Jump to content

User talk:BusterD/Archive 19

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


Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello BusterD,

New Page Review queue December 2022
Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Administrator changes

added
readded Stephen
removed

Interface administrator changes

removed Nihiltres

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Good call on that close, but also LMAO

I actually think he will be a better editor for agreeing to change his approach, hence why I am not posting this comment on his talk page, but I have to share with someone that that kid's lowkey riposte to the editor who dragged him to ANI over not using edit summaries made me momentarily bust up over here. But seriously, glad you took action to resolve the discussion within the narrow window where the outcome was more likely to be positive than negative on the balance--good eye! SnowRise let's rap 05:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes it's better to play it straight and just accept yes for an answer. The willingness is why I left a personal note myself. BusterD (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Haddock Corporation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Haddock Corporation 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/Haddock Corporation 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 until the discussion has finished.

Clarityfiend (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Botched page move

Thanks for attempting to clean up the botched page move for 2020–2023 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial unrest. Unfortunately, the entire article is now missing as it is caught in some sort of weird page redirect circle. Is it possible to restore the version of 2020–2023 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial unrest prior to it being moved to Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial unrest (2020–present) by User:DemandGo? Thanks again for your assistance. Much appreciated. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - Buster, I went ahead and undeleted this for you, and have restored what I hope isn't the WP:WRONGVERSION (what seems to have happened is that the standard delete-the-redirect to open for the move went awry because the history wasn't just the redirect, but the 793 revisions of the entire article). @Minnemeeples: - Is it currently at the right title? Hog Farm Talk 18:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the eyes and kind help, brother. My eyes are glued to women's basketball today... BusterD (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks! Minnemeeples (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

MfD

You're probably better off closing that thread, but I'd suggest starting to compose your thoughts and diffs as to what sort of behavior there you feel is considered problematic, and putting them somewhere you can privately work on them. Take as much time as you need. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit conflict with my post over there. I'm interested in how people think about this, and especially those who have Talk:MfD on their watchlist. I haven't accused anyone; I have characterized a wide swath of recent procedures as having user thought in common. Who is doing what is quite beside the point. I would be okay if you struck through your numerical association, which goes way farther than I am willing to go. I want to know where the lines are and I've asked for guidance in a reasonable forum. I'm not normally considered a disruptive editor. I'm not raising the issue to "get" anybody. I'm expecting better clash than this. BusterD (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Done. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 22:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite interested in who shows up to talk. Haven't really advertised this, so to speak. BusterD (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi BusterD! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 18:35, Friday, February 10, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together
Seriously? LOL. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Not so seriously! Kind of you. I've been pondering about how to attract nerdy new contributors by figuring a way to use this exact sort of strategy game approach, using any frustration as an extrinsic motivation. My idea had dragons... BusterD (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Some WikiLove

"Sunflower Award"

Your work as an admin is not being graded,
But it certainly is much appreciated,
To know that you see with vision that's clear,
A shining light of integrity we tend to hold dear.

Big ole hugs & a big THANK YOU for all you do,
including your good work at NPP. 🤗 🏝️🍹

Atsme 💬 📧 18:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Awwwwwh, sis! Really appreciate the wiklove today. Walking the huskies in snow piles this morning. They are never happier than when they are chest deep in snow. Now I've gotta go wash some towels. hugs back! BusterD (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, BusterD,

I was just doing my work, reviewing and deleting expiring draft articles, when I happened to see your message at User talk:Jamesbtaylor. It was so genuine and kind. I visit a lot of user talk pages, mostly those of new editors, and it is very rare to see a talk page message that isn't a template notice. I think the practice of leaving template notices instead of personal notes is a very common practice among most of our New Page Patrollers especially the newest ones who were not around for the old days when communication was more personal and casual. Also, the use of Twinkle, which I know I rely on, makes it easier for editors to leave a standard template rather than take the time to write a personalized message out.

Although it doesn't look like this editor followed up on your invitation to further discussion, I think it is great that you took the time to reach out to them. I sometimes question taking the time to write out these notes when so many new editors show up for one day and then disappear forever, but I think there is nothing more effective than a personal message directed at an individual rather than an anonymous template. This note to you is also a reminder to myself as I leave Teahouse invitation templates all day long...but, hopefully, they help some new editors find their way to the Teahouse where they can actually talk to another person. Any way, I just wanted to say that your effort was noticed and appreciated, at least by me. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. Appreciation from you is doubly welcome. I'd forgotten about this one. I should probably build the rudimentary page and add all the sources for later development to prevent the draft's loss. Perhaps he'll reappear. For some time I've been fishing at the Teahouse for a COI or PR editor who was willing to give such assisted page creation the college try. I thought I had Pebble Beach Corp (an easy keep) on the hook, but they backed away. BusterD (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Question from KKLAccount

Hi Buster,

We don't know each other nor have we had any interaction. I really don't feel comfortable talking about this in public spaces and I just felt most comfortable reaching out to someone directly.

I don't want to name any names or anything else to identify any information and please don't get the spotlight on this any further, but I have started encountering a specific user almost every other day on this website. I was on the site and we never crossed paths until a little ago when we had a disagreement over something. Since then, we have crossed paths in 16 different articles in 40 days. This seems unlikely to happen by chance since the group he is in contains hundreds of members and deals with dozens of articles a day. I can't really publicly accuse the user of anything nor can I prove that he's targeting me minus contribution logs. I've let the user know I'm uncomfortable with our amount of interactions, but he claims he is just doing his job and if I accuse him of doing anything, I know he's going to use that line. I'm getting quite frustrated with the situation and I worry that I'm going to end up saying something to him and get myself in trouble over it.

Do you have any advice? Is there any kind of rule where a user has to stay away from another user? I know creating/using another account is an option, but I'd rather not have to.

ThanksKKLAccount (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, KKLAccount. I'm a bit confused. I'm looking at your contributions to observe the concern but it doesn't appear this account has been used outside of my talkpage and a February Teahouse discussion. If you are already using multiple accounts, you normally would want to privately disclose them to at least one willing administrator so if you are later accused of using multiple accounts in violation of policy, you'd have some potential support. Because you've posed the problem with no evidence for me to follow, I'm not at all certain how you expect me to proceed or respond. In the generic situation you've posed, one should be reading the Wikipedia:Civility policy to identify proper behavior and learn how best to stay cool when targeted (if such you were). In the most extreme cases one could petition for an interaction ban at an administrative board. There are a wide number of choices short of such extremity, often starting with growing a thicker skin (everybody is disagreeing here all the time, so get used to disagreeing without being disagreeable). If I had an editor bothering me, I'd post a message on their talk explaining my concern and inviting them to help me find a solution. If they acted in an abusive or inappropriate manner, I'd link that to a post on an admin's talk (like this one) but this time with diffs and links and real usernames so the admin might be able to help research and escalate the issue. If that didn't help I'd post a new thread at WP:ANI (making sure to notify the other parties). That's what I'd do. BusterD (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Buster. KKLAccount (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
  • Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
  • The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

MfD on Moops userbox

In retrospect, my delete !vote was completely wrong, and you were basically 100% right - Wikipedia really has no business trying to fish around in people's userspaces to find thoughtcrime violations. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

That even you bought into it shows how seductive it is for ordinary wikipedians to pick winners and losers, so to speak. Most of the time userspace is none of our business. IMHO. It is much harder to defend the userspace of someone who's no longer an active user, and that speaks to our abundant presentism (and the seeming ease of kicking someone who's down who can't fight back). I've been on a sort of crusade against this kind of activity, as you well know. I will always enjoy assistance from those who feel the same way, like yourself and SmokeyJoe. When Wikipedia was new, we can see it was not uncommon for us to attract good faith editors who took a "pro-south" position. At least one of these, User:Bedford, even became an admin, mostly on sheer activity (but he was a species of dick back then too). We cannot shy away from these truths, and that just a few years later it's quite popular here to unduly characterize and disparage users with outlying world views. Not AGFing a "bad" user (a user with currently unpopular attitudes) became an acceptable thing.
It could be reasonably argued (and has been well argued from time to time) that NONAZIS was partially a reaction to the enormous success of the WWII MILHIST task force to build encyclopedic content from the biographies of Nazi military leadership.
The next frontier is gender and trans issues. Lots of "pro-traditional" (so to speak) users still in the community (didn't a recent admin crash because of this sort of comment?) As sympathetic as I am to the general belief that all human beings have a right to embrace their own humanity, as a student of history I find it tempting to short-stroke such "old school" moral teaching as misguided and wrong, but as an administrator of en.wikipedia I feel a stronger responsibility to our readers 50 years from today. Future readers should see that wikipedians went through phases of self-awareness and gradual enlightenment leading to their present. Hiding clues from readers about Wikipedia's historic culture does us no favors. This case helps us truncate such an argument because the community's judgement of a user's behavior has suddenly changed. This suddenness forces us to accept that even blocked users make friends and influence discussion. Thanks for engaging on this. By providing me the opportunity to formulate my thoughts in words, you've helped me better understand how I actually feel. BusterD (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, at least I did something right that day! --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Haha

"Some of my best wikifriends are ARSers ... if I ever need sources pulled out from the ARS ..." 😂 😂 😂 I just read that and it has me in stitches. They really need a new acronym. Levivich (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that someone even reads my work. I try to keep a low profile. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding ANI

Note I cannot support a CBAN at this point because I don't think there's been enough evidence or consensus to establish that he has been disruptive. As I mentioned in my post, he has received multiple plaudits from other users from "cleaning up the filth" from userspace or Wikispace. I may change my mind if other uninvolved users weigh in. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I know how you and I feel. The ANI thread is to find out how the community feels. Live by the sword, die by the sword. BusterD (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
User:WaltCip: I hope you see the value in this sort of edit now. Give offenders rope, let them target themselves, and don't disturb them when they're making mistakes. By always assuming good faith, and being seen as always assuming good faith, you are in a better position when things might get heated. Make no mistake, my fight to get folks to stop policing userthought is not this fight. But one less MfD "regular" will impact on processes, and this action may tend (inadvertently) to have a chilling effect on future ragpicking. BusterD (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Question from KatoKungLee

Hi Buster,

I have been marking basically every edit I do on this website for years as a minor edit, because I thought they were minor edits without anyone letting me know otherwise. I've been alerted recently that any edit above a single letter is not a minor edit and that marking anything else is considered disruption, even if its on pages I've created that don't really involve anyone else. I'm not intending to disrupt anything and I've explained as such, but I also am so used to doing this that it has become habit. I believe at least two users are following my edits to see if I do this any more with one of them likely being interested in taking this up the ladder to someone else and the whole situation is just making me uncomfortable.

Any thoughts? I realize I'm responsible for whatever I do here but please tell me I'm not the only one who has ever made this error.

ThanksKatoKungLee (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"I realize I'm responsible for whatever I do here." You and I will get along. I often mark my grammar and spelling corrections as minor edits. If I've made any significant change I don't. Only YOU know what constitutes a minor edit to YOU. It is wise to accept critique and feedback in good faith, but only you know if you're making an effort. If any editor was making me uncomfortable I'd tell the user on their usertalk page. If they continued, you'd visit an administrator's page, like mine (consider my response an open invitation) and provide links and diffs so I can investigate your report. If I can't help, then we'd be going to a dramah board like WP:ANI and stomp this bad behavior out. On the other hand, and you should read the "question" thread above, sometimes growing a thick skin is a cost effective way of dealing with other editors. Remember that these are all smart people and they may have excellent reasons for what they say. I believe that my learning to assume good faith was a breakthrough for me on Wikipedia and in my life. I have learned it's a better place from which to disagree. Don't be shy if I can be of service. Thanks for trusting me with your question. FYI I'm going to alter the title of this thread just so it archives correctly. BusterD (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Your work is awesome. Dr. Swett's Root Beer is a very good page and you should consider putting such a page on the mainpage via WP:DYK. Ask me for help. I looked at the edits you deleted off your user page. In my humble opinion, these nice editors recognize your high quality and are trying to help you get even better. If it we me, I would be thanking these folks and asking them questions about how to improve. All of you are excellent wikipedians and you guys should learn to get along. IMHO their critique was of your work, not you. If you can't collaborate with us, you might be writing professionally elsewhere because you have a gift. Please consider trying hard to be especially nice to these folks, and restore their valid feedback to your userpage. BusterD (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Previous unblock notices

Hello BusterD, hope you're doing well. You may not know me but I was involved in the discussion held at WP:AN here [1]. I had a question about my previous unblock notice. This is related to the lengthy discussion I had with another editor here [2]. What I proposed or had in mind was that to keep my previous unblock notice or copyright warnings in archives rather than on my talk page per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK since I'm not "sitewide blocked" as the policy says. Will that be okay or should I keep as it is as the editor has told me to? Rejoy2003(talk) 08:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Help with page watching?

I did some work to get Wilson's Creek National Battlefield to GA status when I was a newer editor in 2020 (although frankly it could probably use a little more work yet). I'm going through the training steps for the Volunteers-In-Parks program with Wilson's Creek. Since that gives me a minor COI for the article, would you be willing to help me watch the page? Hog Farm Talk 21:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a favorite place of mine. Congrats on your training. Have watchlisted (this weekend doing other stuff, though). BusterD (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

When do minority opinions disrupt Wikipedia?

Hi, I would like to follow up on the warning that you gave me at WP:AN/I. A lot of the complaints there were about lengthy content disputes in which I have been involved. I am still a bit confused with your resolution about my conduct, and I was wondering if you could help clarify some points for me:

  • When I read the consensus policy, it says that it involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns. I feel that there are some legitimate concerns that others have not yet fully addressed, and that some of these conversations have not yet reached a consensus. Your warning described me as ignoring discussion consensus when I was under the impression that there was no consensus. I agree that I was outvoted on some of these issues, but now I am a bit unclear on where the line is between consensus and voting. In the future, how can I know whether I am ignoring discussion consensus or simply arguing for a minority opinion? (The minority among Wikipedia editors, that is, not a fringe view among reliable sources.) I was under the impression that I was doing the latter, which I thought was welcome within the Wikipedia community, so I would appreciate some help differentiating.
  • How do administrators decide who is to blame for overlong talk arguments? Is it just whichever opinion is in the minority? I agree that some of those conversations have gotten very long, but I do not understand why I am being singled out for disruption. I have been trying to engage in good faith discussion, and sometimes that consumes a lot of time when different editors are coming from very different backgrounds. Are there specific discussion-prolonging behaviors that that I am doing that others are not?

I feel like many of the editors in that thread were upset when they won a majority vote but I continued arguing against their edits. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines indicate to me that this kind of continued discussion is a normal part of the consensus-building process, especially when arguments are grounded in Wikipedia's five pillars. Is there a certain point at which the vote becomes the consensus and minority opinions become disruption? Could you help clarify this for me?  — Freoh 01:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for asking these questions. I should start by saying I did not myself give you a warning. The community has given you a warning; I only read the lengthy discussion among your peers and summarized the most important elements. Your fellow editors have given you a warning; I have only announced the warning as my reading of consensus. Such work may be designated to a willing and uninvolved closing admin, a trusted someone who has not been a party previously in this case. For the record, after my close, I immediately applied to another uninvolved admin to overlook my close. Here's what that other admin said about my closure of the discussion.
I wish I had time right now to pursue this further tonight but real life demands my attention. The argument most often made in the discussion is that you don't seem to follow the consensus as it evolves; instead you continue moving forward as if consensus hadn't been set. Make no mistake: consensus is often a moving target. Consider the dart board where everybody gets a shot. I may not have thrown or been willing to have throw my own dart at the board, but as an admin empowered by the community I am trusted to read the board and tell an editor when they are outside the lines. I'd be glad to continue a dialog with you to help you gain more confidence reading consensus, and in so doing I will try to answer the questions you've raised above. Does that seem reasonable to you? BusterD (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The Purpose of Wikipedia

"The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#Purpose_of_Wikipedia, Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

By my reading the various ARBCOM cases have always settled on this sort of language. Human beings are often competitive and driven, wikipedians tend to follow this profile. When we sign the terms of service, we become partners in an endeavor, which doesn't for a moment remove our humanity or vulnerability. We may make mistakes. We may be seen as making mistakes. You can see from the section below given by User:CapnZapp there are editors who feel my close was somewhat nebulous and perhaps they have a point. Perhaps I made a mistake. I can accept my own humanity and imperfection and reflect on the feedback in the spirit in which it's intended. I'll assume good faith. My view, which I'll share with CapnZapp, is that the community holds you responsible for the quite reasonable terms specifically outlined by User:DIYeditor. I have made general statements supporting their assertions and here make the answer to the question asked below. You have engaged, and I'd prefer further engagement. Again I ask, does this seem reasonable to you? BusterD (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that you are open to questions, as that helps to foster an atmosphere of camaraderie. However, I am surprised that when I expressed an openness to questions at User talk:ErnestKrause, your response was to threaten to block me, which to me indicates a lack of mutual respect. I hope that our future interactions can be less hostile. In the interest of helping me gain more confidence reading consensus, could you give me a specific example of a time that I erroneously behaved as if consensus hadn't been set?  — Freoh 13:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
In my judgement, your "openness to questions" expressed a willingness to continue the same fight you'd lost at ANI. The thread you reference was about you accusing folks of describing your actions as personal attacks during the ANI. For my part, I put this in the category of cleaning up loose ends for the procedure. In my view, the ANI procedure was littered with examples. Your request here for me to point out behavior already clearly presented there is an excellent example of you continuing to ignore consensus. In the future, Freoh, I would prefer to keep all these discussions on your talk page, not mine. Thank you for continuing to engage. Part of improving as a wikipedian is to grow a thicker skin. Editors discussing your behavior in a formal process is not the same as personal attack. BusterD (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

your ANI action

Hello,

You closed this ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Consistant_gaslighting_behaviour_by_Freoh

Can I ask you why you chose a much more vague and sweeping phrasing than the one actually suggested, something you directly reference in your close?

Specifically, you simplified the following list

  1. significantly improve their collaboration
  2. demonstrate an ability to adapt to Wikipedia practices, philosophies and culture (i.e. behave like other people here)
  3. drop the WP:STICK and not plow ahead when a discussion has gone against them, or perpetually prolong discussions that have gained no traction with other editors
  4. not try to concoct "consensus" from thin air on the premise that it is not a vote to use as a pretext for unilateral action on an article
  5. understand that Wikipedia reflects only prevailing scholarly consensus and not WP:TRUTH or what is right
  6. tone down this aggressive piped linking of Wikipedia

into "should refrain from overlong talk arguments, avoid ignoring discussion consensus, and expect direct administrative remedies [...]"

I find the longer list much more useful, both for the user, and for the community. For the user because it specifies much more precisely what to do and what to not do, and for the community because it becomes much easier to point to and agree on transgressions (should any occur). Also, it contains points your phrasing arguably omits entirely.

I am sure experience with ANI matters mean there are advantages to your approach I can't see, which is why I am asking. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Nice of you stop by at my Talk page with your drop in comment. If you have an interest in the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution then I thought to ask if you might have any interest in doing a co-nomination for James Madison, for a FAC renomination. The article now looks sufficiently stable and Madison is considered among the top Founding Fathers. Any interest? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

April 1, 2023 walkout (this is not fun for readers)

In the future, I'll choose not to edit Wikipedia on the dates March 31, April 1, or April 2. This is neither a joke, nor an implicit approval of the sh#tshow in which normal wikipedians enact "The Purge" on the world's only reliable online encyclopedia. These "humorous" actions are juvenile, normally classed as vandalism, and shouldn't be supported by the community under any circumstances on ANY date. In the future, I will not participate in any April 1 activity, including jokes on the main page. BusterD (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Collecting a group of "April 1 Admins" for next year

I plan to defend the pedia against April Fools vandalism next year and I'll need a group of likeminded sysops willing to utilize policy and guideline to effectively squash the fun out of committing vandalism merely because of the date. I'd be happy to know there are trusted servants who would be willing to risk disapproval in exchange for ending this juvenile disruption. Wikipedians are old enough not to act like noobs. BusterD (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your thoughts on April Fools - I can understand at most running a set of off-kilter DYK hooks or putting something like Ima Hogg for TFA due to the article name, but most of what goes on is either vandalism or intentional disruption of the process. Hog Farm Talk 21:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. My internet has been down for 36 hours. I'm sorry I forgot to tag the page. I just assumed that it would be very obvious that I was joking. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

And I should have assumed it was a joke but I failed my saving throw. I appreciate your coming to me. You and I are always good. BusterD (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
My other joke MFD would have been to nominate WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FAIRUSE for deletion to eliminate the backlog at CCI. I'm sure that would have been funnier. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that this went the way it did coming here. Partially surprised, given the the escalation in that message. I'm not here to make a big deal or anything, just to get at the idea that some of how I am reading that message does not translate neutrally. -- Amanda (she/her) 22:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, User:AmandaNP for appropriately holding me up to the light. There was escalation, but on a policy level and not a personal one. User:Scorpions13256 and I have been through stuff together before, and they have confidence I'm supportive. While they were properly contrite, I hope they saw through my stridency as letting off steam at their expense (and on the issue, not the action). I foolishly assumed good faith to Scorpions13256's nomination rationale; I was embarrassed I had fallen for it. Didn't think the prank very funny either. (better joke in their reply, I'll grant) For my part I would rather say something foolish than do something foolish. The issue has awakened something in me to further pursue inappropriate April 1 activity. An encyclopedia unreliable one day each year can serve the reader better. BusterD (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Portal maintenance

I'm worried that after the last couple portal MFDs, Portal:American Civil War is going to be on the chopping block soon. You seem to be much more familiar with portal maintenance than I am - what all will need to be done to bring it up to code and then maintain it? I'm willing to help with maintenance for the portal. Hog Farm Talk 15:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. You are not wrong about blocks and chopping. The P:ACW is a remarkably simple portal to update, of the newer The Transhumanist/Northamerica1000 model. Nothing to modify on the main portal page at all, ever. All the content is in subpages for transclusion of random excerpts, some themselves automated. The portal's DYK section is completely automated, drawing from recent DYKs by keyword; several other sections (Wikiprojects, Subcategories, Related portals, Things you can do, Associated Wikimedia) are full transclusions and likewise bear no "edit section" link on the portal mainpage. Grand Parade of the States has a semi-complete list for random excerpts so nothing to do there. The sections which need occasional updating are: Portal:American Civil War/Featured article, Portal:American Civil War/Featured picture, and Portal:American Civil War/Featured biography. To see how simply these are organized, just attempt to edit any of these three. Featured images are rarely delisted, so we'd need to check the images at WP:Featured pictures and see if any more ACW pictures have been promoted since the last update (January 2020) (sheesh...). One actually has to copy the entire universe of featured ACW articles by name, separate the FA bios by hand, then number them. I chose to add good and A-class articles to the Featured articles section so there would be more general coverage, but now there may be enough non-bio FAs to populate a representative list. BusterD (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
One of the valid concerns I absorbed from the portal controversy is that when Wikipedia's mainpage is used as a portal to display our best work, every individual entry sees a fair amount of contest and consensus before display on the main page. This tends to offer a general and broad focus to content seen there. If we take the approach that a portal is for displaying only our very best material, we may lose the broad and genral focus a large consensus sample may provide. It probably took me more time to compose these two brief responses than it would for you to identify and add new content to the portal, which needs not be exhaustive, merely sufficiently illustrative. BusterD (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I know there's been several ACW articles delisted at FAR recently William Tecumseh Sherman, Ironclad warship, and Benjamin Franklin Tilley at least - not sure if they're still showing up on any lists. WP:ACW lists 76 ACW featured articles, of which about half seem to be bios. 14 of the 76 are battles, but counter to civil war studies outside of Wikipedia, the ratio is 1 Eastern Theater (Malvern Hill), 2 Western Theater (Corydon and Raymond), and then 11 Trans-Mississippi (of which 7 are related to Price's Raid, one is a tangential aspect of the Vicksburg campaign, and the other three relating to obscure actions in AR and MO (Van Buren, St. Charles, 1st Newtonia). 21 A-Class articles, which are a little more balanced in subject (5 forts, 5 units including the Zouave Corps, 3 bios, 4 battles, 3 naval topics, one "Parade of States" article). There's 258 GAs as well, but not all of those are suited to a featured showing (for example, CSS Carondelet). So I guess if we can figure out how many we wanted as featured, I'll go through the list this week with some ideas. I've kinda skewed coverage the last two years though with my bias towards Missouri, Arkansas, and Vicksburg events. Hog Farm Talk 18:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The list

So the current list of article we're pulling from for featured is the 108 articles listed at User:Hog Farm/ACW portal work. From quick scan, I've got some thoughts:

  1. Conclusion of the American Civil War is a delisted GA that had over 25,000 bytes of text removed in a copyright cleanup. Probably best to remove from the listing
  2. Battle of Atlanta is in poor shape, IMO. Castel's Decision in the West is one of the modern standards of this campaign, but is barely used, instead we're using the user-generated Historical Marker Database and a Cengage textbook (Boyer). I dont' have the sources needed to revamp this. Listing removal candidate?
  3. Literally almost 1/5 of the articles are United States navy ships, primarily monitors. Maybe see if we've got some other topics to reduce the monitor weighting

Possibilities to include: (?)

  1. M1857 12-pounder Napoleon
  2. Black Terror (ship)
  3. 28th Virginia battle flag
  4. CSS Baltic

Just some ramblings of mine; I don't think there's major changes needed here, but I'd advise against including the conclusion article because of the copyright history and I'm very uncomfortable with us putting Atlanta forward as a standard for Good Article (although my very first Civil War GA, Battle of Wilson's Creek, needs work, too). I know there's been some new Featured Pictures - Adam Cuerden did a nice restoration of a photo of General McPherson recently, among other things. Hog Farm Talk 18:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

As you can see, it's simply a matter of giving thought to appropriate inclusion and due weight. Lost in all the anti-portal draaama were many outside-the-box ideas, a few of which came to fruition. And valid critiques too. BTW, look at poor User:Hog Farm, despairing at the lack of Eastern Theater coverage... At one point, in line with Grand Parade of the States, I envisioned a parallel display of quality unit articles, many of which might be navy.
While I've got your eyes, I had stumbled across an article idea which might tickle your fancy, but I'm not seeing so many sources with which you could just drop kick it into a GA class: the Capture of the Gosport Navy Yard (1861). Porter's Naval History of the CW has a brief article about it, I'm seeing one really good (but not new) piece on Jstor. This is of course the Confederate's entirely peaceful capture of the largest stock of naval gunnery in Union possession at war's outset, just weeks after Fort Sumter. The shipyard's abandonment and ineffective burning left the Merrimack in salvageable condition. There's a story about William Mahone organizing a small number of troops and trains to deceive Union Navy command as to the imminence of attack. You might find more than I could. The DYK hook has April 1, 2024 written all over it. Massive transfer of weaponry and capability, no shots fired, no injuries. BusterD (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Is the article on JSTOR "The Gosport Affair, 1861" by Long (1957)? The first book I checked (Luraghi's History of the Confederate Navy) has much less coverage than I would have thought, but according to the spreadsheet I keep to list all the books I have, I own 188 books on the Civil War, so surely I can pull together some coverage from somewhere. I'll also keep an eye out for anything relevant when I go to a charity book sale next week. If the goal is for April '24, we've got plenty of time to throw together something to GA. Although I'm probably not capable of writing a hook that would shock or titillate enough for DYK to give it an April Fool's run.
If you ever want me to take a look at John Hoskins (office) again sometime I'll give it a read-over when I have time (work's gonna get busy for me in late June through mid September). Or conversely, if you ever want to do some low-pressure reviewing, I can point you to something at GAN or A-Class. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Very kind of you; expect me to take advantage of your offer sometime soon. Yes, the solo article is The Gosport Affair. Here's the thing: the US Navy didn't at first take the "Confederacy" very seriously (my view) and they delayed taking any action which would damage all the inventory at Gosport. We have a major action (literally in the first few hours of the war) which contained no combat, no list of units, no heroes, no victory. Only inventory. Massive inventory. I'm not sure anything definitive has EVER been written about it. Which makes one wonder if someone OUGHT to do so. Perhaps off wiki. Think of the guff David Twiggs got for handing over Texas forts to the Confederates in 1861. Nothing compared to the cast iron of Gosport. Hundreds if not thousands of naval cannon, many thousands of shot and shell. Forges, artificers, laboratories, sailmakers, ropemakers, the complete and largely undamaged facility. For comparison, what would have happened if the US Navy had just handed the Pacific fleet and Pearl Harbor over to the Japanese in 1941? Bluffed out of their position. Without firing a shot. BusterD (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@BusterD and Hog Farm: There are some additional details about the capture of the Gosport (Norfolk) Navy Yard by the Confederates and mention of Mahone's train ruse in the JSTOR article Loss of the Norfolk Yard by (Ret. Rear Adm.) John D. Hayes. Ordnance, Vol. 46, No. 248 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1961), pp. 220-223 (4 pages, but small print) https://www.jstor.org/stable/45363356. Eicher, The Longest Night has a paragraph about it at pp. 55-56. Significant coverage is given to the incident in Detzer, David. Dissonance: The Turbulent Days Between Fort Sumter and Bull Run. New York: Harcourt, 2006. ISBN 978-0-15-603064-9. I can look at this for some details later if you don't have access. I did note that Mahone's ruse is mentioned at p. 180. Also, at p. 197, Detzer, like Hayes, wrote about how the huge supply of gunpowder, shells, cannon, other supplies and machinery and the foundry, boiler shops and dry dock greatly helped the Confederates and lengthened the war. Even some of the scuttled ships, most famously the Merrimac hull, were repairable.
Here are a few excerpts from a chapter on the Virginia Navy ("A Navy Department, Hitherto Unknown to Our State Organization") by John M. Coski in Davis, William C. and James I. Robertson, Jr., eds. Virginia at War, 1861. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2005. ISBN 978-0-8131-2372-1. P. 66: "While Virginia troops could not stop the destruction of the navy yard, a small party under command of naval captain George T. Sinclair seized a large undefended supply of gunpowder at old Fort Norfolk. Virginia troops loaded about half the 2,800 pounds of powder on small vessels and sent them upriver to Richmond." P. 67: "'Perfect quiet has taken the place of the wild excitement that prevailed here during Saturday and Sunday last,' wrote the newspaper correspondent from Norfolk on Tuesday April 23. George Sinclair reported from the shipyard that while the fleeing Federals had spiked the cannon, the nails were 'easily removed' and the guns still serviceable. Governor Letcher assured Confederate president Jefferson Davis and South Carolina governor Francis W. Pickens that the navy yard buildings were burned but the ordnance was not destroyed. In fact, Virginia authorities found at Gosport 1,198 heavy guns, most of them without carriages, along with stocks of small arms and other weapons. Within days, Virginia authorities began sending heavy guns to defensive points through the commonwealth and to the military forces of other Southern states." There's not much else about it except the coming and going of the USS Pawnee, also covered in the Hayes article. If I come across anything else, I'll let you know. Good luck with the article. Donner60 (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
https://archive.org/details/dissonanceturbul00detz/page/166/mode/2up?q=gosport BusterD (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed list changes

Removals
  1. Battle of Atlanta (article quality concerns)
  2. Conclusion of the American Civil War (article quality concerns)
  3. Ironclad warship (unsourced content & a few unresolved contested claims, including one relating to Hampton Roads)
  4. Battle of Corydon (inline citations are misplaced or wrong, see article talk. I have two of the main sources but not the energy to resolve)
  5. Gettysburg Address (assessed as C-class now)
Additions
  1. M1857 12-pounder Napoleon (new GA on a weapon)
  2. Grant's Canal (general interest topic)
  3. Black Terror (ship) (general interest topic)
  4. 28th Virginia battle flag (not seeing a flag on the old list)
  5. CSS Baltic (representation for Confederate ships)
  6. Battle of Helena (most important of the new Trans-Mississippi FAs)
  7. Battle of Gilgal Church (to replace Atlanta)

This would put the list at 110 articles. Any objections? (or from @Donner60 and TwoScars:). COI disclaimer: I was involved in writing Helena, Baltic, Grant's Canal, and "Black Terror". Hog Farm Talk 13:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Battle of Atlanta is in pretty bad shape. If nobody has fixed it up by this Fall, I might be able to work on it. Currently, I am working on a non–Civil War article that has numerous conflicting sources, so it will take a lot of my time. TwoScars (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
No objections here. Told you it would be simple. BusterD (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to remove 174th Infantry Brigade (United States) as well, as the article is for a unit who service is stated to have started in 1917, and the prior claims that it traces lineage to the 174th NY has been disputed and removed from the article years ago. Hog Farm Talk 18:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Will take a look at the featured biographies next ... Hog Farm Talk 18:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Buster, I apologize for blowing up your talk page, but is there a specific reason by Battle of Shiloh and Capon Chapel are listed as featured biographies? Hog Farm Talk 19:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I made a mistake and didn't see it? Might be somebody else but probably me... BusterD (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
changes for the featured bios list. Took out the two non-bios and three delisted FAs (McClellan, Eli Lilly, Sherman). Will look over the pictures next, and then get Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/American Civil War up to date. (I don't think Benjamin Hardin Helm needs expanded anymore, for instance). I think that'll be about it. Besides the subpages that I've updated, I've gone ahead and watchlisted the main portal page so that I'll notice it if someone tries to MFD it. Hog Farm Talk 22:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@Hog Farm, TwoScars, and BusterD: I think the portal can be saved as BusterD notes. It may take some work on some of the referenced articles for overall coverage and quality as well. I agree with the points made above but am going to add some comments about a few points that have caught my immediate attention. I have sometimes used comments to think things out or encourage feedback. So as I have done a few times, I've probably gone on at too much length below but perhaps it is of some value.
You may remember the big project that I had last summer to remove an absolutely wrong date for the end of the Civil War in the American Civil War article and to overcome objections to the change. I posted a large amount of research on the talk page and moved the final version of that (or close to it) to some long threads on Talk:Conclusion of the American Civil War. I thought it could be a good resource there, possibly prevent some controversy and was less likely to be archived and subsequently fade away. I did not use it to do much other than to make a few additions and copy edits to the article, much less to scrutinize what was already there. Since then, the article has suffered by the wholesale removal of material that the community banned User:Doug Coldwell touched. A cursory look leads me to think that much of the removed material in that article is good information which can be properly sourced. It may even have had that information and sourcing already added but now removed as part of the wholesale copyright vio removal process.
I've spent too much time looking at the Doug Coldwell problem but I thought I should see what it was all about and what resulted. With apologies for some expansion on the point, I noticed the community has embarked on, if not completed, a wholesale removal of everything he touched in GA articles, at least, by the paragraph and without any close examination. A thorough review of all of his articles was deemed to take too much time and effort by those doing GA assessments and reassessments. Given his presumed copyright vios, it was deemed important to remove his work quickly and without specific reviews. It seems that many history articles, especially American Revolutionary War and some American Civil War articles have had or will have the good and necessary information thrown out with the bad. In fact, there is a comment that Coldwell's activity and the resulting remedy will set back Wikipedia American history articles by years, or something to that effect. The examiners also found OR and factual errors.
I am not sure whether the original Conclusion article format could or should be restored, but I may have gathered enough information on the talk page to restore some substance with good sources. Much of what I have written is in the form of direct quotes from sources. So some rewriting is probably necessary in order to restore information to the article. I think it is important enough, especially because of the link from the American Civil War article, to work on it at some future time if not soon. The few of us who have been seriously working on American Civil War articles recently have much to do if we are to keep up, or bring up, the standards for these articles. We all have many things to work on now and we can't do it all at once. Luckily, portal maintenance may not be the biggest task.
Battle of Atlanta seems to me to be another Battle of Gettysburg project. It is too important to have a poor article on such an important battle. I suppose many casual users have added much extraneous and poorly verified or unverified material there as well.
I should be able to spend more time online or doing more research offline in the near future. So I hope to contribute to the clean up effort as well as new work. I am also interested in the Revolutionary War and have books on that topic. In view of Coldwell's rampage into that area of history also, I eventually may get around to looking at some of those articles as well. Donner60 (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@Hog Farm, TwoScars, and BusterD: After looking at the Coldwell caused problems more closely, I see that only a few American Civil War articles that he damaged were GAs. Hog Farm has saved them from outright deletion and done his usual good job of rewriting them. In fact, Hog Farm seems to have addressed all of the Coldwell non-GA American Civil War article problems as well. I think that only possible additions to the Conclusion of the American Civil War article need to be considered by me from my own sources. I suppose a few undetected problems might later appear but a further search is now unnecessary. I have gone through all of the Coldwell lists or articles, which is where I should have started. I don't know what the comments about setting back history articles by years and which set me on my wayward course were referring to. So I am sorry I went on at length without checking the Coldwell problem more closely and before finding out that it was really only one article seems to need any work. Thanks to Hog Farm, I (and we) won't have to do much Coldwell clean up after all. I deleted unnecessary comments here from early this morning which I hope none of you have had to read. (Cliche warning) I am now resuming regular service. 08:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Article patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
  • There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK

Got my first DYK published for Aubri Esters yesterday thanks to your encouragement! Elttaruuu (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of me. I'm happy to see you've gotten your feet underneath you and am so gratified when I see you are putting yourself forward and earning the trust of your fellow wikipedians. Thank you for your coverage of these well-deserved (but underserved) heroic figures. BusterD (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
<3 <3 <3 Elttaruuu (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Request to have a look at my ANI request

Hello. I have chose you randomly to ask you to have a look at my ANI request made days ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Arkenstrone: baseless accusations. Veverve (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Scottywong 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/Scottywong. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sudan edit

Why did you change my edit Sudan is 97% Muslim and various sources such as Minority Rights Group state this. Also Armenians arent indigenous to Sudan and arent one of the many ethnic groups there. I know this because I am from Sudan. Christians and followers of other religions each make up 1% of the population. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

You chopped out 16.2% of the article (including citation using reliable sources)! Your edit is identical to an edit made a few days ago by a now blocked editor. Make your case on the talk page of that article, not mine. BusterD (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
https://www.peoplegroups.org/explore/ClusterDetails.aspx?rop2=C0153 my source for the nilotic people population. Also that was by accident I meant to change back the Edits for the religion and demographic section I did not know that the user removed large sections of the article on Sudan. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

LTA IP at Limited Run Games

Hey BusterD. The IP editor you blocked back in April is back at Talk:Limited Run Games. Their first message was a continuation of past abuse. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Removing Kent Desormeaux semi protect

It has been 8 months since the edit war with another user. If any vandalism occurs on the page I will notify you immediately. I was one of the ones involved but I have learned what’s not allowed on Wikipedia since so I am now following the rules rather than an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masai giraffe (talk • contribs) 12:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

DFO waves at BusterD. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I've been swamped IRL recently (this is a GOOD thing) and just haven't had the energy to read discussion for the last week or so. Thanks for noticing. BusterD (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, she's reblocked now. She asked at RfPP as well. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello BusterD,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello BusterD,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

(curious about your something pointy) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I might choose to act like a sysop on that date instead of merely accepting edits which we would normally consider vandalism. BusterD (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! - On this date, I point at a friend whose birthday is today. She is pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

A couple days ago you gave a "new user" a benefit of the doubt and did not block them to avoid biting a new contributor. However, I later recognised their behaviour was similar to that of a blocked user, a long-term sockmaster who focuses on Vietnam-related topics. I opened an investigation, but then on that very day "Jumopil" made three sock accounts to restore their edits on non-protected articles. I thought the evidence was obvious, but one of the socks just flat out said, "Restoration of information ... that I rewrote," and restored Jumopil's edits. You might want to take a look and/or help expedite the process, if that's within your abilities. Yue🌙 17:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator

Any chance you'd want to stand for election at a MILHIST project coordinator this year? Hog Farm Talk 22:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It's an honor to be asked, but with my personal business getting to be a bigger part of each day, I can't justify any new commitments. This is a good thing; my personal life has more balance. I almost was ready to retire but I have discovered a new hobby which fully employs me and is reconnecting me to a community I love. I feel a little guilty I'm not contributing more, but I'm making hay while the sun is shining. Wikipedia is still in my present and future. Looking forward to seeing you one day soon. BusterD (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that things are going well for you. I'm still not sure if I'll stand for re-election myself: I got promoted at work back in June and have been very busy and tired ever since. I think things should clear up a bit in three or four weeks, but I've also been thinking that since the middle of July, so we'll see I guess. Hog Farm Talk 21:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello BusterD,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Jason Momoa

Hi BusterD, I am not going to respond to their latest diatribe as most of it is incoherent. I don't think we are dealing with a troll but some other issue. While hopefully they just go away, if they keep it up I think a WP:IDHT block may be warranted which I honestly think might be the most kind thing to do. S0091 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Lindt

The same unsourced edits are occurring. I can go through WP:PP if needs be. Seasider53 (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC locations

Thanks for summarizing the VPP discussion about minor edits. I have a question about your last line: "Such a process would need to be well-planned, centrally located, and well-advertised." I don't exactly disagree (where else would you put a discussion about the user interface?), but I wonder why you included "centrally located". The point of the RFC system is that discussions can be anywhere and still seen by anyone. This is even more true with the creation of the Wikipedia:Feedback request service, which seems to have increased participation in RFCs. Do you feel like there's a trend for editors to believe that RFCs on (e.g.,) a village pump page as somehow being "more than" and RFCs on (e.g.,) a guideline's talk page being "less than"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"Centrally" was intended to express my reading of the discussion that this sort of RFC on minor edits should get maximum exposure in order to measure community consensus as accurately as possible. The word "centrally" was chosen to describe something more visible and not express a preference in specific location. I consider policy or guideline talk pages as VERY centrally located. Thanks for the question. BusterD (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I'll take a liberty to comment further: IMHO, VPP accomplished its purpose well. It moved discussion toward resolution on an issue which is clearly on many editors' minds. The OP had very modest suggestions, but by my reading the larger issue deserved further and more formal comment. The discussion was preternaturally civil, which is always pleasant to see. Thanks for your participation. BusterD (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
We've been talking about this problem at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#CONLEVEL as any level that agrees with me.
(Given the response to the CENT-listed VP-located RFC described towards the WP:YDOW for another UI change, I'm not certain that a pleasant little discussion among well-behaved, collegial adults is necessarily the best approach. A noisy fight sometimes draws more attention, and thus reduces surprises.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, BusterD. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC). 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.

Frostly (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks and done. BusterD (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello BusterD:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1100 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for your recent ANI closure. I just hope that it sticks and isn’t opened a THIRD time. Dronebogus (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi BusterD :) I'm looking to interview people here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Not a sock

Hey, you locked Transformers: Rise of the Beasts. Your stated reason for locking the article was sock puppetry.

I am absolutely not a sock puppet. I'm an anon editor who chooses not to log in. I use the random IP assigned by my ISP, and I make no claims to be anyone I'm not. I try to provide clear and meaningful edit summaries and I discuss changes on the article talk page when disagreements happen. If you really believe I am sock puppet I am willing to discuss this with admins but it isn't going to achieve anything because I'm absolutely not a sock puppet. Your stated reason for locking the article appears to be incorrect. A year long page lock seems a little over zealous.

Please note that User:Legobro99 refused to provide edit summaries, refused to discuss, and WP:HOUNDed me to other articles. By locking the article you have rewarded his edit warring. He did belatedly leave a comment on the article talk page after he was warned by admins, but only repeated the same assertion without doing anything to support his claims. I'm not confident that he will make any effort to discuss now that the article has been locked with his preferred version.

It might seem trivial and pedantic but I'm trying to simplify and summarize the lead section and remove potentially contentious wording to avoid a years long slow dumb edit war like the one that has occurred at Bumblebee_(film) (and continues to occur: diff). I am trying to avoid WP:FANCRUFT trivia of continuity and canon that fans feel necessary to highlight in the lead section. I'm trying to keep it simple and stick to what an ordinary reader might actually need to know. -- 109.76.192.204 (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Legobro99 continues to edit war and WP:HOUND me, again restoring an edit (diff) that is obviously broken, being actively discussed on the article talk page (Talk:Crazy,_Stupid,_Love#Revert, and the editor who made that specific change User:InfiniteNexus has even acknowledged that " As for modifying reference titles, that was a mistake done by accident" -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
You should be saying these things at Talk:Transformers: Rise of the Beasts. As an uninvolved admin, my responsibility is to enforce the five pillars, all policies and guidelines. My job is NOT to decide who is in the right in a content dispute. I saw massive and dedicated disruption. I ended that. The rest is up to ordinary editing, including expressing disagreement in a civil way on talk. This may be viewed by you as a unsatisfactory answer. WP:Requests for page protection/Decrease is thataway. BusterD (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I've no problem with you following the rules and doing your job as an admin, but labelling the page lock as being due to "sock puppetry" puts blame on one user (me) whereas labelling it edit warring or disruptive editing would have been a neutral statement not implying that one particular user was at fault. I am concerned that this implicit blame would cause other editors to reject my request to change the page if I made a {{Edit semi-protected}} request, or prejudice any request for WP:Requests for page protection/Decrease.
Throughout I have tried to be clear in edit summaries and started a talk page discussions to make things as clear as possible. If you thought at any point I was not being civil then please point it out and suggest how I could have handled it differently. -- 109.76.197.251 (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I wrote: "You have been reverted by multiple editors (including me). You kept going instead of opening a discussion and waiting for any response in the first place", and this IP kept calling me "Sebastien" (???) and accused me of all sorts of things. Since I had no idea they were such an aggressive and accusatory IP, I think they might be one of the blocked IPs/users I have reported. In adition to their personal grievances, they infringe MOS:LARGENUM by misinterpreting it. Hope something will be done about this unnecessary negative drama. ภץאคгöร 14:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh hi. Another user hounding me because he refuses to discuss. Apologies BusterD. He knows who he is. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Normal_rounding_of_numbers_and_inconsistency and he is taking it personally (even though I provided 3 different examples).
Nxyaros is a persistently WP:UNCIVIL user and has been for many years. He is so unforgettably rude and unpleasant even though he changed his name from User:Sebastian James to User:Nxyaros his unpleasant behavior remained recognizably the same. Look at the fact that he thought it was appropriate to comment here on BusterDs talk page and make up your own mind if that is an editor who behaves politely and appropriately. -- 109.76.197.251 (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 94.119.32.7 (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  • "When I first approached the article (uninvolved, reading RfPP), I saw ten almost identical reverts between IP editors and three different user accounts in the previous 2 days. I read edit summaries;"
    • Clearly, you did not. Otherwise, it would have troubled you that someone who had reverted twice without bothering to leave an edit summary had requested article protection.
  • "I looked at the diffs. Looked like blanking to me; still does."
    • You didn't look properly. What I did was not "blanking".
  • "No discussion on page talk."
    • When people revert edits for no reason, there is no possibility of rational discussion. Had anyone stated sensibly why exactly they were reverting my improvements, there may have been. You should have realised that the request for page protection was made in bad faith precisely because there was no talk page discussion.
  • "Because page protection was requested, I semi-protected the page for a week."
    • Yes, it's clear that you acted in a mechanical way that was not motivated by improving the encyclopaedia.
  • "The IP editor is under a mis-impression that because they claim to have the right version and the three different user accounts have the WP:Wrong version, any administrator should intercede in their favor."
    • Not remotely what I was saying.
  • "My understanding when I was given administrator privileges was that my remit is to put out fires (and possibly prevent them). Making decisions on exactly WHAT content should remain would make me WP:Involved, and eliminate my usefulness as a sysop on this page. I would expect any conscientious administrator to do pretty much what I chose to do"
    • When presented with a spurious request for page protection by someone who is reverting edits without any explanation of any kind, I would expect any conscientious administrator to ignore that spurious request. 94.119.32.12 (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
      • This edit warring behavior has continued. I have semi protected the page for two weeks and applied lengthy partial blocks to three ips currently involved in edit warring. (94.119.32.12, 94.119.32.4, 109.144.29.43) It's clear there are more who've edited this page in identical ways recently. BusterD (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
        • You really should not be an administrator. Your attitude is a disgrace. Your complete failure to appraise the situation accurately, and your determination to reward disruptive editors, is shameful. The fact that you are prepared to lie in order to ensure that grammar errors and incorrect capitalisation remain in an article is truly disgusting. 94.119.32.4 (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
          My edits are always under review. You are certainly welcome to take me to any administrator's notice board. BusterD (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
          • What an arrogant response. An administrator working to defend bad grammar and incorrect capitalisation, not even comprehending what they are doing, and then indulging in such supercilious posturing when questioned, is a truly repellent sight. 94.119.32.7 (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Protection questioned

Hi. I see you protected a page for "persistent vandalism." But I don't see any record of the sort in article history. Please reconsider. Thanks. See here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Suozzi&diff=prev&oldid=1190785588 2603:7000:2101:AA00:116B:2588:AD54:DF88 (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, it appears that an established editor is simply seeking to game the system. Here are the edits he just deleted, and he seems to have - at best - an annoyance about IP appropriate edits being added. So easiest thing for him is to dupe you into protecting the article, for non-existent "vandalism." Look at what he just deleted here, relevant and RS-supported. Not vandalism at all.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Suozzi&diff=1190785173&oldid=1190783485 Protection is not meant to be a tool for gaming the system, I would submit. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:116B:2588:AD54:DF88 (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I have created a thread on the article's talk page for this to be discussed. BusterD (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I've responded there. Though frankly, I would have thought it would have saved unnecessary expenditure of community time for you to simply look back. Note that "vandalism" was never even asserted in the request. Nor was it present. (This is supported by the requesting editors illuminating comments on the string you started - obviously vandalism was not present). Thus no basis for protection existed. And that you would have taken appropriate action to unprotect. But thanks for the work you do, thankless as it is. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:116B:2588:AD54:DF88 (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
And I thank you for your consideration. As an admin, I try to stay out of content disagreements. This sometimes leaves me unable to fully express my preference. The tools I'm provided often have some limitations on how I may phrase my reasons for protection, for example. I didn't mean anything negative about your editing choices and I apologize if my choice tended to cast your efforts in a less-than-positive light. In general however, it is usually better to discuss disagreements on the article's talk page so interested parties may get involved in the outcome. BusterD (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Understood. Admins are thankless jobs. As you say .. when you mention content disagreement .. (covering the second point, and ignoring the innocent typo other half of the editor's "rationale"), it was a pointy subjective "content disagreement". Not vandalism. And as such, not appropriate background for a "persistent vandalism" page protection. IMHO. I did not expect you to dive into a content disagreement. Just hoped that you would assess whether the content disagreement here was "vandalism".--2603:7000:2101:AA00:116B:2588:AD54:DF88 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
You have demonstrated through your willingness to discuss that your intention was not vandalism. I will relax the protection as you've requested and I'll apologize publicly on the talk page. BusterD (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Lalitaditya Muktapida

Hello. I have seen your comment on the article Lalitaditya Muktapida. A user removed some cited information by giving an edit summary which claims that the citation was a Primary source, and it is supported by your comment there. Infact, the source is not a Primary source as the letter which he claims to be of Primary is not actually what he think it is, infact, the author of the book made modification on the letter(for explaining) which makes it a secondary source. is the reference(p-32). I hope you look into this and make a conclusion. Imperial[AFCND] 14:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep all discussion on the article talk page and I appreciate your note here. BusterD (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you helping to coordinate the WP:ACE2023 election! — xaosflux Talk 01:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a nice thing to do, but I wish I deserved it more. This year I did absolutely nothing except keep up with my reading and stay active just in case I was needed. Very much appreciate your thinking about those who volunteered. For my part I believe in ArbCom and support where and when I may. I've been fortunate to stay out of trouble during my wiki-career. I admire those more willing to get into a tangle than I. BusterD (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
@BusterD a certain situation put some extra attention on the importance of alternate/standby volunteers - being ready was perfect! — xaosflux Talk 02:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BusterD/Archive_19&oldid=1192915139"