Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
Miscellaneous
Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.
Technical news
The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)
Miscellaneous
The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
Djong (ship) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Let me begin by thanking you for commenting on my case at AN/I. I hesitated about writing here, so it does not seem like I'm litigating the issue further; the fact is that I actually fully agree with 95% of your latest comments, and the remaining 5% that I somewhat disagree I don't think compelled I should be commenting on it without it seeming that I am wasting the community's time. I have read your comment carefully, and you are obviously correct about at least some of those edit summaries being, well, juvenile, even disregarding what behavior I was answering to. I have never in fact said that that the past edit summaries were ever warranted in themselves -- I merely objected that they aren't, as had been argued by one editor who revived them, persistent and disqualifying bad behavior.
I am returning here and taking up a bit more of your attention merely to suggest another glance at one of the diffs you brought up in your analysis. Namely this one. Allow we underscore: you are right in saying that the edit summary had breached WP:CIV, and I have acknowledged as much by that point the AN/I review. However, you defined the summary as "elicited by your taking exception to the spelling of a proper noun/toponym in it's non-native language". This is not the issue I was addressing, though, and it makes it seem (for instance, to an admin reviewing my case), that I am rude to editors who simply have another spelling preference of "Bukovina".
Please take an additional 10 seconds to review the edits I was reverting: here. The edit summary for the one intermediary edit states out the claim that the spelling is "wrong", but this is not simply an issue of "correcting" (or rather, a clumsy attempt at Romanianizing the nomenclature). These edits, which are 100% of that IPs contribution on wikipedia, amount to a degradation of content: they break links by blindly replacing any mention of "Bukovina" with "Bucovina" -- for instance, by creating "Duchy of Bucovina", a redlink instead of a bluelink on Duchy of Bukovina. The redlink could technically be filled as a redirect to the "Duchy of Bukovina" article -- though even then, that extremely Romanianized version, changing the name of the polity (and not merely of the region) to one that was only extremely rarely used in Romanian, and possibly never in English, would probably be extremely exotic.
To resume and close this: the Iacob Zadik article is a B-class one, with me having been the one to bring it there (through expansion of a stubby article). The edits by the IP had went unnoticed for some two months (including by me), with the content effectively degraded for those two months. Again: not the nomenclature itself is at issue, but the blind promotion of the "Bucovina" spelling to the point of disrupting good content. The blindness of the edits was also in proportion to a political agenda: adding "Bucovina" (Romanian-only) or "Bukovyna" (Ukrainian-only) in all-English contexts is not merely a preference, it is a statement about who the region "really belongs to".
I am obviously not right to have called the degradation what I called it, in my exasperation at seeing the claim that content degradation (from bluelinks to redlinks) is presented as a "correction". Nothing of what I'm writing here is along the lines of "come on, both you and I know that the edit was indeed cretinous". But I would appreciate it if you could revisit your description of this dispute between me and the IP: I am not the sort of editor who calls others names just because "I take exception to the spelling of a proper noun/toponym in it's non-native language"; I am the sort of editor who, once in a blue moon, lost his cool at seeing objective degradation of an article, which the IP was using as a pawn in some sort of abstruse political battle. I only insist here (and I do apologize for taking up your time) because an admin reading your good-faith summary of that interaction, and not wishing to revisit the diff themselves, may be promoted to assume that I engage in behavior much more disruptive than it actually was. If, upon reading the above, you see any grounds for marginally adjusting that review of the interaction between me and the IP, I would be thankful to you; either way, thank you for your time. Dahn (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Dahn. That's an entirely reasonable request, and I'll post an amendment to my observations stating that I do believe you when you say that response was animated by a desire to avoid broken links and not merely a disagreement over the spelling.
That said, I hope you'll forgive me for telling you something I think you already know when I re-emphasize that I feel the emotional response was unwarranted helpful, irrespective of whether the original dispute arose primary out of spelling conventions alone, or potentially broken links.
But I have no problem supporting your assertion that the situation tweaked your nose because of a pragmatic concern quite aside from spelling, insofar as I completely believe that. And I want you to know that, anything I said in the ANI discussion not withstanding, I'm sorry things went so roughly for you. I meant what I said when I stated that you seem like an asset. Just do us a favour and try to keep the name-calling out of it. 'Kill them with kindness', my friend--that's my advice when dealing with vandals, SPAs, or even just well-intentioned but wrong-headed editors. Your signal flares attempting to get help will shine much more clearly if the skies are clear of any smoke resulting from the surrounding terrain being torched. If you'll forgive a tortured metaphor. SnowRise let's rap 05:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
I mean fair, but MOS:SMALLFONT says that "[..]the HTML <small>...</small> tag has a semantic meaning of fine print or side comments[..]", that was a side comment, that's why I made it small. If there is consensus against using small at all, please tell me so I can safely put it in my head to not use it anymore. – 2804:F14:80BE:B501:4013:AA93:E6BD:4D (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sentence of SMALLFONT that you quote is really talking about rare exceptions to the rule of using the standardized font size in the context of mainspace edits (hence it's location in MoS and the fact that it cites not to a community discussion but to an external page discussing the function of the <small> html tag for the purposes of fine print). For guidance on how to format text in community discussions, see WP:TPG; the relevant language is spread throughout the article, but see for example "Technical and format standards" section, which advises to avoid "font gimmicks" and the "Good practices for discussions" section (advising to "Keep the format clear: use standard formatting and threading."). I'll grant you it's somewhat oblique in the second instance, but taken in the context of the rest of the page, I think it very much is meant to urge standardization of formatting of discussion to maintain maximum accessibility for all participants. Remember that not all users (and not all editors even) have access to the site through a PC utilizing a monitor, or through other standard devices with large screens or strong auto-refactoring tools. And of course others have vision impairment. In any event, I can tell you that the longstanding community practice is to enforce standardization of font text in normal discussion posts. The one lingering carveout that has failed to go away entirely is that small font is sometimes used to mark joking comments that are completely immaterial the editorial or community issue being discussed. But there's pushback on even that practice. Long story short, if your comment has any kind of even remote direct bearing on the discussion at hand, it should use standard text formatting (size included), even if you would judge it to be a minor point. This forecloses the possibility of someone being left out of loop on information and the potential for confusion. Afterall, a point you regard as minor may very well end up not being so to other editors or the community at large--particularly in a behavioural discussion. Thanks for stopping by; I hope you have a good day, on project and off. SnowRise let's rap 01:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining, I'll avoid using small. Wish I had looked up the guidance before I did it in many places over the months(or years? unsure when I started doing it), including when asking slightly off-topic questions, pretty sure I just copied someone doing it...
Well, it's honestly not a huge deal: it's the type of thing you can typically expect a gnome to correct, and usually doesn't get more attention than that. :) And you're welcome--happy to be of help! SnowRise let's rap 03:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to derail the discussion at WP:RSN further, but I have been thinking along the same lines as your recent post on the topic recently, and I have been wondering if the way to address this is by setting clear definitions of reliability, and clear definitions of the evidence required to demonstrate that these expectations are met. This should prevent editors from being able to use RSN to disqualify sources they disagree with unless there is a genuine issue with the source - in which case, we should get rid of it.
A broad definition of a reliable source is one that has sufficiently robust editorial process to prevent major errors and issue corrections and retractions when such errors do occur. Based on this, what I've been thinking for a while now is the following:
Do you have any thoughts on this? BilledMammal (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey BM. I have feelings too mixed and complicated on the subject to be sharing them in anything approaching an adequate form in the scarce few moments I have available to address such an inquiry today. I promise I'll make it a priority the very next time I can get on project, probably in a day or two. But I didn't want you think I was ignoring you until then. Best wishes to you in the meantime. SnowRise let's rap 12:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summary at ANI
I was a bit baffled by this edit summary. I can assure you it would not even occur to me to "disregard the rules merely to jump the queue and get [my] response higher up". I see that you figured it out a couple of edits later, but can I ask how you managed to jump to such a silly conclusion? If, as I suspect, you were influenced by Grorp's refactor and comment here, then I'll point out that their response was as silly and precipitate as yours. I had responded, correctly, to their assertion at the start of the section, since that was the topic of discussion, and they mistakenly thought I was responding to the collection of "notes" which they had arbitrarily dropped on the talk page (as, incidentally, is their habit – I personally don't think personal 'notes' sections are appropriate for talk pages, particularly in the middle of a focused discussion, but I guess there's nothing in the guidelines about it). They proceeded to move my comment out of place in exactly the way you did, with an equally inappropriate and officious admonition.
In my opinion, your summary analysis of what went on at that page is as hasty and ill-judged as your edit summary, although it's nice that you opined "in the spirit of fairness". It was surprizing to me because I "had you pegged", to employ Grorp's charming turn of phrase, as one of the more sensible editors on wikipedia. I won't be editing the page anymore, but I'll discuss it here if you wish to, but it's not important and I'm happy to drop it. Harold the Sheep (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harold. The best I can say to explain my misreading of the situation there was that it was a case of errant pattern recognition. As I recall, your post used one-too-many levels of indent for the message it was meant to respond to, and I momentarily mistook this for being the old trick that some people sometimes use in order to move their responses higher up in the chronology of messages while still making it "clear" who they are responding to--something we see a lot at ANI and other fora where people place a premium on efforts to defend their conduct. This is against policy, of course, because it complicates the normal discussion/thread format, but people still do it from time to time. In reading your message, I thought this was what was going on, because of the extra level of indent. But no sooner had I refactored when I realized that it was clearly an error on my part, so I placed the post back where it belonged and merely corrected the indent level. At least, that's how I recall it. I probably should have known you were too experienced to be employing such formatting, but the misread was a matter of a good faith mistake.Now as for my take on the issues that brought you and the other parties to ANI in the first place, I'm sorry if my analysis feels uncharitable or inaccurate to you, and if it has thus reduced your appreciation for my perspective on such things. Mind you, my first comment and priority there was focused on the fact that I felt the OP had needlessly escalated the matter to ANI and had failed to show due diligence in following normal dispute resolution processes before hand, and that your conduct was well bellow the threshold of anything that needed reporting or correction by the community. I continue to feel that was the case. However, that doesn't mean that I didn't feel there was some blame to be spread around regarding discussion becoming non-productive on the article talk page itself. I do think there were moments there were your tone became a little bit battlegroundish. Again, nothing I thought justified an excursion to ANI (especially without efforts to talk it out with you first), but I can see where your choice of words could have contributed to the other two feeling that you were not super open to contrary opinions. And I continue to stand by that part of the assessment too. It wasn't meant to be a particularly severe or concerned observation so much as a nudge from someone not involved in the dispute which I hoped would therefore give it at least a little bit more credibility. That said, the underlying dispute is obviously moot if you're determined not to involve yourself in that article further. I'm sorry that a more collaborative solution was not achieved, but for what it's worth, I respect an editor who decides that certain disputes represent too much inefficiency in constructive use of one's project time to be worth pursuing them to the end. In any event, best wishes on whatever you're off to work on next. SnowRise let's rap 12:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Miscellaneous
The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more
Hi SnowRise. I just wanted to thank you for your thoughtful posts at the ATG thread at ANI. In particular, your posts in the "off-wiki forums" subsection were very good. I started the thread disagreeing with you, and while I still feel there's some nuance to it, I'm coming down more and more in line with your thinking. The thoughts on outing in particular hit home; however easy it'd be to enforce the civility side of things, it would definitely open a procedural door for malicious outing under the guise of, "This account said a bad thing. Is this you?" All this to say: thanks for sharing your thoughts, they changed my opinion, and I hope you have a great day. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you EducatedRedneck: it's quite thoughtful of you to take the time to come here and say as much, and I very much appreciate it. So often on this project, as with our culture in general (and more and more as the years go on), it can feel like major policy discussions are largely boiling down to two sides lobbing rhetorical mortars at eachother from their pre-decided entrenched positions, with little hope of anyone being persuaded of much. It is very helpful to be reminded of the fact that the situation is not always as severely intractable as it may seem at first blush these days.
What's more, I'm especially grateful for that feedback in this case because I really don't like being in a position of telling my fellow community members that they just have to suck it up and absorb insults in these situations. It's very much the opposite of my usual stance on such things here. If they talk about me at all on WPO (I don't care to check) I'm sure it's to call me a "civility scold" or somesuch, since I've had people say as much to me here after taking hard lines (sometimes against popular and/or well-respected users) on chronic incivility. It's an increasingly unpopular view, it sometimes feels, but I do think that WP:CIV is every bit as important as the other pillar policies, if not the most important. It's just that in this case, the consequences of reaching as far as some would have us, are so potentially dangerous to the real world safety and wellbeing of our individual community members, and so potentially corrosive to the overall culture of our community and the project's stability.
But even being as convinced of this as I am, it still makes for saying things I don't like having to say to people who are on the receiving end of often times petty, if not outright bullying, behaviour. So hearing from even one person that I am not saying it for no good purpose is very welcome. Have a great day, ER--and please don't be a stranger to my workspace. :) SnowRise let's rap 16:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
Well, I checked your reply on ANI [1]. Thank you, but I would like to disagree on one point. When someone's behavior (let's say contributor X) is debated on ANI, I believe it is completely appropriate to discuss the potential issues on the user X talk page and politely explain such potential issues to them. It is frequently the case that a user misunderstands WP policies. Other users have an obligation to explain the specific issue and the policies to user X, prior to complaining elsewhere, for example. And that is exactly what user The Kip (who started the conversation) and me did. There was nothing inappropriate there. As about the responses by user X, I think they were telling in a couple of aspects and as such were also helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry MVBW, but I'm afraid I must stand by my assessment of your decision to comment on their talk page in the manner that you did, at the time that you did. Your engagement there and The Kips are not analogous, as indeed I noted in my comments at ANI. The Kip commented as a party not involved in the dispute and as such, despite more than a little bit of a hint of reproach and warning in their comments, JDiala's response was mostly receptive and the discussion productive and moving in the right direction. Your choice of that moment to leap on to the talk page of the party you were currently in a dispute with, when said dispute was already being examined at ANI, in order to re-litigate one of the elements of that dispute, was, I'm sorry, very ill-considered and, if I'm being perfectly blunt, a bad look in the circumstances.
And all the more so because I'm not at all convinced that you are any more on the right side of the policy you wanted to continue to assert your position about than JDiala is. Based on the extensive forgoing dispute, it's pretty clear that both you and they both understand how BRD operates. Rather the locus of the dispute is clearly around who had the "advantage" of the status quo/consensus version of the article, and therefor whose "bold" edit triggered the BRD cycle. Which, to be clear, is very much something both of you should have stopped arguing about a while ago, in favor of pursuing a standard dispute resolution option to address the underlying content issue. But you instead chose this least opportune possible moment in order to lecture and "explain" BRD to JD, despite the fact that they clearly understand what the policy requires, and merely differ with you on who violated the principle first. This despite the fact that A) you had already gone ten rounds with them on the article talk page over this, and B) they had expressly stated at the ANI that this was the issue that was frustrating them.
How you thought that this could do anything other than inflame the situation, and are even going so far as to double down on the assertion that it was a helpful thing to do after the fact, is a little beyond me. This wasn't a case of trying to de-escalate the situation before ANI by providing another user with new information that might help them avoid trouble: the matter had already been taken to ANI and had community eyes on it, and there was no reason for you to believe that the other user would interpret any perspective you supplied on the policy as helpful new information. Nor was your situation or approach analogous to The Kip's role there. If anything, you derailed any benefit that was being accrued from his intervention with the user.
Let me be clear that I AGF that for some reason you thought this was the helpful and right thing to do, but if that's really the case, you seriously need to recalibrate your perspective for any similar situations in the future. Because as an outsider looking in, who has now reviewed all of the previous talk page dispute in addition to the ANI, it is unambiguous to me that the only possible outcome here was that you were going to replicate the same argument that was already taking place in two other spaces, and set the other party's teeth on edge in the process. And much like The Kip, the lion's share of my feedback to JDiala has been critical in nature, and full of warning. But the longer the dispute goes on, the more sympathetic I am to his position that he is not being heard and the more I'm starting to understand why he felt he was not being engaged with in a productive fashion.
At this point, I can only re-assert, for all three of you, what I ended my ANI comments with: stop bickering over who had/has the right end of the stick with regard to BRD. It's not accomplishing anything. One side needs to give way, or someone needs to RfC this or take it to RSN or DRN or pursue any number of other dispute resolution processes. To pursue the current course that both sides have to this point is to flirt with an AE sanction, and the longer that happens, the less certain you should feel that JD is the one likely to receive it. You're not going to see eye to eye on who violated BRD first, clearly. I also doubt you are going to see a block at ANI for how JD characterized your and ManyAreasExpert's behaviour. So short-circuit this nonsense by doing what you all should have done ages ago, and bring other eyes in to resolve the content dispute. This is not rocket science: if you're that convinced that you have the right read on the sourcing issue, bolster your consensus and shut JD's argument down. SnowRise let's rap 20:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I did not try to relitigate anything, as should be clear from my comments. Did I suggest to sanction this contributor anywhere? No. Besides, that ANI thread was obviously going nowhere, and I only placed a link to discussion for the sake of order. I did not start that ANI thread or even a discussion at the user talk page. My only purpose was to explain the policy to the user because he misunderstood it. Yes, I had a few discussions with him on several talk pages, and I am familiar with the subject. But it does not disqualify me from commenting on this. Quite the opposite. As about "dispute resolution", yes, of course, but I hardly have significant disagreements with this user. The dispute resolution is currently on the initial stage, i.e. just discussing the issue on article talk pages(s). Of course another user who brought this issue on ANI might be in a state of prolonged dispute, I do not really know. There are no "three of us". Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"My only purpose was to explain the policy to the user because he misunderstood it."
Again, having reviewed the entire dispute (article talk pages, ANI, and JD's TP included) and watched you go around and around and around on this issue, I feel absolutely confident at this point that they understand WP:BRD every bit as well as you do. It's just that they disagree with you about what the status quo version of the disputed content is, and therefore whose edit constitutes the B in BRD. This is something JD repeatedly pointed out on the article talk, and they also repeatedly emphasized (in the talk page discussion and at the ANI) that the efforts to "educate" them on BRD were the major source of frustration for them in that discussion. So I don't think you could have picked a single thing that was more likely to set them off than showing up in the middle of q discussion with another editor on their talk page in order to again "explain" BRD to them. And frankly, a lot of editors would have popped their top at that point. And please let me reiterate at this point that both of you should have dropped the discussion about who really violated WP:BRD/WP:EW long, long before that point. It was getting nothing accomplished and it was well past time for you both to move on to RfC or some other processes necessary to break the deadlock. But I honestly don't think that you could have picked a single thing to say to them at that point in time that was more certain to tick them off.
"But it does not disqualify me from commenting on this."
No, of course it didn't and I don't see anywhere where anyone has implied that you were barred from commenting. What I said was that commenting when and how you did on his talk page was ill-advised and almost certain to get exactly the response you did: inflaming matters further with no realistic chance of achieving anything positive. Nobody said or implied that commenting there constituted a brightline violation of policy. My observation is merely that it represented bad judgment on your part and demonstrated that the issues between you two were not coming unilaterally from his approach. And nothing you've said here has caused me to re-assess that impression.
"The dispute resolution is currently on the initial stage, i.e. just discussing the issue on article talk pages(s).
Well that's certainly better than continuing to fixate on who is on the right side of BRD, but given the protracted back-and-forth there already, can I recommend that you all not sleep on starting an RfC or taking the matter to RSN? Because if you haven't been able to achieve a meeting of the minds between you so far, I don't think it's likely to spontaneously happen, and my concern is the cycle of talking past eachother is going to continue without other community voices involved. Just my two cents.
"Happy editing"
To you as well. SnowRise let's rap 01:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciation for being an intelligent human
Hello, I am a autistic man who enjoys vicariously living other people's arguments and experiences through reading various internet drama. The last year or so I've noticed that ANI and wikipedia in general can be very good sources of "human drama entertainment" or whatever you'd like to call it.
I'm rambling. The point of writing on your talk page is this:
This reply you made, along with many, many others that you've made, really help me think better of people. You write clearly, empathetically, and with nuance I do not see often. You have a beautiful mind and I hope you keep contributing to whatever strikes your fancy.
I know that it would make me giddy to have someone compliment me like this, but I hope you take it well. Hooples (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hooples, I don't know what to say--this is one of the nicest, most flattering things anyone has ever said to me in my time on the project, or in general. And it's very endearing to me not just because it is so complimentary, but also because you observed some of the qualities that I try hardest to bring into our work with the community: reason, empathy, understanding and forbearance. It's also a very timely message for me: the recent months have represented a tough time for me, and though I've tried to make that all the more reason to practice patience and kindness, you never know for sure how well you are doing when you are exhausted and living under the shadow of doubt. Today has been an amazing day: first I received the results of a medical scan that were phenomenally more positive than expected and beyond what I dared hope for. And now, this warm and invigorating missive from a stranger, which has made me feel so appreciated and recognized. Thank you for taking the time to make one of your first edits here such an act of kindness. It's a lovely little boost of extra impetus that merges seamlessly with the thoughts of renewed possibility and purpose that are filling my home right now. If you do a fraction as much for the average person you interact with here, you will be an amazing addition to our community indeed. Please, as you transition from a passive to an active member of our endeavour, if there is anything at all I can do to help, do not hesitate to reach out. In the meantime, you have my kindest regards and sincerest gratitude. SnowRise let's rap 00:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Hooples
Sorry for making a new topic, the way your talk page is laid out doesn't let me reply on mobile for whatever reason.
Your reply made me happy all night while I was at work, thank you. I'm glad I can make you feel recognized. Not enough humans are. My wife says you have excellent thank-you note skills.
I have been reading about the RFC page and the whole process,I think I am going to try to participate where I can, when appropriate.
I am pretty nervous about it, however. I lurk... Extensively, and I've seen firsthand all the people who are quick to harass. I read one arbitration where an editor even called another at work after snooping out their info. I would like to avoid that if at all possible. That is just my normal nervousness though, I stay more anonymous than most.
I hope to see more of your writing if I do take that step. Hooples (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hooples: first, my thanks to your wife for the kind observation.:) As to your on-project ambitions, I think RfC is a great way to get started in contributing 'behind the curtain' here, particularly if you sign up for the WP:Feedback request service ('FRS' for short; which allows an automated system to randomly select discussions requiring input for which you will receive bot-delivered invites to participate. With this method, you can maximize the number of discussions you get involved with where the area is generally familiar enough to you to enhance your ability to consider the issues, but also less likely to be topics that you have super-strong pre-existing notions about. This is a really great sweet spot to sit in while you try to master our content policy and learn to apply them neutrally. It also spreads the contributions out a little more evenly, so you can more often land on talk pages where an extra opinion may be sorely needed to break a deadlock, provide a third option not previously considered, or just give a new perspective. However, even you end up completely self-selecting for most of your RfC contributions, you will still be exposed to a large variety of policy and content issues and get great exposure to the consensus-making process. In my opinion, it's really one of the best ways to become a well-rounded contributor. Just don't be afraid to pass on a given discussion, or make very limited (or even noncommittal) remarks if you are not entirely sure what the right call is, especially in the early going.As to the harassment, I can understand your concerns, but my experience has been that the overwhelming majority of people you interact with will be genial and respectful. Yes, harrassment does happen from time to time, unfortunately, but if you stay calm in the face of needless antagonism, you can easily the vast majority of even what the most negative personalities can throw at you relatively unaffected. Cases of things like offline stalking are exceedingly uncommon, but I do recommend creating something of a firewall between your off-project identity and your work here: even aside from the benefits to your privacy and sense of security if those are serious concerns for you, my personal editorial philosophy is that the more you can divorce yourself from the normal demographics and group-affiliations which dominate so much of the rest of you world and our places within it, the easier it is to put yourself in a headspace of foregrounding our consensus policies and staying agnostic/neutral with regard to various content issues while doing so.Not everyone agrees and many see an enhanced value in their time in this community by disclosing much more information about themselves here, but I recommend you at least get the lay of the land here before you make a decision to reveal a lot of personal info. This is one of the largest, most highly visible and heavily archives sites on the internet, afterall, and it's exceedingly difficult to completely claw back information once you reveal it here. And there may be times that you find yourself agreeing that certain content should (or should not) be added to an article, based on a policy/consensus decision, even though you find that information personally objectionable (or valid). People outside the project might not always appreciate the nuance of such decisions.As a previous lurker, you are probably already well aware of WP:Teahouse and our WP:Help resources, but I thought I would point them out to you anyway, just in case. You might also consider lurking for a while at The Village Pump to keep abreast of new policy discussions and developments and get even more refined perspectives on issues of broad policy and consensus. And, of course, I hope it goes without saying that you are always free to stop in here and ask a question if you think I may have a helpful perspective. My user page covers the major areas of my content contributions, but in terms of community and process, I've tried to spread my efforts around a bit over my time here, and if I can help, I will. :) SnowRise let's rap 13:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Today I have three "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, like 22 July but with interview and the music to be played today -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
Has anyone ever taken you up on the rap battle offer? And how do you know so much about cults? Also the image on the bottom right of your userpage, Speech1.jpg, disappeared. Polygnotus (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Polygnotus, sorry for the slow reply; it's been quite a couple of days. :) As to the rap battles: just once, so far! Regarding my knowledge of cults, I don't think I can point to any one source--though if I did, it might very well be en.Wikipedia RfCs and articles I became aware of through ANI. But really it's just an amalgamation I've developed from psychological research, news media, and Wikipedia: very little of my knowledge of how they operate is from first hand experience, despite the fact that I have from time to time lived near the epicenter of some of the larger such organizations.
And yeah, poor speech1.jpg...I went to Commons to inquire about it, and apparently a volunteer there nominated it for deletion on the presumption that it's license was invalid. Their explanation for why seemed to involve some guess work, but when it comes to Commons, I am highly inclined to defer to the judgment of the regulars, since my experience there is limited. It is a shame though, because I carefully curated those images to balance along certain criteria, and for each one to represent multiple of the areas of interest referenced in my contribution areas list, and that one was good for both phonology/linguistics in general, as well as the high importance of discussion and consensus building on project (it was just a close-up image of a woman lips as she seemed to speak something softly). Oh well: I'll find something else that suits eventually: for the moment I left the file link in to remind me to do it sooner rather than later. SnowRise let's rap 09:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ICOC
I understand and accept the direction given over at the ICOC Talk page to focus on the content rather than behaviour, I was just galled at CL’s claim of innocence after all that he subjected myself and others to around the COI issues!
Having said that and turning to the content there have 63 edits made by TP and CL over a 4 day period, and like you mentioned it is almost impossible to keep up. At a high level they seem reasonably sourced, although heavily biased to the negative and not exclusively, but dominantly focused, on a select time period in the 1990’s. I tried to look at a few of the sources provided, the first one was a Proquest source I could not view because it was behind a paywall the second one was inserted into the article as:
“A 1999 study found that a substantial MAJORITY of former ICOC members included in the study "reached clinically significant levels of psychological distress, depression, dissociation, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms". Two-thirds of them had sought psychotherapy after leaving the church.[90](I don’t know how to find the diff of this exact edit amongst the 63)
However on going and reading the source it says this: “a substantial MINORITY of former ICOC members included in the study "reached clinically significant levels of psychological distress, depression, dissociation, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms". Two-thirds of them had sought psychotherapy after leaving the church.”
This is an egregious misrepresentation of a source!! I don’t want to escalate the conflict between myself and CL, but this is unacceptable! (I see another editor picked up this misrepresentation) So, in trying to find a reasonable solution moving forward, can I request a Rollback to the 10th of September and ask that each of these numerous edits goes through a proper vetting process on the Talk page to decide the proper WEIGHT and ACCURACY before they are added. This TAGTEAM editing is subverting the consensus building process by the sheer overwhelming volume of edits. Also, between the two of them they have now authored nearly 40% of the ICOC pages content. [Authorship] Given TP and CL’s clear dislike of the church this is not right. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jamie, apologies for not responding to this just yet: I have been slammed with obligations the last few days and the handful of moments I've found for the project in the last 24 hours have gone towards a few other issues, including on the ICoC talk page. Unfortunately I am off to something essential just now, but I promise I will do my best to respond in detail at some point this coming evening. SnowRise let's rap 10:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👍 JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jamie, let me apologize again for the delay in response. I know it must have felt like I was ignoring you, but the truth is, I have given a lot of thought to the multiple issues raised by your post, and needed to take some time to consider my response. I'm going to break this down into the component issues:
First, I can understand your frustration over the COI issue. Obviously from my statement at ANI and COIN, I don't think that CL and TPs take on the issue was in accordance with policy, and that's why I and others made such a strong stand on the issue. At the same time, that matter has been resolved, and as positively as could have been for you and the others accused of actionable COI because of your religious beliefs. But at the same time, I just don't think the community is likely to find that there was bad faith or abuse of process in the approach of TP or CL. There was a moment where I worried things might head in that direction, but eventually both of them took the community message to heart and have not pressed that angle further. So while I understand why you remain somewhat prejudiced in your view of them as a result of that hullabaloo, my strong advice is that holding on to it will do you no productive good.
Likewise, I also see some justification in your feelings that the pace of editing on the article itself could be slowed a bit, but it's once again a case where I think an argument of outright disruption is going to be hard to make. There's no speed limit, as such, on Wikipedia, and if there were, I think I can say with confidence that it would be quite a bit higher than 63 edits over a few days, even for lower traffic articles. Further, TP and CL have engaged in discussion where challenged. And I don't have the authority to enforce a roll-back to a specific date. Now, one could politely ask them both to slow their pace a little and voluntarily agree for major new additions or deletions to first be vetted on the talk page, as a very short-term matter. If you wish, I will ping them here and make that appeal myself. I wouldn't say it's the worst idea in the world, given there is a lot of controversy over particular facts and labels, but it's very atypical and they would be completely free to reject that request.
Regarding that majority/minority error: that's clearly an issue (although an honest mistake, I presume) and should be addressed asap. If you raise it on the talk page, I will support a change and even point out that this may be an indication that things are moving too fast.
Unfortunately, regarding TP and CL's apparent suspicion and dislike of the church, I would guess that they would both say either that a) they don't really have a distaste for it, but have grown to have an expectation that issues will arise where the members of the church are involved in the article, or b) that their personal feelings are irrelevant, so long as they are following process and policy appropriately. As to the first, the only thing that can be done at this point is to ask them to try to keep an open mind. And as for the second, they would be right. Any criticism of their approach has to be rooted in conduct and their editorial calls. They are free to edit the article regardless of whether they may have a very low impression of the church, just as you are free to edit it despite having a high enough impression of it that you are religiously associated with it. (I think you are, anyway? In any event, you don't have to say unless you want to).
Lastly, I want to get into some issues that I am considering tactfully suggesting on the talk page: some issues I have noted with the article since I was pinged there last week. And it may allow me to explain some things about Wikipedia editing and some unfortunate availability biases in sourcing that I think are making things difficult for you and other editors who want a less hard-edged approach to the one of the article:
First off, I think we need a section on the ICC in the article. While the two churches are under different leadership, it is clear that at least some sources conflate them. And indeed, because of cross-over between beliefs, practices, and presumably people who have moved between the two churches as co-branches of one lineage deriving from the Churches of Christ, its hard to say that it would be wrong if someone openly considered the two churches to be essentially entangled. That doesn't seem to be the case with what was going on with that Herald article: there it seems the author was simply unaware of the distinction between the ICoC and ICC as two assemblies of congregations. But the fact that of the matter is, there's a shared and complicated history here, and the article could do a much better job of outlining it. That info could be in its own article (WP:Notability is probably established I think) or the McKean article, but I think it probably makes most sense to have a subsection in the ICoC article. I think its possible I will be in the minority on that call though and that (for different reasons) both your camp and TP/CL's may be opposed to that solution.
There's something else I want to say here that I think may both clarify something for you and also frustrate you. And on the way to explaining the issue, I'll share some speculation on matters that I wouldn't advocate for putting in the article, because to do so would rely too heavily on WP:SYNTH. Nevertheless, it involves some context which is probably worth being aware of. So, to wit: It may very well be that the ICoC has drastically altered it's internal culture and practices from the days when it first accrued it's current representation in the reliable sources we have to work with. It's hard for me to have a very strong opinion on that subject, insofar as I had never heard of the ICoC before the editors of the ICoC article landed at ANI a few weeks back. But I will say this: it's not exactly the most paradigmatic thing for a "cult" to toss its founding central figure out on his ear because the rank and file members of the organization felt that the expansion of numbers was being prioritized over the quality of the spiritual message. So that there does make me wonder if there was a genuine reform movement within the church initiated on principle, which may have led to substantial changes in the time since. Similarly, the fact that the Herald piece seems to have possibly been discussing an ICC student group (rather than an ICoC group) makes me wonder if maybe the most problematic and attention-grabbing recruiting practices for both groups (the ICoC previously and the ICC presently) are inter-mingled with McKean's leadership. Now that's not something that I can feel confident about with my little insight into the group and it's history, and therefore way, way outside anything I can urge being included in the article. But I wanted you to know that this possibility is something I have considered from what I have learned.But here's the part you aren't going to like: even if that is actually the truth of the matter, there's a real possibility you won't get even a small fraction of that narrative into the article any time soon. Because here's the tough part: if a religious group adopts controversial and "cult-like" practices, it's only a matter of time before some WP:RS cover those activities and propensities. But if that same group effectuates even one of the most remarkable reform movements of any such group, that's just probably not going to be covered to the same extent by WP:RS. "Church adopts more conventional Christian qualities with regard to proselytizing" is not a headline that is going to be as tempting to news organizations as "Christian youth group targets vulnerable juveniles on college campuses, imposes strict controls on lifestyle and relationships". Likewise, sociologists and religious and "cult" "experts" aren't going to be as interested in a movement becoming more mainstream. So the simple fact of the matter is, once a religious movement has a certain reputation for questionable recruiting practices or atypical and onerous control of the behaviour of their faithful, that can reputation can be hard to shake thereafter. In general, and with particular relevance to how we construct Wikipedia articles. Because if there was a successful reform movement, but it wasn't well covered in RS...not only are you going to have a hard time convincing many of the editors working on that article (and I must admit, our new religious movement articles do tend to attract sometimes over-zealous editors who over-correct in trying to keep out too much influence from the members of the groups themselves), but even if you do convince them, everyone's hands may be tied by the lack of WP:verification of a change in the groups character.
So, I know you can't be jumping for joy about that last bit in particular, but I wanted to be on the level with you about the uphill task you are facing here, and why you're probably going to have to pick your battles here. All of that said (and I know it's a mouthful, but after your wait I figured you deserved a fulsome response), don't give up on the process. I do think that there are still issues with the tone of the article that can be improved upon. And I'm hopeful that the recent pinging of a number of veteran editors to the talk page may bear fruit in that regard. I'm very familiar with almost every name that was included in that list, and they are all old and steady hands, policy wise and I think their influence can be expected to slowly change the article, at least a bit. And I'm not saying that TP and CL are acting in bad faith or disruptively, but they are kind of at one extreme with regard to how to present the ICoC and I think they will probably have to accede to some changes in the tone of the article that you will probably appreciate. So let's give that process a little time to work itself through. Thanks for your patience in waiting for a response and your tenacity in reading through it. ;) I'm here for further discussion if you wish. Just bear with me on responses, because I have a lot going on, off-project. SnowRise let's rap 04:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snowrise, thank you for your well reasoned response. It was worth the wait.
I find myself agreeing with everything you say and understand your thoughts on each point. I am also very happy with all the new editors being drawn to the page as it can only bring a more balanced perspective.
I am wanting to believe that CL’s inversion of “minority“ to “majority” was an honest mistake, but I am struggling to trust that. After that flood of edits following the failed ANI attempt, we now have a total of 68 words in the article that are highly negative. The word “cult” alone is used 19 times. 3x’s in the LEAD. After this was highlighted in the recent Rfc, CL said “yes the lead needs a complete rewrite”, yet he is the primary author of that section. That type of faux innocence is simply staggering!!
Couple that to the feeling that myself, and no doubt other editors have felt, of being intimidated, (dragged before the COIN 3x’s, then the ANI, and one new editor being outright banned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snow_Rise/User_talk:Editaddict] for unknowingly crossing the 3RR) and one has the sense that Wikipedia is condoning an Admin who uses WP:INTIMIDATION and WP:TAGTEAM tactics to make sure his POV is pushed through. (Even ignoring the WP:WIKIHOUNDING by his sidekick over at my talk page).
Moving on to the content related things. I appreciate you are busy and am very grateful at the time you have given already, but if you could take a look at Talk:International Churches of Christ#NPOV and give some direction as how to bring more balance to the page. (I have not been able to look at the progress in the last few days, as I am traveling and away from any kind of reliable internet connectivity) but there must be a way to address the WP:UNDUE weight given to the criticism.
Finally, you are 100% correct that one challenge we are facing is newspapers don’t sell if the stories are ‘run of the mill’, sensationalism sells. And there are people that make a good living capitalizing on peoples fears [deprogramming]. So the best source I have been able to find on the reforms is this [1]
Anyway, thanks for helping restore my faith in Wikipedia, the community and its processes. . JamieBrown2011 (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Good. They have been getting a free ride for far too long. You eat one lawyer in a Spielberg movie and suddenly you're the golden child. But I'm on to them: they are totally cold blooded and I'm pretty sure they see you even when you're not moving, so add gaslighting into the mix too. SnowRise let's rap 00:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Jay Leno pointed out, that scene was totally unbelievable. A dinosaur would never eat a lawyer -- too greasy. EEng 00:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's a reliable joke to have that guy eaten (if a bit of a case of low-hanging fruit). But also...I think that guy is the only person in the entire movie who said a single thing that made any kind of sense? Because, speaking of un-aliving one's self, no one on that island seems to have had a minimum level of competency for keeping themselves (or their grandchildren) from being eaten. At least the lawyer recognized the liabilities. SnowRise let's rap 01:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thank you for the constructive comments regarding the COI and SPA accusations, and sorry if my contribution to the discussions added to the 'hyperbolic' character of the argument. The Landmark article had been mostly peaceful and stable since the Arbcom case in 2014 (which largely boomeranged onto the detractor who proposed the arbitration) until about a year ago, when all the old disputes re-surfaced. DaveApter (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user is busy with off-project obligations and, with apologies, may not respond to all inquiries quickly at this time. 
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
