contained all the refs. I don't know why RexxS continues to claim I was deliberately and discourteously not mentioning the sources I used. I don't understand why I am being attacked because someone else didn't read what I wrote carefully enough. AGF is policy. -- Colin°Talk 17:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, I have unwatched that page, because this is like watching a trainwreck in slow motion. I had no problem seeing very clearly that Colin had explained the 40 x. I understood that clearly. When you didn't seem to understand it, I queried if I had misunderstood, in one short post (odd for me :) Because I wondered why you didn't see what I did see. That's just playing games is a rather problematic statement of a failure to AGF, especially when right on that talk page, you can see that I understood the 40x. If you embark from the place that Colin is incisive in his analyses, and work harder to digest his posts, we can all have more productive discussions. Sheesh, I am feeling like Barkeep is having to replace the old Mediation Cabal. And, RexxS, I am not "accusing you of 'this need to constantly ... "; this is something we have seen repeatedly from multiple editors, you are fairly new to these discussions, or at least were previously infrequent in them. I was speaking generally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Colin: I see. You used the figures in the footnotes, not the figures in the main text that I used. Fair enough, that is something that I can assume good faith on. I apologise, Colin, for thinking you were trying to catch me out. I still think that expecting me to do the detective work in tracking down your earlier post without a link is discourteous, but sometimes editors forget that others haven't been involved in the same discussions, so it's understandable. I'll remind you that AGF isn't policy. It's a behavioural guideline, and states "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary." Given the degree of unpleasantness I've received in my interactions with you over the years, I'm afraid that I have difficulty in continuing to assume good faith when debating with you. I trust you won't want me to list examples of our prior interactions.
Sandy, I find it interesting that you also did the calculations using the footnote figures rather than the ones in the main text. It is disappointing that having seen the calculations I made using the main text figures, you didn't choose to point out that you were using different figures from me when you had the opportunity. Perhaps if you considered the possibility that I might be just as incisive in my analysis as you think Colin is, you wouldn't feel the need to ask me to work harder to digest his posts, and perhaps ask him to work harder to digest my posts? I agree that I've not made anywhere near the number of posts on this topic as you and Colin have, but hopefully that won't disqualify me from seeking compromises that might be amenable to both James and Colin. --RexxS (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok I've never read through everything. I had a sigh in an edit summary before. Let me just sigh publicly now. *sigh*. Ok glad I could get that out of the way.

Here's what I see. I see WAID doing an admirable job of trying to find common ground. I see Rexx attempting to play a similar role in the incident that triggered this set of mutual concerns. I see Colin attempting to respond to both these common ground attempts with his perspective. I also knew as soon as I hit it - not having really read what had been written here other than Colin's basic question and where the dispute was - what set Rexx off.

Colin, as I have expressed to you before, I think you've gotten a "bad rap" at times. I don't think you intended to reject consensus finding endeavors. I think you deeply desire to work towards consensus. I think it's why you engage as much as you do - you value the conversation, the debate, the exchange of ideas, the coming together. And it pains you when that process gets personal and testy. However, when you lead with a rejection of what Rexx is trying to do and include later on you might want to accept here you were wrong. This is part of consensus forming. that's not going to be a way forward. It's also not going to be the kind of statement that gets people to admit they're wrong. And, valued editor, you need to find a way of stopping yourself from replying so much in conversations. The answer for me is IRC where I can make little comments to people who understand the context (friends and family aren't so great for that) and then don't post them on wiki (I said a lot at the current WT:ACN discussion but I promise you I had even more I resisted saying). I hope you find your own way. I double checked Rexx's count and I too came up with 45 comments by you at the RfC (didn't check how many overall comments there were). Gosh that's a lot. I know the suggestion that you bludgeon pains you and I really do hope you can find a balance that lets you feel like you've expressed yourself. Some of it might be that other outlet (maybe start a blog if IRC isn't your thing which I get) and some of it will just be letting some stuff you disagree with go hoping that someone else makes the point or that you've made the point strongly enough somewhere else to affect the balance of the conversation even if it doesn't convince that particular editor.

Rexx, valued editor, it would be easier to try to explain your good faith if you didn't come out and say things like I am afraid that I cannot assume good faith with Colin. Especially because most of what you've done, both here and on the talk page, is ask reasonable questions to try and drive the conversation forward and find points of agreement and to solicit information so you can understand Colin's point of view. I throw out the bold bromide "You cannot control other people, only your reaction to it" for consideration.

Which brings me to my suggestion for both of you: the next time the other says something that raises your blood pressure sit on it for 24 hours. Don't respond. Just let it be. See if the conversation moves on in a helpful way in the interim. Or if the person has a moment and walks back the comment in some way. Or even if you can, when not in a state of agitation, find a way to read the comment differently. Or even just to collect the diff for the arbitration case that looks like it's going to be accepted. Best, (and I really do mean that - I wish both of you the best) Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep, I truly did not lead with a rejection of what RexxS was trying to do. It was where he was trying to do it. I led with a request that it not be done on the Ethosuximide talk page. A good-faith editor might have responded "Sure, Colin, do you mind if I copy ... over to ...:talk and we can continue there"? If I had tried to overturn an RFC involving dozens of editors over the last few months, an RFC, say, that I had openly dismissed and avoided participating in at the time, by having a mini RFC on a article talk page that had never before been talked on in Wiki history, then there'd be a few choice words about me and my motives. I take your advice on wordiness and responding. RexxS tonight: You have chosen not to address the points I made on NPOV and NOTPRICES, and I think that speaks volumes to the shaky foundations that you base you arguments on. I cannot, it seems, win. The text you quoted in green is not my best and I apologise for the tone of that. -- Colin°Talk 20:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Colin, That's helpful context because honestly as I was reading through it's not how I read it. If you'd gone "...in this Ethosuximide talk page but maybe we can discuss it at X" perhaps that context would been clearer. Something I appreciate about both you and Rexx is that you both are willing to take a step back to own where a foot was put wrong. I wish I could impart that peace to each of you :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Colin, you're right that WAID posted a lot at the RFC. So did Blueraspberry and Sandy. That's fair. I need to think why bludgeon is sent your way more often than the way of others. Perhaps you even have some ideas about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to find myself here, Barkeep49, but it's reached the stage where Colin is so wrapped up in trying to play games with me, I'm forced to seek outside help to deal with him. Yesterday, I thought we could have at least attempted to be cooperative on Talk:Ethosuximide #Moving forward, but instead he decided to reply to my suggestion on possible wording for the Cost section by dismissing it with " I said what I wanted to say about "low cost" at 09:18, 1 April 2020. I complained on the article talk page about making me chase after a week-old post that I couldn't identify (no idea of where, and not showing in his contributions) when he should have had the courtesy to link it, as I'd complained of here with one of his earlier posts. Today he came to my talk page to berate me for complaining: User talk:RexxS Simple basic courtesy. What is absolutely clear is that he's doubling-down on his behaviour by accusing me of failing to link a source that we had literally been discussing all of that day and I'd linked to twice already during that time - the same 2012 NICE document that we've also discussed here. It's obvious that instead of trying to be accommodating and saying that he will try to link where it is helpful, he wants to play mind games by falsely accusing me of the same disrespectful behaviour that he displays toward me.

Do I have to put up with this sort of behaviour from Colin? How are we ever to make progress when every attempt I make is treated with such contempt? If you can find time, would you please review today's confrontation at my talk page, and do something to curb him, please? --RexxS (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Team closure request

Hello Barkeep49,

You're probably aware of the RFC that's currently underway about race and intelligence. The RFC is due to be closed, and a closure by a team of admins was requested two days ago at Requests for Closure, but I'm concerned that it's very unlikely any team of admins is going to volunteer to close this discussion properly. By my count, the vote in the RFC is exactly tied (25 "yes" votes and 25 "no" votes), so it's necessary for the closing admins to examine the arguments and sources presented there, which becomes steadily more difficult as the discussion becomes longer and longer. There are requests at Requests for Closure that have been awaiting action for over six months, and I predict that the current RFC will become another example of that if nothing is done to avoid that outcome.

If possible, I'd like the current discussion at RSN to be closed as well. The consensus in that discussion is highly relevant to the outcome of the RFC, because the source being discusses there is the source that most directly answers the question that the RFC is asking (if the source is reliable). Thus, it's important for the outcome of the RSN discussion and the outcome of the RFC to be consistent with one another.

I previously asked SilkTork to close the RFC, as he had volunteered to do so, but others felt that my having asked him made him too involved, so he eventually withdrew as closer. This seems to create a catch-22 situation: any admin who is asked directly may be considered involved, but no admin who isn't asked directly is likely to devote the time and attention required to closing the RFC properly. As you were part of the team of admins who closed the AFD, is there anything you can do to help coordinate a team close for the RFC and RSN discussion, as was requested? (This does not necessarily have to involve being part of the closing team yourself.) 2600:1004:B107:6FDF:2955:44F9:DD9A:27A0 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

2600:1004, I understand why SilkTork bowed out but think it's too bad. It is important for closers of difficult and contentious decisions to be seen as legitimate by all sides and while I am guessing that would be true for 90+% of editors I understand why Silk decided to accede to the discomfort of a minority. You are correct that going to WP:ANRFC does not necessarily help draw a closer. The fact that a panel close has been requested makes it even more difficult to have a close. Panel closes are rare for a number of reasons, including they are logistically hard to organize. I helped mediate a discussion about how to form an RfC about a dispute that is now being heard at ArbCom. Even with all that, and my relative stature in the community, I had to work hard to find two closers for that RfC. Having just done that relatively recently, and not even all that well, I don't think I'm well positioned to help find a panel of closers for the RfC. I do, however, agree that it might be helpful to close the RSN discussion in conjunction with the RfC so there is continuity of thought between the two as they are definitely related. Beyond making sure there is a pin in those discussions I don't have a lot to offer you. Sorry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I see. Here is a more modest request: would you feel up to the task of closing the RSN discussion? I don't think the RSN discussion requires a team close, as it's somewhat less complex to evaluate whether the source being discussed there is reliable. And if the answer to that question can be determined, it will make it somewhat easier for the closing admin panel to evaluate the eventual consensus in the RFC. 2600:1004:B11E:9857:E5C6:FBD7:BC2F:8101 (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I am a bit short on time at the moment but I will give a read to the RSN discussion and see if I think I could be a good closer or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Having looked at those discussions, do you think you can do anything to bring some resolution to this situation? If you think a better solution would be to request an ArbCom case, as you suggested in your comment here, that would be fine also. 2600:1004:B105:E59:893E:5FA4:4B48:5668 (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I have not read the RSN discussion yet. And I had no intention of ever closing the RfC - as I indicated at that discussion I try to be a "repeat" closer in major discussions for contentious areas. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

List of nicknamed tropical cyclones

I do NOT see why you had to delete the article List of nicknamed tropical cyclones! I worked HARD on that thing, and now it's GONE!! *sigh* 🐔Chicdat ChickenDatabase 10:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat: Sorry Barkeep, but I am replying to this. Barkeep49 deleted the page because there was a community consensus to do it. Unfortunately, hard work sometimes does get removed from WP for various reasons. I have participated in my share of AfDs/merge discussions for my own work. I ended up adding speedy deletes to over a dozen articles back in 2015 or 2016 since I realized their value was microscopic. I am course much more experienced in article creation now than I was then. I discovered the TC project and eventually began writing TC articles. The point is, you must keep trying. The project does offer guidance on what articles need to be done and I would be happy to help you. Tropical cyclones in 2018 was an experiment I tried (someone did try to delete it) that ended up having a large amount of support for its creation. Just keep going and feel free to ask others for help if you need it. NoahTalk 12:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Chicdat, what Noah said is correct (thanks Noah for the response). I know it is upsetting and I don't take deletions lightly. However, I see you saved a user copy of it which hopefully gives you something? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I did. 🐔Chicdat ChickenDatabase 09:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Why was "William Howard Hughes" deleted?

William Howard Hughes was a distinguished and decorated USAF Officer who disappeared in July of 1983. The circumstances of the case are very unusual for the following reasons:

1. He was an officer. It is very rare for officers to desert. 2. He defrauded a bank prior to his eventual departure. 3. He was listed on the "Air Force OSI's Most Wanted Fugitives" list for 35 years due to the projects and security clearances he held. 4. He was eventually caught, it was discovered that he was an Actuary working for the University of California living under an identity that he had stolen. 5. He was convicted by Courts-Martial of Desertion based upon his confession. 6. He was sentenced to prison time and a Dismissal from the Air Force (rare for an officer and the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge). 7. The story was covered globally in all major media because if the unusual aspects.

In terms of the Air Force, the crime was very unusual and there are still unanswered questions.

When compared to the criteria for notability of crime perpetrators, it fits "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." The person is living but was found guilt after a confession. His guilt was confirmed by the Appellate Courts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnerger (talk • contribs) 21:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Pnerger, thanks for your question and sorry for the slow response. It was deleted as a result of this discussion at Articles for Deletion (AfD). As an administrator at AfD my job is to evaluate the decision reached by the editors who choose to participate in this discussion. If I have an opinion about the topic rather than close the discussion I will participate instead. No one made an argument to keep in the depth you did here but many of the elements you discussed were considered at that discussion. I would encourage you to read it and come back if you have further questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Saoirse McHugh AFD

Hi Barkeep

Please can I ask you to reassess your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saoirse McHugh?

You agree that WP:NPOL does not apply. Yet 6 of the delete !votes were explicity based on NPOL, and should therefore be discounted.

Others were based on WP:BIO1E, which clearly does not apply, because she was a candidate at 3 elections (not one). The !vote by Spleodrach was explicitly based on a refusal to consider the evidence of notability, and should therefore be discounted. The !vote by Bearcat was multiply counter-factual, as well as laden with verbose tangents.

It seems to me that you did too much counting of heads, and failed to discount !votes which are unfounded in policy or evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I spent a lot of time crafting that closure anticipating that you and Bearcat would scrutinize it closely. I am certainly willing to weigh votes based on policy (see this and this for two recent very high profile AfDs where I did just that) and indeed did that as our policies and guidelines (PAG) call for when closing this AfD. I agree with you on your merits of the interpretation of NPOL. However, delete participants, as I wrote in my closing statement explicitly reject both NPOL and GNG. The delete !voters did base their rational in PAG. Perhaps not exactly how I interpret PAG but more than reasonably enough that their !votes could not be completely discounted as you suggest here. That really could be the end of my reply.
However, because I respect you a good deal let me respond to specific points you make (which I admit to doing so nervously). You ask me to discount Spleodrach but they considered your GNG argument and rejected it as well. You ask me to discount Bearcat's !vote as counter-factual. As I read it, the counter-factuals and what you write are verbose tangents came in reply to you not in their original !vote. You ask me to discount BIO1E !votes, but there are in my re-read three editors who cite that, Canterbery Tail, Bearcat, and Abishe. I believe you are suggesting that owing to our mutual interpetation of NPOL, I should toss out another 3 participants (including the nom) owing. In this situation there are still a majority of editors favoring delete. As I indicated above and in my close that is not exactly how I weighted but want to point out that even if I had weighted as you're expressing I still would have found a delete consensus - weaker than I found but still present.
I'm sorry for you as a person that the time and effort you put in towards demonstrating notability did not convince more editors but as an UNINVOLVED closer I feel I fulfilled my duty to close the discussion based on the consensus of the participants as defined in PAG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for the reply, @Barkeep49, and for your kind words. But I am not persuaded.
  • Spleodrach explicitly refused to read my evidence and arguments. That vote should be discounted.
  • Bearcat's original !vote was explicitly base on BLP1E, which is nonsense: she was a candidate at 3 elections (not just one), and the evidence I presented ahows that her notability extends beyond the debate event mentioned.
  • If you discount the !votes based wrongly on NPOL and/or BLP1E, what's left?>
Can you identify any !votes to delete which weren't based on such misrepresentations of fact or policy? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
PS I meant to say that I do appreciate the difficult job you had here. It's know from long experience not easy discounting so many !votes, because the editors concerned will inevitably object. So really do I understand your reluctance to do so ... but despite my many memories of having looked at such a discussion and thinking "I'll need heavy armour if I apply policy here", that is the closer's job, and sometimes being in the firing line as a result just goes with the job. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, thank you for the kind words. But from my perspective, despite those kind and sincere words, I am in the firing line from you. I knew I would be when I closed and because it goes with the job I closed it anyway.
If a closer were to discount !votes based wrongly on NPOL and BLP1E a you would still have editors who feel it didn't satisfy GNG, which is, as we both know, a distinct section of notability. Just as I would be mad with any closer who, based on Bearian's analysis, discounted your work at demonstrating notability, I think other editors would have a right to be mad at me for discounting their participation totally and completely. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure, that too goes with the territory. When a majority of !votes ignore policy, the closer is going to get objections whatever they do.
If we discount the !votes based wrongly on NPOL and BLP1E, we are left with objection based on assessing the evidence against GNG ... which the keep !voters didn't do. They just made vague waves.
This AFD was simply a pile-on derived from a nomination based on a mis-statement of policy and a mis-application of BLP1E, without consideration of the actual evidence. This pile-on was a classic category mistake, in which a bundle of editors basically assumed that because McHugh belongs in Category A (failed election candidates), and most Cat A articles fall into Category B (non-notable), McHugh therefore belongs in Category B. And they either didn't look any further, or sped off down bizarre wormholes.
Editors are human, so over-hasty conclusions, glibly following a lead, and unwillingness to reassess over-hasty judgements go with the territory. But the closer's job is not to just give the pack its head, however much that annoys those who misapplied policy and/or didn't look at the actual evidence.
BTW, there's an odd quirk to this. McHugh was a candidate in my Euro-constituency last year; she did not get any preference on my vote. During that election and since, I have had many amicably passionate arguments with my McHugh-supporting friends, trying to persuade them not to support her, and if I was having a drink with the other !voters and chewing over her merits, it would a very different discussion. But that's the point; this is a different discussion, about her wiki-notability rather than her substantive merits. And despite (or maybe because of) her marmite-like ability to polarise views, the evidence is that McHugh's notability has extended through two further elections, even to her being sought out for comment on the decisions of her party's parliamentary group on government formation, despite not being one of that 12-strong group. That's rare. So, far from being a BLP1E person, she has continuing notability.
Anyway, you seem to have gone as far as your are willing to go, so I'll thank you for your time and your courtesy and your conscientiousness, and prepare a DRV, at which I will introduce additional evidence to be considered. Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

NPP School

Hi Barkeep49, do you know when the next lesson will be for the NPP School you were teaching me in? — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 11:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Berrely, apologies. I neglected to finish the last round of feedback and give you the next bit. I will be doing so today. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thanks! — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 15:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Arbcom etiquette

Wrt S Marshall's "Special measures in the WP:MED topic area", I see you replied to me but below your own comment, rather than below mine. I also see that S Marshal made their comment in "other parties" but then replied to me below my comment. I have a feeling there's some rule about how we reply to each other that both of us could do with some advice on. I'm guessing we have to stay in our own little boxes, though goodness-help the arbs making sense of the flow of conversation. -- Colin°Talk 19:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Colin, each page is different. For example, when we get to the Proposal stage, you have to post in your own section even on the talk page-- no threaded discussions. At the Workshop phase, you can have threaded discussions on talk, but Parties, Arbs and Others have to comment in separate sections in the actual Workshop. So, S Marshall-- who is not a party-- has to reply in a different place than Barkeep, you or me, as we are parties. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Sandy is correct. I could have technically replied directly to you, S Marshall shouldn't be replying directly to us. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I just left a note on S Marshall's talk page ... I supposed eventually the clerks will get around to it anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
In my experience the clerks will often not try to correct these things because their attempts to enforce procedures often times riles people up. They weight the benefit of the procedures being followed versus the cost of enforcing them when deciding which way to go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You forgot to sign

... and posting continued. [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

CfD/BUNDLE Assistance

Would you mind taking a look at this CfD where 2,751 categories are up for move? I believe it falls under the same WP:BUNDLE rule as this AfD you recently closed, but I am failing to make traction. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:50 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

@Neutralhomer: CfD is not an area I have enough experience in to be closing. I am sure one of the sysops who patrols there will be able to appropriately close it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't meaning close it, but give more information regarding BUNDLE than I have. Clearly I am not that great with communicating clearly (Autism, what are ya gonna do?) and I feel that 2,751 categories bundled together in one CfD isn't a good thing. So, I was mainly looking for an admin with experience with BUNDLE. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:00 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
@Neutralhomer: Ahh. Gotcha. So in this case BUNDLE doesn't actually apply. The idea is not to delete the category merely to rename it. That's a pretty normal thing at CfD and categories frequently will have lots of sub-categories. A bundle in this case would be proposing to rename a large number of categories in one discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I thought BUNDLE covered all XfDs, not just AfDs. That was, indeed, my mistake. :) Thanks for explaining though. :D - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:36 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Good close

Thanks for your recent action at ANI re CS, TDW etc. I thought about doing pretty much the same thing myself, but thought that, given the visability it had generated, it might be better leaving it to someone with a more solid history of closing discussions where the participants are quite distant. Good call GirthSummit (blether) 21:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, thanks. I'm sure you'd have done a fine close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion please

[9]. To me, that's a duck for QuackGuru, if you'll forgive the pun; the phrasing is unmistakable. Would you agree?—S Marshall T/C 00:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall, more than enough behavioral evidence to justify an SPI in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I shall start one.—S Marshall T/C 00:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Article Request

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Jayasurya_Mayilsamy

i want to contribute this page please allow me to edit this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.51.240.147 (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Start by registering an account. Then come back and we can discuss more. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

BMI Gaming Wiki Page Deletion

Saw that the long-standing BMI Gaming was deleted recently. The main issue for the proposal appears to have been "They have no press coverage from reliable 3rd party sources"

BMI Gaming has been featured in prominent, "reliable 3rd party sources" from national/international newspapers and magazines, to radio and tv shows, a list of which (including links to some articles still online) can be found here: [1], but a short list of prominent 3rd party sources who have written about the firm includes : The Atlantic (Jan 2015), BBC News (Aug 2011), PlayMeter (Oct 2007), Inc. Magazine (Sep 2007), US News & World Report (Aug 2007), USA Today (May 2007), Internet Retailer Magazine (May 2007), RePlay Magazine (Aug 2006), CNN / Anderson Cooper Live - TV (Aug 2006), Entrepreneur (Jun 2006), MSNBC (Oct 2005), Newsweek (Jul 2005), Sun Sentinal (July 2005), El Mundo (Jan 2005), New York Times (Jan 2005), El Pais (Jan 2005), Fortune Small Business (Nov 2004), CNN Money (Nov 2004), PBS/WXEL - TV (Oct 2004), Palm Beach Post (Sep 2004).

None of these articles and interviews has anything to do with "B2B" or "paid marketing" as some bizarre editor claimed, or have anything to do with "cheap press releases", or paid "Top 100 lists" - In fact, BMI Gaming was awarded the nation's only recognized small business award : The annual "INC 500" List of the Top 500 (now 5000) fastest growing private companies in America from INC Magazine in 2007, during a presentation at the Chicago Hilton, headlined by President Bill Clinton, as well as making the "Hot 100" list of fast growing firms issued yearly by accounting firm PriceWaterhouseCooper and Entrepreneur Magazine.

This page should be restored, as the reason for the deletion was completely unfounded, flawed and unjust. Many people used it for quick, quality information about this popular, international firm online, and in these days of crisis, small business need all the help it can get.. Would you please reconsider reversing the deletion, given the evidence of prominence submitted ? Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_undeletion%2FExample&editintro=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_undeletion%2FIntro&preloadtitle=bmi+gaming&section=new&title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_undeletion&create=Request — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partfind (talk •

References

  1. ^ https://www.bmigaming.com/bmiawards.htm
@Partfind: Welcome. That AfD had a pretty firm consensus. You are bringing a lot of new sources that should be considered. I would encouarage you to go to WP:DRV to present your case. If you need help doing this let me know - I would be happy to help you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey Barkeep49... Yes, I would need some help here.. LMK, Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.125.38 (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Partfind: I have filed the DRV appeal on your behalf. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Tyler Clark Burke

Hi Barkeep49!

I was working on the page for Tyler Clark Burke (before the plague hit), and I thought I would check-in (I also just figured out how to access your talk page, haha). I made several changes to the page for Tyler Clark Burke (based on your and Girth Summit's comments), and wanted to see if my edits made sense. Hope you are staying healthy! Thank you for your time and attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minedramamine (talk • contribs) 23:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Minedramamine, I apologize but I don't have time at the moment to look at your new draft. But perhaps Girth Summit does. Else you could always resubmit it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Minedramamine, gosh, was that only February? Feels like it was years ago! I can take a look, maybe at the weekend. Remind me on my talk if I forget. GirthSummit (blether) 05:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! TGIF (but does Friday even exist anymore)? Minedramamine (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minedramamine (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

crep protect

is it possible to have a draft of the former article ?Grmike (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike

Grmike, I have put a copy at User:Grmike/Crep Protect. Please do not attempt to return it to an article without following appropriate procedures (e.g. going to WP:DRV). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
many thanks Grmike (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
  • England Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
  • Botswana The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
  • Somerset Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
  • England Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Gondor Hog Farm with 801, Venezuela Kingsif with 719, Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce with 710, United States Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and Mexico MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Workshop

Regarding this edit: instead of "the sides I'm referring to are compromised of multiple editors each", perhaps you meant to say "the sides I'm referring to comprise multiple editors each"? isaacl (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, thanks. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Workshop format

… is a nightmare! When reading diffs, how do you figure out where to respond, when all the sections have similar names. I read a diff, want to respond, but then have to go re-read the entire page to figure out where, because the section headings don't tell me where, since they are all the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, yeah I hear you. I frequently go to workshop once a day and just search by date rather than going by diffs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I can see that I am going to have find a technique for responding … complicated by I just responded to one thread that you had split between the time you posted it and I responded. Once a day, re-read the entire page, seems like a good approach. It really is awkward that every diff points to a similarly worded section. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

BK, a procedural question in your discussion here with Colin: is it OK to introduce new diffs at the Workshop phase, if those diffs weren't in the Evidence phase? That is, in attempting to clarify something, can new evidence/diffs be added? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, kind of. Because ArbCom is not a judicial proceeding the Arbs can consider whatever they wish. If evidence is introduced that shows a FoF or proposed FoF is wrong Arbs can and normally will consider that even if the evidence was not in the evidence phase. What's less likely to happen, though can because again it's not a judicial proceeding, is for evidence outside the evidence phase to be formally cited in the decision. Ultimately ArbCom can do what it wants. Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Yep, thanks so much. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Bad Move

Bad move deleting the page I created, it is now my mission in life to destroy you. Watch your back dickhead. Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Given the length of your tenure here, I'm a little surprised to see such threats coming from you Zdawg1029, but I can understand how upsetting it is to have an article you work on deleted. I'm sorry you've had this experience. It is my job as an uninvolved closer to reflect the consensus of the discussion and I believe I have done just that. If you think I evaluated consensus incorrectly you can ask for a review at WP:DRV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Bijoy Kumar Saha

This article (draft) is ready. Please publish it. Thanks. প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC) প্রসেনজিৎ পাল

@প্রসেনজিৎ পাল and প্রসেনজিৎ পাল: I have submitted it for review for you. One issue: you have references next to the section names. References should go next to sentences. You did it right in the lead (introduction). Do that for the rest. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ishaat

Hi Barkeep49, would it be possible for you to review/patrol Ishaat Hussain, an article I created about the Tata Group executive (which, admittedly, should have been created a while ago). I'm only flagging this up as from the logs I see it was deleted in 2016 for copyvio and then, curiously, for "no significance". I have no way of seeing how those articles looked (perhaps you do?). In any case, I've included the best possible references, and a quick web search would establish the notability of the subject. Sorry for the bother, but your review would give me a confirmation that it wasn't a step in the wrong direction...thanks! BahrdozsBulafka (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

BahrdozsBulafka, I try to not do NPP on request because I don't want people to think there I marked it reviewed for any reasons except I found that it met policies. I'm sure some other reviewer will get to it eventually - NPP is really backed up at the moment so it might not be soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
No worries, I wouldn't have brought it up but except for the dubious logs..but thanks! BahrdozsBulafka (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Desai Sethi School for Entrepreneurship - Request to undelete

Hello Barkeep49,

This is about the page of 'Desai Sethi School for Entrepreneurship' that was deleted. It is a unique school in India, located in a university (IIT Bombay) that is consistently ranked among the top three in India. The institute is publicly funded. The headship of the School is by rotation.

In the last five years, the School has gained considerable popularity among students of the institute as well as public at large. Over 2500 students graduate every year from the Institute, 1600 have taken the courses of the School, and another 500 students and teachers of other institutes have participated in its workshops, etc. More than 25 startups created by the students of the School have gained popular attention and have been mentioned in newspapers, TV channels and social media many times.

Given the above, the page satisfies the notability criteria. It also conforms to other general principles of Wikipedia. It is based on publicly available and verifiable content, written in a neutral way, and free for reuse by anyone else. No company, product or person is being promoted.

There are similar pages in Wikipedia: Milwaukee School of Entrepreneurship, Branson School of Entrepreneurship, Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship and Ryerson University Entrepreneurship Program.

In case any content within the proposed page needs to be modified or removed, we are open to suggestions. Look forward to the page being undeleted. Thank you.

--BR (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Bhallamudi.ravi

@Bhallamudi.ravi: I can tell you are passionate about this topic. Unfortunately the article was deleted for it's promotional tone. That tone is also similar to your request here. I would suggest reading WP:FIRST and attempt to create the article again using neutral language. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Transall AfD

Can you please explain why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transall as Keep rather than relisting it or closing as No Consensus. There were 4 Keeps and 3 Delete/Redirects and so I'm not sure how saw that there was a consensus to Keep the page in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion process. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Mztourist, there were no people beyond you who supported deletion. Everyone else was a keep or a merge. As merging can be done outside of AfD I saw no consensus for anything but keep. And there was enough participation for a relist to be unnecessary in my view. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The reason why it went to AFD was because of the discussion on the Talk Page: Talk:Transall#Should workshare and final assembly activities by the company be mentioned?. The page was 1357 bytes until March when a whole lot of duplicative information was copied over from the Transall C-160. The Keeps were those who added that information in. I believe there is nothing to merge because all the relevant information is already on Transall C-160, but please advise how a merge can be done outside of AFD in these circumstances. Mztourist (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Mztourist, the way to do it is through a formal merge discussion. If you propose that - and based on what you've written I think you should - you could ping all participants at the AfD to the discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks but in my experience such discussions rarely achieve consensus when one or two Users oppose them and so they just linger unresolved, whereas an AFD tends to attract more attention from uninvolved Users and a clear consensus. Mztourist (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Mztourist, I certainly agree AfD is a forum that can gain consensus for things that can be hard to get consensus through other processes. In this case I don't see the discussion at AfD having achieved that for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Which is why I questioned why you closed it as Keep when a Relisting may have generated a clear consensus or led to a No Consensus closure. Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Mztourist, I think there was enough participation, not only in number of participants but in number of comments (not the least of which were by you) to have generated a consensus so no relist was necessary. And I will further say that in an AfD full of Keep and Merge !votes I know of no regular AfD closer who would close as no consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how my Delete, 2 Merges and 4 Keeps is a clear consensus to Keep and in my recent experience on AFD other AFD closers would relist to try to generate a clearer consensus. Anyway I will leave this here and relist it at AFD in due course. regards Mztourist (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

NPP tutoring

If you have any spare capacity for this, would you consider overseeing me through it? I have been around a long time, under several names, and in the days when anyone could review new pages did quite a lot, but not for some time (years). I think I know quite a lot of the necessary stuff by now, but would certainly appreciate a structured overhaul. I do already hang around New Pages, with a view to brushing up potentially acceptable articles rather than picking out the unacceptable. Please let me know! Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ingratis, I think one of the best places we can find new editors is from those who've edited in the past and stopped. I don't see anything that would concern me about taking you on as a NPP student. Two notes. First, while I have capacity at the moment sometimes I get busy/distracted elsewhere and might need a little bit of time to respond but on the whole I try to be very responsive for NPP students. Second, following the conclusion of the Medicine Arbcom case I am going to be taking some time to "go back to my roots" and anticipate taking two or three weeks where I would not be doing NPP School. The case is currently on track to end mid to end of May and so we'd have to pause our work at that time (if you and I are both super on this it normally takes 3/4 weeks but if either of us is a bit slower it can go longer than that). Assuming you're ok with all this I'll setup a space for us to work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
That's great - I understand the points you make about timing and am happy to fit round the other things you have going on. Thank you very much! Ingratis (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Ingratis, great. I have setup a space for us to work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Nominating others for adminship

Hello Barkeep49,
I am thinking about nominating someone for adminship, but I'm not sure whom. Can you give me some tips on what I should look for in a candidate for an RFA? Interstellarity (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, well I've only done this twice and we don't know how the second time is going to turn out. I would suggest there are others with far more nominating experience than me who could offer you better advice. I will say on the whole I have mixed feelings about noms but to the extent that they're useful normally it's a recommendation from a sysop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Interstellarity I've seen you ask this before, elsewhere but I would advise you to refrain from entangling yourself with RFA short of a simple vote, given your tenuous history here, a nomination from you would likely hurt a candidates chances rather than help them. Praxidicae (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: I must echo the comments above - and will add - this comment will kill, stone dead, any RfA you start. The only possible way to read your message is that you're trying to promote your own interests using a poor and possibly unsuspecting victim. And as most of the project thinks you're an idiot, that's probably going to have a pretty catastrophic impact on your nominee too, which isn't fair on them. Oh well. Nick (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I will refrain from nominating anyone at this point. I'm not sure if most of the project thinks I'm an idiot as I am trying my best to be constructive here in the best ways possible. I can say with absolute certainty that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. I feel it is important to really learn from my mistakes and that's what I've been trying to do. I hope this helps. Interstellarity (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Nick I think there are ways of plainly speaking difficult truths while being respectful. The bad faith of The only possible way to read your message is that you're trying to promote your own interests using a poor and possibly unsuspecting victim. could maybe be defended this way. I do not think as most of the project thinks you're an idiot has a place in the way we talk to one another. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
(watching) I'm almost tempted to take up Interstellarity's offer. It would certainly be an educational experience; possibly for both of us ;) SERIAL# 21:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
as most of the project thinks you're an idiot wow, from an admin? WP:ADMINCOND anyone? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
It was unduly harsh, and to Interstellarity I do apologise. I should have been more careful in how I worded my fear that a number of people have concerns about Interstellarity's past editing conduct, and that those concerns may potentially lead to an unfair assessment of any candidate that they propose at RfA. I really would not wish to see an excellent administrator candidate being unfairly penalised because of their nominator, given how important the nominator(s) now are. It is nothing personal with regards to Interstellarity and I apologise for making it so. Nick (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Nick: It's OK. I accept your apology. That comment made me feel bad about my editing. I saw that a lot of people have concerns about my past editing conduct. Please tell me what they are so I can make things right. Interstellarity (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Interstellarity The issues that I see (and which some others have raised) would be a series of small things like swapping out the oversight logo, making changes to the Wikipedia FAQ, moving past RfAs around etc, minor confusion regarding what is a policy or guideline and so on. These are small issues, on their own, nothing really to worry about, but taken together, they're best described as 'running before walking'. I know all were made in good faith, and were well intentioned attempts to improve the project, save others on work etc, but they've typically ended up as minor inconveniences which someone else has to fix, finish off or revert. These issues, in turn, risk leading people to conclude you're not fully up to speed on the administrative aspects of the project, so aren't best placed to assess potential candidates fully, which may not be the case and could potentially then be unfair on whoever you were to nominate. Nick (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Nick: I understand these issues. I think the best thing I can do in the future is talk to someone before implementing these kinds of major changes. That way, I am not causing disruption that needs to be reverted. I feel that is the best way to make things right from here. Interstellarity (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Interstellarity, I'm glad to see you take that advice. While we might be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, some edits are best left for others. And that includes me as a sysop - I have places where I am too new of a sysop to be the right person to do something and have to trust in others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comments like this: as most of the project thinks you're an idiot, if someone want to do some muck-raking, even only four or five, are enough to get even the most prolific and experienced admins witch hunted, railroaded, desysopped, ostracised, and hung, drawn, and quartered in today's climate... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Reclose

Hi Barkeep49 — I noticed you reclosed the ANI thread. It makes sense that undoing the damage from the mass rollbacks isn't within the remit of the forum and that the discussion was moving toward off-topic content matters, but I don't feel that all the conduct aspects have been fully resolved. The direction the discussion seemed to be going in was (A) a bit of a boomerang for the filer for leaving out vital context, and (B) an explicit acknowledgement that the initial close was premature and reflected a consensus that would not likely have formed had the participants been properly informed, and that the two actions taken as part of the close should thus be undone as fruit of the poisoned tree. I don't care much about the boomerang part since I don't hold any malice toward the participants (although I do think it's important to send a message that filing misleading ANI reports won't allow one to get their way), but the current state of things seems like it would have the effect of making the initial uninformed close unduly "sticky":

  • I'm left with a large portion of all the template edits I've ever made (reflecting dozens of hours of work) undone, and only a small fraction of those have been restored so far. I have no explicit permission to undo the rollbacks unrelated to the wrapperfications, so to avoid edit warring I would have to go through hundreds of talk pages and dozens of deleted page restorations. JzG's brief reply on his talk page has not put me at ease that he understands the scale of the damage from his rollback and will be willing to clean up the mess.
  • The initial close remains in the sidebox, giving the impression to anyone skimming the thread that I erred grievously and got my template rights yanked for it, rather than what I would consider a fairer assessment supported by the informed second half of the discussion (from L235 and others) that I acted slightly too boldly in a way that could have easily been resolved through normal discussion, but that the actions of others blew the situation massively out of proportion.
  • I'm left without the template editor toolset, which I don't think would have been hastily revoked had a misleading report not been filed, and which I still feel prepared to make responsible use of (I'll certainly be even more cautious going forward).

Would you be willing to adjust your close to make it clearer what happened in the course of the discussion, and to overturn the actions taken due to the initial uninformed close? This whole ordeal has been incredibly taxing (to the extent that it's giving me thoughts of wikibreak/retirement that I've never had before), and I hope it will be possible to bring it to a resolution as non-disruptive as possible. Thanks for your attention to this. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, you raise some fair points and I will reverse my close. However, if you think further discussion is going to achieve all of what you hope for I think you're setup for disappointment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. My hope is that a status quo outcome is reasonable to expect for a matter that should not have been brought to ANI in the first place, but I guess we'll see. I'm not sure what the proper linking protocol is, but it would be helpful if the next closer could read this conversation to take into consideration as they make their close. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Bigbasket

Hi Barkeep49 My page Bigbasket was deleted reason Unambiguous advertising or promotion, I have created the page only based on the news which I read, as per the advice of the advertising team of Wikipedia I had removed the promotional content from the page still the page was deleted. if the promotional content is removed will it be possible to refund the page. Thanks, Glittershield (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Glittershield, what's your connection to Bigbasket? What advertising team? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Barkeep I have no connection with the company, I have interest in reading news and as I stay in India and have used their online service to order groceries and have read about this company in the news, so thought to write about them.Glittershield (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Glittershield, thanks that's helpful. Can you also explain what you mean by "advertising team of Wikipedia"? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks once again for replying, yesterday when I contested for speedy deletion of the page I got a message for Advertisement not sure about the user name as I did not find one in the message, it was mentioned that the page has phrasing issue and that the sentence like in one day and help is considered as promotional, so that is when I removed those sentences and edited help with the word assist.Glittershield (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Glittershield,I have restored the article at Draft:Bigbasket. Going through Articles for Creation will help ensure the promotional language has been removed before it is put back in mainspace. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Barkeep for restoring the page, I will go through Articles for creation, it is really confusing for me to understand what is the promotional language. Just seeking advice is there any way that someone could help me in identifying the promotional content on the page. Thank youGlittershield (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep, this is regarding my page Bigbasket which was moved to my draft, just seeking help I have removed the promotional content of the page and have formatted the page if time permits could you please check my page and assist me if it could be moved to the MainPage. Thanks in advance, regardsGlittershield (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Glittershield,there is a big blue button that says "submit this draft for review". Click that and then click publish on the next screen. That will alert reviewers that you think it's ready. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order and a review can happen very quickly or only after several weeks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

question

hello, Im writing because the 'workshop' phase for Arbcom has finished, however multiple editors are continuing on its talk page, I don't feel comfortable engaging these individuals since the case in now waiting decision, what do I do? [10]they are pinging me?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, well you have several options. The first is to just say nothing. Just because someone pings you does not mean you have an obligation to respond - there is no form of WP:ADMINACCT in play with you in this situation. A second option, and the one I would encourage you to consider, is making a statement there saying something like you said here ("I see I've been pinged but I don't intend to respond as I would like to wait to see what ArbCom says"). Or obviously you could decide to reconsider and reply (not pressuring you just noting it as an option). Hope that helps. Let me know if you have further questions or would like to talk this out further. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

CSD

Since you are on I might as well tell you, this draft Draft:Benjamin Cannon seems like a test page could you delete it? Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 17:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The4lines, done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 18:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding preemptive archiving

Hello,

I recently had several of my edits reverted by a rollbacker who claimed using the Internet Archive bot to preemptively archive and tag links was prohibited, however that appears to directly contradict the guidance provided in Wikipedia:Link_rot, which clearly encourages the practice. I was wondering if you could provide any clarification on this.

- Thanks

@XPEric: what is the article? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: There were several, one of which is Bletchley Park. Thanks, XPEric (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the article link XPEric. Have you discussed it with Dr.K somewhere? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I was going to post a new thread on his Talk page, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing obvious before I did that. XPEric (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
XPEric, I am not aware of anything obvious you're missing. I'd go for the discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Barkeep. I just saw this discussion. The IABot tool is not to be used to store live links because the practice creates undue bloat in the article text. This user was rapidly archiving live links in multiple articles, which is not the way to increase your edit count on this wiki. Dr. K. 02:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Dr.K., do you have a link that says more about that? This is new information for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Dr.K. The Wikipedia:Link rot guidance explicitly states that active links should be given an "|archive-url=", along with a "|url-status=live". It also mentions to "Run WP:IABOT on pages via its user interface." XPEric (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
This is from my experience using the tool and seeing other users reverting storage of live links in articles. As far as I know, storage of live links by the IABot is frowned upon. But, if you don't believe me, I think you should ask at WP:VP Technical for clarification. Dr. K. 02:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Dr.K., my experience has been to use it in the ways that seem (at least tacitly if not fully) endorsed by WP:LR. A Village Pump discussion seems like an appropriate place to gather further opinions and insights. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep, I think that archiving live links en mass in articles with many references will create chaos. But I agree with you on asking at VP. Dr. K. 02:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Dr.K., that seems off to me -- I archive live links all the time (mostly when cleaning bare urls). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
We are talking about use of the IABot, indiscriminately archiving fully formed live links en masse. Let's ask at VP as I previously said. And no pings please. Dr. K. 02:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"broken" collapsing

No, I think that was actually correct before you tried to fix it. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, why do you say that? the documentation template was even showing that it was wrong. It was collapsing everything after it. Plus the edit notice said that was supposed to be there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
When I looked at it the version before you added it, I only saw four comments within the ctop and cbot templates, with two other comments after it. Are you seeing different results?SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
SarekOfVulcan,are you talking about the ANI thread? If so it's entirely possible I got it wrong - the template itself was broken. If you're talking about the template itself I am pretty sure I got it right. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah. Yes, didn't realize you had made multiple edits - I was referring to the template you added and then removed on ANI.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

George_Fludyer,_MP

Hi Barkeep49, pls help me to understand - why is George_Fludyer,_MP not a G1 Candidate!? It is obviously nonsense... no refs, no cits, completely confused, virtually without content!? What have I overseen!? CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, thanks for writing. I considered actually leaving feedback on this directly so I'm glad you asked. G1 is only for incoherent text or gibberish. It does not cover poor writing,. (emphasis added) What's is clearly English. The sentences are run-ons but it is English. Thus it is not eligible for G1 deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I see, Thank you - thanks for clarifying.CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Request to undelete article: Kult Awards

This article describes something like the Academy Awards. The article, as it was when deleted, contain a brief descriptive paragraph with the first sentence (promotional in nature) that has been copied from a news site. The rest of the article contained tables with award-recipient lists for every year (ideally). As a new-ish editor I find the speedy deletion to harsh as the only the first sentence appear promotional. Even if the whole paragraph was promotial, that doesn't justify (IMHO) the deletion of the tables which took arguably more effort than the whole first paragraph.

I am willing to work on it and use it as a learning experience if you give me back something to work with.Flamur Kasa (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Flamur Kasa,
Tables are difficult. I would recommend using the visual editor to make them. I'm an experienced editor and that's how I make tables. I'm happy to restore the table to your userspace. However, I have to warn you that these awards may not be notable and so could face deletion (though perhaps not speedy deletion) in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Could you please restore the whole article as it was before getting deleted?
As for notable, these are nationwide (Albania) awards with renown artists as a jury. Tons of newspaper cover the ceremony and results and it is shown on TV. What would make them not notable? Flamur Kasa (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Flamur Kasa, the article needed to be fundamentally rewritten to avoid being promotional (which is what G11 says). G11 applies to things in draft or userspace as well so I would suggest rewriting in a neutral manner. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I want to reword the article to a neutral point of view, that is why I want access to it. Put it in a Sandbox or any place else or send it to me in Discord. Over 90% of that article is salvageable so starting from scratch is counterproductive and a waste of time I want to avoid. Flamur Kasa (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Flamur Kasa, WP:G11 deletions are not normally available for refund because they would require a complete rewrite of content to meet our policies. This is the case for Kult Awards (outside of the table). Go back to reliable independent secondary sources and paraphrase what they have to say. That will put your article on better footing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying and it makes sense for English language topics. This article however was translated, including the two tables. Over 90% of the article is usable as noted before(WP:BATHWATER), that is why I ask access to it in any (permitted way) way instead of starting the translation and editing from scratch. Your questioning of the notability of the subject shows your unfamiliarity with the subject and I can understand that as you can probably not read the sources either (WP:LACK). I would ask to be given a chance to work on that article WP:AQU and extend my contributions to the English Wikipedia. I hope to prove the notability of this subject (by greatly extending the number of sources) to your satisfaction. I expected to be motivated by notes where I can improve my work as suggested here as opposed to the complete (speedy) removal of the whole article for the promotional wording of one sentence (the first one). Flamur Kasa (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Flamur Kasa, I understand you're upset. Deletion is upsetting. If there had only been one promotional sentence I would not have deleted the article. Over 90% of the article was not usable. You are correct I am not familiar with the topic - evaluating whether something can be deleted as G11 is different than what I would do if I were examining it for notability. I believe I have acted in accordance with our policies and guidelines (the links above all point to Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion which is an important and well-written essay but not actually policy or a guideline). I, in the spirit of ignore all rules restored the table (and there was only 1 table, I just went back to re-check) despite the fact that we don't normally restore G11 deletions. I look forward to reading your revised article on this topic - I hope you write it as we do need non-English language article coverage. But as a content creator myself, as a new page patroller, and as an administrator the previous version was not it. I want to support you as an editor here - truly which is why I pointed out using visual editor for making tables - but need to follow policies and guidelines while doing it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Disappointed, not upset. I respect your decision as senior member here, I have nothing against you - I just find the rule itself counterproductive in this case. I would love to know why the article (besides the first sentence) is not 90% usable and acceptable, that why I asked to get a copy of it - to analyse and learn from my mistakes where present so that I can create better quality articles going forward. I didn't keep a copy of the article - I didn't suspect the article being deleted as I know from the various tags that I have seen that users and articles are given a chance and lead towards improvement. I learned my lesson and will now always keep a copy especially when it involves jargon that is foreign to me and takes considerably more time to translate and adapt. Please let me know if there is any way for me (email, Discord,...) to get a copy of the article (in wikicode) as it was before deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamur Kasa (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Flamur Kasa, it was words/phrases like best, most widely inclusive, and famous in that version which made it SPAM. If as you work on the draft you have questions about what you've written - and whether or not it would be promotional - feel free to ask me. I have watchlisted the draft and if I see writing that could be a problem I will also let you know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

AN comments

While your comments are appreciated, I think you would have been within your rights to simply implement a block+standard offer with the additional advanced permission restriction, as I think that the need for closure outweighs the need to find a perfect consensus, and the position you've staked out is pretty close to the discussion's middle ground. signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I was proposing something a little more subtle. If after X time there is no consensus about a SO appeal, I was proposing that it would default to accept rather than default to decline. If there was consensus at that time against the SO it would be declined and if there was consensus for it would be accepted. But my proposal is in the case of no consensus that it would default to accepted + 1 year of permission restrictions. If I had closed as "No consensus now but can SO appeal in the future" that just sets us up to repeat this conversation which I don't think is helpful and I don't think there is consensus for a SO acceptance now (not the least of which opposition comes from you). And I think any attempt for me to do that in the close would have been a supervote. Hence my decision to comment rather than close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah I see. I personally don't have any problems with that proposal assuming that the SO is actually followed, and my impression was that other editors opposed to the unblock were open to considering SO, but I do see that you're proposing something more complicated now. signed, Rosguill talk 22:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 left sidebar update RfC

Sorry I skipped the closing message because it was on my radar a few days ago when someone mentioned in Signpost comment that sections should be closed and I was going to only close the sections that are WP:SNOWing. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

OhanaUnited, makes sense. I had spent about three hours working on the close this afternoon (including two complete reads of the discussion) and was rather surprised when checking in on my watchlist (and after having finally thought to put a closing banner) that some of the sections would be closed. However, I had posted on the talk page my intention to close it to invite others to join me so I really would welcome you joining us. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

William S. Farish IV

Greetings. Could you please restore this subject and move to draft space? I'd like to see what was there and if anything should be done with it. There appear to be articles 9n his son, grandson, and horse farm so merging and or redirecting are options. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, as I recall I ended up spending a fair amount of time filtering through the various Farish's to determine that the IV was A7able unlike family members mentioned there. Restored to Draft:William S. Farish IV. Good luck with it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Thabks. Unsourced and I didn't see anything useful or interesting so I redirected to personal life section of his dad where he's mentioned. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
FloridaArmy, makes sense. Are you OK with me redeleting rather than letting it linger in Draft space? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I left the draft under the redirect. Seems possible could become notable in the future. I don't see a need to delwte or salt unless someone tries to restore without new sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
@Utopes: I saw. Sundays tend to be a slow day for me wikiwise and so I might not get to it today. Will get to it promptly though. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The Gradient is the Steepest Direction Deletion

Hi Barkeep49, Sorry am I even doing the right thing to talk to you. I made my first new page about a topic that I am quite excited about. I could not figure out how to save it without posting it, so sorry I kept posting it. Then without warning my work disappeared. I dont even know how to retrieve a copy of what I did for myself. It seems to be gone. I worked hard on it. I cant say this is that encouraging to help people post things. I am a professor of math and computer science. I find that math on wikipedia is not that accessible to non-math people. (I rewrote the page proving orbits are elliptical.) In this case, I do not think that it is clear what it means that the direction of steepest ascent is the gradient. Even if you understand it, I dont think it is clear that it is true. I know that my undergrad and graduate students even in machine learning dont really get it. I was only trying to help. Are you judge and jury or can I appeal? Hopefully, I can figure out how to follow this thread. If not I am at jeff@cse.yorku.ca http://www.eecs.yorku.ca/~jeff Thanks Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffAEdmonds (talk • contribs) 22:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

JeffAEdmonds, hi there. I admit I struggled with this one quite a bit and understand why you're feeling discouraged. So there are two issues. The first is whether this is a duplicate of the topic at Gradient descent. The second is whether this content is ready for mainspace. I'm not enough of a subject matter expert on that first question to know. It seems like from your description it might be. The second is that it appeared to be written more like a textbook than an encyclopedia article. I could use this textbook approach but it's not necessarily our "house style". However, given your request I have restored the article to Draft:The Gradient is the Steepest Direction to give you a place you can keep working on it. I would urge you to see help, however, before moving it back to article space. Let me know if there are other questions I might be able to answer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
(simultaneous posting, sorry!) JeffAEdmonds, if you'd read your talk page, you'd see that I created your sandbox for you and saved your work (at 11:49 pacific) there: User:JeffAEdmonds/Sandbox. You can continue your work, but you're duplicating an existing article (Gradient descent). You might want to discuss your ideas for improving the article with other editors at Talk:Gradient descent. Schazjmd (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd, just a note that you did a copy and paste move which is discouraged because it obscures edit history. I have now done the histmerge (hopefully correctly) to fix this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up after me, Barkeep49, sorry about that. Schazjmd (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work of talking to the other editors. Thanks for showing me where to find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffAEdmonds (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. I find myself thinking about what you explained to me. "The second is that it appeared to be written more like a textbook than an encyclopedia article. I could use this textbook approach but it's not necessarily our "house style"." This explains why I am frustrated by so many of the wiki-math pages when they seem to list facts without explaining them to me. Why is this your "house style"? I learned to sign today. Lets see if it works. JeffAEdmonds (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

JeffAEdmonds, it did work. As someone who never ventured beyond calc I also am incredibly frustrated by many of Wikipedia's math pages. In terms of what a well written math page on Wikipedia should look like you could see our featured articles which were, at the time they passed at least, high quality representations of Wikipedia writing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Growth team newsletter #13

Welcome to the thirteenth newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

Join the conversation: structured tasks

Sketch of an idea for a structured workflow for adding links to an article. The goal is to help newcomers edit at high volume.

We are looking for community input on a new project to make it easy for newcomers to make real article edits.

In our previous newsletter, we talked about the productive edits coming from the newcomer tasks feature. Those good results have continued: about 900 newcomers made over 5,000 suggested edits so far. We've learned that newcomers are interested in receiving suggested edits.

Now, we are thinking about how to supply them a feed of easy edits that will help more of them be successful quickly. We have a new idea called "structured tasks". This would aim to break down edits into steps that are easy for newcomers and easy on mobile devices.

In the past, certain kinds of editing tasks have been structured. For instance, adding categories through HotCat. Now, we are thinking about how to structure the editing of articles. The goal is to allow newcomers can make large content additions, especially from their mobile devices.

Please visit the project page and respond to the discussion questions listed on the talk page. You are welcome to show this project to others in your community. You can help by translating the materials to your language so that more voices can join in. We will be having this conversation until June 18.

Expanding to more wikis

We have expanded to six new wikis, and are looking for more interested communities.

In the last two months, we deployed Growth features to six new wikis: Ukrainian, Serbian, Hungarian, Armenian, and Basque Wikipedias, and French Wiktionary. Newcomers from these wikis have already contributed over 600 edits through Growth features.

We want to expand to more wikis in the coming months, and we are looking for interested communities. French Wikipedia already agreed and will be the next one to join the experiment. We will contact several other wikis in the coming weeks to offer them to participate.

Do you think the Growth Team features would be a good addition to your wiki? Please see this translatable summary of Growth features. You can share with your communities and start a discussion. Then, please contact us to begin the process!

Other updates

39 topics are now available for newcomer tasks

Work continues on improving newcomer tasks and the homepage.

  • In March, we deployed an upgrade to the topic matching in newcomer tasks. The current version offers 39 different topics using new ORES models.
  • In April, we completed an A/B test of two homepage configurations. We learned that more newcomers will attempt suggested edits if the module is made more prominent. We are implementing those learnings in our next test. See the full results here.
  • We are currently working on guidance for newcomer tasks. It will use the help panel to guide newcomers through completing easy edits.
  • Our next step is to create new configurations of the homepage. The goal is to encourage more newcomers to begin doing suggested edits.

As usual, we are still welcoming your feedback and questions about our features. Please contact us on the project talk page!

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

14:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sysop unblocking?

Hello Barkeep - saw your user description and wondered if you could help correct an admin error report on me. I have this block record - the one by admin Yamaguchi先生 mistaking me for a school IP, and was immediately reverted. But my block record here shows a block length 1027 days in error. I did go through the back-office code admins who had no immediate remedy and considered it low-priority, and came up empty. Is there a way to clear this? Thanks for any guidance. Following here, with thanks. Zefr (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Zefr, unfortunately there's no good way to remove erranous blocks from the log and none in the powers of a sysop (have to go above us to make that happen). They just linger there. Many a good sysop has an accidental block on their record. Sorry that happened to you. Wish I could have been more help. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the quick reply. Zefr (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Renaissance Workshop Company

At the end, everything about the Renaissance Workshop Company has been removed in favour of the Early Music Shop in Saltaire. As usual.

Fortunately, the truth will keep being the truth independently what is stated in the wikipedia.

Kind regards 81.34.79.85 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Edon Molla

Hi Barkeep, Hope all is well!

Just wanted to check why the Edon Molla Wikipedia page got deleted? It is pretty important for Edon's Music career that the venues Edon performs have a place to quickly receive his Bio & background information. This has also been very helpful for his conversations with the Media, providing a quick Wikipedia link allows reporters to get important detail for their reports and articles. Hope you can assist. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Admir.molla (talk • contribs) 16:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Admir.molla, hi there. I closed an Articles for Deletion discussion on Molla - you can see that here where the consensus was to delete. You can read that discussion to see what was discussed at that time. I would be happy to answer follow-up questions you might have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I read through the discussion board, and no one had any valid points... Just a few people (from the same location, possibly even the same exact person, with separate Ip addresses based on the timing of the messages. May 10-13th... All UTC) "per all criteria in nom. Being friends with a notable singer does not make him notable" one even states knowing that Edon Molla is a "notable singer" does not make him a "notable singer" literally contradicting himself. Others stating "Vanity Page" where there are articles proving he played division 1 Basketball, and played for an Olympic Basketball team. None of which have any real reason to delete a Wikipedia page that is over 6 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Admir.molla (talk • contribs) 20:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Admir.molla: I have a couple thoughts but before we go farther could you tell me what your connection is to Edon Molla? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep, Sure thing I am Edon Molla's Manager / Agent. I help him with his PR and manage his bookings for shows & tour dates. Happy to answer any questions you may have. For more information about Edon head over to Www.thisisedon.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.33.194 (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Admir.molla: that makes sense. Our guidelines say that you need to disclose that connection. There are instructions at that link or if you prefer I could do it for you. Once that's been done I can tell you about how to file an appeal of this deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Barkeep49/Archives, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, Barkeep49/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Miss Lorraine

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Miss Lorraine. 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. - IZ041 (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Need Clarification on Comment in History of Aisha Ayensu

Hello Barkeep49 I was going through the history page for Aisha Ayensu and I realised initially you moved this page to draft with the comment that it was created and reviewed by a UPE. I was wondering what made you think I am a UPE because I haven't received payment for any of the articles I have ever written on Wikipedia. I haven't even met most of the people I write about in person.Celestinesucess (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Celestinesucess, thanks for your question. Since it happened six months ago I don't recall. However in looking at the history it's clear I made a mistake which is no doubt why 12 minutes after moving it to draft I moved it back to mainspace. Sorry for any concern or confusion I caused you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh okay. Barkeep49 thank you for the clarification. Regards. Celestinesucess (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Article "Theodoros Veniamis"

Hello would you like to inform me about the reason you removed the speedy deletion tag on this article?Thanks! Gnslps (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Gnslps, helming the "Greek Union of Shipowners" which is enough of an organization for Lloyds to comment on it was enough of a credible claim of significance for me to decline the A7. Let me know if you have further questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49 It's a one line stub article but never mind, if I will be willing, I may nominate it for deletion! I have one more irrelevant question, an article that is older than 90 days gets automatically reviewed or something like this? Because, I made an article more than 100 days ago and it is still no indexed. Thanks! Gnslps (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't write one line stubs but they can be notable and thus worthy of preservation. Wikipedia is a strange place at times. What is your article that hasn't been indexed? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It's Xanthi Carnival. I'm not saying that something is wrong, I'm just trying to figure out how wikipedia is working!Thanks for your time though. Gnslps (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Gnslps, when I searched for Xanthi Carnival I found it in both the knowledge panel and results (and also the russian wikipedia version). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering what's happening with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2020 left sidebar update, which you marked close in progress a fortnight ago. Is there any progress being made? — Bilorv (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv, fair question. I am working with DannyS712 on the close and obviously this collaboration adds a little delay while also hopefully improving the quality of the close. We're getting very near being ready to post. Thanks for your patience. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, good to know. Thanks for the answer and for your work on the closure so far. — Bilorv (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Bilorv, and it is now closed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks! — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 06:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
  • CFCF is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and similar conduct in the future.
  • Doc James is prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace.
  • QuackGuru is indefinitely topic-banned from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

A cup of coffee for you!

I'm sorry to interrupt in your mass RfC closing spree, but would you like something to keep you up? After 3 weeks, it finally happens, {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 02:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Can I Log In: it was obviously complex which took a fair amount of time to adequately go through and do and then to make sure that Danny and I were aligned in our reading of consensus. Thanks for the coffee though! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for working so hard on the RfC close DannyS712 (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712: I appreciate your help all around especially in the matters of organization. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi Barkeep49! Please see my last move. Talk page is not moved and I am clueless at the moment. Please fix the move. ~SS49~ {talk} 03:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

SS49, you should have been prompted about the error at which point you can round robin it. I use User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap. Fixed in any case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much. ~SS49~ {talk} 08:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Maddux (statistic) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maddux (statistic) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maddux (statistic) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

NPP training

Hi Barkeep, I was recently granted the NPR rights temporarily for two months and have done some reviews but to gain more experience and knowledge I'd like to enroll in WP:NPPS and saw you had two vacancies at the moment so I'd like to take it up with you, I asked Insertcleverphrasehere but he hasn't responded yet. Pls confirm if you are available. Antila (✉) 05:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Antila, welcome! I think what you're looking for is New Reviewer Mentorship rather than NPPS. Normally I would eagerly say yes. However, I have committed to myself to try and focus for a few weeks on content and actually reviewing (rather than merely discussing NPP) once an ArbCom case I have been involved with concludes. Can you tell me more about hte kind of support you were looking for? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep, I think I need to learn more about draftity, COI, how to spot a paid editor since I never come across these. I use draftity very few times as I usually taken article it to AFD if it doesn't meet notability guidelines, I've never come across a COI or paid editing so I dont no much about it. So for these reasons I was thinking of enrolling at NPPS and I am not sure what the NPP mentorship means or how much it differs from NPPS so can you pls clarify the difference. Thanks. Antila (✉) 06:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Antila, NPP School is a more formal course of study to ensure that a reviewer is ready to have the skills needed to do NPP. NPP Mentoring is meant to provide a safe place to ask questions and a place to get help to fill in skills gaps like what you mentioned. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep, I'd like to enroll in NPPS as I feel that a formal course would a better learning process for me. Antila ✉ 15:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Antila, that makes sense. As I noted in my first response I plan to be taking a bit of a break and I'm just tying up some loose ends before I start that. I'm not sure how long my break will be so you might want to seek someone else out. If it's a short break and it looks like you haven't found anyone I will check back in with you about getting started. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Fine, I'll wait for you. Antila ✉ 15:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Antila, I have returned. I don't know if you're aware but Girth Summit is someone I am close to onwiki. He went through my NPP School and I would go on to nominate him when he requested to be a sysop. So I read your recent interaction with him in regards to CVUA with interest. NPP is not counter vandalism so the concerns GS might have had around your readiness for that don't necessarily apply to NPP. And I believe in second chances and fresh starts. However, before we proceed I need to know what you've taken away from that conversation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep, Girth was my CVUA trainer and during the course I copied answers from one of his other student's page in one of the assignments and initially denied before revealing it later. After that I promised not to look at other student's page anymore and I completed the course under him. After that I changed my score in the final exam and also changed his congratulations message on my talk page. NPP is something I started after that and while reading through various policies and guidelines I felt that score is not a big thing the main goal is to read the policies and guidelines and properly understand it. After my recent discussion with Girth, I felt that it's much better to read the relevant guidelines and answer the questions in your own words rather than copy and pasting the answers from someone else's page. Antila ✉ 09:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Antila, that's a lot of the what which happened and little on what you've taken away. I have a hard time believing that in the moment you were copying answers that you didn't know it was wrong. Doing something even though you know it is wrong doesn't make you a bad person. Many people who I consider to be quite good people knowingly speed after all. What we have here is our reputation and I what I was hoping you'd write is not about why it was wrong in the moment - again I don't think that should have been in question - but the need to protect your reputation and to do the right thing, even when it's the hard thing, going forward. If the writeup that Girth wrote had happened a few days earlier and Rosguill had seen it would your PERM have been extended? Who knows.
However that doesn't change that I am still willing to do NPP School with you. I am trying, at the moment, to keep my focus on content and on actually doing NPP myself. So there might be times where I am slower to respond or we go a few days between assignments. I have setup space for us to do our work and posted the introductory assignment there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rifaat Hussain

Hi - a small request as a semi-univolved admin since you made a relist of this AfD and commented without !voting. I engaged with the admin who closed this as delete requesting a relist based on new information, the exchange is here. If you feel able, would appreciate your thoughts, given the discussion there, whether to leave as is or request review...or something else? I've notified the closing admin that I have engaged with you here as a neutral observer; of course, I understand if you feel unable to comment. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Goldsztajn, apologies for the slow response but I was taking some time away from Wikipedia. The Hussain AfD was a tricky one. I considered closing as delete at the time of my relist but ultimately decided that wasn't the right move. The two keep votes that came in immediately after my relist are what prompted my extended comment as I thought they did little to give specifics as to why it should be kept and instead merely asserted it should be. I wrote my comment hoping subsequent participants would explain better why they felt it should be kept or deleted so a clearer consensus could be arrived at.
The conversation that happened after that comment, including your participation, was much more along the lines of what I had hoped for. Was that enough to sway a consensus to no consensus or keep that had been leaning delete in my view? Quite possibly. It was still going to be a tough call either way which is why, in general, I only make one action at AfD. I like to come in with a clean view of the consensus when making my read of it in order to avoid any confirmation bias. Courtesy ping to Spartaz. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Redirect for just deleted page creation

Hello, Barkeep49, you recently closed AfD, with a result "Delete", and an explanation that "article is a POVFORK and thus should be deleted", which is immediately re-created as a Redirect page, with a rational "possibly searchable term". Is this, in some way, circumvention of undesirable AfD outcome, or is it a common practice?--౪ Santa ౪99° 10:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Santasa99, being a POVFORK would not preclude recreation as a REDIRECT. A POVFORK just means we have two articles (the FORK part of POVFORK), one of which has a nonneutral point of view (the POV in POVFORK) when we should only have one (neutral) article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Accept button does not work

Hi Barkeep49! Sorry for another question. While reviewing the draft other buttons work smoothly but Accept button doesn't work. Till now I tried to accept four drafts but Accept button didn't work. I asked for help on WikiProject's talk page but still remains unsolved. I expect the solution from you. Regards! ~SS49~ {talk} 14:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Problem solved. But I havent seen you around in last few days. Hope everything is OK? ~SS49~ {talk} 14:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
SS49, indeed I hadn't been around. Was taking a break. Thanks for asking. What turned out to be the problem? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Rich Smith and CAPTAIN RAJU

Could either be an admin?

Rich Smith- Vandalisim prevention

CAPTAIN RAJU- seen helping at AfD

Mr. Nice Guy, Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

P. S. You have to nominate them, I'm not extended confirmed Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Another Wiki User the 2nd, I am not sure what you were hoping for but I hope you got assistance as I had been taking a wikibreak. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey

How's it going? I havent seen you around in a few days, and am hoping everything's okay. If there's anything you want to talk about I'm always here. Best, Vermont (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Vermont, thanks for the kind words. I was just taking a break. Wasn't sure how long the break would be but it seems the answer is roughly 10 days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Review on Kevin Andrew Tan article

Hi Barkeep49 I need to know the status of this article Draft:Kevin Andrew Tan. This issue was brought up again by Ponyo. The issue COI/UPE has already been resolved. Accounts have already been disclosed and the article has gone through a numerous edits to improve notability. I hope you can review it and finally, move it back to the mainspace. Thank you. Kileyco17 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Kileyco17,thanks for disclosing your COI/PE. If you feel its ready and shows notability click the blue resubmit button and then click the blue publish changes button and it will enter the Articles for Creation queue. That queue is in no particular order but it will eventually be reviewed by an AfC volunteer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the fast response Barkeep49. I appreciate it. Yes, I tried to resubmit but the issue is that the page is protected by Ponyo so I don't have the authority to "resubmit". Kileyco17 (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Kileyco17, I see that now. I have submitted it on your behalf. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Saw it. Thanks so much for the assistance, Barkeep49. Kileyco17 (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Kileyco17 has been identified as a sockpuppet of Carmellow, as have many of the other editors who edited Draft:Kevin Andrew Tan (see the Talk page of the draft for User names). The article had undergone edits after the Decline in early May, but most of those were by the sockpuppets. Do you know why Kileyco17 reached out to you to get it moved to mainspace, or barring that submitted again to AfC? David notMD (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

David notMD, because I declined the draft was it was last submitted to AfC. As a procedural matter I submitted it on their behalf having seen that the COI/UPE had, at last, been declared. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for reply. David notMD (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Barkeep49/Archives,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Patrolled vs. Reviewed - silly question from a rookie reviewer

Hi there - I've been doing WP:NPP for a while now and somehow haven't been able to find a clear answer on this yet. I've reviewed a handful of pages but my "patrol log" is completely empty. The page curation log does show things but I've looked at other editors' logs and they seem to have items in both logs. Is there something I'm doing wrong? I feel like I've looked everywhere for an explanation and nothing seems to make sense. Major apologies if I missed something obvious. Thanks in advance! Paradoxsociety 08:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Paradoxsociety, apologies for the slow response but I had been away from Wikipedia. This is not a silly question at all but the answer is surprisingly multifaceted. In simplest NPP terms, which is what I think you were asking about, you get an entry in your patrol log when you use the curation toolbar (but also when you use Twinkle in certain instances) to mark the page as reviewed. Looking through your contributions I'm not seeing anything that looks like that following my May 19 grant of NPR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, no problem, I've been on and off lately myself. I appreciate the response. I still find this very odd because I have been using the curation toolbar and it does seem to generate entries in my "page curation log" when I mark a page as reviewed, but for whatever reason nothing seems to appear in the patrol log. Is there possibly some sort of bug with the toolbar that could cause this? I'm not sure how to proceed from here. Also I think my temporary permissions expired again so I'll go ahead and submit a new request to turn them back on as well. On a separate note, per your listing on the NPP "School" page I'd like to formally apply to be a student and/or mentee of yours, if you have availability currently. Paradoxsociety 21:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Paradoxsociety, are you sure you're not getting Page curation and Patrol log mixed up with Review log? Review log has to with Pending Changes. Page curation has to do with the curation toolbar, while patrol log includes some ways of patrolling that don't have to involve the curation tool bar (mainly through using Twinkle, though there is the option to patrol some userspace and other non-mainspace pages through a link as well).
As for more ongoing mentoring I'm happy to answer questions or give thoughts on some stuff but I am rather full up in terms of someone needing me to generate a course of study. So if you just want questions answered great. If you need something more than that, either look to a different person or wait until I have a bit more capacity. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Minor request

Hi! This is an odd request, and please let me know if it breaks Wikipedia etiquette. Could you review a new page I created on the Great American Outdoors Act? I usually wouldn't mind at all waiting for a regular WP:NPP reviewer to get around to it, but this is a bill pending before the Senate that may pass as soon as today and generate substantial interest. I think it would be helpful if it was reviewed sooner rather than later so it can be indexed by Google and achieve some visibility. Thanks. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ganesha811, sorry I missed this in a torrent of messages from Yapperbot. Bills that aren't quite laws are tricky when it comes to notability. I see it passed the Senate but still isn't quite a law. If it becomes law it's definitely notable. I have marked it as reviewed for now (though I admit to some concern as I don't normally take reviews on request and this is a borderline one to begin with). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, thank you! I know it was a bit of a strange request. In any case, I appreciate it - the coverage in the NYTimes and a couple other sources I think justifies the article existing, and as you say it's passed the Senate already. Ganesha811 (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Question on sourcing

Following my quest to understand fully every thing pertaining to sourcing, of which I’m getting very good at thanks to your constructive criticism & mentorship, I do have certain hypothetical scenarios for your to assist me with. Now If a celebrity tweets “I’m getting divorced tomorrow” on Twitter & a host of reliable sources report this via their publications, am I to consider those reliable sources as reliable in that context? Seeing as their report is based on the celebrities tweet? Secondly if multiple reliable sources are copy pasting other renowned reliable sources & now we have an article with 7 sources all of which are saying the same thing as the other sources, Do I proceed to nominate the article for deletion? Seeing as all 7 reliable sources are saying the same thing. Celestina007 (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, I don't understand the second scenario. As for divorce if RS are reporting it I think it can be included. The wording might need careful consideration but it can certainly be included. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay good. About the second secenario, what I was trying to say is this; normally we require at least 3 reliable sources to consider someone notable & now imagine if all 3 of those independent sources present in the article are all saying the same thing because they copy pasted each other, does that make the subject of the article notable? Because in itself the article does have three reliable sources present but seeing as they all say exactly the same thing, is the subject of the article still considered notable? I’m sorry if my question might appear confusing or ambiguous. Celestina007 (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Celestina007, well then it's really one source though it is a datapoint that so many publications decided to publish it. This is common in the case of wire services like Reuters. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Good! With the answer above you’ve clarified a lot for me. Celestina007 (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library Edits

Hey there Barkeep49,

Appreciate your edits + comments on my entry for the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library. Just giving you a heads-up that I made some edits/changes, and should hopefully be more in line with the Wiki standard! Thanks again, and hope this version is more fitting.

Peace, Tucker21 (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Tucker21

Tucker21, on the whole I tend to not rereview things but wish you the bet of luck with your revised submission. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Bizarre edit summary on Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect/Templates

Hi Barkeep,

Hope you don't mind me omitting the numerical suffix from your username. You are, as far as I am aware, the only Wikipedia barkeep. ;-)

Anyway, I have Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect on my watchlist because I hope to be more involved with that project when my editing restriction has been lifted. So, I was a bit perplexed by this, frankly bizarre, edit summary by the IPv6 editor. At first, I thought it may need to be redacted, but as I read through it, I think it is more or less incomprehensible and likely harmless. Other than being a verbose edit summary, of course. Anyway, thought it couldn't hurt for a second set of eyes to see if anything needs to be done.

Cheers,
Dmehus (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, while I was here first Barkeep does exist and for much of the time was the more active editor between the two of us. But you are welcome to call me that as many do. As for that IP it's a bizarre edit summary but in looking at the edits in that range I don't really see anything alarming so who knows what they were trying to say/do but I think you're correct no action is needed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Thanks for the quick reply and brief history on the Wikipedia barkeeps. Upon looking, it looks like a reversion is needed as they've removed the header template. I can't do it, though. Dmehus (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Dmehus,yeah I noticed that. But it's not vandalism in such need for an immediate revert that we can't leave it and thus set aside any concerns about proxy editing around your restriction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49 Okay, thanks. The page does seem to be watched, so imagine it'll be taken care of soon enough by someone else. Dmehus (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Dmehus, it already had been before this message :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Argali1

It looks like you have accepted the request instead of declining it, but have not unblocked the user. (I guess you wanted to decline it and just pressed a wrong button). Could you please have a look. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, oh strange. I clicked the accept button but then thought better of it and it looked on my side like I hadn't accepted it so I walked away. I will go take a look. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I was ready to accept because, if begrudgingly, they had committed to discussion which is all I want when someone is edit warring. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I am perfectly fine with any decision, it just looks now like accept but not unblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Ymblanter, yeah I undid my edit there to hopefully clear up any confusion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Tnx--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC for image at Sydney

You briefly commented at the bottom of this long ANI archive. Would you be willing to close the RfC that resulted from that and other ANI reports?

Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, what did I do to you that you ask me to close an RfC with two parts and one part that has six options and which participants rank? Kidding aside I'm reading it now and think I can probably serve as a closer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! It's great to have that done and it should be settled for now at least. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

NPP School

Hey, man I'd like to resume the NPP Course we were doing last year. I know its been a full year since I went into oblivion and I do apologize for that. It was just that I was caught up with a ton of work. I've recently returned to Wiki and plan to stay on it consistently. Hopefully we can work out something. Thanks! Bingobro (Chat) 06:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Bingobro, I had also approached Barkeep about enrolling at NPPS but he said he was going take a wikibreak and wasn't quite sure about the length of the break. I've decided to wait for him and would encourage you to do the same. Antila ✉ 05:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Antila: Sure man, I'd certainly wait for him to be back. Bingobro (Chat) 07:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Bingobro, glad to see you found your way back to Wikipedia. My goal, for the time being, is to mainly stay focused on writing articles, the GA process, and New Page Patrolling. Obviously mentoring someone in NPP is related to it, but it's actually a bit distinct. Let me think on this for a day or so, especially because as Antila pointed out I'd talked to them before taking my break as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Certainly, take your time. Bingobro (Chat) 05:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Hey, I was wondering when you'd get back to me. If you're still busy with your GA/NPP work it's totally fine. Cheers!Bingobro (Chat) 05:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Bingobro, had planned to get to it last night but ran out of time after getting diverted into something else. As long as you're OK with a bit of start and stop - and some catch-up on the weekends at times - I'm ready to proceed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I have seen your message for appointing new nurturing editor as an NPP patroler on WikiProject Bangladesh, would it be possible to trust me as an New Page Patroler after learning some basics in your NPP School. I see that there are very less reviewer who can understand Bengali to review citations in Bengali. I may be fluent enough in Bengali with Marathi, Hindi, Urdu, and English. Majun e Baqi (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Majun e Baqi, yes we need more Bengali speaking New Page Patrollers. Unfortunately I currently have three students and do not have the ability to have more students at this time. See WP:NPPS for some other possible trainers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Okay thanks, but would it be possible to get NPP rights for temporary basis to lessens the work load at this timeMajun e Baqi (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Majun e Baqi, you're welcome to apply at WP:PERM/NPR where either another administrator or I will make an assessment of your skills for that permission. Before doing that please make sure you read and understand WT:NPR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah submitted the requestMajun e Baqi (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43,112,609 (number)

Damn, you closed this before I could suggest that user:Deacon Vorbis (re his edit) should go live on Planet P where the penalties for humans creating such articles are much more severe. In my opinion, that would have been tremendously funny and made the whole AfD worthwile. SpinningSpark 12:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Spinningspark, that AfD had already seen one attempt at humor. I'm not sure what it needed was a second attempt... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, there were a lot more than one attempt [11][12][13][14][15]. There just weren't any by me! SpinningSpark 13:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Spinningspark, so here's what I see happening. I see you trying to get me to say that your joke is a bad idea. Thus I will have become INVOLVED and you can get the AfD reopened so you can make your joke. So I am not going to say that and thus avoid this fiendish trap you've set for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Request on 17:41:39, 26 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Chrisonga


Hi Barkeep 49. I am not quite sure why the second reference article doesn't qualify KTC as being notable or showing significant coverage. To quote 'They created KTC, putting Mr Kremmel on the path to becoming a manufacturing pioneer in China.'. Also due to KTC's realationship and large initial contract with Adi Dasler and the Adidas brand. I would be grateful if you could point me in the right direction. Best regards Chris

Chris Ongarello (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Thanks for your question. Before I help you with that, can I ask what your connection to KTC is? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep! Sure. I look after brand and business strategy, and marketing and communications. Which I stated when starting the page. Obviously coming from the marketing side, I am really trying hard to be factual and neutral. I appreciate any guidance; and outside of my position I do beleive KTC is a notable manufacturer worth a spot in Wikipedia. Thanks again for your patience. Much appreciated. Chris Ongarello (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Chrisonga, so I'm not sure where you stated that connection. Could you go to your user page and note your job there? That will make it easy for those in the future to find.
For a company to have an article on Wikipedia it needs to have all of the following:
  1. significant coverage in
  2. multiple
  3. independent,
  4. reliable
  5. secondary sources.
So that single statement is not enough to be considered significant coverage. Generally the minimum for significant coverage is a few paragraphs; for some people it is the equivalent of a page of text. You would then need multiple such sources, each independent from the company (e.g. republished press releases and interviews don't count) in sources Wikipedia considers reliable. These sources can be in any language. I hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Your decision on the Panam Post

Hi, I saw that you closed Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_296#RfC:_PanAm_Post. I think that the discussion could have been closed differently. Could you please explain how you arrived at the conclusion you expressed in your closing statement?--ReyHahn (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

ReyHahn, I arrived at the conclusion by reading the discussion twice and taking note of the overall thoughts and ideas and seeing which had consensus. I then noted that consensus and all of the common themes, regardless of whether they had consensus or not, which included your position that it had been cited by RS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure but did you at least notice that my comments that include support to the source reliability by Forbes and AP (and about its notability by many other) were never contested? And also that most people used opinion articles to support their claims? Also I do not get why the WP:RSP statement is so different from your closing statement. I guess you have clicked on the links, it is a not the best quality of sources, but I wish that people have used more clear arguments and I hope this was not closed like that just because of a majority.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
ReyHahn, as I noted in my first response I read all comments including yours while determining the consensus. My goal as a closer is to reflect back consensus. As to the RSP statement I would encourage you to either boldly insert language that you think reflects the close better or to discuss what such language could be on its talk page. I view my job as closer to reflect consensus and follow Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions in not implementing the close myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Dreamee article removal

Hey Barkeep! I was just wondering why you made your decision to remove the Dreamee article that was created on June 28, 2020.

The album has been discussed on multiple news websites including Billboard Vietnam, Kenh14, TheThaoVanHoa, YanTV and iOME to name a few.

I believe that this hits this point in notability: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it."

Also, the album has already achieved multiple accolades in its first day of release, such as the fact that the album hit #1 on both iTunes and Apple Music Vietnam charts (something which has never been achieved by a Vietnamese artist before). Whilst the chart counting as depreciated on Wikipedia, I believe this accolade is worthy of the album having its own article, thus hitting another point. There's no official chart aggregator in Vietnam.

The article has also been sufficiently detailed and is not a stub.

Thanks, regards Ambrivalent (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ambrivalent, thanks for reaching out. I found that article while doing New Page Patrol. The sources did not appear the kind that we normally look for when establishing notability. However you are welcome to undo my edit to get a second opinion from a different NPP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

re: Korean dining culture and Korean directors

@Barkeep49: I have already informed the student in the question of the problems, but as the semester just ended, it is unlikely we will see any more improvements, and I am not opposed to AfD or such. In fact, as I told the student, I consider Korean directors to be not a valid encyclopedic topic. The Korean dining culture may be a notable concept, but the execution is indeed very poor. FYI, in the syllabus, I require students to consult their topics with me before making them public and to develop the first draft in the sandbox. Unfortunately, my guidelines are not always followed, particularly late in the semester when some students try to get extra credit with only few days (or hours) remaining before the grades are due, and "are bold" and create articles on the fly. Usually, the results are satisfactory (see User:Piotrus/Educational project results), some even get DYKed or are close to B-class, but yes, sometimes we get content that is just substandard. Sorry for the trouble :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, thanks for the response. I will consider what to do with them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd just AfD the directors one. The other needs cleanup, draftifying is pointless as the author is unlikely to return (note: 99% of students stop editing as soon as the grades are out and good enough for them). So either we leave it mainspace and hope someone cleans it up, or take to AfD as a TNT-able case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I mean PROD is also an option. Want to give a good think on things. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd probably endorse the prod on the first, not sure about the dining one. Google search suggests the topic may be notable, but... there is also the option of merging the useful bits with the Etiquette_in_South_Korea#Eating_and_drinking or such. For a similar older article on Wikipedia, see also Customs and etiquette in Chinese dining. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Piotrus, if you feel there's stuff worth merging go for it. The essay nature of the writing makes it harder for me to see what those might be. I have PROD'ed directors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I looked at Korean dining culture and I think it's probably proddable too, around TNT level. Sorry for the trouble :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of 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, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

In the RfC, you said it "seem to present the full range of options". Are you serious ? There is only one caption proposed. One that is highly political and POV if you ask me. All people who want to vote for the picture are forced into this caption which was only discussed for 3 hours and then enforced as the only consensus despite several attempts from several contributors to change it in the last month. Sometime just a single word... Don't you see the problem with the method ? Iluvalar (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Iluvalar, the caption is a secondary purpose of the RfC - determining what image (if any) should be there. If there is consensus for an image and a caption all the better but my reading about the RfC is whether there is consensus for anything at all and, possibly, a caption. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The option 1 of the RfC is clear it's "with the caption". Iluvalar (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
It does but that doesn't mean discussion can't come to some other consensus. It would have been better to make that distinction clearer but participants in the discussion have made it clear in their comments and does not undermine the RfC on the whole. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Here is another edit where I've been denied to change a single word in the article : [16]. I'm not the only editor who experienced that either.
The rest of the RfC is useless, I can already tell you that there is a mild will (about 60% of the participants) to use this image. What we need is all the participants to contribute together to find a caption that is NPOV. But one side seems to operate by only making poles of his own caption. Iluvalar (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Well you can certainly help editors come together to find a caption that you feel is NPOV. Why not start a section on it as part of the RfC ("Should Option 1 have consensus what should the caption be?" or something similar)? I will suggest you will have more success in coming together (which is certainly what should happen) by avoiding statements that generalize their actions unfavorably like But one side seems to operate by only making poles of his own caption. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a 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 15:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

interaction w/ another editor

Barkeeper since your an administrator, Im interested in a one way interaction ban (or whatever its called) with Sandy Georgia this individual continues to show up and disrupt wherever Im editing, today it was Dyslexia talk page, before that it was the arbcom case attacks[17][18], what steps do I need to take with this individual I feel harassed by this individual --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, first let me say I'm sorry you're feeling harassed. That is a terrible way to feel. This is a problem English Wikipedia struggles with. You might want to participate in the ArbCom sponsored RfC on the topic. At the moment getting any interaction ban is difficult and getting a one way interaction ban is very difficult. What you would need to do is gather evidence of some pattern of being targeted and then present that evidence to the community. Evidence showing that you're being targeted, rather than merely in normal content disagreement with an editor who has similar editing interests, is vital to making the case. As a community discussion it can be even more unpleasant than ArbCom, which you've indicated here is part of the issue for you. It is possible through discretionary sanctions for an administrator to impose an interaction ban. Again evidence would be needed and it would have to be shown in an area of discretionary sanctions. Dyslexia, for instance, isn't in one of those areas so evidence from there would not be useful in asking for such an interaction ban. Based on our current policies, guidelines, and practices the evidence you've presented would not be enough to support an interaction ban and I suspect if presented to the community many would disagree with labeling it harassment. This doesn't change the experience you're having, which is clearly causing you distress. I never like to see another volunteer in distress. I'm sorry that we don't have better mechanisms for helping editors who are feeling like you do whether we label it harassment, editing disagreement, or something else. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
One mechanism we do have is for Ozzie to engage and discuss directly with the editors he believes are "harassing" him. I've raised that to no avail before, but Ozzie, if you want to have a discussion with me on my user talk page, the door is open. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, forcing people who are feeling harassed to have a discussion with the person who they see as harassing them, can itself, be traumatic. I'm glad you are willing to talk with Ozzie. If they want someone to mediate that discussion I'm sure a mediator could be found. It could help with this situation. But only if both parties feel comfortable with it and if Ozzie doesn't feel comfortable I would hope everyone would respect that decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
further evidence that this individual is following me around and hounding me, I ve sent a email to Doc James, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Ozzie10aaaa, Sandy watchlisted this talk page when the pricing issues were being discussed extensively see User_talk:Barkeep49/Archives/3#AN/I_close where she was a regular praticipant. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Barkeep. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
thank you waiting for Doc James email response, Best--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barkeep49/Archives/4&oldid=1142879866"