User talk:JzG/Archive 199
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:JzG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 195 | ← | Archive 197 | Archive 198 | Archive 199 | Archive 200 | Archive 201 | → | Archive 205 |
Anywhere to report or track/note-down “impersonation”-of-an-admin behavior?
Not actual violation of WP:IMPERSONATION or WP:SIGFORGE but in the police impersonation sense, dropping into the middle of a talk page conversation non sequitur to issue orders to the users having a discussion? As you can see it's completely deniable as it does not begin with anything like, “By the power invested in me as a Wikipedia administrator...”, and hence is not straightforwardly inappropriate conduct.
Given my recent experience bringing up what seemed like a much more clear-cut issue at ANI, I'm loathe to present something like this at a general-purpose noticeboard, so I'm hoping there's at least some way to just note it down in the right place in case there's a pattern. Thanks, ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- That is not in any sense "impersonation". It is simply good sense and is expected of editors with a clue. Such comments are what keeps Wikipedia from wandering too far into the weeds. Hoping that a passing admin will bless good behavior and condemn bad is contrary to procedure, and is not scalable. By the way, the comment was also correct. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Can you tell me what the edit summary “lets salt this particular exchange, eh?” would have meant?For my part, every comment I had made referred to the topic of the talk page section—the proposed article and the wording of its title—and furthermore aspects of U.S. politics relevant to the 2020 U.S. elections, which both the basepage and the proposed new article are about. That's why this didn't seem like a good-sense application of NOTFORUM, to drop in and refer to everyone's comments as “crap” (while singling just me out to ping), claim that “everyone should... refrain from theses sorts of exchanges” without any explanation of what sort of exchanges are being referred to, and then immediately leave the discussion. I also noticed that this user frequents the Parler talk page and in a spot-checking of conversations there observed what seemed to be coordination with the recently ap2-topic-banned user Bus stop, though I have not followed that whole case closely.I mean there's a user involved in that discussion whose comments are mostly jokey distracting nonsense, but as far as I've seen he acts that way all the time, even here on Guy's talk page, without censure.Also—I'd observe that, being an admin, you are probably much more familiar with the usernames of other admins than the rank-and-file user, and can lean on that knowledge to get a feeling that someone is or isn't an admin. But for me, at least, simply issuing orders to other users and telling them that their comments are crap is rather distinctive behavior among the proles where everything is about the Wikipedia-specific definition of civility.But maybe I'm looking at it wrong. AGF works in mysterious ways, even in the eyes of admins I'm finding lately. Perhaps “crap” was tough love rather than another attempt by opponents of the proposed article to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.Thanks for responding, in any case. Even if this is completely unremarkable behavior, I'd still like to know if there's any standard way of handling police-impersonation-type behavior, for future reference in clear-cut cases. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- I see that JzG is away for a couple of days so I'll respond again but don't intend battling here, or pretty much anywhere for that matter. I don't know how familiar you are with colloquial English but "salt this particular exchange" is a perfectly innocent suggestion that the discussion should cease. In Wikipedia jargon, WP:SALT means to protect a non-existent page so it cannot be created, but in colloquial usage it just means to take action to stop something. Plain speaking is best but the various policy pages (which I'm too lazy to look up at the moment) make it clear that a newly arrived WP:SPA and WP:JIMBO himself are equal (well, that's the theory). We're supposed to judge arguments on their merits, not on their author. Again, "cut out this forum crap" is mild plain speaking. Someone unfamiliar with colloquial usage might consult a dictionary and conclude that crap = bad word but it's pretty mild in context. The claim is that the discussion involves significant exchange of opinions, and, by definition, that is "forum crap". People should stick to actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources. You are wrong about "police-impersonation-type behavior"—what you are seeing is standard procedure at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Johnuniq: Ah, thank you. I was aware of WP:SALT, but not familiar with the neutral “to stop something” sense, so after seeing that in other areas this user did not always appear to have a great interest in harmony among ideologies I was taking it in more of a “Salting the earth” way and disrupting the discussion to prevent the proposed article from being created. I don't personally find calling someone's writing “crap” so mild or very plain speaking, particularly on an encyclopedia project where all we do is write all the time; but I've certainly noticed over the years that despite that, there's a great deal of latitude given to the denigration of another's words or contributions that seems exempt from civility and etiquette rules or the “support your claims” mandate of NPA; and if you say wielding the term “crap” is much more common than I've seen and is even standard procedure and compatible with “judge arguments on their merits”, I trust your experience.Thank you very much, again, for listening and responding. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)'
- I see that JzG is away for a couple of days so I'll respond again but don't intend battling here, or pretty much anywhere for that matter. I don't know how familiar you are with colloquial English but "salt this particular exchange" is a perfectly innocent suggestion that the discussion should cease. In Wikipedia jargon, WP:SALT means to protect a non-existent page so it cannot be created, but in colloquial usage it just means to take action to stop something. Plain speaking is best but the various policy pages (which I'm too lazy to look up at the moment) make it clear that a newly arrived WP:SPA and WP:JIMBO himself are equal (well, that's the theory). We're supposed to judge arguments on their merits, not on their author. Again, "cut out this forum crap" is mild plain speaking. Someone unfamiliar with colloquial usage might consult a dictionary and conclude that crap = bad word but it's pretty mild in context. The claim is that the discussion involves significant exchange of opinions, and, by definition, that is "forum crap". People should stick to actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources. You are wrong about "police-impersonation-type behavior"—what you are seeing is standard procedure at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Can you tell me what the edit summary “lets salt this particular exchange, eh?” would have meant?For my part, every comment I had made referred to the topic of the talk page section—the proposed article and the wording of its title—and furthermore aspects of U.S. politics relevant to the 2020 U.S. elections, which both the basepage and the proposed new article are about. That's why this didn't seem like a good-sense application of NOTFORUM, to drop in and refer to everyone's comments as “crap” (while singling just me out to ping), claim that “everyone should... refrain from theses sorts of exchanges” without any explanation of what sort of exchanges are being referred to, and then immediately leave the discussion. I also noticed that this user frequents the Parler talk page and in a spot-checking of conversations there observed what seemed to be coordination with the recently ap2-topic-banned user Bus stop, though I have not followed that whole case closely.I mean there's a user involved in that discussion whose comments are mostly jokey distracting nonsense, but as far as I've seen he acts that way all the time, even here on Guy's talk page, without censure.Also—I'd observe that, being an admin, you are probably much more familiar with the usernames of other admins than the rank-and-file user, and can lean on that knowledge to get a feeling that someone is or isn't an admin. But for me, at least, simply issuing orders to other users and telling them that their comments are crap is rather distinctive behavior among the proles where everything is about the Wikipedia-specific definition of civility.But maybe I'm looking at it wrong. AGF works in mysterious ways, even in the eyes of admins I'm finding lately. Perhaps “crap” was tough love rather than another attempt by opponents of the proposed article to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.Thanks for responding, in any case. Even if this is completely unremarkable behavior, I'd still like to know if there's any standard way of handling police-impersonation-type behavior, for future reference in clear-cut cases. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Struthious Bandersnatch, while you're obviously not obligated to ping me if you're seeking general advice from an administrator about an issue, if you're going to discuss me in this much detail, I'd prefer to know so that I can try to either address it, and/or diffuse any further speculation about my motives, and characterization of me as an editor. You also could have just asked me, but I don't begrudge you seeking a third set of eyes. I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding, and that's exactly what this is. Johnuniq has pretty much hit the proverbial nail on the head, and has explained what was meant, and to what I was referring, better than I could have. I wasn't trying to shut down a legitimate proposal. In fact, I was sort of wanting to get a word in edge-wise, to voice general support for the proposal; its a notable phenomenon that's been referred to directly by reliable sources, and thus, isn't synthesis. But the discussion regarding the proposal, at that point, had sort of gone off the rails. If those types of extended political debates/discussions belong anywhere on Wikipedia, they should generally be confined to user talk pages. It's also not that there was just a bit of such an exchange (which is understandable, and expected), but that is was so extensive, and that little of it had to do with the article subject, or proposal. It was essentially the sort of discussion one would have on a forum, or a comments section on social media. As far as your comments about me... On the article talk page, you said:
"LOL... I am genuinely laughing out loud... so the user above holding forth about NOTFORUM and “seemingly irreconcilable worldviews” (cue mournful violin music) is actually a dual-account editor who spends their time at the Parler article talk page testifying to the wonderful ideological diversity on the service, in the company of my recently-AP2-topic-banned old friend Bus stop, whose banning stemmed from behavior in that same talk page. Touché, monsieur! I was taken in completely by your authoritative-sounding Latin account name, but I can see now that the Classical name for the account had a different reason. You non-serious users and your wacky antics!"/tq
Most of which I found a bit confusing, to be honest. And surprising, that you would characterize me like that so extensively in my first ever interaction with you, right after I said something to you about how that should be avoided. I'm not sure what constitutes a '"serious user"' in your mind, and why I'm not one. You also seem to have completely misunderstood what I was saying at Talk:Parler. I was attempting to explain, along with GorillaWarfare and a few other users, how the material in the lead was supportable by reliable sources. Nowhere did I talk about how great Parler is as a platform, and/or attempt to defend the platform's practices (or make any statement about it as company, period). You completely misunderstood the comment I quoted, which was talking about how Anti-Semitism, White Supremacy, and other insidious ideologies proliferate on the platform, without any attempt by Parler at moderating or curating such content. I wasn't talking about how wonderful that all was; I was saying that we/reliable sources weren't calling the platform/company itself any of those things, but were talking about how that sort of user-end content is commonly found on the platform. Here, on Guy's page, you also apparently imply that I was coordinating with Bus Stop in his attempt to keep such information out of the lead... Which if you actually looked at any of the exchanges there, you would see that I was saying the exact opposite. To him, and various SPAs and historically inactive users who were making the same edit request. I've certainly never "coordinated" with Bus Stop, or any other user, on anything. All of this, was right after I suggested that you shouldn't personalize disputes. You thought I was disputing the proposal (which I wasn't), and immediately started to personalize it, and make comments about me as an editor, and indirectly, as a person. I was going to let it go, and just abandon any attempt to engage on the talk page or talk about the proposal, as I found all this a bit aggressive... And I generally try to avoid any sort of interpersonal conflict with other users, especially when there is no content or policy-based issue at stake. Until I saw this. Struthious, I sincerely hope you take my advice, terse as it was. And as I said to everyone in general, take several steps back. You completely made a mountain out a mole hill here. You've misquoted me, attributed some sort of "coordination" with a banned user (guilt by association, I guess?), and here, said that you considered taking me to a noticeboard for... What? Asking that we all abide by talk page guidelines and actually discuss content? Do you not see how your reaction has led you to personalize this? You attribute POV/nefarious motives to my editing, characterize my worth as a contributor, and then seek advice as to whether you should try to seek sanctions against me. This is exactly why I mentioned you in the comment I made, because I've seen several editors ask you not to get carried away like this and say things about other editors. This is all kinda silly, but... damn. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)- Symmachus Auxiliarus: Again, I mean... in our actual first interaction, you referred to the things I and others had written as crap. Avoiding interpersonal conflict? And yes, you said that thing about personalizing disputes—which is exactly what gave me pause in the first place, because as far as I could see I hadn't written anything personal about the editors I was interacting with. My remark about “coordination” simply referred to the fact that, in taking a glance at the Parler talk page, you and Bus stop both seemed to take the same or similar positions in several separate discussions. (Not some secret cabal thing—observing and complementing each others' arguments.)You do not seem to be describing my behavior very accurately, nor your own for that matter. I'd agree that this all seems silly (hence “non-serious”), rather than anything like a mountain, but I am at your disposal if you would like to talk about it more. I obviously don't mind writing alot; drop by my talk page, even if you just want to cut and paste the above.And of course, if you really, actually support the proposed article, but do not, as you say, think that some details discussed are relevant, I would invite you to come to the article talk page and talk specifics. I would humbly suggest that you do so without calling what anyone else has written “crap”, and while stating exactly what you're talking about if you're going to imply that someone might have made a personal attack or otherwise directed criticism at the person rather than the rhetoric or ideas.And if I may make a personal request, please do not issue orders to me and for example tell me what to discuss or what not to discuss. I find it especially rude, common as it is on Wikipedia. Now that we're beyond our initial interaction, please try to persuade me of things instead. Ask me questions, criticize me, even sharply, but don't try to give me orders. I find that completely beyond the realm of collegiality. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 06:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- You'll find, actually, that Bus Stop and I were rarely, if ever in agreement. Intentionally or unintentionally, I think some of his editing had the effect of whitewashing articles related to the political right, especially those that touched on elements of the "far-right" or "alt-right"; reducing the visibility of those associations, even when that was what the subject was most notable for. As I said, whether that was intentional or not, I don't know, nor care to speculate. But often, there was no actual policy reason or established editing practice that supported those changes. If you had read our exchanges more carefully, I was usually pointing that out to him. That's why this is sort of doubly silly... I don't think you actually read our few exchanges, beyond latching onto a few words. If you had, you'd find that's what I'm doing; disagreeing. Because through all the bludgeoning, it quickly became obvious he often didn't have a compelling reason for his proposed changes, beyond that he had a preference for it. While I'm not apolitical, I actually try to be on Wikipedia; often I recognize that some editors either have a worldview that doesn't agree with what reliable sources say, believe in assorted conspiracy theories, or are occasionally actively trying to downplay certain elements that would be subject to criticism. Wikipedia is probably one of the few places where I've found this gap can be bridged to some extent, thanks to the policies formulated years ago. I try to keep what I say in article talk pages confined to that, though occasionally, I'll be overly blunt, and won't pretend (as many of us do) that everything is in good faith, or that what I mentioned aren't underlying factors that are sometimes just incompatible with how we're supposed to present information here.
- I've also gotten to the point where sometimes I am terse, admittedly, whether it's because I (more or less) expect established editors to know the guidelines and roughly navigate between them, or I don't mind if it's stated bluntly to new editors who have had already had these things explained to them, or general editors who, quite frankly, know better.
- I apologize for the way I worded that; it could have been phrased better. I wasn't giving an order so much as rather bluntly stating people should stay on topic, but I can see how it would be interpreted the way you took it. It was overly blunt. I apologize for that. To be perfectly honest, between so much forum-y talk, I didn't even know where to place a comment about the proposal. And that's where I dispensed with the niceties I should have observed. I should have said something like "c'mon guys", rather than "let's stop this". I actually found your exchange with Hulk somewhat... interesting. But when it interrupts regular editing processes, such as when the little bit of policy talk there is there become inseparable from the rest of it (and thus hard to reply to), or when I have to start guessing where I should format a comment so that its visible, it's a bit much. I assumed you would know I meant "crap" in the general sense of "stuff", when phrased as "forum crap". I wasn't commenting on or characterizing anyone's ideas therein as "crap", and certainly not that the proposal itself was "crap". I thought it would be clear I was referring to the off-topic exchanges about Obama dolls, and whatnot.
- You have my apology for not phrasing it in a more civil way, or in a way that was immediately clear to you. But there's nothing wrong with saying it, asking that it stop, or reminding people to stick to content over contributors. You don't need to be an admin to do that, and I certainly wasn't trying to impersonate one.
- I'll be more courteous in the future, as you ask. Likewise, I'd ask you to more calmly assess a situation, and not be so quick to look for a path to disciplinary action. I know that advice won't necessarily go over well, but the fact that you misinterpreted just about everything here, from my comment, to my "POV" and my editing habits (and even the reason for naming my account?), should give you pause. There's no reason to start assigning motives to everything you think you're seeing about a user. Rarely does that path lead anywhere productive.
- (If it wasn't clear by the way, I can't access my previous account, so this has been my primary for some time. It wasn't meant to make anyone think anything in the name, except it was my auxiliary. And I was learning to speak Latin at the time. Badly. Though I'm literate now). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Symmachus Auxiliarus: Sorry for the delay in responding—unusually eventful weekend-and-aftermath for once. I'm fine with continuing the discussion here if our host does not mind.Implying that an editor is making personal attacks with no apparent intention to back that up, to “salt” the discussion of creating a new article, is not being “blunt”—it's Wikipedia:Gaming the system § Gaming the consensus-building process, specifically part 4, WP:GASLIGHTING. As is invoking NOTFORUM as a supposed reason the conversation simply must stop, if you have no intention of ever explaining at the same talk page why this would be the case. (And besides that, what “regular editing process” was interrupted by this discussion, again?)When the new article was proposed on that talk page, a flurry of editors showed up to try to stonewall progress with the patently absurd semantic argument, unsupported by any citations, that a phrase in just one proposed title, “domestic interference”, is self-contradictory. (Like, do these people also think that the United States Armed Forces oath of enlistment, with its clause
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic
, which I just confirmed has been present since 1789, is also nonsensically self-contradictory?)Rather than simply dismissing them and linking to that mainspace article, I let them get it out of their system and actually engaged with their arguments, also for the purpose of wringing out the sponge and actually settling the issue. When one champion of this argument responded to my 𝑛th request for a citation by claiming thatmost if not all modern dictionaries
supported the semantic argument that “domestic interference” is too incoherent a phrase to be used in a Wikipedia article title—again without any link to an actual dictionary saying this—and then when I repeated my request for an actual citation claimed to not know what I was asking for, and that pasting was too difficult in their UI (accessibility obviously being a genuine issue for some people, but not a reason someone can't simply type out which dictionary says what), I got fed up and went and Googled it myself, and Google claimed 128,000 hits. Whereupon, oh look, someone else has now come along and marked the discussion as closed while also claiming NOTFORUM is a justification for doing so and skipping most or all of the steps in WP:CLOSE.So, yeah—a semantic dispute about a Wikipedia article title, wherein people are refusing to suggest alternative titles: the absurdity and trivialness of what was being advanced actually making it even more of the sort of thing which would only ever happen on Wikipedia, rather than matter for a discussion on social media or a general forum.That's what you came into, about halfway through, to fire off your shotgun blast of claims which you are not substantiating, even here. Accompanied by what appears to have been a sugarcoat-the-pill pleasantry, paired with the unsupported insinuation I'd engaged in personal attacks, proffering on what you yourself have said was our first-ever interaction,Struthious, you’re a decent editor
. If you didn't have the time to actually read through the very discussion you were trying to “salt” to see that it related to the topic of the thread, or write out an explanation there about anything, you definitely didn't read through my more-than-a-decade's worth of Wikipedia edits. So, pleasantry or not, not something which makes unsupported insinuations of personal attacks less suspicious-looking.As anyone looking up to the top of this thread can see, I didn'tlook for a path to disciplinary action
; I listed a policy and a guideline which I explicitly said you did not violate, and said that what you'd done wasnot straightforwardly inappropriate conduct
. But you did explicitly say that you wanted to “salt” the discussion, even if that has a neutral “to stop” sense, amongst a flurry of editors trying to put the brakes on the discussion in various ways; that was the problem I was seeking admin assistance in dealing with.And quite obviously, despite saying here that you support the creation of the article under discussion, you did not return to the talk page to propose alternative titles or begin more substantial discussions about it. I agree that the discussion which was happening, while technically related to the article, was over trivial and silly objections—but that's not the same thing as saying the discussion should be stopped, particularly not by pulling the “personal attacks” fire alarm. The point of getting all that down “on paper”, as it were, is to exhaust the quibbles and have a “look at this talk archive and tell me if you have anything new” link if it's brought up in the future.As far as being... too flustered, I guess? To click “Edit” a second time and write something, like you did the first time? I'm having difficulty accepting this as a real obstacle to your subsequent participation, and I'm going to need more explanation here.I don't know why you're putting quotes around “POV” when you claim that I have misinterpreted your every action, because you certainly aren't quoting me—you would appear to be quoting yourself here. I also don't know what I would have gotten wrong about the reason for your Latin user name.I said above that you do not seem to be describing my behavior or your own very accurately, and asked very specific questions of you which you have chosen not to answer substantiatively in a six-paragraph response, but instead seem to be dissembling with talk of being “blunt” or “terse” while expressing no cognizance of the repeated inaccuracy in things you've said and also repeating untruthful characterizations of my behavior, and are now suggesting that I haven't conducted myself “calmly” because I don't see much verisimilitude in your behavior or self-descriptions of it. You've got a long way to go to convince me that my reaction to your brief appearance in that talk page thread was anything other than a realistic appraisal and an appropriate response. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 09:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Symmachus Auxiliarus: Sorry for the delay in responding—unusually eventful weekend-and-aftermath for once. I'm fine with continuing the discussion here if our host does not mind.Implying that an editor is making personal attacks with no apparent intention to back that up, to “salt” the discussion of creating a new article, is not being “blunt”—it's Wikipedia:Gaming the system § Gaming the consensus-building process, specifically part 4, WP:GASLIGHTING. As is invoking NOTFORUM as a supposed reason the conversation simply must stop, if you have no intention of ever explaining at the same talk page why this would be the case. (And besides that, what “regular editing process” was interrupted by this discussion, again?)When the new article was proposed on that talk page, a flurry of editors showed up to try to stonewall progress with the patently absurd semantic argument, unsupported by any citations, that a phrase in just one proposed title, “domestic interference”, is self-contradictory. (Like, do these people also think that the United States Armed Forces oath of enlistment, with its clause
- Symmachus Auxiliarus: Again, I mean... in our actual first interaction, you referred to the things I and others had written as crap. Avoiding interpersonal conflict? And yes, you said that thing about personalizing disputes—which is exactly what gave me pause in the first place, because as far as I could see I hadn't written anything personal about the editors I was interacting with. My remark about “coordination” simply referred to the fact that, in taking a glance at the Parler talk page, you and Bus stop both seemed to take the same or similar positions in several separate discussions. (Not some secret cabal thing—observing and complementing each others' arguments.)You do not seem to be describing my behavior very accurately, nor your own for that matter. I'd agree that this all seems silly (hence “non-serious”), rather than anything like a mountain, but I am at your disposal if you would like to talk about it more. I obviously don't mind writing alot; drop by my talk page, even if you just want to cut and paste the above.And of course, if you really, actually support the proposed article, but do not, as you say, think that some details discussed are relevant, I would invite you to come to the article talk page and talk specifics. I would humbly suggest that you do so without calling what anyone else has written “crap”, and while stating exactly what you're talking about if you're going to imply that someone might have made a personal attack or otherwise directed criticism at the person rather than the rhetoric or ideas.And if I may make a personal request, please do not issue orders to me and for example tell me what to discuss or what not to discuss. I find it especially rude, common as it is on Wikipedia. Now that we're beyond our initial interaction, please try to persuade me of things instead. Ask me questions, criticize me, even sharply, but don't try to give me orders. I find that completely beyond the realm of collegiality. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 06:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- By the power vested in me...I am sure JzG will be thrilled to find these long walls of text on his talk page when he returns. Why don’t you two take this conversation to one or both of your own talk pages. Jehochman Talk 14:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me; I made the invitation above, but haven't yet been taken up on the offer. Regardless, I won't reply in this thread, here, further. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 04:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, THAT was a waste of money...
Milwaukee County presidential recount wraps up with Biden adding to his margin over Trump --Guy Macon (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Biden should send Trump a nicely worded thank you note, and a dozen roses. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
AfD for deaths due to COVID-19 and related RfC
Hi. Thanks for commenting at the recent AfD for the above list. There is now an ongoing discussion around the best way to split the list, if any, if you wish to comment further. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Derek Black Show for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Derek Black Show 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/Derek Black Show 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. Natg 19 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Administrator changes
Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.
Technical news
- Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.