Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:30, 4 April 2023

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

March songs

March songs

my story today

Thank you for watching over Mozart. Did you see this? I linked to my arbcom sentence in a later response, imagine, but no response. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I've just been keeping an eye on the info box situation. I did not see your WikiProject notification (which obviously makes sense). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You didn't look. - Sense is what I'm missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh I did see your thematic battleground invocation if that's what you're referring to :) Barkeep49 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You didn't look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It was collapsed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt I'm sorry about what happened here. I did look. Twice. You're right the first time that I missed it wasn't you who made the notice. But I saw the battleground invocation both times. What I didn't see was the conversation that followed because I just read your diff. For that I'm sorry. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I "meant" the diff, for which I had no words. (But Floq had.) I listened to my own edit notice which helped. After the ongoing Mozart RfC, I want to talk to the arbs about how this can end, and perhaps you can help then, - I don't speak arbish as the infoboxes case showed. - Were you around when I noticed the problem that shouldn't be one, on Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, 2012 and still on the talk, some still the same players? I voted against an infobox then, DYK? Was "converted" for Samuel Barber (discussion). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Marek Kopelent died, and it's Saint Patrick's Day --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

As I think I have mentioned before I don't know much about music so thanks for sharing that biography. I would be happy to try to translate into arb speak but what is your idea for ending things? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait for Mozart to end. Do you feel tempted to close? - I have some ideas on my talk, about strictly no personal remarks, the other further up about WP:BRD enforced, we could also revive the 2 comments per discussion limit that I invented and then the arbs turned it against me (and I have come to love it). I could imagine a group of arbs to volunteer to listen to complaints. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Mixed thoughts: I'd like everybody repeating the aspersion of my battle ground behaviour to provide evidence. Because the infoboxes cases doesn't offer it. I came for the introduction of {{infobox opera}} which first was hated by some, but made it into 1,5k+ operas (and you probably didn't know we have so many). I have not edit-warred in my whole career, - the closest I came was when I installed the consensus for Sparrow Mass, weeks after the edit war. In the arb case (my one and only, - they didn't manage to drag me into the later civility case, as much as they tried), we had a productive workshop, - at least I thought. Good wording for dealing with the conflict by Voceditenore, 2019. Why do we still argue about 5 extra lines that don't take anything away? I don't know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no intention of closing Mozart. I will keep watching it, but almost all my wiki time is occupied with the current case. Those are some interesting ideas worthy of discussion around infoboxes. As you point out some of it just boils down to have a couple admins who are willing to just do real enforcement. At another time I could be one of those admin, just not at the moment. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

No, please no enforcement! Just some who see the cruelty of the Wehrmacht comment (for example), and talk to the user with authority. He doesn't listen to me. The language of war needs to stop - among colleagues. That seems like a minimum step. Especially as there is no war. We have many readers who are just surprised of the heat in some discussions because they don't know there ever was one. Whenever you ask the community, beginning with Beethoven in 2016, they basically say that an infobox is the normal thing to have. Perhaps we can create something like a protected area for the few articles where a few editors (with strong voices) say (in many variations): "Please let's not add another eyesore to another beautifully crafted article."? - Today we remember the 150th birthday of Max Reger, who saw the horrors of a world war right when it began in 1914, while others were still in high patriotic moods. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

sharing impressions from vacation on Madeira 20-30 March, pics now at 24 Mar from the peaks - the RfC with the non-neutral invitation to fight was closed, and went rather peacefully - what can we learn from it, or from my peaks of ten years? ... perhaps that women come first ;) - just compare Imogen Holst to her father --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it goes back to what I said during ACE. Our processes are largely working and this shows they can work even after some attempted disruption. What do you think? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I just wrote what I think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Movement Charter Drafting Committee's monthly newsletter

• Call for Advisors! Individuals interested to support the Drafting Groups or the Subcommittees of the MCDC in the role of an advisor can fill out the advisory application form by May, 2023. The MCDC will be contacting interested individuals on a rolling basis. Do you want to know more about it? Please read here for more information. The information is also available in Arabic, Spanish, French, Brazilian Portuguese, Russian and Chinese languages respectively.
• Movement Charter Ambassadors from the Latin America and the Caribbean region share their experiences of organizing community conversations on the Movement Charter. Please read the Diff blog in Brazilian Portuguese and in Spanish languages.
• Casual updates: The MCDC publishes regular casual updates after bi-weekly full Committee meetings, as well as after other drafting group and subcommittee meetings. If you are interested, please read casual updates here on Meta and on Movement Strategy Forum.
• Learn about Movement Charter Drafting Committee’s work in February: As usual, the update includes information about the meetings held by the Committee in this month, as well as about the work that was completed and the ongoing work & discussions. The MCDC’s monthly updates are also shared on the multilingual Movement Strategy forum.

Coming up

• MCDC Responses to the community feedback: The MCDC published responses to the community feedback on the first set of drafts (collected during a consultation in November - December 2022). The response includes a Summary, as well as some specific responses to the full community feedback (highlighted in orange).
• Revised Movement Charter drafts: The MCDC will share in the coming month the revised versions of the first two chapters: Preamble and Values & Principles (including a newly-added glossary), and the revised Roles & Responsibilities intentions statement.
• Ratification methodology consultation: The MCDC is working on a new proposal (not available yet) for a ratification methodology. The proposal will be discussed through a community consultation process, including live meetings to provide feedback.

Subscribe to this newsletter on Meta wiki

--11:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC).

Contentious topics: Weather & Tropical Cyclones?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Barkeep49, I've been observing some of the long-term behavioral issues concerning WP:WPTC and any of its sister organizations such as WP:WEATHER. There was a suggestion made about calling for it to be declared a contentious topic, but not as much certainty as to how to go about it. This is indicated by the recurring instances of weather-related disputes being brought to WP:AN, or most recently, the dragging-forth of FleurDeOdile to ArbCom without proper cause. In your unofficial opinion (i.e. not speaking from the capacity of one who would arbitrate such a case), is there any merit to me requesting a case to have ArbCom review the project's behavior and whether WP:CTOP is called for? Or would I be better off requesting an RfC? Or neither? ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@WaltCip I am of two minds of this. On the one hand, I'd been wondering when someone would try ARCA for some of this disruption because we had a case and asking ArbCom to stay involved is reasonable. On the other hand, without the private evidence being so important I really doubt ArbCom takes the case (or frankly is asked to take the case). And the block of FDO was about off-wiki evidence. So I could see ArbCom saying "It's time for CT." I also could see ArbCom saying "seems like the community's handling it fine?" I am closer to being ready to vote for CT (if asked) but a lot of it would depend on the community feedback we got as I could definitely be persuaded CT is definitely right or that it's not right at this time. If you want to go the community route it'll need a formal vote, but other community GS have passed without a full RfC. It's generally been voted on at AN and put onto CENT.Two notes if you decide to go that route: first the community can't designate something a CT, only ArbCom can (from WP:CTOP These are specially designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee emphasis added). Part of the name change was to make it clearer what was community owned and what was ArbCom owned. So if you propose it, you'd be proposing General Sanctions. The second piece is I would recommend wording along the lines of "Enact community General Sanctions on Foo topic area, to match the Contentious Topics procedure and to allow for the option of enforcement at Arbitration Enforcement" (assuming you want those things). Now all that said, if you go to ArbCom and ArbCom does say "the community can handle it" well that still leaves the community handling as an option. Hope that helps, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Helps a ton; thanks for the guidance, Barkeep49. If I find that the evidence is sufficient enough to warrant it, I'll probably start with GS as it's the least "final" approach out of everything you've just outlined above. But I will consider my next step very carefully, as I don't want to be caught up in a whirlwind of my own making. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's great if you go the GS route. If that's the route you go, ArbCom would be very unlikely to do anything out of respect for the community decision making process. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

BK, just for clarification, are you saying arbcom might do something if no one goes the GS route and that if someone does go the GS route, and it doesn't work, arbcom would still be loathe to take a case? Sorry if that's a stupid question. Appropriate venues is Not Easy For Me. Valereee (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much? If someone comes to ArbCom and asks about making this a CT, my sense is that it would be seriously considered and possibly done. If the community poll route is done, I am quite confident ArbCom is going to respect that outcome either way. So if the GS proposal failed, it would take evidence of new and continued disruption for ArbCom to decide to implement CT if asked. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I have been musing over what a CT in this area might look like. Most of the trouble, from what I have skimmed, has been with ability to decision make rather than editing on specific articles on weather topics, i.e. the meta work that goes into Misplaced Pages. So our nearest analogs to that from an CT perspective are basically just Infoboxes and MOS/AT. While those are available, they are rarely used these days (even so far as one or the other having been proposed for removal in the near past, rejected because they're actually doing their job at keeping things quiet I think rather than simply being unnecessary).

I would think the right way to attack the problem then, if you believe that the community needs a special enforcement mechanism in the area (and I have not been persuaded it does personally, so you would need to provide evidence it cannot be dealt with via other means), is to look at those as inspiration for what a sanctions regime might look like, rather than saying everything weather related is under general sanctions. Izno (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Arb case

Hi, Sorry to be dense, but where do I submit evidence in response to Summarized evidence? Thanks. Zero 06:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Zero0000 if it is truly evidence - in other words stating something with a diff to back it up or to provide context for something - then it should go on the evidence page. For an example of how this could work see the FAQ example. If it's analysis of that - which is what I would characterize a lot of what I've seen you do up until now - it should go on the analysis page. Does that help? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Zero 00:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Request ECP protection for page you previously protected

Hi there, would it be possible to modify the protection level of Murder of Don Banfield up to ECP? I see you previously introduced the protection requiring autoconfirmed access and noted that you could upgrade it to ECP if required . There is a disruptive user who keeps reinstating disputed content , . I had removed the content they had added for a number of reasons, including the fact that other editors had surmised that this user had a possible conflict of interest issue (seemingly confirmed in their edit summaries ). However, the user kept reinstating, despite my attempt to open a talk page discussion, explaining that the the onus was on them to seek consensus to include disputed content . The user ignored this and hasn't responded, and instead began to edit war without consensus: . I can see there has previosuly been some sockpuppetry to do with this page and that this may still be continuing: , and the user in question in this case appears to largely be a single-purpose account . Therefore, would it be possible for you to increase the protection level? Many thanks. ErraticDrumlin (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I already responded to you on your talk page, it's untrue to say otherwise, I'm sorry if you didn't see it. "if there is a problem with an article about yourself, a family member, a friend or a colleague, please read Biographies of living persons/Help. If you spot a problem with an article, you can fix it directly, by clicking on the "Edit" link at the top of that page. See the "edit an article" section of this page for more information. "

All additional information is verifiable sources. It is not spin. That is hurtful and untrue. Other editors included in the development of this article clearly were happy for the edits to remain. They are not meant to be disruptive, they add additional information about the judges findings. The edit to the other article was because I thought that it read better. I came across it when trying to figure out where you were at. That's all. Regarding your initial edit, you deleted everything. There is relevant information about the judges decision. It is now balanced by the addition of other sources. I took nothing away, how can more information be bad?.. The sockpuppet added information that doesn't relate to the sources cited, and a lot of suppositions. I left that. I thought if others are happy, I'll just add for balancing, from verifiable sources. That is NOT spin. No-one else had a problem with my additions for a month. You deleted everything, I feel that that is disruptive. I was not paid for editing, and may have previously misunderstood the guidelines, but apparently one can fix a problem with an article, if it's declared, when I understood I did explain why. Please see my reply. Everything is verifiable, so there is no reason or justification for deleting everything. If you read through you'll see that there was insufficiency in the original artical, with omission, and incomplete information, and inaccurate quotes. I don't understand why you don't think that a reader can understand both sides with the benefit of all the information to hand. I don't want an argument. I'm not familiar with Misplaced Pages, but I'm actually trying to make good additions. It's a shame you just felt the need to delete it all without leaving the up to date information. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Beautiful Rosie (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It ought to be noted that this user above @Beautiful Rosie:, is now editing as many random pages as possible, all very small and minor edits. It appears the user is attempting to get up to 500 edits so as to qualify for extended confirmed status and get around any increase in page protection. ErraticDrumlin (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

re erraticDrumlin

I have responded to these points. My additions are valid, and I have not intended to be disruptive but to add information regarding this case. erraticDrumlin seems to have an attempt to promote a particular interest, the judges actual comments and reasoning, and I included the defence arguments because prior to this only one side was shown. It also misquoted cites, and if you've read the entire case it was more complex. Some people are interested in the legality, and interpretation of the case, not just the salacious tabloid details, as entered by a sockpuppet. It stood for weeks, and other editors seemed happy. I have declared an interest in the case, but am not being paid for this. I feel that my contributions balanced the exclusively prosecution arguments and gave an insight into the judges findings and reasoning. I think that it is helpful. Thank you for your trouble with this. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

re erraticDrumlin

Sorry, also, someone else tightened up my refs, and someone else deleted part of my contributions, and I thought fair enough, but erraticDrumlin, I think for unclear reasoning behind it deleted everything. Not considering that there may be some value. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

also, a lot in the article was not completely accurate regarding the the sources cited, and sometimes things are stated as fact, but are contradicted by equally important verifiable sources. Such as the allegations regarding assault, and the reaction to the verdict in the original trial. The judges findings were also previously excluded. The most notable thing about this is arguably the successful appeals, and the judges findings and reasoning and the decision-making from them, yet this is ignored. This is the reason I have the defence arguments, and used other sources. I think it is a shame, and against the ethos of Misplaced Pages to close down all sides of the story, and to silence any contradictory verifiable sources. I am new to Misplaced Pages's community. I did come for this, but was finding my way, and wanted to continue to contribute. Thanks for looking at this again. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, sorry but I keep thinking, is errantDrumlin to be the sole voice, and arbitrarily decide the truth about this article, a consensus was naturally reached when the addition of the procedure, defence arguments and reasoning of the judges was largely left, some was deleted, and some references were checked and tightened, and that's a natural consensus surely. As opposed to one person deleting everything that offers both sides. The whole article needs to be checked, bc It doesn't reflect the sources. The quote from the doctor is inaccurate, and used part of a different witness to make it more sensationalist, and errant Drumlin went a step further to create a scenario that is suggested nowhere by adding a "so" before saying he was untied, nowhere is it suggested even by the prosecution that that is what happened. There is much supporting evidence to everything I added, and errantDrumlin seems to want a dictatorship approach. I took on board redtailed hawk and responded, they didn't arbitrarily decide to delete all my contributions. No-one else did that is involved in this, and to suggest it was "spin" was calculated, unpleasant and upsetting and untrue. It is all verifiable. Someone deleted it partially, and that was fair, but this seems like a campaign. The sockpuppet had edited enough to get access if you up the protection, it doesn't show that it will be fair. I feel that a consensus was naturally reached, and would presumably organically develop, I didn't delete anyone's contribution as I think if it is verifiable it all adds to the complete story. Thank you for looking at this. I didn't think that I was disruptive, I was trying to add information. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

so this individual, who appears to have come from nowhere can decide to delete all my contributions, which no-one else deleted and were happy to keep, and to shape the story to their version.It seems ethically unfair, and they are posting this online when it is not accurate. As soon as you give them coverage, which obviously they know will happen, they'll delete everything that has not been an issue. It seems against the whole ethos of Misplaced Pages. Please could you look at this again, I haven't changed anything in nearly a month before this individual starting deleting everything, incidentally also an amendment to the judges findings by another editor was deleted by them. They are completely unfamiliar with the case, but also appear to want to have the final word on it. Please consider that my contributions all are verifiable, so why should they all be deleted by one person. It seems like contributions will be silenced soon, and deleted, and disregarded. The sources are cited incorrectly in the article, but are left. So they've used the rules cleverly to cut me out, even though it says you can edit if you see something g seriously unfair, inaccurate, imbalanced and wrong about yourself, a friend, or colleague. My edits are not disruptive. This is a clever person using the system to get their way. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm just contributing, I'm feeling harassed by errantDrumlin, why are they harassing me? I'm just editing the random suggestions offered by my user page, and these are by nature small edits. I'm new to Misplaced Pages, and am just participating. This is odd. Why is ErraticDrumlin so interested in me, this feels personal. I don't think their interest in the Don banfield article is random. They're too interested and determined. It's odd. I'm just editing the suggestions offered, they come up automatically on my user page. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll stop editing the suggestions offered if it's somehow managed to upset him. I was enjoying it, it has been raining here. I have a pretty good idea, and I don't think the spamming to the Nicola Bulley page is random.This is very odd Beautiful Rosie (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

incidentally my edits are not random, I am really pleased with y work on Karakalpaks uprising in Khiva (1827), some just needed little changes, or I felt overwhelmed by them. The suggestions were made to me. I think that it is odd that errantDrumlin is watching Mrs I closely. This is supposedly a random person, that just happened upon this article It's very odd, and suspicious. I was enjoying editing, and liked it and lost track of time! I'll stop now then. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Please @ErraticDrumlin and @Beautiful Rosie stop doing this on BK49's page now. Go to WP:Teahouse for advice, both of you. Valereee (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Beautiful Rosie and @ErraticDrumlin right now you both need to be discussing this content conflict at Talk:Murder of Don Banfield, which I will note Erratic has attempted to do. From my look I'm not seeing any BLP violations at the moment. If either of you think there is a BLP violation please point it out to me. Comments to each of you to follow.Beautiful: Erratic started a discussion there and pinged you. You have some obligation to engage with them in good faith. Further, Beautiful following Erratic to another article and reverting them is not OK. If that happens again I will block you. You are suggesting it is unreasonable that ErraticDrumlin has been editing Murder of Don Banfield. I don't see any reason that it's unreasonable. Further, Beautiful you mention reading WP:Biographies of living persons/Help. The very first line of the section you quote says Editing a Misplaced Pages article on yourself is, in most cases, strongly discouraged. It then talks about what is and isn't OK. Please re-read that page. If necessary I will make it so you can only comment on the talk page. I don't wish to do that but you need to engage in discussion and in discussion on the article talk page.Erratic: I agree that Beautiful is trying to get up to extended confirmed. Just trying to do that is not against the rules. From a quick glance I don't see anything that suggests that they are gaming the system, which would be against the rules. They are not, for instance, making an edit and reverting themselves in a loop. They are instead making a whole bunch of copy-editing edits suggested by the newcomer interface which is an appropriate way for an editor to accumulate edits. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@User:Barkeep49, thank you for that and for clarifying that for me in regards to the accumulation of edits. I wasn't suggesting that this in itself was wrong, just observing that it seemed to me notable that as soon as I suggested the article be protected to extended confirmed status level that they suddenly wanted to reach extended confirmed status. But in any case that wouldn't be an issue if Beautiful engaged with me on the discussion on the talk page over the content, although as you say they so far have not done so. I have removed their content again in the hope that they will now attempt to seek consensus to include the disputed content with the onus on them, although I obviously won't revert again as I don't want to go over the 3RR. I must say it seems a bit harsh on me to say that I should stop trying to discuss this content conflict here... in fairness, I only added one comment after my original post about the protection status, on the other users' edit accumulation. Beautiful added nine separate comments across three talk page sections during the course of yesterday, two sections of which they created, all after (again) apparently following me here (WP:WIKIHOUNDING?) from my edit list like with following me to the other article and reverting me . I wasn't intending to have a discussion about the content here. In fact, it seems Beautiful wants to discuss the content everywhere except the talk page for the article. From looking at the article and its talk page further, I can see that particular editors (editor?) have been attempting to add more or less the same content over a period of months. This IP , which had previously been blocked for disruptive editing , notably also stopped editing one day before Beautiful began editing. It perhaps should be observed that similar edits on this page can be traced back to another IP . That IP stopped editing after they were blocked for making legal threats: . Soon after this three-month block expired, the other IP sprung up and started editing: . ErraticDrumlin (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not hounding erraticDrumlin. I was checking this page. Sorry for all my comments in bk49, I was unsure where to talk. I created an account.I didn't realise how to do so before. I wasn't blocked then. there was no block evasion going on. There is a declaration of interest, and I stated that my edits were regarding requests in the talk page. I feel harassed here. It's very much. ErraticDrumlin was monitoring my contributions page, and the content of my edits.they seem to be determinedly interested in. that feels hounding . I also didn't think you were supposed to refer to people who you may think are users by their real name? . but I don't really understand it all, sorry. I replied in "Don banfield" talk prior to seeing this. All my contributions were in good faith, and verifiable, and added. I was avoiding no block. and I haven't meant to cause problems. I was unsure where to talk, until valaree said. I'm just getting used to Misplaced Pages. I'm sorry if I got anything wrong. Thanks for your trouble with this barkeep49, I don't know why this is still going on. I haven't intended it to do so. I don't think there are any blp issues with the article, everything is verifiable,the article as a whole is rounded. but I do take on your comments. Thanks for looking at this again.Sorry for all your trouble with this Beautiful Rosie (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

would it be ok to restore the article including the judges findings, and all sides relected, esp as there was no blp violation that you could find, and no-one had any issue for a month and even deleted, amended etc?I'm not trying to be disruptive, just facts, and fairness.I have attempted to engage erratic in the talk page, but now they've got their oppression of all the facts, and attacked me, and speculated as to who I am they're happy and have disengaged. They've deleted everything again. No discussion Beautiful Rosie (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Beautiful Rosie this last commment would be better on the article talk page than here. That is the right place for interested editors to come to agreement on content issues. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it productive that the IP has registered their account, @ErraticDrumlin. And obviously (including in my very last message) I am encouraging people to discuss this on the talk page. Also, I know you ended up reverting yourself on this but do be careful with identifying editors. The edit you had made originally qualified for oversight. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed, apologies about the the identifying, I don't know what I was thinking. I've spent too long on this anyway so will wait until other editors to add their feelings. Thank you. ErraticDrumlin (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Whoami

it's a Linux command and a geeky pun as the title of that section on my Commons page. Feel free to omit it if you summarize that section. It won't hurt my feelings if you don't summarize it, btw, but given further sanctions for an inability to play nice with others were being discussed when I arrived at Bishonen's page, I felt it needed to be pointed out. However if you don't like whoami, I'd prefer that you or I replace it with a different header, because who am I sounds...I don't know, kind of jejeune to me. Thanks for your consideration, and perhaps Arbcom is not the place for geeky puns. <g> Elinruby (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to replace it with a different header. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

k thanksElinruby (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous evidence

Would it be possible to submit evidence anonymously to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence?

The Polish group has made their intention of payback very clear: , driving away at least one editor:

In my case, I'm not involved in the topic at all outside of perhaps a noticeboard post. However, I am concerned like Horse Eye's Back that opening up with evidence against the Polish group will lead to coordinated voting against my position in other topics.

I am aware that e-mailing Arbcom is a possibility, however the Polish group has at least one sympathetic Arb on the committee who will forward that kind of correspondence. 172.58.60.97 (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

however the Polish group has at least one sympathetic Arb on the committee who will forward that kind of correspondence. is a really serious accusation. If there is an arb forwarding correspondence to/from the committee we need to address that. But in my 3 years of being on the committee I have seen no evidence of this. If you have evidence of this please find a way to get it either to the committee or to an individual arb.As to the request itself I will discuss with the other drafters. The entire topic area is under extended confirmed restrictions for a reason and owing to the serious and severe harassment that many editors in this topic area - and here it's the Polish editors to a greater extent - have experienced, allowing IP evidence could set an uncomfortable precedent. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Dbachmann Case Naming

I don't want to clutter up the ARC page with another useless statement, so I figured I'd drop a note here since you submitted the motion in this case request. If it does pass and go to a suspended case, it would be a better idea to name it Dbachmann 2, since Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann already existed as a case (before being renamed Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ancient Egyptian race controversy) and it could cause confusion or problems with links/redirects. The Wordsmith 16:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith thanks that's a good point. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no objections to the current case request title being renamed either. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

@AncientWalrus I don't have capacity to handle this myself at the moment but I am making sure that someone else qualified will examine the issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! AncientWalrus (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Am I allowed to answer you?

You have attacked me on the Evidence page. I am topic banned. Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Xx236 I intentionally did not name you in the official summary because you are topic banned and didn't want you to feel like you might need to respond. I obviously did name you on the talk page saying two true things - you didn't think Fear was reliable and you were topic banned - and saying it would be troubling if Piotr tried to bolster you while also saying the opposite. I am guessing it's this last piece you want to answer me about. That was about Piotr not you. But if you feel it needs an answer you can reply here with it. If it's reasonable I will copy it over for you. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

So please write * the next time. Bashing me because I am helpless is bullying.Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not bash you and while there is a power differential between us, my naming you is not bullying but rather performing the duties I've been elected to do. My need to name you will likely continue to be limited. As I noted I did go to effort to not name you in the official evidence summary. However, I am not going to avoid naming you completely. We are examining conduct in the topic area and if your name comes up it comes up. Will it need to come up a lot? No. You are not a party to the case and the scope of the case is Conduct of named parties in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed. Given how much pain this brings you, I wonder why you're watching the pages (and the talk pages at that). I can assure you that I will not be pinging you so that you're forced to see your name involuntarily. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

People whose names should be not mentioned

Morning @Barkeep49: How are you? I notice that on the that the name Icewhiz is mentioned a full 56 times on that page. It is almost like that old NLP thing from the late 90's. I'm sure that Icewhiz must be drawning succour from their name printed so many times. Is there anyway the name could be disguised perhaps using an alias or a cover name, or is that even a thing, to perhaps lessen their impact, or would even doing that be more grist for their mill. It just seems excessive being mentioned so many times, since its been almost a year since their latest incarnation left. I don't know if there precedents in history for this sort of thing. I wonder if anybody else has noticed it or is worth noticing? scope_creep 09:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this a bit far off field? scope_creep 10:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I have been paying very careful attention to the mentions of Icewhiz. I have at times worked to avoid naming him directly myself but am hardly be surprised that he has come up a lot in discussion. You can see a big difference in the amount of times parties have named Icewhiz compared to how often he's been named by the arbs (including on the evidence summary page). I think it important to let parties make the case they want to make, with-in scope, however and so I would be opposed to any sort of code of restriction. The code would be self-defeating: Icewhiz would know it's him anyway and the restriction would get in the way of people saying what they think should be said. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Growth team newsletter #25

Welcome to the twenty-fifth newsletter from the Growth team! Help with translations

Celebrations

Leveling up release

• We released Leveling up features to our pilot wikis on March 22 for an initial A/B test.
• In this test, we use post-edit dialogs (pop-ups shown after publishing an edit) and notifications to encourage new editors to try new types of newcomer-friendly suggested edits.
• We are closely monitoring the short term impact of this feature as well as the longer term effect on newcomer productivity and retention. If the experiment shows positive results, we will release this feature to more wikis.

5,000+ images added via the newcomer task in February

• In February 2023, 5,035 images were added via the newcomer “add an image” feature (on all wikis where available); 155 were reverted.
• Since the feature “add an image” was launched: 36,803 images have been added; 2,957 images were reverted.

Recent changes

• Add a link
  • Community Ambassadors completed an initial evaluation that confirmed that prioritizing underlinked articles resulted in better article suggestions. We then evaluated the change on Growth pilot wikis, and results suggest that more newcomers are successfully completing the task and experiencing fewer reverts. We have now deployed the new prioritization model to all wikis with "add a link" enabled.
  • We continue the deployment of "add a link" to more wikis. These changes are regularly announced in Tech News. To know if newcomers at your wiki have access to this feature, please visit your Homepage.
• The Impact module was deployed on our pilot wikis, where we conducted an A/B test. We published initial findings, and a data scientist is now completing experiment analysis.
• Donor Thank you page experiment – Donors land on a “thank you” page after donation, and that landing page now includes a call to action to try editing: Example Thank you page in French. This promising feature is tested at several Wikipedias (French Misplaced Pages, Italian Misplaced Pages, Japanese Misplaced Pages, Dutch Misplaced Pages, Swedish Misplaced Pages).
• Growth features are now the default experience on both test.wikipedia.org and test2.wikipedia.org. You can test our features there.

Upcoming work

• Add an image – We plan to offer section-level image suggestions as a structured task for newcomers.
  • We are starting design work.
  • Growth team Ambassadors helped with an initial evaluation of these section-level image suggestions.
  • We will start a community consultation in which we share initial ideas and designs soon.
• IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation – We will support this project for all Growth Team maintained products and extensions that may be affected by IP Masking.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

13:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Driveby copyedit

Arb case, Francois Robere evidence summary, February timeline:

"The content remains unchanged until April 15 2:52 - 5:50 when Piotrus makes a 7 edits all under 250 bytes"

• I think you need to remove "a" from this sentence the next time you are in the neighborhood. Elinruby (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Self-report

I threatened to turn Gitz into a frog if he didn't stop saying that I argue with him. I'm thinking he probably won't even see it, since he as announced he doesn't read my posts. (Although AGF maybe he's a reformed soul now) But it's not a threat unless he reads it, right? Elinruby (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby don't make threats whether or not someone is going to see it or not. This is why @Callanecc placed the restriction in the first place. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

oh all right. What would you like me to do the next time he does this? He will you know. I told Callanecc he would go after VM. Just saying. If you give them an interaction ban I predict he will go after someone else. Probably MVBW.

I do take your point and promise not to introduce Cinderella into evidence.

You are mixing up the various restrictions btw. Not mad about that but please don't check me off as violating a restriction I don't have. Gitz is *topic banned*. This has nothing to do with frogs and doesn't violate the topic ban in this context because the because the topic restriction is suspended. Meanwhile, Gitz is not Trangabellam. I have an interaction restriction with TrangaBellam because supposedly I am stalking her. And can't shut up about her, or something. I would like to submit an interaction analyser report in this respect, btw.

But more to the point if Gitz is going to keep mentioning me, I would like him to be accurate about it. If he has a big old ignore button for me I think that's wonderful, but be has to quit doing stuff that makes me need to reach them.

Also, VM is probably correct when he says he never had a big argument with Gitz about Russian prisoners shot in the leg. I think Gitz is remembering Mala Rohan and yes he failed about five times to provide verification of the article claims about prisoners shot in the leg. Would you like some diffs about that? Elinruby (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby your fairy tale metaphors are making it hard for me to follow what you're saying so I'm not sure how to answer your question. And yes you're right it was just a warning Callanecc (and El C) gave you, but that doesn't change my underlying message: most editors find it easy to never threaten another editor and so you need to cut out doing that. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I will refrain from threatening to turn Gitz into a frog. That's not a metaphor, btw, I did do exactly what I reported myself as having done here.

As for Callanecc, I am not mad at him but I think he conflated some things, easily done in the walls of text that Gitz puts up, and have been meaning to appeal that, but it hasn't seemed urgent since *my* concern, distortion of fact in the Ukraine war, had been addressed.

Meanwhile Gitz keeps, to my eye, misrepresenting my participation in it, however. I grant you that this is not getting summarized, but it's affecting people's perception of me, apparently, since you thought had sanctions that I don't. And of other people as well, although I haven't traced all that out and probably don't have the bandwidth to do so. But VM doesn't need to have any fresh reason to be paranoid, for example, and probably interpreted the attribution to him of something *I* did --- demand sources for prisoners of war being shot in the leg -- as gaslighting.

So if you guys are trying to understand why those two keep arguing, there's part of it, there. And thus my offer of diffs.

Or maybe it would be easier to answer a broader question. Do I correctly understand that the scope now includes interactions between the parties?

Thanks. And if I gave you a headache again I am sorry about that. I'm actually trying to stick close to the facts in my evidence. It's pretty muxed, but then so are the facts. Elinruby (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

April songs

April songs

my story today

My story today is about the Alchymic Quartet, - I went away from DYK but it's the last one from last year. - The songs are about vacation, continued. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

• From the editor: Some long-overdue retractions

• News and notes: Sounding out, a universal code of conduct, and dealing with AI

• In the media: Twiddling Misplaced Pages during an online contest, and other news

• Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" case is ongoing

• Featured content: Hail, poetry! Thou heav'n-born maid

• Recent research: Language bias: Misplaced Pages captures at least the "silhouette of the elephant", unlike ChatGPT

• From the archives: April Fools' through the ages

• Disinformation report: Sus socks support suits, seems systemic

RfA

show not ahow. What about "contributions not contriburions"? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That whole edit showed the perils of mobile posting. Thanks. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hehe, I don't even own a mobile phone, makes Misplaced Pages and RL soooo much better.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23, you are so old fashioned. Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually I'm not, Cullen. I do have an old mobile phone, but it's not usable because Verizon Wireless no longer supports the networks it can access. And as far as the more modern (hardly new, though) smartphones, I don't own one, but my spouse does, so I must confess to using it when I feel like it. But I never edit Misplaced Pages with it. Frankly, I don't see how people do edit with smartphones - the screens are so small. I have enough trouble editing occasionally on a tablet (without a real keyboard). If I have to type much, I just skip it and wait until I get back to my trusty desktop. There: more than you - and certainly Barkeep - wanted to know about me and my hardware (sounds like a song).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

As one of my uncles used to say, "That's why they make chocolate and vanilla." Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

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

Administrator changes Aoidh KillerChihuahua

CheckUser changes Ferret

Guideline and policy news

• A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Technical news

• Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
• The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
• A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

Arbitration

• The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
• A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

I'm sure you'll know

If I wanted to ask a general question / have a general discussion about how ArbCom handles something (and WP:ARCA isn't appropriate because it isn't about an existing case), what is the latest best mechanism for that? Open a thread at WT:ACN? At WT:RFAR? Surely not WT:AC? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

What's the question @Floquenbeam? Most likely the answer will either be WT:ACN or WT:AC. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Something I said here]; I wanted to make sure what I said was true, and if so, see what others think. Although I suppose I might as well see what you think first...

While the ANI discussion about desysopping Dbachmann seems (if I assume just a tiny bit of bad faith. just a tiny bit!) to have accelerated ArbCom's own desysop decision, I think it's true that there's really no way to inform ArbCom that someone has lost the community's trust. They almost always have to infer that from messy AN/ANI discussions. Such comments are surely not what Arbs want during the case request; and that doesn't seem like anything they'd welcome at the evidence phase either. My thought is that Wordsmith has stumbled onto an idea that is actually useful, in that it would be a way to clearly inform ArbCom if someone has lost the community's trust, even if there is no smoking gun action that ArbCom would normally need. Also, I'm curious to get feedback from Arbs whether "lost the community's trust" would be sufficient for ArbCom to desysop. The more I think about it, I don't think we need a community desysop method for ArbCom-able actions; we need it when everyone is just fed up, and it is clear that someone would never come close to passing an RFA now. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

oops, there's a Wordsmith and a User:The Wordsmith. repinging. also, adding missing link. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Schro

Why is SchroCat allowed to edit? Without sanctions even? Not too long ago he was facing sanctions and possibly an indef block, then he said he was leaving to avoid the sanctions and then he lied and engaged in abusive sockpuppetry. Now he’s editing like the sanctions were never gonna happen? God knows how many editors have left WP because of his abuse.Aspirecake (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)