User talk:Opabinia regalis/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Opabinia regalis. 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 10

←

Archive 14

Opinions

File:Cat keeping cool.jpg

We don't want anyone getting hot-headed

Regarding not really intended as a forum for stating your personal opinion on the issue at hand, advocating for your side of the dispute, or staking out policy positions, while there's a relatively low heat/light ratio on that case owing to a lot of repetition of the same few points by multiple people, I'm not really seeing a lot of inappropriate personal opinions. On a skim the only people I can see expressly giving meta-opinions are Doc James and myself; DJ is a WMF trustee (regardless of whether he's commenting in a personal capacity), and consequently his personal opinions regarding the interpretation of the TOU actually do matter; I'm giving my personal view of policy as part of a broader point regarding under what circumstances it's appropriate to disregard a policy with which one personally disagrees. (I suppose technically, my statement that Salvidrim and Soetermans were acting like complete fuckwits is a statement of personal opinion rather than evidence, but IMO it's such a clear summary of the case you should probably pass it as a FoF.) Given that the main backbone of the case is "how do we decide if the spirit of a policy has been broken when the wording is ambiguous?", it's completely unsurprising that a number of people are offering their own interpretations of where the red line should be drawn. ‑ Iridescent 20:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Different people may have different opinions on what is an "inappropriate personal opinion". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man...

What I had in mind was the statements ruminating on the general topic of whether adminship is compatible with paid editing or not. It's a perfectly reasonable topic to think about, but a case request isn't a good venue for that conversation, since any attempt by arbcom to decide that point would be obvious policymaking. (Though I admit I may have been unduly influenced by first reading that request on my phone. Sooooo much scrolllllllling...) OMG. The nose smudges! Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, I get to fish my "one of the original signatories of ARBPOL" hat out of the cupboard and make an honest-to-betsy Argument From Authority!

ARBPOL explicitly states that To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools is a matter for Arbcom. If you read the actual instructions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests—which are thoughtfully spread across the entire page in little pieces rather than in a single easy-to-read piece—the stinking peasantry are explicitly banned from proposing motions; since this isn't a request for enforcement of an existing sanction, it can't be proposed at ARCA or AE either. Thus, unless you want to have the discussion taking place on your noticeboard instead (and consequently have no structure at all and just be ANI Mk. II), a case request is the only way such a desysop request can be proposed by anyone not already on the committee. In this case, since whether or not Salvidrim is desysopped will depend largely on whether paid editing and adminship is compatible, unfortunately you're going to have to weigh up contrasting opinions and decide who's in the right whether you like it or not. ‑ Iridescent 22:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Oooooh, Mr. Big Shot! Too bad your name is on that list but not this one :)

I suppose we'll see how the evidence shakes out, assuming the trend holds and the case is accepted. But I think it's likely to be possible to separate the question of whether Salvidrim in particular did anything desysopworthy from the question of whether adminship and paid editing can coexist in general. It seems more likely we'll figure out what people shouldn't do, and then we'll all see if there's enough space left to make it practical to hold both roles. (We certainly have admins who are getting along just fine in paid positions as WiRs and the like, and I doubt "you can edit for pay but only if ~~we like the people paying you~~ you're working with a 'mission-aligned organization'" is going to be a sustainable position.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

That policy also says The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat and creating a paid editing policy for admins/disallowing it (as some are asking for) could be reasonably considered to be creating new policy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thought of you ...

... taking pics of two cats in the wild close to a Formentor Beach today on Mallorca. Lovely memories of great music sung in Ghent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Aww, thanks, I love seeing unexpected kitties! One of mine is going to the dentist tomorrow, because apparently cat dentists are a thing now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

not a cat: I made a new icon, useful when a discussion gets too long, it is enough ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

One you must see...

ENJOY! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha, that little cat slapfight around halfway through inspired my two to imitate them... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Betacommand 3 arbitration amendment request archived

In accordance with the direction of the Arbitration Committee, the Betacommand 3 arbitration amendment request has been archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Keiko Ozato

Do you know what to do with the Personal Life section? (Besides that non-MOS capital...) It's valid content, maybe, but not written very appropriately. I'm hesitant to cut. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
^{( Buttinsky)} See Madman_Muntz, and other FAs. For consistency we include section titles: Early life and education and then if warranted, Later life. The sections are contingent upon how much material is available via a RS search. We may use Early life and education and if there isn't enough life experiences (outside of career) or education to warrant a full section, we'll combine it into Life and education. The GAs and FAs are a good place to look for MOS and consistency. Hope that helps. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the whole second paragraph can go, because it's a misreading of the source - that material is actually about the next woman profiled after Ozato. And the quote is too long, and if you take all that out then you don't really need a separate personal life section. Some of the science bits also need a rewrite, but before I do, is this student editing? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I see a little birdie stopped by and took care of this, thanks :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays (And Ignoring All WP Capitalization "Guidelines"

I found an even better holiday treat. Better you don't place this lovely star atop your tree. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Aww, how pretty! I'll leave it on my talk page though ;) Thanks and happy holidays! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You should know, you are the only one I voted for. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 01:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for following me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I think... I mean, are you sure that was a good idea? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Lovely, and she didn't say anything about brackets ;) - I got flowers without capitalisation, DYK? Sharing. (I don't sent individual greetings.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Very pretty flowers! I'll leave those over on your talk, 🐱 and houseplants don't mix... Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Your annual arbcom election voter plot

Guess when the mass message went out... ;) For the curious, 13% admins, 24% users under 500 edits. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Opabinia regalis. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I had no idea! Luckily 🐱 reminded me already... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Guess what: my little collection received a talk this year. I thought of you at times when replying (without ping). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations for being elected, and I trust in your further good listening when cases come, - always better when they don't have to come ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations

File:Cats on curtains.jpg

Opabinia on Katie's tail Iridescent 18:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Very, very glad to see one of the busiest arbs will still be with us. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Comgratulations (again). -- Euryalus (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Very happy you have been chosen and best wishes for your ongoing and future work. Excellent, this. Fylbecatulous talk 13:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Well done Opabinia regalis! 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 ^grotto ^presents 14:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratualations! You're my hero. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ ^{and Merry Christmas} 14:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me pile on here :) Congratulations! (again) Really glad to see one of the most active arbs having another term. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all! I logged in before being properly caffeinated and wondered what the hell I screwed up to get so many new messages ;) Now, about that "most active" thing... *glances at calendar, runs off screaming* Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations - for the rest of your life, every sacrifice you make is for the ARBCOM, give it the best life. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Am I late to the party? 🍻 Congrats, Opa! ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for jumping in again. —Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, congratulations! I'm looking forward to working with you :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Iridescent, you have the best cats. But I think I'm going to be more like the chubby gray one... (this is where my own chubby gray cat gives me a confused look) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Opabinia regalis: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thanks Winkelvi, happy holidays to you too! Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

As we age, it’s no longer ‘’as slow as’’ Christmas...

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) ^{^{Atsme📞📧} 13:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)}
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: it doesn't need water won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Enjoy the Holidays and have a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Now that's my kind of tree! Real ones are pretty but such a hassle. I hadn't thought about this in a long time, but when I was a kid dawdling about something and my parents were trying to hurry things along, I'd say "I'm coming!" and they'd say "So's Christmas!" When did it turn into "Holy shit it's almost Christmas already??" Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Opa - way too cute to resist!

Earlier today I tried to take a holiday picture with cats in Santa hats. It went... about as you'd expect from that video :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Need Love's Labour's Lost cat

We didn't find a cat for ignore, but here's the next wish. DYK ... that Nicholas Nabokov composed an opera Love's Labour's Lost, setting the same play by Shakespeare as the fictional hero of Mann's Doctor Faustus, "in a spirit of the most artificial mockery"? - for when you give up, but smiling. Any cat with that expression? - Cantata of the week: Ärgre dich, o Seele, nicht, as in Mensch ärgere dich nicht. Good any day. - I just made my new year's resolution: to start 2018 with a friendly vision. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a tough one, I'm not quite sure what "artificial mockery" would look like! (I'm probably hopelessly uncultured, I've never read the play, or seen it performed, or seen any adaptation of it.) From the last few posts here I think you should get Iridescent's cats to do a custom-order job ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I can do you "surly irritation" or "crazed staring", but as with OR I'm not sure what "artificial mockery" would look like. (I also have never seen or read the play; in my experience, "Elizabethan comedy", let alone "Shakespeare comedy", are automatic oxymorons as most of the reference points are meaningless to modern audiences, and linguistic drift means that the nuances and puns on which the jokes rely are all lost; it's like reading a stand-up routine in machine translation. Even in 19th-century works—from a culture much closer to our own—the comedic elements which rely on immediate familiarity with the situations described all need to be thought through to understand them, breaking the immediate instinctive recognition on which comedy relies; without adaptation The Diary of an Nobody or Die Fledermaus are as alien to modern audiences as kabuki.) This character looks appropriately supercilious. ‑ Iridescent 18:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, both. The Thomas Mann is a long novel, and I also never saw the play, nor the opera, but liked that a real composer set Shakespeare's play in the mood another writer had described. I love the cat's expression, and the word "supercilious". I hope I won't need it ;) - "it is enough" more or less says the same, but I feel that people might need even more cultural background to understand how outrageous, almost screaming, that melody is. - Did you know this cat in a box? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Superciliousness? On Wikipedia?? No way! ;)

As for available cat expressions, right now I've got one "fuck you human, why'd you wake me up?" and one "the minute you take your eyes off me I'm going to eat the Christmas lights". Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I can do you "I don't like this unexplained change of routine so I'm going to hide in the cupboard" if that's any help. ‑ Iridescent 19:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the expression I mean is rather: I give up, not ready to waste more time here, so look at it from the elevated level of mockery. Yes, admit, there's something supercilious about it. - Missing the right cat, I used my green heart. A cat would be better. Christmastide goes to 2 February ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This one seems to have an appropriate attitude of bored sneering. ‑ Iridescent 19:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

He's not bad ;) - I need to write a bit more, or we'll destroy the nice arrangement below. I just imagine him as a answer to this, but so far decided that the only possible answer was to really ignore. O du fröhliche ... - If I planned a conspiracy I would remember to keep it secret and NOT send thank-you-clicks, but now I don't, - I have enough to do writing articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I like him. But I have a soft spot for old-man orange tabbies who are sick of everybody's shit. One of my favorite childhood cats was like that.

I've been out of town visiting family, so right now the cats are alternating between "Yaaaaay you're back!" and "OMG YOU ABANDONED US". Hey, guys, I was spying on you by webcam the whole time and I know damn well you spent all day sleeping. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Opabinia regalis!

Happy New Year!

Opabinia regalis,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Notability

Hi, Opabinia, is Skinnera independently notable enough? And, best wishes for 2018:)Winged Blades^Godric 12:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Species and widely accepted taxonomic groups are usually notable. In this case I might ask if this genus is mentioned in independent sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: My username is deceiving; I'm not actually very knowledgeable about fossils. (I should've named myself after my favorite protein. But there are so many cool ones!) But as JJE says, most accepted taxa will be notable, and I don't see any reason this one wouldn't be. It can be found in the expected places (e.g. the Paleobiology Database) and is discussed and referenced in subsequent literature on Ediacaran fauna. I don't have time to really read any of the references, but it seems the three-fold symmetry has attracted some interest, with some debate over whether Precambrian medusoids should be considered cnidarians or not. The only thing that jumps out about that article is that the sentence "Wade (1969) described Skinnera as a medusa, though, other sources classify it as a Trilobozoa." is sourced only to Wade's original paper, which can't be right. (A modern classification as a Triradialomorph can be found in this paper.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Disgorging

File:The messy eater.jpg

Did somebody say lunch?

Regarding disgorging, I was the subject of the original comment (at Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 15#Proposed change - No paid editing for admins). The context was even more hardline than "if a friend offers to buy me lunch for bringing the article lunch to FA, and we both follow through", since in that case at least there would nominally have been offer, acceptance and consideration. What the antis were trying to push through there was something that would have redefined "hey, I really liked that lunch article you wrote five years ago, let me buy you a beer" as paid editing (If you got a more significant "thank you" after the fact and it was at all feasible for you to disgorge yourself of it, I would expect you to do so). Never underestimate just how hardline the anti-paid-editing stance of the free culture puritans is. ‑ Iridescent 07:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Never. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thing is, I'm kind of a free-culture puritan myself, in the "information wants to be free" sense, but the attitude toward free beer tends to be more on the gorging side of things... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hydroxyproline question

Do you by any chance remember what paper you ended up reading when we were discussing hydroxyproline here? I'd like to pass the reference along to my archaeologist brother-in-law who is doing related research, but my reference in the article is a book by Bowman, who doesn't give further references. Presumably you found some relevant paper? Anything you can remember would be great. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie Ha, I barely remember what I had for lunch today, never mind a discussion from over two years ago! I looked around a bit and there are plenty of papers about hydroxyproline dating and about how to prepare the samples, and I gather that "humic acid" contaminants can be pretty heterogeneous and could contain hydroxyproline, but nothing about how to distinguish between sources. Sorry! Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I knew it was a long shot. Thanks anyway! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You're banned until you give your cats more treats

By order of arbcom. Arbitration Committee (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

per Special:Diff/818629656, this account needs to make a dummy edit in order to re-enable email. might as well make it a good one! --Opabinia

I for one welcome our new feline overlords. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems you've a compromised ArgCom account. Thankfully ArgCom can't make decisions about kitty treats. It would be a slippery slope to creating new policy! --Izno (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

OR, I had NOTHING to do with this. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess I get to block and OS this thread, yes? Primefac (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep. I was just thinking it's a little embarrassing to have such a puny block log! ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

You took too long. Your cat's food dish doesn't even exist. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure joke indef's are as humorous as you think. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I missed all the fun while out of town! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hello, long time no speak, hope you're well!

I want nothing to do with the ARBCOM case as I've done nothing wrong, but I'm happy to give you an insight here if you like?

So an editor called Volvlogia, with whom I've never interacted, is reverted on Stanley Kubrick by Ian Rose. Volvlogia, the same day, albeit 20 hours later, then files this at ANI. This prompts people like Baseball Bugs, someone who spends the majority of their editing time on talk pages and drama boards, to make a serious PA against me, calling me a "fanatic" and goes on to have a discussion that insinuates that I'm able to do Volvlogia some harm.

Disgusted at this, and for the fact I've been listed at ANI for past, resolved, and in some cases, punished, misdemeanours, I loose my cool a little bit, as any other normal person would at all this trouble. I switch off for the night and neck off to bed. In the meantime, somebody called "Dlthewave", who I've also never interacted with, overnight, reverts the Kubrick box back in, but is reverted again by We hope. Dlthewave, annoyed at me for presumably, not being annoyed at him for his revert, decides to open up another thread about my recent reversals of infoboxes that I considered not to be worth much salt: [1]

Volvlogia then gets told that his little thread at ANI, owing to the fact that there is no evidence at all, is told that unless they can prove I've been uncivil to them, which I haven't, is about to be archived, which it is. This prompts him to now approach ARBCOM. This is someone who, for no good reason at all, has trawled my contributions, noted my block log (most of which were given out in IB discussions), canvassed those who I've clashed with in the past, so as to present this case at ARBCOM.

If you notice on the ANI thread, he's played the victim and stated that he's worried "about me", even though we've never met on here. I have no reason to dislike him and, if you check my contributions, I'm approachable to everyone who I meet for the first time, here and even here. All this from seemingly nothing, other than my history. This whole episode is absurd and Volvic needs a big fat boomerang. Cassianto^Talk 12:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

And all this on a smart phone! Apologies for any mistakesCassianto^Talk 12:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments (more than I can do on a phone!) Sorry, I'm slow these days - I see you've decided to post on the case request after all. I'll post there in a bit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'm wrong - had to run, will post there when I get home. (I'm now even more impressed by that phone post, I hate editing from a phone!) Opabinia externa (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It is one of the most irritating things, isn't it, typing on smartphones. When you do get around to looking in, I'd appreciate you taking a look at the filing party's contribution history, including the obsessiveness they are clearly displaying over this? According to the filing party, I shouldn't be contacting you here as they consider it not to be appropriate; however that's not a rule that seems to apply to them, seeing as they've forumshopped and canvassed their way to where we are now. If it is inappropriate, I apologise. I do hope this is investigated correctly, including the behaviour of all parties, not to mention the filing editor. Best wishes. Cassianto^Talk 19:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No opinion on "appropriateness", but maybe it'd be more effective if it's posted on the case request page itself? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I feel I'm not being listened to there so I want nothing further to do with it. Cassianto^Talk 20:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

We're not a sequestered jury, of course it's not inappropriate to talk to arbs. However, it's usually just not very effective to post on individual talk pages about a case request (or any proceeding) - it feels more personal and more likely to get your points heard, but in practice it just means not everybody sees your post, and even if you convince the arb you're talking to, you've still only convinced one out of fifteen. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder how much more canvassing of Cassianto's "enemies" is going on... If Moxy "got an email about it", it does make me wonder how many others have been marshalled to attend the tar and feathering, and just who is directing the circus. No ArbCom or ANI process is entirely 'clean', as people will tend to find out, but it does seem as if there is as much going on here as there is at the miraculous flashmobs appearing at IB discussions. Plus ça change, I guess, however distasteful. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as I said at the case request, canvassing is a problem even when the canvassed users aren't directly participating in the decision-making, because it can give a skewed impression of the level of community concern about the issue. In this instance, though, I think there is a good amount of commentary from editors who are obviously familiar with the dispute and its history, even if the filer himself isn't. If you really think there are socks involved, you want SPI, not arbcom; they're much more efficient :) If you think there is some kind of organized campaign to cause disruption in this area - well, since it looks like the case will be accepted, the evidence page is a great place for that (or the mailing list if it's private). If investigation reveals that infobox discussions are contentious because there is a deliberate effort to antagonize the participants, then I expect the case decision would address that problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks OR (although for the record I don't think I've ever raised the question of SPs). I think the offline clarion call to arms is fairly clear in several cases (including "got an email about it" call to ArbCom), as is a spot of 'following' - see the arrival of a large group at Talk:Josephine Butler#Infobox after I removed the box prior to an overhaul to take the article to FAC. It's odd that's none of those clamouring for the box in that thread had ever edited the article before or since, or commented at the talk page, and yet... there they all rocked up once again with inevitable consequences. I doubt I'll raise enough enthusiasm for posting at the (now inevitable) case: life is to short and with a few people after more than a pound of flesh from both Cass and me, and the truth level shockingly low in at least one statement already, I won't even bother wasting my time in answering that one editor with whom I would prefer an IBAN, rather than a discussion. Thanks for your comment anyway. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misunderstood you; someone else in the case request mentioned socks, and I assumed a "miraculous flashmob" referenced the same theory. I suspect the pattern you're observing has a simpler explanation - that people who worked on an article and are closely familiar with the subject are less likely to find a short summary useful, and people who didn't work on an article and are only vaguely aware of the subject are more likely to. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it must be my clumsy writing, as we seem to have crossed wires. I wasn't trying to talk about IBs per se, but about the behaviour surrounding them and the comments at the case. I'll not trouble you further. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Today's Main page has much to offer, children singing for charity, Lego 50, and Pride and Prejudice. The latter is how I named two proceedings on Wikipedia, but I'm more interested in the song sung sing and playfulness.

I remember meeting Moxy in Spring 2013 in the Robert Stoepel discussion (after which I thought the infobox wars had come to an end, - I guess I was wrong).

About the same time, Moxy noted that he has physical problems hitting the little show button of collapsed information: "As a person with a disability i see this a yet another obstacle that impedes me from seeing all. I have to (with great effort) try and get my mouse pointer on that very small "show" tab just to derive serviceable information from the infobox. That said its better then no info at all in this format. Moxy 20:24, 6 March 2013" - Ever since, I admire what he is doing even more.

He is one of the kindest people I know around here, so "enemies" - even in quotation marks, seems misleading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Some WP editors 10-15 years from now....

Gotta love it! ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Um, can I start doing that now? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to be discreet here, Ms Opa...but now that one of my video clips made the Top 25 in the US Wiki Science Competition 2017, can we say I'm "skirting" the edges of being a scientist? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

That's impressive, Atsme! - I have only friendly vision to offer today, and a piece of advice: if you ever get called to arbcom, or threatened with a block because you don't feed your cats: show contrition and self-abasement (oh, the words you learn in the process ...). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

What a cute little baby fish - congratulations Atsme!

I'll try to get "insufficient attention to cat treats" added to the blocking policy... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Contrition and self-abasement?? That sounds like Thanksgiving dinner in the US...we start-off by putting a self-abasement turkey in the oven 🦃...and then after the meal we recite an Act of Contrition. 🙏🏻

I've spent time at ArbCom in the past, and I wouldn't liken it to Thanksgiving dinner...unless it's with family and you start talking politics with political opposites. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Plant question

Imagine you move into an appartment house, with a family of five. There's a garden serving all in the house. You like the place, but the walls could need fresh paint, and the garden a spring-cleanup. You volunteer to work on the walls, improve the garden, and build an additional gazebo. There's one shrub, planted years ago, which is in the way of you enjoying the full view of the garden, - you cut it down. What do you say when someone misses it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Ha, I'm sure this is an analogy about something, but I can't get past the idea that I would ever be in charge of a garden, unless this family likes their gardens limp and half-brown. I've had big plans every spring since I moved to my current place for a nice garden, and somehow it never happens! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Smiling. Yes, sure, an analogy to the topic I promised myself to avoid. Accepted, it's not you planting ;) - One answer I heard is: you post in public in the house, signed by all your family members, why the missed shrub was never a good idea, with reasons. (or: Michael Hordern). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Question concerning your comment at the Arbcom case

I do think this kind of thread-closing statement is problematic because there's no effective mechanism to notify people not involved in the original conversation about this "restriction", and I think that lack of information transfer makes itself clear in subsequent events.

I light of this, would it be possible to design some sort of automated process or create a bot that could track and notify people when those with editing restrictions are reported to the various admin noticeboards? If an automated process could be set up to alert participants that existing editing restrictions are in place for a given section it might help the community navigate the matter up more efficiently. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, but we do already have Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and things still get forgotten. And that's about restrictions on specific people, not restrictions on everyone else's interactions with a specific person. Should everyone go check the bot's list before any noticeboard report, just to make sure there isn't one of these inverse restrictions? I don't think that would be practical. It's perfectly doable to tell everyone already involved in a situation that they're not to make reports on each other anymore, but I don't think an open-ended rule that applies to everyone who might make a report in the future is likely to be workable without some fairly radical technical changes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If a bot could be made to check names given at an or ani against the editing restriction list it could help draw attention to editing restrictions already logged by the community, or at least that was my thought, but I'm not sure how to program such a thing and it sounds like it may end up being more trouble than its worth. In any case, thank you for the reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That'd have a better chance of working if ANI reports were much more structured, I think. As it is, it'd be hard to avoid false positives when someone is being reported for something unrelated to the restriction, or is incidentally mentioned but not the subject of the report, etc. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

diversity in science

Hey... Do you know anyone who would be interested in editing Sex and gender in the Bengal famine of 1943? I can supply many many many resources (already on my computer hard drive, already cross-referenced by topic area, already got tons and tons of quotes, etc.) and much much guidance and input (been working on that famine article for 2 years. noo seriously) , but I just can't do it myself. Know anyone? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi Hmm, that's not a topic I know much about... maybe Women in Red might have someone interested, or who could point you to someone more knowledgeable? I'm really only good for things one cell or smaller :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

tks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I will lift my eyes up to the hills

Greetings from an inspiring vacation (over but remembered)! I took one other picture, thinking of you, of an angry black cat, moving restlessly around a fence pole on a wall, so well above me, with ferociously opened mouth and wild eyes. There was more contemplation to be had in the mountains ;) - I thought of Psalm 121, to be improved. "I will lift my eyes up to the hills, from where will my help come from?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

ps: I uploaded a few more (click on "desert"), all but two are now by me ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Beautiful pictures, thanks! Hope that kitty got some treats :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That creature looked as if it would bite someone getting close, even giving ;) - One of our choir members died recently, - we'll sing today in memory him, from A Mass for Peace. Did you know that there is a giant road sign not far from the border to Egypt, saying in three languages blue on white Go in Peace? ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Her day today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I updated the playlist of the memorial service, three red links but one turned blue today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so sorry to hear! Your playlist is a nice memorial. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

After another death (now in the family, not close but still sad), I lift my eyes still higher and changed my talk to less bleak black. DYK that my two most successful DYK came last week, both women? One was helped by TV, but the other a real all-time-stats, pictured in prison. May arbcom not make victims, sent to prison and desert ;) ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Today, I changed the decoration to Bach's birthday. DYK that a sentence about prison was my DYK #500? Pictured. Just for fun: read the discussion I started on Bach's birthday 5 years ago. (Why is it that those who don't like infoboxes change a thread header? 1 2) - In the infoboxes case of 2013, a rarely used term was "good faith", DYK? I haven't checked the latest, - music is better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

As coincidence may have, I did write a musician-sorta-themed article Musicians Seamounts a couple of days ago. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks lovely! - I added to my playlist, o great love among others, it's not complete but promising, - and the two former songs still red links ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

TPS who has a Pavlovian reaction to "Lift thine eyes" for reasons suggested by the colors in her signature I cheerfully interrupt to note the motto of Hollins University. Levavi oculos! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Structural alignment

Hi. I am going through Good Articles with clean up banners on them. You are the main editor at Structural alignment and it has been tagged since 2012 with an expand section request. I was hoping you might be interested in addressing the tag. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Thanks for asking, but I suspect I won't have time for this in the immediate future. In addition to needing some expansion, the article is noticeably dated at this point. It was originally written in 2006, and while the basic principles haven't changed, there's been a lot of new tools and methods development since then. (While you're at it, multiple sequence alignment is also still listed as a GA, and also needs an update - these two were part of the same 'series' I wrote early on; the FA of the group, sequence alignment, was delisted for datedness awhile ago.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a big process[2] so I am fixing what I can, delisting the worst (which the articles linked here are far from) and annoying Wikiprojects and editors for the others. These are safe until I run through the list next. If they are still there I will decide then whether to try and fix them myself or start the WP:GAR process. There is nothing stopping you starting a WP:GAR (please do individual) if you want though. AIRcorn (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Memories

Childhood memories pictured on the Main page ;) - Please take look at the TFA also, to meet a great face. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice article! (Though by the time I saw it it was a-couple-of-day-ago's featured article... oops :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Only the DYK was mine, the compliments for the other go to Brianboulton. Tell me, why is the daughter's talk so clean, and the father's such a mess? - Yesterday: I saw a DYK article with an infobox request, added one, and the author thanked me. - Also yesterday: I spent the morning with Walter Fink's article, another great person who died, - not one of 14 2010 sources still working, but found some new. It's on the Main page now. - Then this. Vale of tears. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Cats and dogs

User:Baileybleucocker is a new account that was reported by the bot at WP:UAA because of the string "cock". But it's not a cock, it's a cocker spaniel. Maybe your cat would like to welcome it? Bishonen | talk 18:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC).

🐱 says he doesn't like dogs. I think he's just trying to cover for the fact that his password is saved on the other computer... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Made my day

... saying "creative reinterpretation of what 'one' means", - I laughed out loud, - you deserve the thanks from the cabal, that couldn't be said better. (I avoid thank-you-clicks, did you know?) - Women's day today: I have a pictured Henriette Feuerbach on the main page, and Melinda Paulsen, will nominate Katharina Magiera, and will try to work the needed miracle for Wanda Wiłkomirska. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Music

Your talk looks empty ;) - Our playlist is rich, organ pictured on the Main page, moar on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

ps: DYK that the hook about brotherly devotion dates back to 2011? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

moar ps: the visionary version --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It needs a better image. Here, let's try with the Purico complex: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You're right, it's been awhile! I've been busy out of town... nowhere quite as cool as that pic, though :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Today's music is by Volker David Kirchner, born on this day. I missed 75 years by one, but at least managed expanding while he's still alive. That didn't work for others lately, sadly, look for "In the news" on my talk (4, they missed the woman, made me so angry, and 2 other men - Hanns-Martin Schneidt and one to come - because I didn't know you can have both DYK and RD, always learning). Once you are there, can you check the civility thing? So far, my simple approach was to ignore incivility (the very few times it happens, and then in a subtle way, - I don't think you can train a bot to recognize a barnstar which mentions honesty as hurtful). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Opposite day

Heh. I was just re-reading my RFAs, and was reminded of your comment about it being opposite day when I chose my username. It was actually February 1986 in a BITNET chat room. SPOCK was taken, SAREK wasn't, and it stuck. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that's a long time to stick with a username! Opposite decades ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I took a picture

... but not of a cat. Imagine, 9 years in this place today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Pretty! Congrats on your editversary :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you see the video? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Re ArbCom comment

I wanted to wait until the voting was over at RfA, this is not about that. During my RfA I was made, repeatedly, to realize that a simple strikeout and a "sorry" was not enough for stating my contempt for you personally. I knew that was wrong months ago, I would not have struck it otherwise but I thought well, not personally but as an arbitrator. After all contempt is, and I chose the word with care, what one feels towards someone or some action which one feels has failed to live up to one's values or norms, a moral failure and I felt that to be the case.

For me apologies must be unreserved and I will only apologize when I feel I have erred or wronged someone, and only for that error or wrong – that I can not change but equally I will make those apologies. That is why the half-assed ~~strikeout~~ and "sorry" at the case. I had an opinion and I righteously thought I had the 'reasons' to back it up. Then someone cracked through that self-assurance.

Gerda Arendt asked me on my talk page, as a matter of curiosity, how I would answer her 2017 ArbCom question; Could I agree with this statement you made (my reply if you are interested [3]) and I started to think 'this is not what I would expect' and I started to feel even the 'contempt as an Arbitrator' was too far. Then came your statement at my RfA. It was crushing. It was so nice but more you were addressing the issues that were bothering me the most about the process. I felt bad not just for saying personally or as an arbitrator but for even thinking it. I had taken a single instance and made a judgement one that turned out to be wrong, possibly as wrong as I could be. I still disagree with your comment at ArbCom, intensely. I am so very sorry for the rest. I made a judgement based on no depth of knowledge and I made a similar mistake again recently about someone else. I intend not to make the same again, that would be contemptible.

Again. I am sorry. Jbh ^Talk 05:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and apology accepted of course Jbhunley! You're certainly not the first to get a little carried away about arbcom... (and you're completely right here, about the cacophony of woe - an excellent phrase for the problem!) Best of luck with the crat chat. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For supporting someone who did you wrong. I knew there was a reason I liked you. GRuban (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you GRuban! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

^^There you have it.^^ ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting info about cats

Had no idea some of these breeds even existed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Pallas cats! They're great, they're so fluffy even when they're grumpy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Any of our UK editors looking for a job? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh damn, I am very well qualified to increase the operational effectiveness of a cat petting database... too bad about that little geographic detail! Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good job editing DNA transposon and HAT transposon. Nat.Account (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nat.Account! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Magnifi cat

A new cat: Magnificat and Nunc dimittis in D (Wood), something rare, an article I managed to get on the Main page before we'll sing it (16 Sep). You deserve praise for the comment on ANI that I thought would open all eyes still closed. Some stay closed, it seems. Could be my next question for the arb candidates, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice work! Oh, one of mine definitely thinks he is a MagnifiCat ;) As for ANI, I don't know why anyone would listen to me when they could have listened to Floquenbeam a few bullet points above me, but oh well, ANI gonna ANI... Oh, and people talking about elections again already is giving my brain a spin; WTF is with this September business anyway? Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Back from a wonderful concert, last of the festival, with the promising conductor who won the prize and will be in charge of the Metropolitan Opera, and the phrase "under the baton" that I hate makes no sense for him because he doesn't use one ;) - Floq, excuse me, I go by watchlist, and the later entry shows/wins ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

GA, I always encourage you to listen to OR rather than me (see below). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

OR, they should listen to you and not to me because you're not constantly angry about something, ~~don't phrase things in a smart-ass kind of way~~ (well, I guess you kind of did there too), are actually around more than once a week, don't constantly over-use the word "dysfunction", haven't burned as many bridges, managed to stay on the AC longer than 6 months, and are quite obviously smarter than me. The only thing I really have going for me are my rugged good looks and deep resonant speaking voice, neither of which are that useful on the internet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Young Floquenbeam also have advantage of rugged good looks and squeaky voice of Floquenstein's monster! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 01:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC).

Rugged good looks, you say? ~~Squeaky meow~~ deep resonant roar like lion? Babou 🐱 (meow! 🐾) 06:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"Around more than once a week" is only barely true by recent edit count, and I don't know about the bridges, but at least I didn't say "dysfunction"! :) I catch myself using "antipattern" all the time, though. Ugh. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Glowering cat.jpg

Did someone say magnified cat?

Did someone say magnified cat? ‑ Iridescent 07:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Floooooof! I love the fact that you put {{esoteric file}} on your cat pictures, as if there wouldn't be a net improvement to commons from more of them :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Floq, I don't take orders ;) - I listen to you, and to Opabinia regalis, and to Bishzilla, and to Iridescent. The problem is that other don't (yet) listen. I confirm your looks and voice, - pleasant memories of almost Rhein in Flammen, will see it (the event, not looks and voice, sadly) again on Saturday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Singing Magnificat today (pictured), come over if you can ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The article of the nuclear Mariner

A.K.A Tc1/mariner. These articles always remind me of the beauty of biology and that I should be writing more on it. Unfortunately, I am kind of buried underneath my volcanology stuff and some climatology stuff (at some point I need to write African humid period...) so that will need to wait for next year most likely. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I should be writing more on it too! I discovered a whole forest of redlinks among the transposon families... and I never did get back to some of those viral proteins I was working on last year. Ubinas is looking nice! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)r

Sometimes I wonder...

...if some of our arbs are actually reading all of the statements, or primarily responding to what other arbs have already stated. No disrespect intended but considering time constraints and the "yawn factor" of some statements, I really can't blame them, unless of course, my future as an editor is on the line. 😉 I'm not talking specifics - that isn't why I'm here - but there actually was a case closed at AE involving me that contained several easily verifiable errors. I asked for the errors to be corrected, but that never happened - it's very frustrating. Anyway, I hope you don't get angry with me but I quoted you in the DS discussion at ARCA - it was sooooo frigging on target!! I guess the most editors can do at this point is vent and move on because it doesn't appear that anything is going to change anytime soon. Anyway, hope you're doing well and not overworking. Life is way too short to not take time off and enjoy it. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Luckily I've been out of town and have missed all kinds of drama! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page...

...because I don't want anyone to seriously think I am disagreeing with you on what the outcome should be.

Personally I agree 100% with everything you wrote on WT:CIVIL, and I think it's probably my favourite comment to come out of the RFC (including all of my own), but I've always got the impression that the prevailing mood among the community was that bad drivers/annoying coworkers/unexpected in-law visits/bills/general life stress "aren't our problems" and so blaming use of foul language on such real-world issues was a losing strategy.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

As a "so you've been dragged to ANI" strategy, I'm sure you're right, some busybody will turn up to piously inform you that your personal difficulties are "no excuse for not following simple policy!" And of course you can't blame an endless series of personal crises for recurring misbehavior. But until the bots take over, we have to deal with the fact that this place is run by humans, which means accommodating human foibles. I kind of think that most of the "prevailing mood" comes from the "oooh, drama! *grabs popcorn*" reaction, and you know what's really boring to watch? Interactions that go something like "Hey, I just did X!" That's a horrible idea, fuck off. "...Uh, ok, let's just come back to this later then." Sorry, I shouldn't have posted what I wanted to say to my mother-in-law. I don't like X because of A and B. How about Y? "Yep, sounds good." Zzzzz. Way more fun if the first guy responds to "fuck off" with that obnoxious template, "There is a discussion at ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:ANI#Incivility." (50% chance that that thread exists at any given time...) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Per OR

I've been taken to task (I think) for my "symptomatic" agreement with something you said last year. And now I find you saying this, and fuck it, I have to go "per OR" again. Thanks a lot for saying reasonable things.. Also, yes, motion. Also--no one read the emails that evening? Oops... Drmies (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Heh. That stuff I said last year didn't exactly age well, did it? Makes me wonder what my post at this latest case request will sound like a year from now.

Well, the email thing... we got more than one message about the same topic at the same time, and obviously were discussing it among ourselves, so the thread had a lot of posts in it... we even have better trackers now, so that's extra oops.

Glad to see you put your hat in the ring again! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Opabinia regalis. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking

Hey, I just got your ping at ARCA. I'm glad you found the table handy, and thank you for actually looking at it and considering the options. I've actually developed the ideas a bit further in a different thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rethinking_consensus-required. You don't have to read the whole thing...my initial post is TLDR...but I think you might find the second table at the bottom (with the ticks and crosses) interesting, as it compares the effects that different additions to "plain 1RR" have on various good and bad behaviors. Anyway, if you find it useful that's great, but I'd be thrilled if you shared with me any thoughts or ideas you have about it. ~Awilley (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm out of time for today, but I'll take a look rtomorrow. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I read your post - I have to start off saying that every time someone asks me something about the details of AE/DS, I feel like the embodiment of the Peter Principle. This was never something I was active in before joining the committee, and in fact IIRC I spent a good amount of time the year before I was elected on sniping from talk pages about what I thought were bad AE-related decisions. So if you're looking for feedback from arbs, you may learn something more useful from someone else with more practical experience actually using these and not just reading endless ARCAs about them :)

I think you make a good point that the "consensus required" construction is more effective at squelching bad behavior than encouraging or supporting good behavior. I see the idea of "slowing down" edit wars as a recurring theme in ARCAs (about PIA and AmPol mostly) and I don't tend to see much value in that as a standalone goal, though maybe very high-traffic articles like Trump where rapid reverts and instability might be noticeable to readers are an exception. On the other hand, I do tend to see a problem with people using stonewalling as a POV-pushing technique, which is a behavior that is encouraged by the "consensus required" model. I also think that it was such an obvious misfire in the PIA area that it's hard to imagine the effect in AmPol is much better. (On the other hand, it was introduced in AmPol first, and to my knowledge there hasn't been an ARCA specifically about that restriction in that topic area, so maybe I'm wrong on that?) I like the "enforced BRD" idea (with the caveat that I think I suggested something similar in an old PIA ARCA and it didn't get much uptake, but I can't remember why anymore...) I think your "alternative #1" is the best option, but I'm not sure how much of a problem the "first-mover advantage" is in the AmPol area - I know it comes up a lot in PIA discussions.

That was kind of an unfocused brain dump, but possibly useful? Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, definitely useful. And a belated thank you for responding. The consensus-required restriction probably hasn't showed up much at ARCA because it has only been applied to select articles by individual administrators (as opposed to being applied to an entire topic area by Arbcom). The enforcement and appeals mostly just happen at WP:AE or on the talkpages of individual admins. I have a feeling that alternative #1 is going to be the first choice of many people because it is closest to consensus-required in restricting bad behavior. I've personally been wavering between alternative 1 and alternative 2 (the least restrictive that allows the most good behavior). As for slowing down edit wars as an end goal...my feeling is that the main benefit of slowing them down is that it helps to lower the stress/aggression hormones in participants making them more likely to look for common ground on the talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point about "consensus required" - IIRC I was the one who actually did the deed of proposing that motion for PIA, on the basis of what I thought at the time was its success in AmPol, and in retrospect I didn't at all appreciate the differences in those two dynamics. Opabinia regalis (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#2017 ArbCom and the GdB unban. Fram (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred Bauder and others

As Drmies says: Windy. 🌬️

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Drmies: Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Recusal of arbitrators this is a formal request for you to recuse per the reasons stated at Special:Permalink/870873101#Proxying for banned users. Adverting to BD2412's statement in Jytdog's Arbitration case, I think we can all agree that FP@S's posts to @Fred Bauder: and Crazynas' talk were

threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks

FPAS' statement

to save you the embarrassment, I have re-removed the material

is clear harassment, using his rank to overbear an editor in his own userspace. He claims to be reverting a "banned user", but what he actually did was to revert Fred and Crazynas. The "banned user" claim was not backed by any evidence, and FP@S was attempting to impose it using his administrator status. As a WP:INVOLVED administrator the assessment should have been left to someone else. 86.146.194.130 (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Request received. What am I recusing from? In what capacity? Drmies (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's just VXFC trolling. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  - Correct. Blocked. Favonian (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

- - - Right---Vote for X...I totally forgot his name. All this is so long before my time, and I have nothing to do with that person. Should I be pleased? I wished they were less windy and more coherent. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

This year's election graph is kinda boring

The one-day delay meant everybody was ready to go as soon as the gates opened this year. Welcome to the half of all voters who participated in their first arbcom election, and thanks to the 38 people with ~~way too much time on their hands~~ a serious amount of dedication who voted in every election since the beginning of the SecurePoll era in 2009. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not one of the 38, because until 2012, I didn't even know that arbcom existed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom-related question for The Signpost

I'll be doing the next Arbitration Report, my usual beat for The Signpost. Was wondering if you could comment on this excerpt from the Jytdog case request:

I am going to underline here just how creepy it is for a woman to receive unsolicited contact from a male stranger

Up til now I was not really aware of Jytdog's gender, and I never saw a self-identification such as ubx or other request for pronouns. Did this come up before? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The old version of his userpage explicitly said "I am a guy". ‑ Iridescent 09:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd understood Jytdog's gender to be widely known. As with the rest of that paragraph, though, the identities of these specific people wasn't the key point, which was about the precedent that might be set and the thinking being done by the community about this behavior. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Also, call me biased, from the little I saw from Jytdog (related to Biblical criticism, swapping to my talk but I stayed out), I couldn't imagine the person to be a woman. But you never know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Your recent comments at ARCA

File:Cats clawing couch.jpg

Posting here rather than there so as not to further inflame an already tetchy situation with a marginal sidetrack, but is if I had to make a list of the most unpleasant behavior patterns on Wikipedia, this kind of self-righteous, me-against-the-world, everything-would-fall-apart-without-me, Defender of the Wiki business would be right up there aimed at anyone in particular? In this case I could reasonably use it to describe both the filer and the subject—both of whom consider themselves the WP:OWN-ers of their particular fiefdoms (AE and ERRORS respectively)—and probably at least half the participants in that thread to boot. You and I are unusual in having had extended absences and seeing empirical evidence that Wikipedia hasn't fallen apart without us to hold it together; most people have a natural tendency to grossly overinflate their own perceived significance to any given situation. ‑ Iridescent 09:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Completely off topic, but it has to be said, @Iridescent: that your cats (assuming they’re yours) are absolutely gorgeous. What’s the background of the one lying on the floor? Aiken D 19:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Skinny stray kitten, grew up into a fat orange blob; if there is any pedigree there it's so diluted no trace remains. Going by shape and fur, there might be some British Shorthair in her somewhere. ‑ Iridescent 19:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yay, a visit from the esoteric file kittens! Those adorable monsters are having a bad influence; as soon as I opened the edit window one of mine started vigorously scratching the couch. Opabinia regalis (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I saw this thread header on my phone earlier without opening the section and thought sure someone was here to tell me I wasn't being very civil :) I was mainly thinking of the subject, but I definitely had a broad brush in mind on that one. (Come to think of it, it applies to more than one current item of business.)

You're right, being gone for that long does bring a certain amount of perspective (though I was mostly forgettable to begin with). I suspect I overinflate the significance of my own advice to other people not to overinflate their own significance, though.... Opabinia regalis (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Frankly I can think of at least three members of your esteemed committee whom I'd say it describes perfectly (and I don't mean the one you're probably assuming I mean). ‑ Iridescent 23:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Oooh, oooh, is it me? I was looking for an old discussion this morning and came across one of my own old posts that was so self-righteous I wanted to reach back in time and smack myself in the head. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Name them. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I'm the one who wrote this rant which has a reasonable claim to be the most pompously self-righteous talk-page post in the history of Wikipedia. (Even at the time I had the self-awareness to refer to it as a "sermon".) ‑ Iridescent 09:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

"...the 33-year-old who changes the world"? Oh man, that's some good shit. I secretly kinda like it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

In some fairness to me, that part was an attempt to explain what Jimmy Wales actually meant by Frankly, and let me be blunt, Wikipedia as a readable product is not for us. It's for them. It's for that girl in Africa who can save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around her, but only if she's empowered with the knowledge to do so., which a lot of people—then and now—interpret as "Wikipedia's mission it to become an adequate alternative to other information sources for people who don't have access to anything better", rather than what Jimmy was trying to say. Much as I like to criticize Jimmy Wales, he did have a genuine knack when it came to avoiding intervening directly, while nudging Wikipedia onto a course that avoided falling into the pitfalls of either the free-for-all repository the "information wants to be free" hardliners wanted (see Commons for a glimpse of what Wikipedia could have been), or the stagnation of becoming Nupedia 2.0 with everything graded and assessed like it was a term paper. ‑ Iridescent 19:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Heh, my first reaction to that quote is "what a bunch of neocolonialist claptrap", but never mind... I'm sure it worked as a quotable soundbite. I suppose I shouldn't complain without looking up the full context, but what stands out in your formulation vs the quoted one is that you have the hypothetical kid as a contributor to Wikipedia itself, and Jimbo's quote has her as a consumer who goes on to use that information elsewhere. In any event, I thought the two primary use cases for Wikipedia articles were looking up stuff you saw in the news but don't know or remember much about, and cribbing stuff for that paper that's due tomorrow when you haven't done any of the reading. For as much shit as we may have gotten for all the Pokemon articles, I'm pretty sure my usage as a reader is at least 75% pop culture related. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Ha, you know, I was thinking "what a bunch of neocolonialist claptrap" as well... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This is the original context of the "girl in Africa" line; it wasn't a speech made on a public platform, but an internal email during one of Wikipedia's periodic existential crises about whether the board were getting uncomfortably close to a private company. (TL;DR version; Jimmy wanted to cross-promote Wikipedia with the commercial Answers.com as a revenue- and profile-raising exercise. This was the time when this was considered 'one of Wikipedia's best articles' while Silicosis and Chemical weapon were both redlinks, and it wasn't yet obvious that Wikipedia would grow into something approaching adequate quality without some kind of external stimulus.) The actual context was his plans to use the sponsorship money from Answers.com to fund print and CD-ROM distributions of Wikipedia and "that girl in Africa" represented people without internet access, but the quote has long since been shorn of context.

One generation's popular culture is the next generation's archaeological treasure; why is it respectable to have an article on Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele but trivia to have an article on Space Seed? As I wasn't the first to point out, something like Pokemon is a multi-billion-dollar industry and it would be perverse not to cover it in detail. (My personal usage breakdown would be 1⁄4 "I'm about to visit this town I've never heard of, is there anything there that looks interesting?". 1⁄4 "Where do I know that guy on TV from?", 1⁄4 "What the hell is naproxen and why is it ubiquitous in the US but nonexistent everywhere else?" and other variants on "what is this thing?", 1⁄4 randomly flipping through wikilinks.) ‑ Iridescent 10:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Huh, I learned something today. I hadn't realized that kind of commercial partnership had been considered. I guess that context makes sense out of the contributor/consumer distinction.

Today I was attempting to explain arbcom to someone who doesn't edit and realized we even have an article on ourselves. If we have room for that, then we sure as hell have room for all the pop-culture stuff we can write. (I used to be way on the deletionist side of this particular fence and now recognize it as pointless defensiveness about all the Britannica comparisons that used to float around. 2007 me was totally wrong.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"Civility"

Thank you, Opabinia, for this edit, which I found via the ongoing ArbCom election. A month ago, I wouldn't have attached much significance to it. But I recently helped a friend User:Andras Bereznay make a contribution to Commons (I didn't help with the content, I just showed him which buttons to click to get the upload done), and he consequently found himself involved in what he described in his first, and probably final, contribution to en:Wikipedia as "tangible seething hatred ... enwarapped into a pseudo polite, bogus academic wording" .

I've become slowly inured to that kind of shit. But he found himself thrown straight into it. You have helped me to understand that his attitude is sane and normal. Maproom (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Heh, starting on commons would give anyone a headache. It may not be exactly a fit for the situation you ran into, because it's about enwiki, but IIRC this research project shaped a lot of the thinking in that post about how our typical interactions with new editors are off-putting and unproductive, and about the significance of those dynamics compared to the more high-profile concerns about "civility". Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@OR, this thread is worth reading for context. It's an exceptional situation, because Andras Bereznay landed in the wearily intractible East Europe disputes before ever making an en-wiki edit owing to the map he uploaded to Commons, but sadly not a unique one. (Just ask any Z-list celebrity who's tried to correct a fact about themselves on a Wikipedia bio how pleasant they found the experience; indeed, IIRC Talk:Beki Bondage was where as a newcomer I first bumped into a guy who signed up a couple of weeks after me called Newyorkbrad.) One of the perversities of Wikipedia's culture is that very often the more a newcomer knows about a topic, the more hostile the reception they get; yes, part of that is that experts are often used to working in an environment where sticking to your guns and shouting down opponents to make one's views heard is considered acceptable, but it can't all be chalked down to that. ‑ Iridescent 20:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, yeah, talk about getting thrown into the fire. And of course that kind of stuff disproportionately chases off the competent newer arrivals, instead of the ones mostly interested in fighting for their side. Z-list celebrities and similar seem like a slightly different problem - the topics themselves aren't contentious, but the edits attract the self-appointed COI Defense Squad to accuse the subject of either self-promotion or whitewashing (usually, these days, in the form of an impenetrable tangle of templates they'll accuse you of disruption for removing). Makes me glad my early edits were mostly about boring niche topics. Though I figure bluelinking your own userpage on the third edit gets you +10 Sock Points nowadays. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

There's an even better example just today at User talk:Mate Bulic Fakjea. Here's someone who's fairly clearly trying to edit in good faith but who's never had the complicated intersection of BLP and RS explained to them, and has been met with a talkpage full of gobbledegook templates and ultimately blocked (and now I have someone baying for my blood at WP:AN for refusing to remove his talk page access altogether because he became frustrated at the block and said A Bad Word). ‑ Iridescent 23:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As I think OR is aware (probably more than most now), pretty much every instance of me being dragged off to ANI has a root cause in an incident like the one described above. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Love the team stories...so I'll try to win just one for the Kipper - you haven't lived until you've been blocked and/or t-banned for humor or because you combined humor and told another editor to put on their big boy/girl panties and stop whining! Now that's when things escalate from simple🖕🏼incivility to downright disruption. And if that doesn't do the trick, wait for it....WP:TARAGESLAW. ^[FBDB] ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I see the AN thread was closed without so much as an admonishment. Good lord, what are admins even good for if they're going to be such lazybones about getting interrupted by random pings from randos demanding that they sanction people for frustration with our own grinding wheels of bureaucracy?

*clicks link* *sees the word "infobox"* now there's A Bad Word. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of boy/girl stuff, I'm still waiting for the hammer to fall for this one [4]. E Eng 02:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of where I asked candidates about their attitude to said edit (not a question about civility, but "can you go with a solid minority to decline a case?"), I expanded my list of this year's answers by the ultimate guide to arbitration (which I discovered after my kafkaesque encounter with the committee was over). We now sort of fight about how to preserve best what its author thought and said, sadly. When a user dies, I'd think keeping his talk page as he left it would be the most obvious choice. Please do that when I die. Do we have any rulez for that? Or at least a place to discuss? A talk page doesn't come with its talk page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt We actually do have formal guidelines on this, drawn up following some very unpleasant exchanges over whether our then-current practice of blocking the accounts of deceased editors (on the grounds that they would by definition never need them again and they presented an obvious risk of compromise as nobody would ever change the passwords) was disrespectful. I'd wholeheartedly disagree with When a user dies, I'd think keeping his talk page as he left it would be the most obvious choice unless that user left specific instructions that those were their wishes; most user talk pages are a melange of warning messages, spurious complaints from disgruntled newcomers, spam messages from bots, and bad-tempered but ephemeral arguments. If you were to drop dead today, would you really want The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes to be your on-wiki obituary for the rest of time? ‑ Iridescent 10:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Last question first: yes. I usually archive, but kept the DS for irony. As I kept a certain barnstar for a while, for the same reason. - Back to the case that troubles me: simply look at the history of User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. Two ways of archiving were tried, chronological by last edit, and chronological by entry. We have now an archive box from the former attempt, but filled with the latter. Imagine you are an innocent reader trying to find something. Why archive at all, in that case? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

... and now I even read the guideline (sorry, I rarely read guidelines): "Consider archiving any unseemly disputes, warnings or deletion notices." Yes, please. Says nothing about archiving the user's wise and funny comments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the specific case, I'd consider that something of an extreme exception. A page 417,733 bytes in size causes genuine issues; as Risker has pointed out recently in a different context, it's easy for those in countries where internet access is cheap, or who have unlimited data plans, to lose sight of the fact that many Wikipedia readers and editors pay quite significant sums for access, and those sums add up quickly. (A cost of 5c–10c per pageview adds up very quickly, particularly if someone is regularly visiting the page as new comments are added.) Yes, I'm well aware that my talkpage currently scores even worse, but that's because there are three very long threads that are still active; once the bot archives those it will be at more reasonable levels. Having a page that long also has the potential to crash older browsers—again, those of us in developed countries can lose sight of the fact that many Wikipedia editors and readers are using very old computers or rely on phones. Even for those with fast connections and up-to-date technology, long pages can still cause issues; try opening EEng's talk page in VisualEditor and see how your computer likes it. ‑ Iridescent 10:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree as long as it's articles. List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach - I avoid to link to it. I don't open Eeng's talk unless I have to, but yours often, and often a pleasure. The talk of someone who died, though, seems a different story. It is likely to attract people who remember him or her fondly and may be quite willing to wait for loading. I wouldn't object to archiving some, but to leave not a single word by the one whose talk it represents seems not a good idea - to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Glad someone around here is competent, because I had no idea there were rules for that. I read on my phone a lot, so I'd generally agree on the archiving of a very long page - which in this case also helps keep the focus on that great top template and makes the memorial posts easy to reach. I don't recall ever directly interacting with SBHB, but I always read what he'd written if I saw his username around, because it was always funny or smart or both (plus he had one of the best usernames around). I think it's nice to keep the page as accessible as possible to everyone who wants to stop by now. I guess if I dropped dead tomorrow I'd at least have cute cats on my talk. Quick, somebody give me a good ironic DS alert! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I won't give anybody a DS alert, not even an ironic one (because irony is so often misunderstood). You could copy SchroCat's top note, or could give yourself one, - only yesterday I gave Precious to someone who did. I came to love SBHB for the edit with "have a laugh" (which probably saved my wiki life). - Any admin (watching): if the talk is archived, can there be a better way to access the treasures hidden? Instead of 9 archives with only numbers, the last 3 being empty? (Such as: delete those three, - allegedly, it's now all in 1-6.) How would anybody find have a laugh? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I keep hoping someone will give me a DS alert about a sanction I voted for, just to push the absurdity of this "awareness" stuff to the breaking point :)

I deleted the empty archive pages - shouldn't matter one way or the other for searching, but of course it's better not to have empty ones linked. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a DS you voted for would be more absurd than telling me that mentioning the word infobox can be considered a crime. I think we made some progress in the field, thanks to me linking to your musing about how else those who don't like infoboxes would serve those who don't read English so well or have impaired vision ;) - Thank you for deleting, because where would you look for someones latest comments if you see archives 1-9? I'd look in 9. His last comment is in 4, and was a reply to me which makes me blush. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

+ Toshio Hosokawa - Zazà --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the image! I heard him say what is quoted at the end of this review: "Komponisten sind einsam, und wir freuen uns, wenn wirklich jemand tief unsere Musik hört." (Composers are lonely, and we are hapy when someone really listens deeply." Said it to the one who is quoted in his article: "Musik entspannt, es sei denn man hört zu." (Music is relaxing - unless one listens.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who said music is relaxing has presumably never seen Ut live. ‑ Iridescent 21:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

When I want to relax, I definitely turn to the inheritors of a fertile collision. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!


	Happy Holidays! May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2019 and beyond.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cameron, you too! Opabinia externa (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

snakes!

I was also working on black mamba, so any input at Wikipedia:Peer review/Black mamba/archive2 would be greatly appreciated :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't, I'm on a plane! ;) Will look this week after I get home. Opabinia externa (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

No hurry. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Sushi and fish tacos

File:Cat dozing on cushion.jpg

Did someone say tuna?

Love the analogy, but especially the resolution! One minor nitpick: tuna rolls are never sad. Lonely, maybe, but never sad. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes tuna rolls are sad. Like when you give up on meeting friends and just get takeout and then the cat successfully steals a piece.

Gray fluffball here looks much lazier than the nose-smudges up the page, do they get along? Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

She's fairly elderly and was never the most active of animals, and spends most of her time lounging on that cushion (to the extent that she'll have a tantrum if it's taken away to be washed), studiously ignoring the rest of the world unless there's the potential for food. ‑ Iridescent 15:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Lazy older gray fluffball with an enthusiasm for tuna and an obsession with a very specific cushion solidarity. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh look at that expression ‑ Iridescent 08:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen a better epitome of the phrase "dripping with disdain." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying I should put him in the ANI editnotice? :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

yes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

my perspective today pictured, with best wishes for the season --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Best wishes to you too! (I tried to get the cats to wear Santa hats - that was a fail.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to my favourite Ass-kicking Arbitrator

Nosebagbear 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. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks, (belated) merry Christmas to you too! Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry holidays

Hello Opabinia regalis: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thanks, you too! Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks, you too! Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

An notice

[5] Please see this thread. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Whew, I was afraid someone was trying to drag me into the Wikipedia:Great Dismal Swamp! :) Nothing more than curiosity, I haven't read the ARCA thread yet, but: how'd you pick me to get one of these notices? Doesn't look like "current arb" was the selection criterion, and I only remember spouting off on the talk pages of that case, not really being involved in it... maybe my memory is bad. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

You had rather strong opinions against me in the Lightbreather case (no grudge on my end, we all have our opinions). I was in the process of notifying those in the original AN discussion before I was notified that I was right to begin with and was an amendment req. I thought it would be unseemly to only notify the ones that agreed with me ;) and I desire to have those who may have had the wrong idea about me as a person to have a new light to consider me. I'm not the perfect editor, far from it but I am here to help and not hurt and I did have to take lessons from that case, ones I had previously dismissed out of hand. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Did I? I mostly remember yelling at the arbs on that one. (Sorry, 2015 crew.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

My appeal

I don't think the proposed motion is fair or workable. After having been editing for a whole year and there has been little concerns raised in the discussion about page creation. I have a huge amount of work to do and the proposed motion is way way too slow and restrictive, please reconsider. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I just posted at ARCA, but I'll respond here too - the "huge amount of work" you want to do is precisely why there's a proposal on the table to require you to do it at a rate that is manageable and reviewable by the community, and to concentrate that work on developing a few articles to a higher standard rather than creating numerous short ones. I appreciate the links you offered to your content edits - those are big-looking diffs, but a lot of them are additions of infoboxes. What we're asking you to do is a) demonstrate that you now understand notability criteria and will focus on notable topics, and b) do substantial research and content development on individual topics, like the drafts you have in your userspace, rather than creating numerous very short articles. I understand that nobody likes to work under "sanctions", but being asked to have your work peer-reviewed is pretty light - and honestly good practice in general, even for people not under any specific restrictions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Perhaps I'll do cat images next year, but the 2019 calendar has mostly flowers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, happy new year to you too! Well done on the TFA, very fitting :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that he wrote the ultimate guide to arbitration ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Nice article! Yes, I've seen the guide before, I like to tell myself, at least, that most of it's not true anymore... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope that you are right ;) - It was written in 2009, and was certainly true in 2013, only I discovered it later, too late for me. For the case with the dirty word, we had a fruitful workshop phase (including designs for Beethoven and Verdi that are or at least were in the articles), but I doubt that the arbs looked at it much. They looked at me adding the unspeakables to Kafka's short stories, and found it needed to be restricted. Kafkaesque ;) - Well, I survived, other than some missed comrades. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

January
Lanzarote

... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for January! On vacation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! So pretty - hope you had a nice vacation :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Sitting at breakfast table with that view, just a few more clouds, so yes, nice ;) - but back home early tomorrow. Last beach stroll to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Back home, looking at snow, I went to a special birthday concert yesterday. I took the pic, in 2011 ;) - Probation always sounds good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

A small doubt clarification about Archived pages

🧦

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There are archived pages in Edit warring notice board , ANI and Administrator notice boards

Example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive383

Any non-administrator can edit this archived pages ? (which were archived by Bot) ?

(Bromarioo (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

Well, you (usually) can edit them, but you probably shouldn't - at least, not until you get more experience. They're meant to be archives, not ongoing conversations. If an issue isn't resolved - that is, it got archived without being closed, or an old issue started up again - you can start a new thread with a link to the old one and an explanation for why you've revived the topic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I am so surprise and i enjoyed a happiest movement in my life by getting your reply. I am a very new to Wikipedia editing,just i started first edit with you .Actually I am Architect and has given designs to multi stored buildings in United states of America.But i am regular reader of Wikipedia . The reliability information on Wikipedia most appreciative up to with 100% accuracy and perfect. Due to this reason many of my friends depends on wiki for information in my profession

Thanks again for your sparing valuable time for give reply to me.

(Bromarioo (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC))(Jdpadma (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC))

No problem, happy editing! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Opabinia. I've put semiprotection on some of the AN3 archives, due to abuse by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nsmutte. Their vandalism of AN3 and other boards has been going on for a few months, intermittently. For a recent checkuser block see this one. It seems possible that the American architect above is you-know-who. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Oooh, you're right, good spot! I mean, it's clearly someone's sock, but I didn't have the foggiest clue who... Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC) (Jdpadma (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC))

Most recent disruption links of 3rrarchieves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive384&diff=884377203&oldid=884351307

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive384&diff=884213234&oldid=884187907

Hi Opabinia.some more information about the disruption on archived pages of 3RR :

Most recent disruption links of 3rrarchieves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive384&diff=884377203&oldid=884351307

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive384&diff=884213234&oldid=884187907

The disruption links In this page :

Below are This users unblock request links ,but this disruptive user have many accounts , but some are blocked and some alive. please read unblock requests and previous disruption links of archived pages. Previous disruption links mentioned in this unblock request. please observe :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pongodueu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Comedowni

A kitten for you!

Great re-edit of the Bernard Roizman page. Thanks for making it much better.

LiamLiw (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Probation comment

Thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like things are wrapping up OK :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

For your excellent (if sometimes long) contributions in arbitration cases/requests.

This message was spurred by your comments in the Fæ case request which hits all the right notes and cuts through the surface drama to highlight the actual issues that we should be caring about. However, this is just the latest in a long line of insightful and helpful comments of the same high standard. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Opabina, I do so like those times I am voting after you. Agreed with Thryduulf. Your treatise on the Fae RFAR was great. I see that even Newyorkbrad – famously fond of detailed comments – had nothing to add. AGK ■ 23:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The only problem with your comments is that the case request was closed before many people probably had the chance to read them. I hope you’ll find a way to re-use much of what you wrote in another form. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC) Addendum: DRV would be a possible location. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

What, nobody is going to call me out on the "disproportionate conversational space" thing? :) Thanks all, at least a few people read to the end! I think I keep getting wordier as time goes on.

I dunno about DRV - truth be told I don't think that article passes our notability criteria as written, and think the close is reasonable. The criteria themselves are of course full of systemic bias, as are the dynamics of when people just have to insist on inspecting every citation lest someone get "special treatment". Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Black mamba

FYI, Black mamba is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black mamba/archive1...and the subject of systemic bias has come up there too....I hadn't even realised and am duly chastened....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll give it another look! I have to admit I hadn't noticed any systemic bias issues in that article either when I read it at peer review - too distracted by cool venom proteins, probably? Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Aah, you'll see....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...

we give thanks
Gratias agimus

Thank you so much for being the spirit of arbitration! - The music is the theme song of my life, so to speak, from Psalm 75, and Bach also used the same music in his final Dona nobis pacem, - "give us peace" is the best we can ask from arbs ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know how much peace I've been giving lately - unless my not being around makes things more peaceful? :) *peeks at ARCA* *peeks at overflowing inbox* eh, I dunno about that... Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Haven't looked at anything arb lately, - better for my peace ;) - I gave the same template to an editor new to me whom I seem to have confused. He was blocked unfairly (but I have no time to look into the details), thinks that a DS info is stimatising, and waits for apologies which probably won't come. Don't know what to say, - I know the feeling of being treated unfairly (not that I was ever blocked, or thought DS is a stigma). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow that thread, but just getting one of those DS templates should have all the emotional significance of, I dunno, getting an all-staff email at work about the weekly break-room fridge cleanup. Or a notice from the city about new recycling bins. Or any other mild encounter with a relatively harmless bureaucracy reminding you to do a thing you were already going to do anyway. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Would you repeat that where expressed, perhaps? (I pinged you before I saw your reply here, - had my talk open when I returned and work on my watchlist top to bottom.) Or ping the user to here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, don't overthink it; the editor in question is ridiculously aggressive (currently on a final warning from me for incivility, and I have an extremely high bar when it comes to what constitutes unacceptable rudeness), and would have feigned taking offense at you even if the template consisted of a basket of kittens. I sometimes think that we should get a bot to spam the talk page of every active user once a year with a list of all active DS areas; yes it would be annoying but wouldn't clutter watchlists any more than the annual election-spam, and we could then work on the assumption that all users were aware of all sanctions and we'd have no need to go through the constant "does someone who writes about architecture need to be given an AP2 notice when they edit Trump Tower?" confusion. ‑ Iridescent 15:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I told him (what makes me so sure it's a he?) "love your enemies", to no avail, - today's gospel was about the splinter in your sister's eye, - I enjoy the irony. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Although it violates WP:SPEAKENGLISH, you might want to try speaking to him in German. I have a feeling that a lot of his (I'm certain it's a "he", as his de-wiki userpage gives his name) issues ultimately stem from the fact that his understanding of English is nowhere near as good as he thinks it is, and he consequently misunderstands when things are explained to him but is too proud to admit that he doesn't understand. ‑ Iridescent 20:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

My interest in talking to him is rather limited. Where do you think Germans learn the term "POV-pushers"? It has such a ring of old times to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I've seen the exact term "Pov-pushen" being used, untranslated, in German Wikipedia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt looking at the most recent exchange, I think this may all stem from his not understanding that the word "warning" has multiple meanings in English whereas German has both "achtung" and "warnen". He's interpreting it as used in "I'm warning you about your conduct" or "I'm warning you that if you move I'll shoot", but the intent is as used in "Warning, narrow road ahead" or "this is a warning that your flight leaves in ten minutes". (The templates intentionally use the unambiguous "alert" and "notification" rather than "warning" for precisely this reason.) That said, as per my previous comment I'm fairly certain that this is a user who's looking for a pretext to have an argument rather than someone who's genuinely offended. He's already on a final warning that any further "personal attacks on other editors" or "making accusations of misconduct against other editors without providing evidence" will lead to a block, so if he keeps it up I'll send him to find a new hobby. (He likes to characterize everyone who disagrees with him as being part of a conspiracy, but I think we can safely say any claim that I'm working at the behest of POTW is not going to be taken very seriously.) ‑ Iridescent 14:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you are right. Had to think for a moment what the abbreviation means but guess you mean Andy. When has he "pushed" last time? I think he's almost as far away from a topic that still causes headaches as I am. In 2013, he was almost banned, and the diff given by the arb whose vote made that the majority was uncollapsing an infobox (that I had added to an article I had created). In 2014, he was taken to AE for properly formatting an infobox for someone else, and an edit that was good for just a thank-you-click - but I think they were not invented then - kept the noticeboards busy for a while. Tell our friend who uses "hostility" too much but for some reason only perceives it as directed at him, that to my limited observation Andy has received an unbelievable amount of it, for trying to improve articles. - I missed Teh Wars from 2005 to 2012, which may have left scars I can't imagine. In the 2013 case, I suggested "We start today" - which we could still do, with new aspects. Looking at the mentioned Siegfried and Ban on Love, it's hard to imagine that there ever was a fight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

On today's Main page La traviata, and I don't regret having "pushed" towards the title woman pictured, not the composer, pictured uniformly for all operas decades after he wrote this one. Viva-Verdi did it (his Callas image was recently deleted), not known as a pov pusher, but a solid foundation of project opera ("one of the most active and helpful members of WikiProject Opera. He will be greatly missed by all his colleagues there.") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'll stay out of this one. The infobox DS authorization is in this case, FWIW. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. DYK that I had completely forgotten that the case even existed? I ignored it when running. Interesting how many times my name was called. Well, if I serve a purpose as the infobox topic's most suitable scape-goat, so be it. We'll see for how long. Haven't "pushed" an infobox (if ever) since 2015. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)