User talk:Opabinia regalis/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

About apologies

That statement on the most recent case request reminded me of this discussion about apologies for some reason. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Good points there. I think the problem I mean is a little different - I'm talking about the case where the impediment to apologizing (and cleaning up the mess you caused, which is an often-overlooked step) isn't insincerity, but more like a fear that it will be interpreted as admitting fault for the whole issue, or letting the other side "win". But I may just be outright wrong about the dynamic here. Sometimes I think we should just move the arbitration pages to Wikipedia: Why I was right and the other person is worse and it's really all everybody else's fault. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

... or there's a splinter in my sister's eye --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A bit too generic IMO, these mentalities underpin a lot of conflicts even when they don't reach Arbcom. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, just my deficit's worth...when arguing/presenting a case at AE, AN, ANI, etc. we have community favs and their supporters wanting a pound of flesh via a boomerang against the OP. I can't help but wonder if diffs beyond the 1st 3 to 5 are actually read and/or evaluated in proper context. How many are thinking to themselves, I've got things to do - can we get this over with ASAP? I would love for someone to convince me otherwise. There are also a few cases when the innocent will admit to guilt hoping for a lesser sentence, and end-up looking more guilty than the guilty. Why? More times than not, they haven't perfected their strategy as would a seasoned POV warrior. And so it goes...and goes...and goes. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 03:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Despite the pile-ons you always get at the start of dramaboard threads, people generally do read the whole thing, and it's certainly not unusual for an intervention to change the course of a discussion even after a large number of people have piled on. (My comment at 10:11 5 March here almost certainly stopped IW being unceremoniously kicked off the project, for instance.) Part of the reason you see boomerangs at AN/ANI/Arb is that while it may not have been part of the original design, it serves a useful purpose in stress-testing the editors on both sides of whatever the issue is; if someone has a battleground mentality, the stress of being put under the microscope often gets them to flare up and reveal their true colors. Bear in mind that except in some specific cases such as people pushing obviously crazy positions or misusing sources, from the point of view of an arbitrator or a closing admin we don't care what the views of the participants are on the issue in hand, we care about how they interact with other people who don't share their views. (When it comes to content disputes, as a very rough rule of thumb if you can work out from a Wikipedia editor's edits regarding the topic what their personal views on that topic are, that editor is potentially problematic. As an even rougher rule of thumb—and I say this as an inveterate writer of walls-of-text—whoever has made the longest post is more often than not the cause of the problem.) ‑ Iridescent 18:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting perspective, thank you Iridescent. I realize ;tldr may have a negative influence. ("I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short." ~ Blaise Pascal) ^Atsme 👂🏻 📧 18:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It's true that a well-placed and persuasive intervention in an ANI thread can change its course for the better. The problem is then the extent to which a sane outcome from an ANI thread depends on that kind of intervention. There's only a few people who do it often or effectively, but there are lots of people whose ANI participation is either pure noise, or actively negative.

And on that last point, I am a regular offender when it comes to tediously long posts, but it's almost alarming how good the correlation is between post volume and degree of responsibility for the problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I find this statements concerning. We all are capable of being upset, of being pushed to a limit and of reacting badly. I don't believe, with all respect to Iridescent, that these are the true colors of any editor. Why are we talking about stress testing people. How about just trying to get to the bottom of the issues at hand supporting editors and trying reintegrate them into the smooth workings of an encyclopedia. Seems to me that when we look for guilt we are already in trouble; when we push people to react then we are not getting to the bottom of the issues. I wonder if this is a punitive model. I'm not usually a talk page stalker but this caught my eye, really bothered me, and I couldn't not comment. By the way I was told many years ago by an arb that they seldom read everything so anyone posting should make it short and very very succinct. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The arbs won't necessarily read the workshop, but we'd certainly read all the statements; while the primary purpose for the 500 limit is to force people to keep to the point, the secondary purpose is that it's mind-numbingly dull reading and absorbing even the short statements, especially back when RFAR was more active. On the topic of putting people under stress, nobody goes out of their way to put people under stress, but it's nonetheless a useful tool. Bluntly, if you don't want to be dragged to those noticeboards where you'll be put under stress, don't be disruptive and cause people to drag you there in the first place. This is a collaborative academic project, not a social network or blogging site, and if people aren't able to collaborate with people with whom they disagree it's in both our interest and theirs that they realise Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for them. ‑ Iridescent 18:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no gripe against the arbs and what they can or cannot read. It's a tough job, maybe a dirty job, and those doing it to the best of their ability with honesty have only my gratitude whether I agree with them or not. I simply wanted to mention what one arb said to me, as a point. I'm sorry, but no, people are pulled to drama boards all the time without having done anything wrong, without even being disruptive in part because what disrupts is subjective and we all don't see things the same way. Being at a drama board cannot confer guilt; it simply means there is an issue probably where two side see things differently. I respect the editors here and hope they can also see that there is more than one way to eat an apple. (Animal lover here so no cat words.) Best wishes all. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Just curious...if you don't read the diffs in context or examine the components of a case, how do you know the statements made are supported by evidence or policy based or if they're simply aspersions and embellished rhetoric designed to rid oneself of opposition? I understand how statements (arguments) work for an RfC because we don't count iVotes; rather, we base results on the merits of the arguments. But it doesn't work the same way when it involves a case of WP:POV railroad. I may be wrong, but I always thought arbs were required to be far more thorough when studying a case than, say...everyday admins who are inundated with multiple cases almost daily. Why bother electing an arbitration committee if they aren't going to devote the necessary time to arrive at fair, well-informed decisions? We might as well let individual admins make all the decisions at their discretion, and hope it's not a hair trigger decision. At least in the latter scenario, the torment ends sooner. ^Atsme 👂🏻 📧 20:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

OR is better placed than me to say how things are done now; for all I know, present-day arbs read the workshop avidly, but I somehow doubt it.

In my personal opinion the workshop phase is a vestigial remnant of the very early days of Wikipedia when Jimmy envisaged Arbcom as a circle of his trusted courtiers who would act on his behalf by actually arbitrating between arguing parties, rather than doling out blocks and bans. To my mind, its main function now is to act as a fuckwittery heatsink, to keep the bickering and squabbling off the main case pages. (Frankly, I'd say the primary purpose of Arbcom itself nowadays is to serve as Wikipedia's fuckwittery heatsink to keep the bickering and squabbling off the rest of the project; they dealt with a mighty seven actual cases in the whole of 2018, one of which they abandoned two days after it opened.)

Yes, I totally agree that the arbs' need to read the diffs in context or examine the components of a case, but that's what the evidence page is for; the workshop these days is just a glorified talk page in which all the usual look-at-me types wade in explaining why the evidence proves that the best course of action is to block the guy with whom, by complete coincidence, they're currently in dispute. If we need to keep Arbcom (a big if), I personally don't feel anything would be lost if cases jumped straight from the evidence phase in which people post the relevant diffs and explain how they pertain to the case, to the PD page in which people discuss which parts of the evidence are potentially actionable and what the best action to take would be. There's absolutely no benefit to either the parties, the arbs, or the wider community in the current double-phase approach in which the proposals for the PD are effectively written twice, once with running commentary from the peanut gallery and once about.

FWIW, the word "workshop" doesn't appear once in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy; the current five-phase request→evidence→workshop→PD→ruling model isn't some hallowed and inviolable part of the Wikipedia Constitution but just an artefact of systemic inertia because That's How We've Always Done It, and "Fred Bauder thought it was a good idea in 2005 and nobody could be bothered to argue because at that time Arbcom was just one of a bunch of competing self-appointed mediation bodies so nobody realised it would become Wikipedia's ruling council" really isn't much of a foundation on which to build a system.* If you look at the cases from the period when the "workshop" concept was introduced, in most cases the Workshop page is blank. It was intended as a scratchpad for the arbs and parties to jot down their thinking, and was never intended to be an integral part of the process; I believe Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Workshop was the first time the workshop page was actually used for anything approaching its present use, and even then it was almost exclusively used for the arbs and parties to discuss among themselves, not for every passing person with a grudge to aim a kick at their enemies while they were down. Newyorkbrad might be better placed than me to do the Institutional Memory thing in this instance, as he was a clerk or arb during the period when workshopping became popular whereas to me arbcom was largely an annoying buzz in the background. ‑ Iridescent 16:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
*Fred Bauder's thoughts on what the workshop phase became compared to what he intended it to be mirror mine, incidentally. ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The workshop was already an established part of the process by the time I got involved with the arbitration pages, so I don’t have much to add regarding how it got that way. In some cases during my tenure the workshop was useful; on others, very much not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Although even I haven't been very good at it, I've always felt that all non-recused Arb should take part in the workshop and that the PD itself should be worked on there. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The workshop of the infoboxes case seemed to have been ignored, but then the arb who wrote the case placed my suggestion for Beethoven to the article, following community consensus. Productive ;) - Now look at Mozart's talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm not a big fan of the workshop as it currently exists. Cases are long, so I usually do end up reading almost all of what's posted sooner or later, but certainly not in real-time or all at once. For the workshop in particular I usually look at the first couple of proposals from each person (or maybe the ones with the most interesting-looking section headers) and if they're thoughtful and sensible I'll read the rest, but I don't put too much more time into stuff that's obviously unreasonable, off-topic, etc. I think the "write a proposed proposed decision" format of the workshop is part of the problem - some people take it seriously and do a good job, but it encourages soapboxing and weird efforts to push the Overton window on the PD. (I guess it does also serve the "heatsink" function of containing the dispute to a back-office page until a solution can be sorted out.) I think it'd be more useful for the parties to give a two-sentence summary of what they want to change or how they want the problem to be handled in the future. You know that cheesy quasi-management-y stuff about I statements? More like that. It seems like even case parties who were reasonable through the evidence phase start to get a little defensive and brain-fried when the workshop rolls around and people start posting sanctions proposals. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

So why not eliminate it all together? I would think the majority of editors/arbs/admins would support its removal. ^Atsme 📣 📧 16:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not just a case of flipping a switch. Because the relevant part of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures which converted "the way we've always done it" into formal policy was formally adopted rather than just "we'll keep doing this unless someone complains", it would take a formal motion and subsequent vote of the committee to change it. I'd imagine any such motion would be bitterly opposed, as so many of the usual suspects would be dismayed at potentially losing one of their favourite trolling venues. ‑ Iridescent 20:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep, there would be a ton of complaints if the community previously had a specific space for input on thing X and then arbcom "took it away". (Star Chamber, forced disappearances, George Orwell references, we're just like <fill in your favorite fascist dictator>, etc etc.) Some of those complaints would be "hey, what do you mean I can't troll there anymore??" but some would be genuine concern. It also wouldn't leave many alternative places for the other functions of the workshop - I guess the heatsink would just move to the case's talk pages, which are generally harder to keep under control. What's currently the "analysis of evidence" section of the workshop page has always seemed misplaced to me, but the concept of secondary analysis has merit (especially since, well, the narrative framing of most of the parties in their evidence sections is often less than useful - "here's all the reasons nothing is my fault and the other side has wronged me and should be banninated"). All in all I don't really want to get rid of it, I just want less soapboxing.

If I were going to redo the whole case process from scratch it would be much more goal-oriented. Right now the semi-adversarial setup of the case pages encourages people to lose perspective and get too wrapped up in the short-term "goal" of getting someone to say "Yes, you were right". Never mind that one diff from six months ago where that nasty so-and-so said something (gasp!) uncivil and are we really going to let someone get away with that??? - what do you actually want to happen now? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In theory I would prefer to keep the workshop page, but I also think the evidence page should be clerked more rigidly to keep it to matters that can be verified with a minimum of interpretation, with all interpretation moved to the workshop. That isn't going to happen, though.

Ideally, I think the analysis portion of the workshop page should be used to lay out the lines of reasoning that lead to determining the key problematic issues to be resolved, and the pros and cons of different remedies. I believe the soapboxing, as Opabinia regalis called it, in people's proposed principles arises because they are trying to lay out their argument for their proposed remedies. As a result, these oddly hyper-specific principles are proposed, rather than more general principles that are more befitting of the name. I don't really know how to encourage people not to do this, though. Remedies could be required to point to corresponding analysis sections to describe their rationale, but that probably won't stop people from writing their principles highly tailored to the case in question. isaacl (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

We were pulling in parallel to the dock, Captain said port left, so I gave him our last bottle. Next thing I know, we're going down!!

File:Cat on suitcase.jpg

I requested a case as well, see?

In an ideal world, there would be a bigger but more aggressively clerked case request page; the word limits would be done away with, but in return any statement not in the form "I see the problem as _____, the evidence to support my assertion is _____, and I see the potential solutions as _____, _____ or _____" would be removed. Such a thing would probably do away with whatever need there actually is for the workshop and evidence phases, as people would be forced up front to say what they hoped to achieve, why they hoped to achieve it and why the committee should care. I can't see it happening this side of the next millenium; I was there when WP:ARBPOL was brought into force and watching Roger steer that through was like watching someone trying to parallel-park an oil tanker, and that was essentially just codifying existing practice rather than the kind of radical change I'm proposing. Wikipedia's model has many virtues, but it doesn't do change at all well. ‑ Iridescent 16:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Once upon a time, I suggested that community-selected co-ordinators should present the major viewpoints for a case, in order to streamline its presentation and thereby save everyone's time. Absent this, though, I don't think every commenter should be required to present evidence, analysis, and proposed remedies. I think it makes sense to gather everyone's presented evidence together, separate from analysis, so someone can go through it and verify it readily, without having to sift through analysis intermixed within. I agree whole-heartedly that more bare-bones statements are highly desirable. isaacl (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent's idea is exactly the right way to do it. (A cat on every case page would help too - and that one's somewhat more likely to actually be implemented, even if just for a little while till a clerk notices.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I will say this in favour of a single information gathering phase: reducing the duration of a case would hopefully reduce the amount of contentious discussion, and perhaps start the process of reconciliation sooner. isaacl (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

My ideas are always exactly the right way to do it. Isaacl, I respectfully entirely disagree with you. Any participant in a case who doesn't have an opinion on what they expect the case to achieve is only there to stir the pot, and such people do nothing except waste the arbitrators' time and annoy and upset the parties in the case. Quite frankly, as far as I'm concerned we should start treating the usual gang of tricoteuses who invariably turn up to arb cases—and it is always the same handful of people—just as we would any other group of disruptive editors. ‑ Iridescent 10:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Because I respect the arbitration process, generally I am happy to let the arbitrators decide what the outcome should be, and do not want to propose a specific remedy. However on occasion I think the underlying purpose of various policies is being missed, and feel it would be useful to highlight the motivating principles. I appreciate, though, that I may be off-base; I will give greater consideration to avoiding wasting time. isaacl (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have had an interest in Arbitrations for many years not because of my own experiences which I believe in the end were fair although complex and convoluted, (and AE is another matter) but because I have seen well meaning editors lost to Wikipedia because the "ropes" at arbitration and even AE created an uneven playing field for those newer editors. I think Iridescent's suggestion for request page is excellent. But more importantly is something that is missing from the way arbitration functions now and that is that editors and especially newer editors do not always know what they will be sanctioned for, what the real issues are, what the arbs are looking at and might want to see in their deliberations. Experienced editors in the same situation know what arbs generally look at what, the trigger words are which can nail the coffin shut. What is lacking overall is transparency. We as experienced editors know lots of discussion goes on the background which the editor is not part of and often even understands. That can't be corrected, but an antidote can be created in a very concrete and transparent way by simply openly asking the editors questions, questions which are based on the issues the arbs see as problems. From the answers to those questions arbs will get a very good idea of the editor's knowledge, and understanding of what is going on. How often have I seen an editor say something innocently and with integrity that will hang them not because they did anything wrong but because they did not understand the situation and "looked" guilty. In this model, at this initial phase of a case there is no place for anyone else with an interest wether helpful or not to comment. That, if necessary, comes later. Experienced editors do not always realize how far they've cone in understanding the complexities of the Wikipedia culture, norms and language. Second to this arbs must not come into an arbitration with an agenda assuming guilt or innocence and must maintain the non-punitive stance Wikipedia was built on. Further, and on a less positive note experienced editors can know how to hang an inexperienced editor if that is their leaning. We have lost good editors this way as inexperienced editors trying to do the right thing but not understanding the culture are dragged to Arbitrations and sanctioned. Experienced editors don't see this as a problem since they may feel they are fighting for Wikipedia and the ends justify whatever means necessary to remove editors rather than integrate them. I realize there are many situations where editors are here to damage but an open transparent model where editors see and understand what the issues are because they are being asked about it should deal with that problem too. And no this isn't about me or my experiences, it's about a long term issue which I have viewed and wondered about and even written about [1] in the past. Dr Chrissy has since died but he was a good editor potentially great who could have been saved had he been dealt with differently. One thing I do disagree with is that the editor who becomes upset is not admitting in some subtle way to guilt. There are multiple reasons they might be upset. We can find out why by simply asking them. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding...ArbCom and AE should consider putting a reasonable limit on the number of diffs one can submit (not more than 5) because it's highly unlikely anything more will be read anyway, and crack down heavily on aspersions. If it takes 50 diffs to show disruption, or there are no diffs that show disruption, it's highly likely there is no disruption; rather, it is more likely opposition and the OP may just be trying to rid themselves of it. ^Atsme 📣 📧 17:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't work; sometimes it's necessary to have a wall of diffs to demonstrate that there's a long term problem that the community hasn't been able to address. Here's an example from just yesterday; the long list is necessary to illustrate that there's no realistic chance of the issue resolving itself. ‑ Iridescent 17:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent, sorry, ;tldr 😂 ❤️ ^Atsme 📣 📧 22:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What's generally missing is context. Wikipedia is a two dimensional format. Diffs are necessary but can be used in such a way as to indicate guilt or innocence and in such an instance a great number of diffs can add a kind of context. There may be other ways to add context as well even using a two dimensional format. Asking questions may do that. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I would think 5 diffs of incivility would be enough to start/determine a case of incivility. How many times should we be allowing an editor to be uncivil before any action is taken? Perhaps therein the problem lies. Few are going to read all the diffs anyway - and it's probably very likely that I can collect at least 20 diffs from comments by just about any editor and make them appear problematic. A lot of diffs really do look impressive - Wow, that editor is a major disruption!! - but if they had been a major disruption, you would have known long ago - someone would have reported them. What you'll most likely be getting from an accumulation of diffs is system gamers compiling a whole lot of innocuous diffs taken out of context, and prepended by aspersions to make it look like something it's not. Admins/arbs tend to take a veteran OP at their word - especially if alliances have been formed - which makes it even harder to reach an unbiased result. No reflection on you, Iridescent, but the latter does happen. Perhaps the bar on tolerance for incivility is set too high and needs to be lowered. I can't think of any editor offhand who likes being told to f-off, or STFU, etc., and I know there are times when it's very difficult to hold back and just walk away, so incivility breeds incivility. I would much rather be spending my time in a civil discussion/argument being bludgeoned at a controversial article than having to deal with incivility. We don't learn anything from the latter, but the former may actually shed some light on a topic we may not have realized prior to our involvement in the debate. Just my 5¢ worth. It's off to work I go... ^Atsme 📣 📧 18:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedian understanding of civility is basically limited to superficial politeness, which is part of the problem. Under a mature definition of civility, bludgeoning someone at a talk page is uncivil, as are feigned incomprehension, soup-spitting, and sealioning—all of which are more corrosive than bad language. Given the hypothetical choice, I'd rather just be told to fuck off, instead of having to put up with stonewalling, or "just asking questions", or walls of text that studiously avoid addressing the underlying issue at hand. (And no, that's not an invitation to verbally abuse me, just a preference between several undesirable types of incivility ). MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

So we just can't verbally abuse you. Ok...I'll try to keep that in mind when you enter Atsme's Chamber of anything's possible, as long as you remember you're entering at your own risk. I think what's being overlooked (re: bludgeoning) are the occasions of mandatory discussions (1RR-consensus required) wherein editors have opposing views. When one side has their fill of the other, that's when accusations of bludgeoning appear. It takes 2 to tango 💃 - so who gets to make the determination of guilt? It's clearly not length that gives rise to accusations of bludgeoning because when everyone is in agreement, a discussion could become quite lengthy. It's only when there's disagreement. I can easily recognize bludgeoning at AE, ANI, AN & RfAs but when there is civil discourse at an RfC, I don't consider debate and/or responding to questions/challenges to be bludgeoning. Maybe commenting after every opposing view could be considered bludgeoning - like we see more often at RfAs, but I've never seen any action taken to prevent it. Perhaps there should be a time limit ⏳ for RfCs & local consensus discussions to help guide the talkaholics? ^Atsme 📣 📧 20:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I think most people understand there are more ways to be, shall we say, unco-operative beyond being profane. It's just harder to get agreement that someone's being deliberately unco-operative. It requires inferring intent, which people take as a personal accusation and so react strongly, and it tends to be political, because supporters of one viewpoint often can more readily see or are more willing to confront poor behaviour in supporters of other viewpoints. The usual remedy in online forums is to have moderators make the final decisions. For better or worse, at present English Wikipedia isn't willing to cede responsibility in this manner. isaacl (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The introduction of the workshop page was one of the worst things to happen to arbitration, in my view. The intentions were good, but the effect was to intensify disputes, rather than giving people a rest and allowing time for the strong feelings to die down between the evidence phase and the decision. Now after the dispute itself and perhaps an AN/I, we have a lengthy RfAr, followed by the evidence phase, followed by the workshop, followed almost immediately by the decision and the lengthy voting. It's too much to expect anyone to tolerate. I think these cases are affecting people's mental and physical health, and that we really ought to sort it out. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for saying this. "I think these cases are affecting people's mental and physical health, and that we really ought to sort it out." I know of several people whose health has been impacted negatively, and several who had to leave Wikipedia to protect themselves. When the outcome is this poor the approach has to wrong Littleolive oil (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've wondered in the past about holding an RfC to abolish the workshops. I have no idea how that would go. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion - if that does happen, consider a section for editors who have been through an Arb case to respond, and a section for those who have not. The responses from those of us who have experienced it should weigh a bit more than those who have not - somewhat along the same lines as uninvolved editors vs involved at the dramah boards. ^Atsme 📣 📧 00:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose that (prioritising the comments of those who'd previously been a party in an arb case). That's essentially penalising people for the ability to resolve conflict (if anything, the opinions of people who've been involved in conflicts but managed to resolve them without ever reaching RFAR are probable more valuable); plus, since the longer one has been active the more opportunity one has had for someone to complain about you, so it would formalise the "old timers are more important" mentality. I also don't really understand the logic behind it; did my opinions suddenly become more valuable on 11 November 2018 because I happened to add myself as a party to the Fred Bauder case? ‑ Iridescent 09:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Experiences/procedures, not opinions/behaviors. My reference is more procedural in nature - if you've never experienced the workshops, how can you know if they're necessary, or what role they play in a process? Regarding your question about your own experience, I'd say "yes" as it refers to the "process" but "no extra weight" as it relates to your opinion for resolution of the actual behavioral issue(s) that caused it to become a case. Does that make sense? If I'm going to build a 20 story building, the first thing I'm going to review in potential building contractors is "level of experience", then I'll look at the personalities of the individuals I'll be working with on the job. Another hypothetical - We're at the lake, can't see the bottom, don't know if there is an undertow. Are you going to ask someone who never swam in that lake what it's like? ^Atsme 📣 📧 12:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

On the lake analogy I would argue that it would be more valuable to ask a dry person sitting in the lifeguard tower overlooking the lake who dispatches rescue helicopters than a wet person who spent time floundering in the water, only able to see up to the next wave crest. ~Awilley (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree! ^Atsme 📣 📧 14:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Experience from the other side counts also, not just as a named party, and parallel experiences count too. If I'm building a conduct dispute resolution process for a large organization, I want to hear from those with experience with managing interpersonal issues in large organizations (and in this case, ideally volunteer ones). Too many people in English Wikipedia make suggestions that betray a lack of experience with how groups actually work out their differences in a way that recognizes the ongoing collaborative nature of their interactions (winning today is not a win if it means losing in the long run). isaacl (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh wow, that's a lot of notifications for a few days off-wiki. Iridescent, is this what your talk page is like all the time? :)

On the topic of what to post in cases and workshops in particular: I did my share of soapboxing from the case talk pages before I joined the committee and experienced for myself just how annoying that is. Crazy as it sounds, arbs are just people. With a bunch of unrelated real-life responsibilities competing for mental space, and probably with other wiki-interests that are, all else being equal, more interesting than someone's five-paragraph essay on Why My Enemy Should Get Banned. Being useful in the workshop (and making it more likely that your suggestions make it into the PD) is actually pretty easy:

• Remember that your primary audience is the arbitrators, not the various case-page hangers-on who like to comment on everything and definitely not the other people on your "side" who will be egging you on.
• You don't need to write a "complete" pseudo-PD. If you skip a section, make it the principles. Don't propose remedies without corresponding findings, don't propose findings without evidence, and don't start workshopping the exact wording of your bannination proposal when the evidence page just opened two hours ago. (OK, you usually can do this, but you will be getting side-eye from at least five eyes if you do.) Stick to a few key points and resist the urge to lard up your findings with every little vaguely-related thing you can find.
• There's a template with some formatting suggestions, but you don't actually have to write a pseudo-PD at all. A brief description of what kind of outcome you want is fine - but seriously, one or two sentences. Short and succinct enough that it could be turned into a PD proposal if the idea is good.
• If someone posts obvious craziness, just ignore it. Yes, even if it's about you. If someone is obviously trying to rile you up, ignore it even harder. If a little voice in your head suggests trying to rile someone else up, ignore that too.
• Don't waste your time and mental energy policing anyone else's sections (word limits, minor incivility, etc). Don't get into long back-and-forth bickering sessions on the talk pages. Post issues with the case on the case pages, not arbs' or clerks' talk pages. Save email for actual private stuff, not backchanneling.

Ultimately, arbcom cases are back-office stuff about people being wrong on the internet. If people's health is being affected by their participation in an internet project, that's as clear a sign as anyone could ask for that it's time to step back, arbcom case or not - nothing here, and certainly not an arbcom case, is worth anyone risking their health to participate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

And...remember to wear clean underwear.^Atsme 📣 📧 14:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis. As usual your comments are practical and useful and in my opinion on the mark with one small addition. While it's true that one should step back when health is affected we also as a collaborative project have the responsibility to make this place non-toxic, non health-damaging. Also, the damage often is sometimes not apparent until after a case is closed when one has done his or her best to deal with issues whether created by self or not. The damage is done. Sure the obvious healthy response is to back way for awhile (or forever) but that does not fix the problem in the first place and correct the damage that's been done both to the individual and to the encyclopedia. The ability to see personal damage and to back away seems in my experience to be something more experienced editors can do usually after suffering themselves. The time to fix this, seems to me, is before anyone, even those who deserve sanctions are damaged. And everyone even those who have run afoul of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines deserves to be treated as if they and their health matters. If we want to keep editors and recruit them, we have to maintain a healthy collaborative environment around them. On the individual level this means none of us has the right to damage, in any way, anyone else. There is an unspoken principle on Wikipedia maintained by some that if we don't like you or what you're doing we can try too damage and get rid of you. That should end. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not always possible to know whether someone will perceive themselves to be "damaged" by an online interaction. Unfortunately, it's also sometimes the case that people have unrealistic expectations of how accommodating others can reasonably be. Obviously we don't want people coming to Wikipedia with the intent of hurting others, but occasional hurt feelings are an inevitable consequence of interacting with other people, even if someone is being self-reflective enough (not always easy!) to distinguish genuine hurt from plain old frustration at not getting their way. It's unfortunate but not surprising that these dynamics are particularly common in our most intractable disputes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) While I agree that the ArbCom case process might usefully be reviewed, the fact remains that at this point, the Committee hears only a handful of cases each year. If there's a will to push for improvement of dispute-resolution processes, then just from the point of view of benefitting the most participants, the much more frequently used forums such as AN and ANI might be a better place to focus attention. (I'd nominate the complexities of the discretionary sanctions system as another worthwhile target, but frankly I don't understand all the rules myself any more.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

+1 to that. If your issue is that the case page structure is messy or that cases drag on too long, arbs are the people to complain to. If your main concern is "people find dispute resolution distressing", start at ANI. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding health: I think we are talking about different things. I am taking about people who either contacted me or told me of instances of people for example, suffering true PTSD symptoms, couldn't sleep, and who were emotionally impacted - serious issues not frustration for example. This is a way of looking at the problem. When I teach in an area that has collaborative elements; I am responsible for the establishment and maintainance of an environment that fosters safety, fearlessness, and integrity. I cannot be responsible for how students react to the class; they may become frustrated and or intractable. While I can create an initial environment and maintain it I can't control people and bow they react. I will of course as arbs do, have to judge in the end. There are suggestions here, seems to me, to establish a situation where the often toxic noise of a case could be dealt with. Iridescent's idea to create succinct information, asking the editor, directly, questions while delaying input from all other editors. And yes AN and AN/I are worse. This is a collaborative project that underpins the creation of an encyclopedia. The collaborative part doesn't work well in terms of DS here. Perhaps we have to identify the fundamental issues and change them. Easier said than done but necessary. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

As I referred to above, the typical approach is to replace the "wisdom of the crowd" with moderators. This limits the unpleasantness of discussions about conduct to a smaller audience. It requires the moderators to be trusted, though, and Wikipedia was built on the idea of trying to avoid trusting specific individuals but instead letting the crowd cross-check itself, so it would be a cultural shift from today. isaacl (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No cats good enough

March

... with thanks from QAI

On a recent trip, I took hundreds of pics, even six of cats thinking of you, but none of those was good enough to be uploaded. Click on "March" for some of the others, with thanks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I made a little monument for a (distant) cousin who died, which the German Wikipedia kindly presented yesterday, on his birthday, - below the travel pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

moar thanks, and you said you like blue ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for both! Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Another one....

I nominated Eastern brown snake. Covered important venoms but maybe needs more detail...or too esoteric? Also looking at this but not so sure if anything else to include.....all input appreciated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Snek! I don't know if I have time for a full GA review, but I'll look the article over this weekend. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean "isn't"?

"In fact, I'd go one further and say that a single instance of apparent misbehavior by a long-standing and otherwise reliable admin is a potential signal of broader and more serious underlying issues." ? --GRuban (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Heh, no, but I see now that that's confusing wording! No, I didn't mean admin-related issues; what I was trying to say is that a situation that prompts someone to take an uncharacteristic IAR action really might reflect serious problems in the community's process and decision-making, rather than just another case of self-important adminning. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Wanna add " … in the community's process and decision making."? Or maybe not, maybe I'm the only one who is confused, and everyone else understood you fine. --GRuban (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I doubt you're the only one! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

When there are weeds in the garden. Little does it matter.^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Cats

Cats and boxes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Did you know a cat can jump higher than a house? It’s because of their extremely strong legs....and the fact that a house can’t jump. 🙀 Atsme Talk 📧 22:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Ha! I used to have a cat who'd sleep on the roof, curled up next to the chimney. Might've taken a couple of jumps to get up there though :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Here, I had the perfect DYK for you, wanted to wait until it appears, BUT ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC) That is perfect, love the statue! Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Let's see how long we will see the statue, up for deletion, and mother cat the same, - and will we then delete all of California pottery? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Hedi Schoop It appeared today, and I decorated my talk with her and her favourite cat. The ceramic one seems still under discussion (same for the memorial image). Don't miss mother and kitten ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC) I thought for a moment that the previous edit summary should not have been "I need coffee", but I need Coffee. Next thing was the look at recent deaths: Unita Blackwell. Coffee wrote her article. - Small world. Jens Beutel is on the Main page. I expanded his article because couldn't stand the tagged stub we had. Next thing was a family member telling me of playing with him as a child. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Aww, what a cute kitten! Sorry to hear about the deaths. Glad to see they have nicer articles now! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC) The last one has a nicer article, but reached the standard too late to appear, sadly. Quite an impressive person! pictured - Writing an article about his works, for DYK, in defiance ;) - I was asked about the infobox wars, so am in the process to explain what I know, step by step. In case of interest: look for "teh history" on my user page. It was in March 2013 that I thought for the first time they were over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Talking of deaths: shocked again]. All these cats!!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC) I left her a cat, as requested, this cat, - will you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Oh wow, had no idea! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC) No cat today. In teh history, I reached the stage of supplying something unwanted in an arbcase: facts. I wonder if anybody looked at them - until 3 years later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Facts? At arbcom?? No way! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC) NOW I know. I was sentenced because I used one infobox in article space during its try-out period (disruptive!), restored the preferred version three months later (edit warring!), wanted infoboxes in operas (which by now most of them have) and composers (which some have, and I try to look away for the others). Teh case happened the same year as Kafka for TFA, - the perfect match. When the arbs knew no better remedy than banning a prolific user, I panicked, which really made me look like a warrior, I guess. - All this could be considered bygone and humurous if I didn't get "if you spent a little less time shit stirring ..." in 2019, and probably meant as written. (My 2019 archive, and I said I'm over it, but am not.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC) You know, it's coming up on the five-year anniversary of that case, which sounds like a great opportunity to let it slip down the memory hole! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC) I's the sixth year after, DYK? - Actually, today is the 6th anniversary of the infamous line ;) - I can't forget, nor can others, obviously. I believe we need kind of peace efforts, but don't know how to start. Taking that "beautifully crafted" line to AE where it belongs seems wrong, among colleagues, but having my thank-you clicks stalked inspected and wrong conclusions drawn, then a friend outed as banned (in public on an article talk page!) only because he tried to defend me, - it's a bit too much to "let it slip down". I haven't "stirred shit", ever. - I once said "we can start today". What can we start today? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Seemingly unrelated, from the edit notice of Fylbecatulous: "If your edit will bring me sadness, please leave hearts and flowers instead. I contribute here for happiness; as an enchantment against sorrow." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC) I'm confused as to why I've been pinged. Do you have anything constructive to say, Gerda, or is this part of the continued attempt to try and get me blocked for being uncivil about infoboxes? CassiantoTalk 11:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC) I pinged you to not talk about you behind back. Needless probably, because I have the feeling that you follow me anyway. I have done NOTHING ever to get you blocked. I didn't participate in INFOBOXES2, nor will I in any to come. Waste of time. I contribute here for happiness, and prefer the smell of flowers to that of shit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC) How coincidental to have the words "shit" and "INFOBOXES2" occur in the same post, well I never! I follow you? No, do try to get over yourself. Although you may not have done anything directly to try and get me blocked, you aid and abet those who do, such as the "thank" to the Duke of Nonsense who has now, incidentally, been told to stop with their harassment - the harassment, that is, that you wasn't aware about. Duke of Nonsense, I might remind you, is someone who started off by asking for talk page protection to be removed from my talk page, so as to allow IPs to message me; coincidentally, when this was refused, I then received a number of filthy and abusive messages on talk pages that weren't protected, by IPs. Funny that. And while we're on the subject, It is my opinion that you should be barred from adding infoboxes, just as I am barred from deleting them. But the infobox2 case was an inside job, we all know that, and frankly, there's more chance of it raining gold leaf than there is of you receiving any such sanction. CassiantoTalk 12:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC) You have been away for a while, and I think you didn't catch up with developments yet. There are not many people who are still willing to debate infoboxes, and I am one of them. Waste of time. The user who died said "I contribute here for happiness", and said that well. - Opabinia regalis, thanks for the space here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Gerda, you talk about nothing else. Do you not understand that saying you don't talk about infoboxes is ...er...talking about infoboxes. You "try ibox" almost as frequently as I try breathing; you welcome new users who either partake in IB discussions, or add them against consensus; you even kept a tally, at one point, of what, who, where and how an infobox was removed from a particular page. And here you are, pinging me and referring to a discussion I took part in several years ago about, yup, you guessed it, an infobox. This isn't me gaslighting, it's the truth, only you can't see it...or can you? CassiantoTalk 13:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC) My time is spent here. I suggest we move on. CassiantoTalk 13:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

As you approach your 3.5 year mark for time on ArbCom, I just wanted to thank you for your service. I know that when I come across a comment of yours that I am going to read (a lot of text which will be) something that makes me think carefully whether I agree or disagree with your thinking. Thank you for being willing to benefit our quest to improve the world's knowledge by serving on this essential, if challenging in many aspects, group. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, has it been that long?? :) Thanks for your note, I appreciate it. I wonder what you thought, other than "jeeez, that person is long-winded!" Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Bach Wagner cat

Six years ago, the shortest and sweetest infobox discussion I remember: Talk:Siegfried (opera)#Infobox. If I had been arbitrator, I'd have told all participants in the case: do it like this from now on ;) - Why, instead, happened what happened? Warum? - a work in progress dedicated to John. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Cute cat! But nope, not getting into boxes unless they're made of cardboard and have a fuzzy critter in them :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you see the history of the cat? - Boxes or not: there's a flaw in Wikipedia, which - sadly regardless of strength of argument - tends to calls the new "disruptive", and to defend the status quo in case of "no consensus" (which is easy to achieve when you have a few friends). And that's what happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

For being a sane and kind person.CyrilleDunant (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! (Well, I don't know about "sane"... :) But as long as you're here, a couple of thoughts - I don't think stuff like this is very helpful. One of the weirder things that happened after I joined the committee was that I suddenly lost my ability to make predictions, give warnings, or offer advice. If I said "If you do X, I think Y might happen", people thought I was making a threat, not a prediction. In practice it's almost impossible for individual arbs to make threats, even if we wanted to - no one person is so persuasive that they can make enough of the other 12 agree with them to actually follow through on random threats. Pre-arbcom, I did my share of yelling from case talk pages about how the arbs were obviously all incompetent and/or corrupt, but then when you get to look behind the curtain it turns out we're just normal people who are sometimes wrong but rarely actually trying to abuse power or play politics or trap people or plot and scheme or whatever else. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, in principle -- and most of the times in practice. However, amongst the sorry features of this arbcom has been an unwillingness of almost everyone to even consider that their words could have meanings that may be contrary to what they wanted to convey, and a sort of refusal to consider that there is a context where someone is put on trial and that this creates an unequal relation. I have tried to try to get certain people to understand what it feels when people are reading into their words things they may not have intended. I obviously failed, but I know that if you explain that to them, they'll agree with you and never realise it applies to them.

As a point of fact, when an arbitrator says 'do x or I will vote against you', they are threatening. They can't avoid it, it's the nature of the setup. If they wanted not to be threatening, they should always formulate things as 'I believe action x is bad for reason y ' which allows for a discussion of motivations. And you clearly know that. Why can't this knowledge be shared amongst arbitrators?

I was also particularly irritated against this specific arbitrator because they were both rude and refused to entertain that their decision may have ramifications. Which, as an arbitrator, they should also know/consider/acknowledge. CyrilleDunant (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Still I'm on memory lane regarding the infoboxes case, and see all the details in evidence and workshop, and came the proposed decision saying that Andy had been banned twice before, and that I added infoboxes systematically, and almost nothing else. Kafkaesque is all I could think, and yes "sometimes wrong" is another way to describe that. (Andy had designed the template for opera in collaboration with the project, and had shown tremendous patience refuting "arguments" such as "eyesore", and I had added the infoboxes (with diffs) to Kafka stories, in preparation to his TFA day - excessively undisputed.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Re the edit summary, I hope everyone's real-life, non-metaphorical cats are doing OK! (Mine are lazy jerks as usual.) Like I said above, though - I'm not doing infoboxes here. I've had really limited time for Wikipedia lately, and most of what I've had has gone to arb stuff (I haven't written an article in *mumbles* awhile...) so I need to focus on things that are current and that I can actually do something about. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong. It's about arb stuff, - just my one and only (and promised to stay only!) encounter with arbcom was that kafkaesque case. I remember that when the decision arrived I responded "I stand here and sing", which is from Jesu, meine Freude, the response to "Rage, rage, rage, world, and leap" (with the raging illustrated in wild runs of the bass voices). I performed the funeral motet the day before my grandfather was buried, and it was played on radio yesterday night. Imagine me smiling ;) - Today, I met a user with a great name, but unfortunately not active since 2012. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:This user talk

Template:This user talk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Viztor (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom

I have always thought of you as one of the members of ArbCom whose views I respect. You will not have heard much on the "Community response" page in the present crisis from the oppressed minority, the people at the receiving end of harassment, because the overwhelming response there is outrage that the Office took action, not that harassment occurred, and anyway, the victims are mostly gone, driven away from Wikipedia by the actions of others.

However, looking back at the case I attempted to open about Fram's behaviour back in October 2016, makes me really cross. The case was declined because ... well, apparently it was not ripe, no-one was interested in harassment, you suggested a boomerang. I thought it was dreadful that Nvvchar had been driven from Wikipedia in the way I described, but ArbCom was not interested. When I suggested the members were closing ranks in failing to take action against an influential administrator, I was reviled.

With ArbCom being unable or unwilling to take action against harassment, I approve the actions of the Office, following receiving and investigating complaints. AGF is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. The Office apparently gave warnings and eventually acted to ban Fram, so the community should AGF that they had sound reasons for doing so. Time to get on with building an encyclopedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Per the comment I made on that Arb request you link, community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content [to DYK] is something that's been explicitly established by Arbcom to the extent that it's good-as-policy. Given that at a rough estimate you're responsible for between 1⁄3 and 2⁄3 of all the errors that reach the main page, is a case in which the actions of all parties are considered really what you want to be angling for? ‑ Iridescent 14:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Iridescent. The first half of your statement has some relevance to what I was saying. As for the second part, thank you for the compliment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The ingrained traits of some editors to steadfastly refuse to rectify their incompetence and instead consider any criticism as harassment, is remarkable. T&S is actually a nice avenue to exploit in such cases, (as you mention). ∯WBG^converse 19:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

WBG, you did the right thing by reverting your first post in this thread. This isn't really the time, and the thread you link is not convincing in any case.

Cwmhiraeth, you may be right, maybe we should have accepted the case. I don't remember thinking of it as about an "influential administrator" (and looking back I don't see complaints specifically about tool use, more about general behavior), but rather about conflicts associated with main-page quality control. That's been an area of friction for a long time, and I think it's probably fair to say arbcom could have taken a case covering that area in 2016. I have no current opinion on it because I haven't been following the goings-on there.

One bright spot in all of the recent controversy is that it's all been about internal dynamics - interactions among individual editors, between the editing community and the WMF, and where arbcom and other local infrastructure fits into all that - but it hasn't yet spilled over into overt effects on the reader experience. (It still might, indirectly, with the loss or reduction of admin activity.) Some of what gets reported as "errors" around here will turn out to be trivial (case in point above), but even small errors on a popular website will end up misinforming a lot of people. The balance of priorities between internal interactions and their external-facing results has been a long-standing challenge to get right - from my memory of the "old days" this dynamic usually revolved around POV-pushing, but more recently it's often been centered on QA. Even in real-life situations it's really hard to make QA-type processes feel like teamwork and not criticism, or to find the balance between "making sure people don't feel attacked for making mistakes" and "making sure people don't make too many mistakes". Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding: As far as AGF goes, I don't doubt that T&S thought they were doing the right thing. And in all of the text that's been written on-wiki I think quite a few people agreed that there had been problems with Fram's approach. But this was really not the way to go about trying to fix it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Go outside

cornflowers

Thank you for the good advice to do so ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Very pretty! I went to the beach, it was also nice :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Back from a bike ride, - haven't looked at the ----gate in days, winning time to bike. (The gate should not be named after the poor user, imho. No particular friend of mine, but this is just intolerable. When I screw up, and someone tells me, I say sorry and revert what's possible, - could have been so easy, no?) Kafka tomorrow, DYK, - I mean TFA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Wild hairs

Wild hares are unpredictable.

WMF gets one of these wild hairs every two years or so? I'm baffled, perhaps because I'm not a native speaker. What kind of wild hair? Bishonen | talk 10:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC).

Ha, I didn't know that was an uncommon expression! Getting a wild hair = making a sudden, unexpected, and probably unwise decision. (Like a bad haircut, maybe? No clue where it came from...) Not exactly as dramatic as this one, but it seems like a semi-regular occurrence that the WMF either tries to make a decision for the community or tries to foist something on us that wasn't well thought out. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, Oshwah, that is some impressively wild hair! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The good kind of "wild hair", right?? :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Naturally, I can't make mine do that! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

How not to catch a wild hare. The phrase is two-fold with the original referring to the skittish behavior of wild rabbits and their breeding ritual. The other is vulgar and has to do with the location of a wild hair, but really doesn't make much sense. ^{Courtesy of Atsme's Rural Dictionary Atsme} _Talk 📧 13:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, blame those wascally wabbits! Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Opabinia! Just wondering... did you double the word 'decision' above intentionally? --CiaPan (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Lovely busy cat! :-)

What copy/paste error? Do you see a copy/paste error? Do you see a copy/paste error? ;) Fixed now! Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Glad Glad Glad to help. :) --CiaPan (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Happy wet cat.jpg

Did someone say wild hair?

That cat belly looks so soft. It's a trap, isn't it? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

That's one of the resident cats in a local cafe, who have flirting with customers for table scraps (and sneaking onto tables while one of the others distracts the customers) down to a fine art. He was particularly fluffy that day as he'd just suffered the indignity of a bath. ‑ Iridescent 12:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

A bath! The horror! Hope he got extras of whatever his favorite treat is. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Recommended reading on 3 July

3 July

Franz Kafka: Das Schloss
... about about alienation, unresponsive bureaucracy, the frustration of trying to conduct business with non-transparent, seemingly arbitrary controlling systems ...

... best on a meadow ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Never read that one! Only ever read about the poor roach-man. (Oh come on, being an invertebrate isn't so bad!) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You and the WMF make arbcom look less arbitrary (than my modest experience made it look like) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ha, I'm not sure that sounds like a good thing! Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That was possibly too simple ;) - You make arbcom look much better (so less arbitrary) than it used to be when I was forced to look because I was a party, and saw a sitting arb use this diff to support banning a user (and no colleague opposed! - which means that none of them even looked!! - and that vote was making the majority for a ban!!!), and the WMF seems so unresponsive, non-transparent and arbitrary that arbcom looks great in comparison. - I just suggested a ban: for the word "toxic" when applied to living people. I should have done so in 2014. (pictured. not by me) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"Better than bad" - I'll take it! :)

I don't know, I'll give them a little credit for moving from toxic "personalities" (which is just a personal insult) to "behaviors". It's just that nobody can seem to agree on what's "toxic", and in any event it seems far too emotive a term for most of the behaviors under discussion. I don't mind calling stuff like doxing "toxic", though I'm not sure what benefit that term really brings. But as a descriptor of normal-but-imperfect behaviors like reverting instead of discussing, phrasing criticism aggressively, being annoying at ANI, etc., it doesn't seem to add anything other than drama. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps I have another language problem, - I associate it with unhealthy in a way that is potentially irreversible, - and none of the annoying things you mentioned would fall in that category. And yes, there must be better words. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

ARCA

Just wanted to say Thank You for your participation. Awilley & JFG helped get my alert up and running on my UTP. If you get a chance, check it out by trying to post a DS alert. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

That's kind of you to say. That's a busy page, so I can't thank everyone who says nice things there - and some said even nicer things than you - but that particular comment came right when I was starting to get particularly disappointed in some of the other comments, so it came at just the right moment for me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I hope I didn't step on any toes... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Lots of people are nicer than me, but only a few are more verbose :) Glad I had good timing for once - I guess it was serendipity that I got interrupted when I was about to post that yesterday! Everyone knows RfA is a bog, but some of the stuff there honestly surprised me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Lack of assuming good faith is a desease more prominent on RfA than already on "normal" Wikipedia. In case of doubt assume someone is not guilty, right? - I confess I didn't watch all of the spectacle, - no time for that. Yesterday was a wonderful concert on the day of death of a great woman (see my talk, look for Britten and Songs and Dances of Death, and my pic of her grave, - I took a fresh one yesterday, but the former one is better), - and we live! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK

I watched DYK from my very first article on (nominated by someone else), so may possibly know a bit about it. Years ago, every hook got its own "nom template" (which isn't a template, but we have no better name), and all in the review process are transcluded to the "nom page". As that got too long, more recently those already approved got their own page where they stay until promoted to a preparation area, so only noms with no review yet or a review in process are on the nom page. However, changes to the page are only 1) moves of complete nom templates (manually or by bot), or 2) edits within one nom template. The latter usually includes only 2 people, the nominator and the reviewer (example: Template:Did you know nominations/A Clare Benediction). Sometimes there is more than one nominator (example: Template:Did you know nominations/Psalm 150), and sometimes more than one person comments (example Template:Did you know nominations/Lilian Benningsen). Any questions? - In a nutshell: while the nom templates are presented in close vicinity on the page, interactions stay within one nom template. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, sounds like it hasn't really changed all that much since I was last paying attention there, thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

When I began, it was all on one page, real vicinity, and we had four sets every day ;) - My fastest time from nominating to being in a queue was 10 minutes. Quality improved since, and a great deal of it we owe to TRM. WP has a strange way to restrict those who help the most (Pigsonthewing, Fram, Joefromrand, Eric Corbett, Br'er Rabbitt ...). - My first article was about a composer whom I know (filling a red link), and who wrote a piece about the comet we remember today, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

frustrated (while I was preparing for cat day) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Gerda, note who the people who signed off on this particular disappearance were. I doubt you're going to get a sympathetic hearing here. (FWIW, I'm usually supportive of arbcom in these circumstances, as I'm aware that there genuinely are often things that can't be publicly disclosed and that in general the arbs are making a conscious decision to withhold making public the evidence they've used to justify their position, on the grounds that protecting the privacy and safety of those involved is paramount even if it potentially damages their own reputations. In this case not so much, as anyone who's had any dealings with Ritchie333 knows him to be an amiable if somewhat bumbling embodiment of the sandals-and-organic-homebrew Lib Dem stereotype, and someone less likely to engage in any of The Forbidden Activities is hard to imagine.) ‑ Iridescent 10:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really here this week, I'm out of town, so my talk page is even less useful than you think! As I just said at ACN, two people who don't like each other and have made that clear have been asked not to interact with each other. I certainly hope Ritchie rejoins us eventually. (I don't think I've got the British cultural valence exactly right, but I'm wearing ugly sandals right now and definitely had organic microbrew yesterday...) Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I am also not really here, just returned after a rich day out. British ot not seems less relevant than treating adults like kindergarden, to put it mildly. kaka. I know how it feels. If I had been a little less stubborn, I might have reacted just like Ritchie, and too proud to return. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"Gerda, thanks and another year ...bestow pink kittens for moment of silence..." (Fylbecatulous, 7 August 2016)

Today is Fylbecatulous day, and I had to fight tears reading her "bestow pink kittens for moment of silence...". More about pink cat on Ritchie's talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, but part of being an adult is taking a break when you need it (or better, before you need it). People engage on their own terms. Nobody gets up in the morning hoping a specific editor retires (at least, I hope not!) but we do have a responsibility to take a balanced view. Having to say no to the people you like sucks, but can't always be avoided. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"having to say no to ... people" sounds just awful, but that may be my lack of this language. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It rings the bell of an arbitrator telling me to take a break. Would I have enjoyed that break? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

rest

Please take a moment to look at User talk:Gerda Arendt/Archive 2019#Feeling fine on July nine, cat pic and especially "this user will not rest ...", - resting today, because that step was achieved, thanks to The Rambling Man. Hope is precious ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

YGM

Email. ‑ Iridescent 2 08:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for supported my recent, albeit unsuccessful RfA. Your support was greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Toxins again....

Working on mulga snake and trying to figure out how much detail to go into about the venom. This page (115) in this book has a good overview. All input over how much detail (and how to phrase or expand upon cyclic nucleotide–gated ion channels) much appreciated....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

August

red admiral
... with thanks from QAI

So relieved to see it's about nature, not editors again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh man, I just got back from a conference and I have so much reading to catch up on. I'll take a look at the snakes tomorrow, reading about snake toxins (and seeing nature pictures!) sounds better than most of the other stuff on my reading list! Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The best antivenom I know: music, and I happened to have sung the most extraordinary concert, - don't care about anything else right now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

due to the socalled arbitration, that's past --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for representing me in the Fram (whatever, - no decent word at hand). - Today is the bicentenary of Clara Schumann! What a woman!! She had to face more than "incivility". Can you explain in short words how my friend's name came into play? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any idea, but I did just realize I've been delinquent on those toxins! Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

About LouisAlain: I can't believe that he complained. It rather looks as if soneone else looked at things they misunderstood, which raises doubts about the socalled evidence. Reminds me (and bad memory it is) about this edit being described by an arb as "That he deliberately parachutes into infobox editing disputes in such contentious areas ... concerns me deeply.", in his vote to ban the user, and it was the majority with that one vote, and no colleague said "Look, he didn't add an infobox, he only placed it in the normal position, per the MoS, as the edit summary correctly had.", and I spent the most horrible night during my time on Wikipedia. listening to a great concert. I didn't know that arbs still can change their mind, and while this one didn't, another one didn't want to be the one voice by which a good content editor was banned. - That is the quality of looking at diffs that I oberved, and you will understand that my trust in the whole process is on shaky grounds ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Signpost submission

Hey there,

Just letting you know of this Signpost submission. It's based on work by Icewhiz, but he handed it over to me about a week ago and hasn't edited it since. I've made significant changed to the text and am pitching it myself, so there shouldn't be any problem with his T-ban. François Robere (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This is up to the Signpost, not me, but FWIW I don't think trying to continue debating this issue in a new venue is a wise idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not an issue we previously debated, though Icewhiz has presented in much less detail as part of his evidence. At any rate, Smallbones sees it fit for publication,[2][3] the only problem being he's afraid of getting sanctioned.[4][5] If you can confirm that having taken over the piece two weeks ago, this does not pose a risk to either Smallbones or myself (Smallbones being altruistic, and worrying about me as well), that would be most helpful. François Robere (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent events

I don't do the barnstarry stuff, but I would like to say that I was very impressed with your Fram-related editing; if only more Arbs could be bothered to spend time to dig more closely into complicated issues such as that. If you are considering standing again this time (and I must say I would not blame you in the slightest if you weren't), you would certainly have my vote. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

thanks

OR, thank you for your hard work. I can only imagine how difficult this has been for all of you, and I appreciate the time and energy you all spent on this. --valereee (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

September

meadow saffron

... I agree --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Though in this case most of the hard work was done by others. I would've liked to have been more active on the recent cases, but unfortunately I've been really short on time lately. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

In this case (and others), hard work is less important than insight and fairness. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

musings on my talk, - it's this time of the year that I can't help thinking of our loving community banning a productive great editor, and when I felt I couldn't remain in such surroundings, it was three people who made me stay: Eric (the first to oppose), Joe (16 October) and "Boris" (18 October, remembered in my edit notice). - Great to read the comments of John Cline, GFHandel and others, all symbolic figures in the cabal of the outcasts, banned, blocked, driven away, died, - I am on my own now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of people! Glad you're still around :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Today is the birthday of a great singer, did you know that tenor Thomas Mohr, who performed the roles of Loge, Siegmund, and Siegfried in Der Ring in Minden, hosts concerts in his cowshed? - Thee times falling in love (on stage) in one week, as both father and son, that's quite a feat ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent events

I don't do the barnstarry stuff, but I would like to say that I was very impressed with your Fram-related editing; if only more Arbs could be bothered to spend time to dig more closely into complicated issues such as that. If you are considering standing again this time (and I must say I would not blame you in the slightest if you weren't), you would certainly have my vote. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Belated thanks, Black Kite. It's so rare to get positive feedback on anything arb related! As you can tell from the slow reply, though, I've been really short on time lately. Early this year, way before any of the more recent dramas started, I figured I was going to step back and take a break this time around because I haven't had enough time for the job (and have barely touched mainspace in ages, which I'd really like to change). Never say never, etc etc., but I'm not anticipating standing again this year. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

How about if we increase your pay 10,000%? And figure out a way (Not sure what Venmo is but I could get my kids to explain) to give you one free donut a week? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

October

... with thanks from QAI

Look, life on arbcom will be so easy. You blocked Eric, and there hasn't been an infobox war in 2019. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

If you don't stand, I will have a hard time with my question "would you support OR?" What can I ask? "If a user creates some socks in order to commit a showy wikicide, would you be willing to block/ban them, doing them the favour of demonstrating some absurdity? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

He can't run. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with most of your opinions, but I do think you're one of the most capable Arbs we've ever had. Outside Worm, you're the only one talking sense. I know that means nothing but I think at this time of the election year, it's worth noting. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

King brown snake

...is at FAC here (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King brown snake/archive1) - any input on venom would be appreciated :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent events

I don't do the barnstarry stuff, but I would like to say that I was very impressed with your Fram-related editing; if only more Arbs could be bothered to spend time to dig more closely into complicated issues such as that. If you are considering standing again this time (and I must say I would not blame you in the slightest if you weren't), you would certainly have my vote. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Belated thanks, Black Kite. It's so rare to get positive feedback on anything arb related! As you can tell from the slow reply, though, I've been really short on time lately. Early this year, way before any of the more recent dramas started, I figured I was going to step back and take a break this time around because I haven't had enough time for the job (and have barely touched mainspace in ages, which I'd really like to change). Never say never, etc etc., but I'm not anticipating standing again this year. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

How about if we increase your pay 10,000%? And figure out a way (Not sure what Venmo is but I could get my kids to explain) to give you one free donut a week? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

October

... with thanks from QAI

Look, life on arbcom will be so easy. You blocked Eric, and there hasn't been an infobox war in 2019. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

If you don't stand, I will have a hard time with my question "would you support OR?" What can I ask? "If a user creates some socks in order to commit a showy wikicide, would you be willing to block/ban them, doing them the favour of demonstrating some absurdity? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

He can't run. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with most of your opinions, but I do think you're one of the most capable Arbs we've ever had. Outside Worm, you're the only one talking sense. I know that means nothing but I think at this time of the election year, it's worth noting. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Aw, thanks TRM! I have to admit I'm surprised to hear you say that, but I appreciate it! Hopefully as time goes on we get lots of new candidates (hey, talk page stalkers, click here, it'll be fun!). Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I've also disagreed with some of your ARBCOM judgements but that doesn't stop me joining the gang here thinking you should run again. If Floq's kids can figure out how to get Venmo to transfer donuts, I'll happily chip in as well. Or if you're pining for some infobox ARBCOM cases I'm sure we can arrange for some to come up between us. After all, what would an ARBCOM be like without the editor whose speciality I listed on my early "admins to help me page" as Awesome Bitch-slap edits ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

... or the editor leading a year's archive ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all - Floq, Nosebag, can I get donuts even if I don't run? :) (*idly wonders what happens when arthropods get obese*) I thought about it as we're getting close to the deadline, but I really don't have the time for the job right now and I see we're getting a good range of candidates. (I'd still like to see more women - ahem, talk page stalkers!) Not saying I'd never do it again, but even back at the beginning of this year I was kind of looking forward to a break - it'll be interesting to see what Wikipedia looks like from the perspective of an ex-arb. My last 50 mainspace contributions embarrassingly go back to January. I couldn't quite believe that when I looked! I'm sure everyone experiences these things a little differently, but I noticed early on after I joined the committee that I tended to be grumpier and feel more disconnected from people's concerns when I hadn't had much time for mainspace, and that's still true - so I must be pretty grumpy by now! Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK?

Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! - Here's my ideal candidate for arbcom, - restored to his talk, along with the precious-concersation which made me blush the most. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations on the main page! Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I would have preferred her name ITN, but if Márta Kurtág had been an American man, she would have appeared, but she is an Hungarian woman. (I may have said that before, then sorry, travel day, no time to look at an archive.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Depressingly, you're probably right about that... Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Depressingly, that could be written about much I write, see? (We lost a good content editor to an edit war over blank lines, and a potentially good admin to having upset a few influential people, and that's not even talking about an RfA flawed by socking ...) So far I fought depression successfully, though, by thinking of Kafka and singing music - I'm in the top corner ;) - Kurtàg: Compare: an American woman, Gert Boyle, who recently died graces the Main page for the 9th day. - Come on, you can still nominate for arb, and - like Worm That Turned - answered my question before, by action, successfully. Good news, several others also succeeded. While you were a minority in the case, it looks different among the candidates. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

King brown snake

...is at FAC here (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King brown snake/archive1) - any input on venom would be appreciated :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh man, I'm sorry Casliber, I've been a real delinquent on this one! I'd apologize for missing this, but at least this way I get to say congratulations on the FA! (Meanwhile.... on the topic of a different thread... I don't suppose you have some spare time for another round of arbcom, do you? *cough cough*) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Heh, well if you've missed king brown snake...there is always Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eastern green mamba/archive1 (next cab off the rank...). Umm...abour arbcom....err.....yeah....watch this space. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sigh.....there you go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Cas Liber. I go my watchlist backwards - you responded before I begged ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Woohoo! Glad to see you jump into the, um, snakepit, Cas :) I'll try to take a look at your snake this week. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Heh. there are lots of us in the pool now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Eric Corbett

I note you have recently decided to suppress evidence of Eric Corbett’s thousands of edits and details of the huge amount of pages he raised to FA and GA status. Doubtless, your own work far surpasses this. However, if you could add these to your own watchlist, and help maintain them, that would be good. Many thanks Giano (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Manchester Mummy

• Manchester Suburban Tramways Company
• Manchester, Suriname
• Manchester Zoological Gardens
• Margaret Sibthorp
• Marshall Stevens
• Matthew Hopkins in popular culture
• Maurice Winnick
• Metropolitan Houseless Poor Act 1864
• Michael Polakovs
• Midas Bronze
• Montague Napier
• Municipal Borough of Stretford
• Ned Painter
• North Western Gas Board
• Ogle SX1000
• Oliver Cromwell in popular culture
• Organotherapy
• Ortus Sanitatis
• Padiham witch
• Parish Church of St Mary, Radcliffe
• Playhouse Theatre, Manchester
• Port of Manchester
• Power-loom riots
• Prince's Theatre, Manchester
• Queen's Park Hippodrome
• Reginald Walter Maudslay
• Richard Hall (composer)
• Richard Wainwright (composer)
• Robert George John Francis Fossett

Robert Tatton

• Robert Henry Grenville Tatton
• Robert Wainwright (composer)
• Robin Dunn
• Roy of the Rovers (comic)
• Royal Jubilee Exhibition, Manchester 1887
• RW Kit Cars
• Sale & Altrincham Advertiser
• Sale & Altrincham Messenger
• Sam Hurst

Samlesbury witches

• Samuel Hibbert-Ware
• Schoolgirls' Own
• Shafts
• Sharston Hall
• Smithfield, Suriname
• South Manchester Gazette
• Spittle cures
• St Peter's Church, Bolton
• State of the Nation (TV series)
• Stimson Mini Bug
• Stimson Safari Six
• Stimson Scorcher
• Stimson Sting
• Stimson Storm
• Stretford process
• Stretford & Urmston Advertiser
• Stretford & Urmston Messenger

The Green Child

• "The Inchcape Rock"
• The Lancashire Witches (novel)
• The Miseries of Human Life
• The Schoolgirl
• The Servant's Magazine
• The Wizard
• The Woman and the Car
• The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster
• The Zulu Principle

Tickle Cock Bridge

• Timperley Hall
• Town's Hospital
• Trafford (surname)
• Trafford Town Hall
• Turlington's Balsam
• Universal Cycles
• Violet Alford
• Walter Raleigh in popular culture
• Warrington Guardian
• Warrington Perambulating Library
• Whirligig
• White Cross Army
• Wigan Town Hall
• William Harrison Ainsworth bibliography
• William Henry Gaunt
• William Hillman
• William Alfred Merchant
• Wintringham Stable
• Worthington Hall, Wigan
• Zam-Buk
• Zitiron

Huh. Where was I note you have recently decided to suppress evidence of Eric Corbett’s thousands of edits and details of the huge amount of pages he raised to FA and GA status. decided on?! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Clearly off-site [6]. Mind you, if I were going to blank such a respected and prolific editor’s user page, I would probably be too ashamed to do it publicly too. Giano (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Opabinia regalis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

I see that you're not running for reelection to Arbcom. I read some of your comments over the past few years, and generally I like how you think. Thanks for your work. ↠Pine (✉) 17:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Same. It's a shame to lose you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Aww, thank you! I won't be too lost! I'm actually kind of looking forward to seeing what arbcom looks like from the outside, now that I know how the sausage gets made :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays! May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2020 and beyond.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, belated happy holidays and best of luck in the new year! Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはOpabinia regalisたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Miraclepine! Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 cat

Happy 2020!

Imagine a cat behind the rose hips. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Aww, imaginary kitty! :) Thanks, and happy new year! Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Inbox zero!

My arbcom term is over, I decided not to continue on the two cases being carried over, and... for the first time in four years, there is nothing waiting for me to read/respond to/deal with in my Wikipedia inbox! Go me! Maybe I'll write an article or two sooner or later... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Enjoy it, OR! When I left arbcom I deleted every Wikipedia email in my inbox. The cleanse felt good in its own way --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 04:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

La Palma

Enjoy. Two more pics uploaded. Didn't manage to take the best one, when four of them curled together on that chair, looking as if they had spent the night like that. Today is a birthday, she is pictured on the lower choir pic ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the description on the commons, and add categories. I wouldn't know how such cats are described in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your service on the Arbitration Committee. ↠Pine (✉) 20:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

no cat??

Did you know ...

... that Elke Heidenreich,
two-time winner of the Grimme television award,
wrote the book Nero Corleone
featuring a tomcat
as the bullying protagonist?

15 February 2020 (her birthday)

I brought a cat to the Main page ;) - a late Valentine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

five years!

For music and such see my talk, working on two Bach compositions towards higher quality, including my song of defiance, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

↠Pine (✉) 02:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You have been mentioned ...

Re your re-RFA at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Why are we doing this. Just letting you know in case you don't get the ping, as you haven't edited since January. Graham87 04:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above, but I would like to add that you are missed. Come back Opabinia. ;) – bradv🍁 04:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! I haven't disappeared, just really busy - and with everything that's been going on in the world lately, the total amount of time I spend staring at screens has increased from its already-high baseline, so I've been spending my hobby time on more... three-dimensional things! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

May

May · Mary · Monteverdi

Sadly longer and longer: the list of people for whose life we are thankful enough to improve their articles. - I have a FAC open, one of Monteverdi's exceptional works, in memory of Brian who passed me his collected sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

today a composer pictured (one from the list above, sadly) who wrote a triple concerto for violin, harp and double bass, in honour of the composer who died and my brother who plays double bass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

DNA repair Featured article review

I have nominated DNA repair for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

changes to functionary team

The following users have voluntarily relinquished the Oversight permission:

• Keegan (talk · contribs)
• Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs)
• Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs)

The committee also belatedly acknowledges the resignation of SQL (talk · contribs) as a CheckUser.

The Arbitration Committee extends its sincere thanks to Keegan, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, and SQL for their service as functionaries.

Katie^talk 14:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#changes to functionary team

FAR for cell nucleus

I have nominated Cell nucleus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 22:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

October

Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a blocked user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews mostly German, but music and scene. - How are you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

October

Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a blocked user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews mostly German, but music and scene. - How are you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Nice article! Have been spending my little spare time elsewhere this year, but at the risk of being political I'd say things have been much better since last weekend :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

same risk: I went to Main page errors to avoid a connection of glad thanksgiving and the election, but that was on Nov 4 when I couldn't believe what Floq observed here. - Write a bit more here, to have room for my November pic which received prominence. Go for arbcom ;) - Believe it or not, until today we had one brave candidate, for a week after noms were open days that is. We need 4 more to fill the empty seats. Spiel nicht mit den Schmuddelkindern ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

November

November

Today's DYK: to be sung "happily" - instead of turkey --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hsp27ub?

Hey OR, hope all is well. I saw this edit and, while I think the addition of "ub" is a typo, I don't know enough about this domain to be sure of that. — Earwig ^talk 00:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @The Earwig:! Definitely a typo, fixed now - good catch! (Looking at that template again, it's a weird amalgamation of topics, but oh well.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maltose-binding protein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Outer membrane. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Angela Gronenborn for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Blablubbs|talk 13:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey

I hadn't noticed you'd returned to more active editing. Glad to see you back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, "active" with scare quotes, anyway; 2020 sure was a year. Thanks, good to see you too. You're screwing up my pie chart now ;) Since last month, 80+% mainspace! Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

edit summary "love that" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Oooh, looks like spring! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Further down on the page, there are conversations about the current arb case request - I feel I have to stay away - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - I remember a great statement you made about civility in the (first) Joefromrandb case. Could you perhaps add your wisdom to this request, as an ordinary editor? A graphic about ordinary readers and their (change of) position vs. arbs and the same might also be enlightening. Did you see the most succinct guide to arbitration? By Hammersoft: Don't! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

ps: did you notice Opa in the hook ;) - also: yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I found the diff, made a note on my user page, but for this case, it's too late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

... and I show a cat on my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Heh, I'm only here for the odd article edit, I'm staying out of drama as long as I can! Taking Hammersoft's good advice then :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Good for you! Recommended reading today: Doris Stockhausen, on her 97th birthday! I wish that the filer - with whom it had been discussed! ... on that page!! - had taken the advice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Wow, hard to believe it's been that long! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I felt the same. - With the current arbcom, we miss already two key users, in 3 months, - when you were there, able to drastically tell people something from a minority position, and they turned around, I don't recall anything like it. Mourning Yoninah, - people die, - we don't need arbcom not knowing when to decline a case, making things worse and losses more grave. - But how lovely ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Women's voices

wild garlic

More memories on the Main page today, Psalm 115 thinking of Yoninah, Christa Ludwig and Milva, - voices that made the Earth a better place. Sad that the psalm hook didn't appear on Earth Day as planned, but better pictured and late than going unnoticed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

More women's voices

Enjoy two ladies today, one played in an iconic film (picture a bit below, she plays with Die Fliege), the other sang in the premiere of a famous opera, with her husband-to-be ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Today: Kammermusik (Hindemith), - don't miss caricature, "badboy" and the review! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

See my talk today, - it's rare that a person is pictured when a dream comes true, and that the picture is shown on the Main page on a meaningful day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice articles! And a very nice picture - looks like spring! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)