Jump to content

User talk:Extraordinary Writ/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Undeletion Request re LiveWorkPlay

Hello, you wrote "If I could have a temp-undelete (preferably including both the G4'd version and the AfD'd version), I'd be appreciative" I just wanted to check is that something you are looking for from me? I would be happy to do it but I don't know how. I can't see the 2021 deleted article at all and I don't have any sort of copy of it. If that is what you were asking. It just disappeared and I couldn't find anything other than some archived information from an article in 2018. If that quote was a question to someone else, my apologies, just checking. Thanks for your time. Iamthekanadian (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No, Iamthekanadian, that's nothing for you to worry about. I'm just asking if an administrator can temporarily restore the article so we can assess whether it should have been deleted or not. Apologies for the confusion: Wikipedians, myself included, definitely have a jargon problem! Oh, and sorry about all the frustration you've been experiencing with your article. In my experience, the deletion review process generally does a pretty good job of looking at deletions with an unjaundiced eye, so hopefully you should get a fair shake. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Extraordinary Writ I almost cried from your message because it wasn't rude or dismissive! From the very beginning I have been baffled by jargon and processes (I am not a luddite, it's more to do with the complex culture that is combined with some unique processes that can be accidentally or deliberately dehumanizing and hierarchical, depending on how the other person is using them, and whether or not they are looking to punish you for being flawed). I can see exactly what happened, on a human level (person x is mad at me, person y is a friend that works with them often on Wikipedia, person x tried to "get me" with a false sock puppet accusation, that didn't work, so they hit me in a different way with the help of person y, who has never before had anything to do with me or my articles, and suddenly prioritized rapidly deleting the article without a word of discussion at exactly the same time as I was standing up to person x). But to "prove" that with all the technical wizardry required, I don't know how, and that's why it was such a "good move" they know I don't have the ability to defend against that type of attack (but I am trying anyway, even though I almost cried trying to get this far). I actually got "outed" really fast on Wikipedia (I don't care, but learned after, that this is not something people are supposed to do) and accused of being a "black operator" and all sorts of wild things. This was very comical as someone with about 30 years with small non-profits, if I could get rich posting conflict of interest articles on Wikipedia, I'd have been more clever about it, and would have done it years ago. That's a joke. Anyway, I am overtired, thanks for responding! I am mildly hopeful for the fair shake. I guess I got a fair shake with the sock accusation (the attacker was pretty smug that I'd be obliterated) but at the same time, the admin there advised me too bad so sad about the article getting deleted when I asked for advice, since the two things are 100% connected. I hope it can't or shouldn't be so easy as to just delete an article you know someone cares about because you want to punish them, but I have so many things like that done to me already. I know the attacker(s) is reading this message. I am still trying to figure out if Wikipedia is a toxic environment with the occasional decent person, or if I am having a run of bad luck with those who are in it for the chance to throw their weight around and punish those who won't bend the digital knee. This will be a good test of which it is - there's zero logical or evidence to support that deletion. But I know exactly what is going to happen - the fact that senior editors and admins approved it through the correct process will be ignored and they will talk extensively about every mistake I made BEFORE the article was appropriately published. Wait for it! The fun of being stalked is I am good at predicting what they will do. Iamthekanadian (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Extraordinary Writ quick question - although someone took a shot at me as a "paid editor" (sigh) it looks like the facts were followed and the article is supposed to be undeleted - am I interpreting that correctly? Thanks for your help, here, and there. Iamthekanadian (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
That seems to be correct, Iamthekanadian: the procedure that was used to delete your article (which you can read here if you haven't already) requires that the newly created version be "substantially identical" to the previously deleted version, and since your newly created version seems to have been completely different from the old one, that criterion likely didn't apply. One administrator whom I trust has already stated that the deletion should be reversed, and that's the most likely outcome in my view. (The process takes seven days, and plenty of others will come and chime in.) You should be aware, though, that even if the deletion gets overturned, it's possible that someone will initiate a different procedure (more bureaucracy, I know) asking that the article be deleted. This is the same procedure that got the article deleted back in 2018; you might want to reread that discussion to familiarize yourself with the process. Basically, you'll want to make sure that you have "multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" discussing the organization in depth. I'm sure you have some of those already (though I still haven't been able to see your version of the article), but those rules can be stricter than they look, so it's good to be prepared. Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't push back a little on your thoughts about Wikipedia. It's important to realize that we have a huge problem with people who create an account for the sole and unrelenting purpose of spamming Wikipedia with promotional articles about their business, their organization, or themselves. Just in the year or so that I've been here, I've supported the deletion of hundreds of pages, reported scores of problematic accounts to be blocked, and undone countless attempts to add promotional nonsense to our articles – and others have done far more than I have! What I'm trying to say is that unpaid Wikipedia volunteers who spend all day long dealing with people who are trying to exploit their trust can find it really difficult to respond in a courteous and kind manner when they encounter someone who genuinely wants to help but is getting trapped up in our byzantine rules and processes, like you. The people you've been interacting with are, in my view, good people who really do want to make this encyclopedia better: it's just that they sometimes get a little jaded when they're dealing with the ten-thousandth person who wants to write an article about an organization he's connected to. I hope this is helpful, and let me know if you have any more questions: I'll be away from keyboard for most of the day (it's Thanksgiving today down in this country), but I should be able to respond by tonight. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Extraordinary Writ I have ADHD and if you keep responding to me, since I love talking to people, this will never end, but I thank you again, and just want to clear up a couple of things. I really and truly and TOTALLY GET IT about "paid editors." What happened with me is a volunteer with our organization who had made some minor edits years ago to a Wikipedia article about our organization (I was not aware of this) told me the article had been deleted and that this was too bad, etc. I was very clueless but eventually I got to where someone allowed me to see the deleted article, and I asked if I could try to fix it, and they thought about that and fair enough, said it was a mess (basically 100% of the sources were busted links) so just start a new one. So that is what I did. Then there was this whole thing about COI and paid editor. I didn't have much context and it seemed nuts to me, what are you talking about, paid editor? No one is even going to know that I was here, let alone pay me for it! Anyway...once that got straightened out, believe me, the amount of scrutiny on that article was HEAVY as per the way it was written, the sources...everything is top notch, and that wasn't my doing - that was people like yourself - although some with a less kind tone - making sure that it would fully pass mustard - many drafts were declined, sources not good enough, etc. So that is why I tell you again, with confidence, that this really isn't a case of some nice people just trying to make things better, at this point, it really is some people with more power than I have who are trying to punish me - I wish you could see the deleted article (I don't understand why I can't and not even you can) and the history of it, there's no way it just suddenly randomly came on the radar of an admin who just happens to be close with the person who falsely accused me of being a sock puppet from 16 years ago. I have moved on from that article long ago, and now I am just poking around trying to improve articles about our local football team, board of trade, things like that where I have a bit of familiarity, I mean, surely most people edit topics of personal interest? I keep getting tagged with COI, to the point I am afraid to edit an article about fish, because I once ate a fish. It's pretty ridiculous. I hope you can help me keep an eye on the process because while I am encouraged that the facts will speak for themselves if people stay objective, I know that this is a pretty tight club, pretty hierarchical, and when you aren't fully in the club and don't really understand how things get done, it's easy to get dismissed as "some newbie who likes to complain" when I am a 53 year old man with a lot of experience who knows the difference between experienced editors trying to do a good job, and someone who has a hate on for me and is using their skills and position to punish me. Happy Thanksgiving! I am Canadian so just a regular weekend for me except for football is on! Iamthekanadian (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Update Extraordinary Writ the process is such that LiveWorkPlay is now visible, but only in history (at least for me). The editing history is pretty...aggressive, someone even removed the French name because there was no source. Given the harsh workovers of the past, it is hard to believe that out of a bazillion articles, this one somehow got targeted for speedy deletion. Anyway, just saying the process is moving along, enjoy the weekend. Iamthekanadian (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that things seem to be working out, Iamthekanadian. Now that the article's been temporarily restored (thank you, Daniel!), we can all see that the speedy deletion indeed didn't follow the process. I can also see what I think you've been trying to tell me all along: you started the article in draftspace like you were supposed to, it was submitted through AfC and approved, it was eventually marked as reviewed, and other editors helped out by relentlessly pruning it. I certainly can appreciate the frustration you experienced when all that hard work suddenly vanished for no apparent reason, even though you followed all the rules. I'm not sure if you noticed that the person who requested deletion wasn't anyone you had ever interacted with: it was an unregistered user, apparently from Australia, who had never edited under that IP address before. (That's...strange, but it at least suggests that it probably wasn't someone with a vendetta against you.) Anyways, it looks like the deletion is on track to be soundly overturned (even the deleting administrator, who's a thoughtful editor whom I very much respect, seems to agree she made a mistake), so this sorry incident should soon be behind you. I'm glad to see that you're editing articles unrelated to your organization: I think you'll find that to be much less exasperating. Thanks for working your way through our convoluted and sometimes-unfriendly processes, and thanks for stopping by to chat. It's good for people like me to hear from newer editors who are struggling every once in a while, since it's easy for those of us who have been here for a while to forget that every button we click affects a real person, sometimes in ways that come across as confusing or even hurtful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you this is what I have been trying to explain, and I am finally being heard - kind of scary though, it feels like if I hadn't come across Extraordinary Writ, the bullies would have easily won. As for the user who deleted the article being an unregistered user from Australia, I hate to add to what will no doubt be perceived as some sort of persecution complex, but in fact, what you see there is some sort of a track-covering effort (perhaps sophisticated in nature). Check out the false sock accusation against me - after dismissing that, I was told [[1]] that the article had been deleted by an admin named Liz. I checked that out, and saw that Liz and my stalker/attacker (from the false sock claim) were pals, confirming the obvious, that the deletion of the article was in fact the continuation of an attack. My attacker was likely confident that I lacked the technical skills to do anything about it (or figure out the connection) but when I managed to file the undeletion request, and thankfully some people did not dismiss me as has happened so often in this hellish journey, I think the attackers realized their status at Wikipedia was in jeopardy, as I imagine it is rather frowned upon to use admin powers, alone or in conjunction with others, to carry out an attack that is unrelated to actual content and quality control. They have tried different ways to get at me, often with a lot of success (contesting every article I work on or edit that I make, declaring COI and moving articles to draft where they are never approved, etc). This current controversy is not the only article or place where this has happened to me, and I don't think it is just two people/accounts (I know who the leader is, but they have friends, and those friends have pretty openly joined in the attacks and the very easy tactic of smearing me as a paid editor, which as you know, easily triggers people who don't dig too deep and figure out that the paid editor disparagement is silly). What I do know for sure, something very fishy went on, and no, it was not a random unregistered user from Australia. I wish I had a screen capture, but there was a switcheroo done there. At the very least I believe Roy Smith was a direct witness since he is the one who advised me to look up Liz! Again, can't thank you enough for sticking with this. I really do wonder though if I will be able to contribute here again. I have spent all my time trying to deal with these attacks and having articles deleted, COI claims, I don't think it is going to end. This whole thing probably has them madder than ever and they clearly have the skills and network to attack with impunity. FYI, I sure haven't received an apology about it (notwithstanding you who have done nothing wrong expressed empathy for the hurt that came from things I worked hard on just vanishing and being told too bad so sad). Iamthekanadian (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Let me walk you through what happened here, Iamthekanadian: I think you're jumping to conclusions that aren't quite fair. 1) Unregistered user from Australia, citing WP:G4, requests that the article be deleted. 2) This adds the article to a long list of pages that people want deleted. (You can see the current list here.) 3) Liz is going through this long list, and deletes a whole bunch of articles from the list, including yours. She does this every day, and you can see from the logs that your article was deleted at the same time as a bunch of others. Liz is a very conscientious admin, and while she made a mistake in this case, I'm certain (very certain) that she was just trying to do the boring work of clearing out the queue of requested deletions. She's not the villain here. As for the user who suspected you of sockpuppetry, he hasn't edited in almost a month, so he couldn't have anything to do with the deletion. Please take my word for it: you're going to be fine. You just got caught up in some unfortunate misunderstandings; nobody is plotting against you. I really do understand your frustration, but the best thing for you to do is to just move on: there's no conspiracy here, and comments like that are just going to land you in more hot water. Just go work on some interesting articles and everything will work out. I promise! Just trust me when I say that everyone here really is acting in good faith (even if it doesn't seem that way) and that the best thing you can do is to try to put this behind you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
It's OK Extraordinary Writ I appreciate that your existing relationships mean that you would lean heavily towards the version you've arrived at. I know who posted from the Australian IP, and you can see from the sockpuppetry logs, this is a very angry person (trust me, I have more evidence than just that) determined to punish me, and preferably, eliminate me from Wikipedia. There's no way to see what went on there and tell me in honesty that this person is simply going about the business of a happy healthy Wikipedia. If it is a coincidence, it's a wild one - obviously the attacker knows the boring work patterns just as well as you, so it's not that hard to figure it out. But it's OK, I can see it is possible that this person was taken advantage of rather than in on the effort, having done so, will you promise me this much - if something like this happens again you'll step out of the party line that no one is out to get me? Because, quite literally, that person and perhaps one or two of their colleagues are absolutely out to get me, and have said as much, and they have proven that they can be pretty effective under normal circumstance (this article is not all they have done). Remember, I was also advised that the deletion of the article was appropriate and I'd be wasting my time to dispute it. It took you and others making a lot of investment (with some being really dismissive along the way and advocating that delete was appropriate because they assumed I was just a novice complainer) so I would be a fool to think this is a one and done and move on - I will indeed "move on" but not because what I am telling is not accurate - but because there's no choice in life. Cheers. Iamthekanadian (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay! Wasn't sure, as I said in my edit summary. Thanks for letting me know! When does the bot typically do that? As my request is "done" for now for example (I will be reapplying in a month).

Have a cookie for your prompt piece of help ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 19:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

No worries, Th78blue. I think the bot is set to archive requests 72 hours after the last edit, so just wait a few more days and it should be taken care of. Oh, and thanks for the cookie! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Close

It's disingenuous to state that, in the discussion you recently closed, a valid substantial majority agreed that the sources met GNG: third-party coverage was hardly even brought up by the keep side until the very end (bottom-of-the-barrel in both quality and quantity, not for improving the article but rather just reaching one's desired outcome), and much of the keep votes were bland copy-paste statements, aspersions, or noise. And they were at odds with policy (WP:NOT), which was brought up in the discussion but you found convenient to ignore. I hardly expect you to change your mind ofcourse, but it's worth noting that your closing statement was inept and misrepresents the situation. Avilich (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I stand by my closure, which reflects the consensus reached in the AfD. The view of the participants in this discussion was, in the words of BD2412, that "[t]he sources are permissible sources for the topic area, and there is clearly consensus in this discussion that they are of sufficient quality, which is the real bottom line". To interfere with that consensus (which hardly violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE) would require supervoting, and I can't think of a single closer who would have closed this AfD as anything other than keep. If you really think that this perfectly ordinary closure was "disingenuous", "inept", or otherwise beyond the pale, you're free to have it reviewed at DRV. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm fully aware this is an ordinary close, though I can think of a few cases where notability concerns were overruled despite significantly unfavorable numbers due to policy concerns. But this is only really the case because of raw numbers, though, and you can hardly say that NOT and TRIVIA don't apply, since the only attempts at rebutting this were (1) an accusation of lying and (2) a small, low-quality source dump at the very end. The rest was just "it's notable", "sources exist", and "other stuff exists", which by rights should be disregarded. Anyway, I won't waste any more of your time -- I was actually expecting a simple 'the result was keep' without a single closing statement, but yours deserved a comment. Avilich (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Speaking as an administrator, this could not have been closed any other way. I say this dispassionately (I am part of a smaller community of administrators on Wiktionary, I occasionally need to close discussions in which I have heavily participted myself, and in a fair proportion of those discussions I have closed them as going against my own position in the discussion); this was not a close call. It would be amusing to see this challenged at DRV, though. BD2412 T 16:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from Orc 0001 (01:13, 30 November 2021)

Hi. Thank you for your help!😀 I am excited to contribute to wikipedia. I am a fairly inexperienced editor, but I would like to eventually become a wikipedia admin. In the future, what would I have to do if I wanted to pursue this path? --Orc 0001 (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, Orc 0001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Becoming an admin isn't something that new users should generally be worried about: it requires a long track record of productive contributions in a wide variety of areas. (If you're really curious, take a brief look at this advice page for editors interested in becoming administrators. See how complicated it is? That's why new users should stay far away from adminship.) The good news is that almost all of the important things we do here don't require being an admin: I'm not an admin, and neither are many of our most productive users. Editing pages, reverting vandalism, writing new articles – all that can be done by anyone, including you. By the way, have you tried The Wikipedia Adventure? It's a fun and interactive introduction to editing Wikipedia, and it does a great job of explaining some of the core concepts you'll need to know. Please let me know if you have any more questions! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Question from Sonic omg (04:25, 2 December 2021)

How do I post biography --Sonic omg (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Sonic omg! You can learn about the process for creating a new article at this link. It's important to make sure that the person you're writing about has been discussed in detail by independent reliable sources, and writing about someone whom you're connected to in real life is generally discouraged. Creating a new article is one of the hardest things you can do here, so it's generally a good idea to get some experience working on other parts of our encyclopedia first. Please let me know if you have any more questions! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation in the November 2021 New Pages Patrol drive

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For reviewing at least 25 articles during the drive.

Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 29 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. (t · c) buidhe 12:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Extraordinary Writ. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! -- TNT (talk • she/they) 00:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, TNT: I'll try not to break anything too badly! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

IP editor vandalism

Hey. Just so you know I've reported that IPv6 editor you've been reverting for vandalism over at WP:AIV. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Sideswipe9th. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

AN

This has been a long explanation, but I hope it at least immunizes me from any charges that I did not consider all of the opposing arguments. A+, well done. --JBL (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello Extraordinary Writ, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022.
Happy editing,
– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

And a very merry Christmas to you too, Kavyansh! It's been a pleasure working with you this year – best of luck with all your many projects. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

A very happy holiday season, whatever it may be for you and yours.


I wish you an enjoyable and safe season, and health, happiness, and success in the year ahead. Have a fantastic time! Vaticidalprophet 03:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Vat, and a very merry Christmas and holiday season (yes, that's a real article title) to you as well. I've been glad to see you around again: you certainly were missed. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Aikaterini Divari

Hello, Extraordinary Writ,

Thanks for tagging this orphaned talk page, I'm not sure how you caught it. However, when you tagged it, you neglected to post a notification on the talk page of the page creator. You used Twinkle, which is great, so you might want to check your Twinkle Preferences so that "Notify page creator" is always selected.

Also, I think the default setting in Twinkle CSD Preferences is that only some criteria of speedy deletion are checked off, like A7 and G11, when all criteria really need to be selected (there are boxes that you check off). And there are some criteria, like G7, where Twinkle just doesn't notify page creators regardless of whether or not it is selected. That might have happened in this case but please check your Preferences any way. Thanks again! Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

G8 is one of those criteria that just isn't in Twinkle's "notify page creator" list at all. (The others are G5, G7, G9, U1, U2, C2, and F8.) Since these sorts of criteria tend to involve technical/maintenance issues, there's no real reason to notify the page creator, which is presumably why Twinkle doesn't allow it. Thanks for the message anyways, and I hope you're having a pleasant holiday season. (Oh, and I found the orphaned talk page via this site: it gives a lot of false positives but can occasionally find something useful.) Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
  • On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Page move

Hello, I was looking through page move articles and requests and I came across your name several times. I thought you may be able to answer a question regarding page moves. Someone moved Gallos sculpture to Gallos (sculpture) and it was likely a correct new title. The page recently had a DYK that garnered 15k views. My question is, can the page views be moved to the new title? Thank you much in advance. Bruxton (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Bruxton – I don't think there's any way to move the pageviews directly. However, if you go to the pageviews site and check the box that says "include redirects", it should show you the combined statistics for both of the titles. Let me know if you have any more questions. By the way, great job on that article: fifteen thousand DYK views is quite impressive, particularly for a newer editor. Keep up the good work! Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you much. Bruxton (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Extraordinary_Writ/Archive_4&oldid=1069227801"