User talk:Opabinia regalis/Archive 14

Danke
Variedades de calabaza
	Happy Thanksgiving; with a variety of "pumpkins"; in the Real Jardín Botánico de Madrid;

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

→

Infobox ARCA

Re: "But things do seem to have settled down quite a bit in this area since the original filing. There have also been several recent retirements and it doesn't seem right to hold a case so soon afterwards. I think we should hold off for now but be prepared to accept a new case expeditiously if this resurfaces again." – Things usually settle down a bit temporarily when RFARB or ARCA has been invoked and fingers mutually pointed; that doesn't mean anything has been resolved or that the problems will not resume shortly. We know they will (this has been going on for years, and the earlier infobox ArbCom requests did not even involve many if any of the same parties), so why wait? And it hasn't really settled down at all. The present situation is that the battleground has reached the ultimate level: "I get my way or I go on editorial strike and malign my opponents until I get locked out anyway."

When those professing to quit the project over this and related matters are among the parties (and were ramping up not toning down their incivility levels, such that Cassianto was taken to ANI yet again for it the other day, and SchroCat was blocked for it, then both made a big show of quitting together and blaming MoS people for it, despite infoboxes not even being an MoS matter), it doesn't really compute, to me, to set the ARCA request aside out of deference to them. That's simply allowing process to be held hostage by the parties' own drama and behaviors that are, in substantial but not entire part, the subject of the request. Imagine if all civil law cases would be thrown out as long as any party to them threatened to leave the country, and made various extraneous accusations on their way to the airport. "A threat to quit confers immunity" is the message this will send, about ArbCom in general.

Since we know this isn't really about the exact personalities who are parties at this moment, but about a) infoboxes in particular (which limits the scope and applicability of any remedies sharply to one particular sort of tiresome controversy) and b) the broader issue of conflicting perceptions of a "right" to completely control an article an editor or group of editors feels proprietary toward vs. a "right" to standardize article features despite article- or topic-specific objections (these are the two extreme positions, with most parties actually being somewhere between them), the recent departures, while unfortunate, don't really have much to do with what ArbCom is being asked to help with. We genuinely need a way to rapidly shut down "infobox wars" before they get out of hand – hopefully with means that, once deployed a few times as short-term measures, will help prevent the battlegrounding from recurring. Generally, the only areas that see discretionary sanctions used again and again are socio-religio-political topics that attract fanatics and sockpuppets. It just doesn't happen with internal matters (see, e.g., how infrequently DS have been used with regard to the closely related WP:ARBATC); in order to know enough WP-internal process to get inflamed about an WP-internal formatting matter one pretty much automatically also becomes aware of the DS; by contrast, anyone's first edit can be a PoV-pushing, trolling rant about [insert ethnicity, religion, or political party here]. Even if DS turn out to not be quite the right remedy, something needs to be done, and it clearly isn't going to come from ANI and other noticeboards.

Much of this is partially the fault of a previous ArbCom. The original ARBINFOBOX case had the unintended but terrible consequence of effectively forcing every addition or removal of an infobox to be repetitively hashed out at each article, resulting predictably in the "not this crap again" frayed tempers, polarization, circular argument, and entrenched battlegrounding. What probably needs to come of this is an instruction for the community to come up with clearer guidance about infoboxes (always include them, get rid of them entirely, or – most likely – come up with guidelines about when and why to have one and, broadly, what it should and should not contain), otherwise this will never end. In the interim, it cannot continue to be okay for pro- or anti-infobox editors to programmatically try to remove or add them to all articles or whole categories, nor for either camp (or anyone in the middle) to use personal attack tactics to smear everyone who disagrees with them (and those are almost entirely coming from one side in the debate). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Although I've sharply disagreed with SMcCandlish on matters in the past, I agree with his assessment here. I think it's short-sighted to punt this (again), and we'll all be back to venues like AN/I next time there's a flare-up. The community has repeatedly shown itself incapable of addressing the so-called "infobox wars". Yes, several of the involved characters recently quit out of disgust with the community's inaction and inability to manage this area of dispute. I don't know if they were right to do so, but it's happened. I view it as ArbCom's primary responsibility to deal with problems of this magnitude. This is not about content—this is about the behavior of editors who push and pull infoboxes. Things have not blown over. On the contrary, most of us who have witnessed this war are trying to chill while ArbCom decides what it wants to do. Deciding "nothing" is not a very healthy result. Just a few days ago, Gerda Arendt added an infobox to an article which I single-handedly authored and clearly made an editorial choice not to have an infobox. Despite her statement to ArbCom that we "respect preferences", there it is. Is it deliberate needling? I'm choosing to take the high road, but not everyone has been so-inclined. --Laser brain (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, what they both said. This isn't a style issue, this is a behavioural issue. Disregard the word "infobox" and consider how we would approach an group of editors who insisted that "British English is clearly the only correct form of English since the language originated in England" and spent five years "correcting" American spellings and harassing anyone who tried to point out WP:CITEVAR, or a group of editors who couldn't agree on whether the lead image on New York City should be the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building and instead of discussing it to agree on a "let's have a montage" compromise spent the better part of a decade reverting each other and trying to bait each other into breaching 3RR so they could have a free run at setting the article into their preferred format. ‑ Iridescent 15:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I added an infobox to a Donizetti opera, as to many others by the same composer before, and as Viva-Verdi did to all by Verdi. All you need to do if you don't like it is revert, - I will not even go to the talk page (waste of time). It has been done for Die Fledermaus, for example. But see also Talk:Le duc d'Albe#Infobox, and the project talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow, I voted to decline a case and people object? Is it opposite day? ;)

I think there's a few important points here. Because this is such a recurring issue, it's important that anything that happens have as much community-perceived legitimacy as possible. With the current setup it's just too easy for the outcome to be dismissed as "oh, as soon as Joe Bloggs left arbcom started a case that nobody even asked for...". It's not that retiring gets you immunity; it's really the other way around - we want people to be active and participating.

I'm sure you're all right and the issue will come up again, but I think "expeditiously accept a case" is a hint, no? :) We had an ARCA a few months ago, I recommended there that someone re-file with an explicit request for DS, and no one did. Then we had the current one, which again started out about a somewhat peripheral issue and got a lot of pile-on commentary about infoboxes in general in a place that really isn't set up for that. I hope that next time there's a serious problem, someone files a well-constructed case and we can sort through the evidence carefully, in a format that encourages more facts and less soapboxing. Also, I'll be going inactive for a bit due to a work trip in a couple of weeks, may I recommend you file it then? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I have a better idea: no next time. We can start today. I said so in the first case. - I invite you (all) to study its workshop page: many good ideas there which unfortunately were not followed. (It was my first case ever, I didn't yet know what "motion" means, so placed one there to have a short infobox for Giuseppe Verdi. We have it now.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Opposite day, ha ha! :-) If you're going to be too busy to participate anyway, could you change your opposition to an abstention? I find it hard to imagine what different issues would be raised, among which different parties, if a third ARCA (or second RFARB) about the same issue were filed in short order. As you pointed out yourself, the first recent ARCA ended with a suggestion that there should be a second one, specifically asking for DS, and we now have that (though maybe it's only the bulk of the respondents asking for DS, not the original filer, I forget). Why would we need a third one that says the same thing? I agree of course that editors departing is a bad thing and that we want to retain them. The problem here is that more bad blood is going to hemorrhage all over the place if the battleground nature of this infobox crap isn't reined in, and that probably means more departures (and probably mostly from the range of editors who tend to lean against infoboxes, which suggests a form of fait accompli could happen, through the argumentum ad infinitum effect wearing people out, in a pattern that ArbCom itself set in motion). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

SMC, I was joking about how unpleasant arbitrating an infobox case is likely to be :) I really am traveling in a couple of weeks, but I can keep up with wiki-reading.

As for DS, nobody chose to file an ARCA with an actual plan. A lot of people jumped into requests about peripheral issues to recommend DS, but as you saw in my vote, we tried to work out a system that would actually target the problem areas without spilling over into unrelated issues and haven't come up with something that looks likely to work. We need a structured, evidence-based inquiry first - preferably originating in a request from the community, not a motion by arbcom.

Gerda, as much as I don't want one, I'd be pretty surprised if this didn't come back as a case sooner or later. One thing to try is to rethink "all you need to do is revert" - that works fine for articles that have grown up in the usual agglomerative Wikipedia way, but when it's clear someone has made a lot of editorial investment and there's still no infobox, it's probably better to leave it alone, even if it introduces inconsistency with other related articles. Even if an infobox would help orient readers, the editorial improvements also obviously benefit them; it's a rare case where a mediocre article with an infobox is better than a well-developed article without one. On the other hand, it would really help if people who make "editorial choices" not to use infoboxes would do some more thinking about how they are going to serve their less prose-oriented readers - people who are just skimming, who aren't sure this article is the one they're looking for, who don't read English well, who are reading on their phones, who are trying to reuse our content, etc. While I don't mean anyone in this thread, I've noticed that a lot of the rhetoric around infoboxes carries the tone that these readers are not worth making an effort to reach, and that's not a sustainable approach. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree especially with your last comment, reminding me of one of my recent confessions. Re revert: I have little time these days, but still try to create one infobox a day for opera, where they are available per project guidelines. So one day I came across the Donizetti work mentioned by Laser brain above. I always look up authors for French opera, and didn't change several of those because of author names I know as infobox dislikers. However, I had already added so many Donizettis without problems that I confess I didn't look. Even if I had looked, I would not have known that someone made an editorial choice not to have an infobox. Many of these articles don't have one because they were written before 2013 when the template became available. No hidden message said: "I, the principal author of this article, made a choice ...", or in other words, - something that might really be helpful to avoid problems. (I added a hidden notice to Beethoven.) I use the edit summary "try infobox", - reverting is short, and I will take it. An author could, however, also realize that the infobox is the better choice for the reader (see Falstaff), because its alternative, a side navbox of other operas by the same composer, is redundant to the bottom of the article, the more common position for such a thing. Laser brain didn't revert ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, you know the problems with hidden text.... Yes, I agree that lack of a way to signal "this was on purpose" is part of the problem. And for all the apparent issues with "drive-by editors" (possibly also readers?) adding undesired infoboxes, I'm not sure I've ever seen a drive-by infobox removal by a previously uninvolved editor on the grounds that it is misleading/lacks nuance/looks bloated/etc. And I've never quite understood why categories, which are at least as reductive and even more cluttered-looking, and which are rarely used as navigational elements, don't get anywhere near as much hate on an article-by-article basis. Just because they're at the bottom and no one looks there? Would it be OK to make an "editorial choice" not to include, say, a portal link, and to revert attempts to add one? Section headers? Wikilinks? The more I think about this, the less sure I am that we as a community really have a solid common understanding of what the basic building blocks of an article are. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox removals don't come with edit summaries "bloated/...". The come with "not needed" (as in the case above, as if anything we do here was needed) or "condensed" (and that cleverly not even a complete removal, only almost complete) on the article I was just pointed at by the ARCA, but probably held responsible for all misery dating from before I even entered Wikipedia although I never made one edit ;) - I found a very quotable edit in the 2012 discussion. Still miss the editor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to interrupt your abstinence ;) But I mean removals by "drive-by" editors - people who are just gnoming around, or happen to be reading the article - in parallel to the oft-complained-about "drive-by" infobox additions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Both cases fit that description. Well, the one mentioned above: some edits were made before the revert ;) - I am way too happy after a most interesting concert where I sang only a little but had had the idea (see my talk, look for Frank Stähle, the thread, I mean, + I will post the details on top), - too happy to deal with these minor unimportant annoyances ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, I am quite taken aback, but not surprised by your selective memory and mis-characterisation. Re bloated, I would like Opabinia regalis to take into account the rational provided here - the article you were "just pointed at by the ARCA" has been circled for weeks, and recently capitulated, under protest, given that gang's onslaught (see later connected tactics below). Read Targeted, and what else was her mdf about "article improvement" page[1] about except about coordination for those watchlisting. For those how know their history, this is how this team of about (now) four people works, and note the long term attrition on the other side.[2], more thoughts on blind ears. "Wear people down" is the key point here, discussed in dept. I notice Rexx, not noted for his love of early modernist poetry, was attending also.[3]; not to mind his new found love for categorising Jane Austin as romantic fiction and promoting incompetence if it suites the cause, with bullying, intimidation and playing on insecurities as part of the game, if it suites the cause.[4]

Its probably worth mentioning that recent tactics have involved emailing spouses and outing - which might be difficult to reconcile with trying to sway and influencing others, as seen here. A careless mistake, though not credible, is preferable to a lie. And that is what we are up against. This is not about infoboxes, its about primarly about reductive summaries. But also in scope its a machinelike desire to mow down editors, in the long term, so machines can resduce articles to two or three facts. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Opabinia - I'd like to share a story with you and your page watchers. A few days ago I went to my local library to pick up some books I'd ordered to work on Jane Austen and while I was there I took a walk through the stacks. To my astonishment the stacks were almost 80% empty. I haven't been there as frequently as in the past because I had a lengthy illness during the winter and apparently during that period they decided they didn't need book any more. I asked about it: "Where are the books?" I wanted to know. The answer was that everybody now goes to the web for information and books no longer circulate. They have plans to dismantle the stacks. As a long-time and very serious lover of books I was horrified.

The reason I'm telling you this, is because we (the collective we as in Wikipedians, past and present), bear a great responsibility, imo. We bear a responsibility to get things right. I'm a bit of stickler for that, and I prefer to verify information in a scholarly book, but this editor won't be able to in the future - not without shelling out money for which the WMF would never reimburse me. It's the burden of the responsibility that worries me.

Which brings me to my point. All editors are the constituents of the arbitration committee and I don't think it's appropriate to have this conversation here. The tone in the first comment is very disparaging to people like me. To keep editors who care about building content, in other words who care about the burden placed on us for getting it right, it's best that we don't feel intimidated.

I'm happy to debate the pros and cons of infoboxes and why they don't always work – in a relaxed manner. To go on a tangent - yesterday I read an article explaining that the literature of the late 18th century and early 19th century in England was difficult to categorize because much of it was written by women and ended up being called "romantic" - this is a gross over-simplification - and that women, often being outside of society (so to speak) do often set trends. That to me is interesting. How to put it in a single word in a genre parameter poses a challenge. I could discuss it ad nauseam.

What isn't good is to see that apparently decisions have been made, i.e you noted that there's no reason for a case because of recent retirements (suggesting one or more of the retirees would have been a party). What isn't good is that people like me feel intimidated. What isn't good is to see that Ceoil is clearly upset - he never makes long posts, kept well away from the infobox case and rarely resorts to diffs. What isn't good is that when he tried (quite inelegantly) to remove material from an attack page an email was sent to his wife not to him. No post to his page. An email sent to his wife as if he'd been naughty and she should rein his him. What isn't good is that on this page you're having a discussion with the person who sent the email and the person who could well end up a party if there is a case (you're an intelligent woman and don't need me to spell out why). What isn't good is that a user has to make a post like this, and this happens with zero accountability (and, yes, I saw).

These are behavioral issues. They've been going on a long time and no one has done anything. In my view, the committee's remit is to nip behavioral issues in the bud so that people like me (who cares about content and now according to my librarian am responsible for the sum of all knowledge and getting it right) can carry on doing what we do best. That hasn't been happening. We've lost interest which is not good for the project.

It's your page, but I think this thread is counterproductive. You can skip all the long-winded stuff above and simply read this. It's only part that counts. Thanks for indulging me. Victoria (tk) 16:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I promise that I will never again email a wife that I am concerned about her husband making 4 reverts, concerned because of HIM, one sentence. It had nothing to do with the kind of page reverted, nothing with other editors, nothing with infoboxes. I am worried about an(y) editor making four reverts, period. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, this thread sure did grow since last I looked. Except for arb stuff, I haven't been on-wiki much for the last few days due to real-life work, so I was unaware of this email business till now. For obvious reasons, I'm not commenting further on it here, except to say it's always best to speak with people directly if you're concerned about something they're doing, to be cautious about personal information others have shared privately, and to give people some space when they're upset.

Now, people who want to talk are welcome on my talk page, and in general it's a good idea to do so in a (usually!) low-drama venue without the pressure of ongoing formal proceedings. But this is not ARCA 2.0, it's not a good place for pursuing interpersonal disputes or making accusations of misconduct, and if you want to do those things, the community has been invited to file a case request for matters surrounding infoboxes if anyone feels inspired.

To Victoria, you mentioned a long illness and I do hope you're feeling better. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleting a template

Question for you: our old pal {{Doctor Who episode list}} is still slated for deletion, but as I was seeing where it was transcluded I found that it isn't actually being transcluded in the article space. Would it be unreasonable, therefore, to simply comment out the existing usage and delete the template? Primefac (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: Wow, that's some backlog! Sounds fine; none of those sandboxes seem to be actively in use. On the other hand, if anyone does want to keep it for testing or whatever, accessibility problems in userspace sandboxes aren't really a big deal and it could just be userfied. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱

Meow. Meow. Meow. Meow. Meow. Meow. Meow. Meooooooow!!!

Create my damn userpages! "Title blacklist"? Did you let the dog take a shit on the servers? 🐱 (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Lol. @Oshwah:, the kitty emoticon account is mine; I created it as a test when I read this thread. I made its userpages and everything! I probably should've labeled it as an alt before the lame poop/litterbox joke, though :)

@Oshwah: Fix ping. Sigh, I'm bad at socking. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Unblocked. Sorry, thought it was another LTA.... *Sigh*.... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You vandalwhackers are very efficient! Note to self, don't make silly joke edits after you've eaten your weight in candy... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Asian Women Month

Hi there! As you may know, this November is Asian Women Month, hosted by Wikipedia Asian Month and WikiWomen In Red. Our goal is to encourage coverage of Asian women in order to help overcome the Asian content gender gap. Asian Women Month observes the rules of Wikipedia Asian Month. You will receive a special Asian Women Month barnstar if you create four articles in accordance with the rules for the event, as well as a postcard sent from an Asian community! Thanks for your consideration. Read more here! -Rimmel.Edits Talk 01:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

New protein structure image

Hi, I was recently inspired by the classic File:1axc tricolor.png image to user PCNA as an example for an updated, interactive summary diagram for w:Protein structure. All the best, T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Great job, this is fantastic! The clickable links are a great idea. An excellent choice of example protein, too ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Blanking User:Technophant

Why did you blank User:Technophant and its talk page?

-- PBS (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

PS. isn't happy Halloween an oxymoron? Happy All Souls' Day day yes, but to an Irish woman, from the west coast of Ireland, who I know well, Halloween is the embodiment of Samhain. Those scary faces on the pumpkins are to trick and frighten the furies, while ghosts of the family will not be tricked and frightened away (so all windows next to doors into the house get a scary face not just those facing the street). If you go out (and that is a silly thing want to do!) then a disguise is beset worn to confuse the bad spirits that are out to harm you. There are other parts of that tradition to do with what and when she eats, but I can't remember what they are and will have to ask her. She is a well educated woman, and does not take it too seriously, but like not walking under a ladder, they are superstitions more comfortably observed than not (unless there are good reasons not to). Luckily for her although still not the norm, using the American traditions of Halloween in London is not so unusual that her more serious use of them provokes comments from her non Irish neighbours.

-- PBS (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Because of something that came up on the arbcom list. Just blanked, not deleted.

Hey, how happy does that cat look? ;) That reminds me; time for a new talk-page cat. Is it too early for a Christmas kitty? Old-school Halloween must have freaked kids out. We do Día de Muertos here too, but in the Americanized form of "mostly just an excuse to make sugar skulls". Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

no kitten?

Lovely! helps my cough (of three weeks, and doctor said to be patient)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That's strange Gerda, coughs are everywhere in Manchester right now, and I assume you are not here! There has been a cacophony of coughs every time I have been into the library over the last few days. Cold weather and rain finally here with a vengeance, presumably just to spite the post-Olympics parade -- what a silly place to hold it! MPS1992 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Picked up mine in Bratislava, where the weather was all pleasant. I still managed to sing 3 Oct without problems, and 5 Oct with only minor coughing, but from then on ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Cold much better, Halloween over (a tricky day for me, two dear people left that day, 2010 and 2012 and unforgotten), but for better news: a picture I took is on the main page! Meant to write that article in 2010, - now finally ... - They introduced me to Barber's Agnus Dei which I quoted respectfully on one of the many departures. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Glad you're feeling better finally! Very nice picture. Good thing we seem to have made it through without anyone turning into a ghost... Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I kept the image (on my talk), to list the dead of the year and the articles written in their memory: only a selection, and still too many. I met all but (the last) two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've always liked your idea of articles as memorials. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

No memorial today. On 25 October I discovered - somewhat ashamed - that this year's recipient of the German peace prize had no article in English, so changed that: Carolin Emcke! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Excellent work! We do have so many embarrassing gaps... Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Today I'm all excited about singing (in one of five choirs) in the premiere of Peter Reulein's Laudato si‘, - the standing is harder than the singing, - yesterday rehearsal went from 2 to 7, won't be much different today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

... but the result pleased everyone! Standing ovation and encore, with African percussion ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

AC matter

I wish to write to you and every member of the Arbitration Committee. There is no mechanism to do so other than a formal complaint against a specific member or group of members. Please do not be bureaucratic and send me on a path of red tape. I will merely inform you and hope you have the ethics to try to resolve this matter.

The complaint is against certain groups of Wikipedians who do not keep the best interest of Wikipedia in mind but pursue political agendas.

A few weeks ago, I saw an article "Malia Obama (celebrity)". This was a reasonably written but still young article. However, it was deleted using false pretenses as an "attack piece". The problem is the President of the United States wanted to shield his daughters from the media but that is not a reason not to have an article. Evidence that there is wrong doing is deletion of this article as an "attack piece" and banning the editor permanently.

Please discuss it among the committee to stop this kind of Wikipedia manipulation. At the very least, the article should be restored, editor unblocked, and then someone can go through the regular deletion nomination. However, it is ludicrous that Malia Obama is deemed an attack piece or not notable. Another note is she is no longer a minor, one excuse used years ago for deletion.

Please find it in your heart to do the right thing. By bringing this up with you, it is very risky that I will be blocked indefinitely on some flimsy excuse but it is important that we keep Wikipedia (or try to keep it) a neutral and un-manipulated website.

Afghandeaths (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

This is being discussed on my talk page. Fences&Windows 18:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I have the best talk page stalkers. Tremendous. Many people are saying....

Hey talk page stalkers! While you're waiting to see the results of that other election, maybe you want to think about running for arbcom? Recruitment slogan: "It's (mostly) not as bad as you think!" ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

OK guys. On the one hand, a lot of us now have a whole lot more to worry about than Wikipedia. On the other hand, the importance of maintaining a freely available resource for reliable information about science just skyrocketed. And so did the importance of making sure a diverse group of volunteers can be safe from harassment and abuse while contributing to that project. If you have the time to be productive and effective in that role, get your candidate page posted.

And anyway, if you're thinking "oh, I probably wouldn't get elected", obviously nobody is any good at predicting that sort of thing. Even if the result is that my kitty 🐱 and Willy on Wheels get arbcom seats, it'll be one of the less weird results of an election this year. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, how did you create an emoji username?

Hello. I just loved the kitten username. How can I create one? I don't know how to check the override anti-spoofing box (where is this box?). Thanks. Lourdes 15:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

(tpw) The 'override-antispoof' permission is only available to admins, bureaucrats and account creators. You being a mere 'registered user' will have to request one at WP:ACC. (good luck with that !) - NQ (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Well, good thing NQ is around, because I hadn't realized the override thing was admin-specific. I created the kitten username as a test due to this thread, and realized after making some edits with that account that you also can't create any pages in your own userspace without admin assistance because of the title blacklist. And even if you post lame jokes in places where you think it will be obvious that it's you, it'll get blocked and reverted anyway! ;) So unfortunately those usernames are not very practical right now, and I haven't had a chance to look at why they're on these blacklists and whether changing that would be useful or would just be a good way to let some vandal loose. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. I've written to the account creating team, with absolutely no response since the past four days. I guess they're stumped too :) Lourdes 02:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Lourdes: Did you send an email to the ACC mailing list or use the interface to request an account? You would need to do the latter for one of us to create an account for you. I haven't seen anything from you on the mailing list; although the list is moderated, so a list admin could have not send it though. We currently have a backlog of 250+ account requests going back to November 4, so it may take some time to get to yours. Feel free to post or email me your request number, so I can take a look at it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

JJMC89 hello, and thanks for your note. I used the interface to request an account. I was also asked to confirm my email address, which I did. Post that, no response. Hope to get a response soon. Thanks. Lourdes 16:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lourdes: That means that no one has gotten to your request in the queue yet. Without a request number, I can only search for requests by username or email address. Since your requested username is an emoji, searching for that is not likely to be successful. I will try to keep an eye out for your request. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lourdes: As the person who started all this with User:🌪, 0/10 would not recommend. As fun as they are, the emoji apparently only display sporadically and in varying forms depending on font used and operating system, and in addition to the issues Opabinia mentioned, they're just more hassle than they're worth. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Ks0stm, JJMC89 thanks for the notes. I have requested the emoji name for the same reason you or Opabinia may have created the same. At the same time, it seems a good option to isolate my automated maintenance awb edits. As of right now, one ACC team member has replied saying that isolating such maintenance edits in a separate username is not allowed per username policy. I have responded to that saying that the ACC team member does not have understanding of the policy, as validalt does allow the same. Let's see how it goes and whether the ACC team replies (again) :) Lourdes 02:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Lourdes, I think the problems may be getting overlooked here. It's one thing for a short-lived joke, but using one for regular mainspace editing is, as we've discovered, a terrible idea. You can't create any page in your own userspace with an emoji name - you'd need an admin to do it. Your username will be difficult to read for some people, which is not good if you're making large volumes of mainspace edits. My account was created by me, never edited mainspace, and still set off people's troll radar. Pick something else for your secondary account, because this is not practical. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I'll not use this as a secondary account. Makes sense per your points. Thanks. Lourdes 09:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Uw-compblock

{{Uw-compblock}} directs editors to email ArbCom for an unblock if their talk page access is revoked. Is this accurate? I recall seeing (ancient?) guidance from ArbCom that administrators are not to instruct editors to email ArbCom about a block unless ArbCom is somehow involved in the block. I was about to make use of the template in blocking an account for an editor who lost their password and was unable to recover it, but I wanted to clear this first. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I'm out of town and don't have much time at the moment, but this particular template seems odd to me because there's not really anything arbcom can do about lost and irrecoverable passwords. If someone in that situation wants to continue editing, they can register a new account and note their previous username - or possibly get a steward or renamer to usurp the old account so they can continue using the same name. If there's suspicion that the account is compromised, it should be blocked, and preferably globally locked by a steward. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. This isn't high-priority, but mind bringing up with ArbCom whether they want that template changed when you have a free two minutes? I assume they would. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Ajraddatz, do the stewards have a handy page somewhere with basic instructions on what to do if your account is compromised? Opabinia regalis (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't unfortunately. That might be a good thing for me to write up and pass by the colleagues; I'll bring it up at our meeting next month. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: Just a bit more food for thought here - I just got back to this after being off-wiki for a while and was intending to rewrite the template. I was reading m:Global locks and if I were an ordinary community member coming to the "reasons to request" section, I would definitely conclude that suspected account compromise without cross-wiki abuse wouldn't qualify, and wouldn't bother making a request. (I'm mentioning this because it also has parallel implications for the still-in-progress desysop motion, which I also haven't caught up on...) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I've rewritten the section to make that more clear. Update: I was chatting with James Alexander at the Foundation today, and we're gonna write a guide on dealing with compromised accounts. Turns out SuSa is also a resource to call in when dealing with them. I'll let you know when we have something read-able. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That would be really useful. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: Well, this just became a lot more relevant! :) If you've got something we can take a look at, even if just a draft, let us know - wrapping up that desysopping procedure stuff in a way that harmonizes with global procedures also now seems more relevant, since not every admin account compromise will be as behaviorally obvious as the recent ones were. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, interesting how that happened. I've written up a basic draft at m:Help:Compromised accounts; it'll probably be different from the final product as James still needs to add his bit to it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Opabinia regalis.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Opabinia regalis. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Opabinia regalis. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, someone said happy holidays

I took a cat pic there also, thinking of you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, what a timely picture! ~~Pumpkins~~ Cucurbits are pretty and all, but by popular demand, we went with sweet potato pie. With a little bourbon in it ;) Happy Thanksgiving to you too! Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Good company, excellent food, at the Frankfurt Palmengarten. Look! And the next edit was not a revert ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Euphemisms for ANI

Having used WP:POPCORN and Wikipedia:Complaints Department, I'm disappointed you didn't spot WP:CESSPIT and Wikipedia:Slough of Despond. See User:Ritchie333/Euphemisms for more (and be quick before they all get sent to RfD....) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie, nothing compares to traditional WP:Great Dismal Swamp (pictured) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I did use the swamp, I think... :) And Wikipedia:Complaints Department is my fault anyway. But now I have an even bigger stockpile! Did you see WP:ARCANE? Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that I talked only to Ritchie on your page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits

You clearly made a change to a policy page clearly based on your assumption of a condition that had not arisen. Your explanation on Kaldari's page is about as credible as a driver who had a crash on an intersection after deliberately jumping a red light assuming that no cars would be coming the other way, and who in his defense says, 'I'm sorry, your honour, I thought it was green'. I seem to recall I supported both your RfA and your bid for Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the support, but I have no idea how that relates, or what your analogy means, or what you're objecting to. I updated some relevant material after learning about the noindex change in this thread the other day, since it'd hadn't been posted anywhere other than phabricator and your project talk as far as I can tell, and that's hardly a public announcement. It seems obvious that the target of the shortcut WP:NOINDEX should have current information about what's not indexed, and that WP:AUTOPATROL should specify what the current effect of patrolling is. I have no particular attachment to the text, if you want to modify it further, or I suppose you could start an RfC if you think it needs more wordsmithing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Overlapping gene page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

no kitten?

Face: waiting for ARCANE (as remembered, thank goodness nothing right now) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Yay! I'm glad you have kept my talk page stocked with kittens. That's an excellent one, I love gray tabbies :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I desperately need to look at some kittens - if I glance at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy again, steam may come out of my ears. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't look even once. Should I? Remembered Floq saying: only go to RfA if your vote makes the difference. I also was told which questions not to ask. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh god no. Unless you want to give yourself a headache. 80% of the oppose section is actively embarrassing to the project. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I struck my oppose vote and ducked out of the whole discussion; I'm worried somebody will write "Oppose - he had an edit reverted once" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose There articles before public-facing, self-nomination about incautious anothers are quite informationed by Godsy's answers self-nomination issue of fightly chide edits above and policy level. I'm often be able in drive trouble indeed some versus the origin of the answers, see in a sandbox.

I trimmed the sigs and put the oppose section through a Markov-chain text generator. Makes about as much sense as any of the real ones. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Open feedback thread

I remember last year DeltaQuad set up a "feedback" section on her talk page for people to offer thoughts about her first year as an arb. I thought that was a good idea, so I'm stealing it ;) While arbcom is on your mind because you're paying attention to the election (aren't you?), go ahead and post opinions about/suggestions for/flames aimed at me in particular here. But if your opinion is "Arbcom is Very Serious Business and your talk page has too many cat pictures", I'm going to post more cat pictures... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose since your candidacy got me paying attention to ArbCom, and now I find myself hanging out with functionaries ~~and writing ACE voter guides~~ (actually, thought better of that one). What the heck happened? You put something in my drink, didn't you! In all seriousness, you're regularly the voice of reason within the craziness. It's entirely appropriate that you illustrated this section with asylum-kitties. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Bwahahaha, we'll have to draft you next year! Actually the latest batch of kitties on this page were contributed by Hillbillyholiday, but it turns out they're a pretty damn good representation of arbcom... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hillbillyholiday has the perfect image when arbcom fails, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Your edit summary "run for arbcom" is dated, bzzt. I would love to elect you (pictured) for more than one seat, and like your motions. Thank goodness, we have also other reasonable candidates to support. From me and my gang (whoever that may be), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I fixed it now! Glad to see we have some good candidates, though 🐱 thinks he ought to be a write-in... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't follow ArbCom very much, so I don't have anything in particular to say about how you're doing there. But I do appreciate your comments whenever they pop up in discussions that I follow or participate in. It's nice to see other people pushing around the "no big deal" ideas, while still maintaining a serious attitude when it's needed. If you ever get bored of ArbCom, there are other areas of the movement that you might find rewarding - especially the other committees (FDC, ElectCom, etc), or some cross-wiki work from Meta. Thanks for everything you do here, and have a good day :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks... I think ;) You know people I know in real life are already making fun of me for voluntarily joining one committee? Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
You actually tell people about wiki stuff? That's your first mistake ;-). Thankfully as a grad student nobody notices if I happen to be on Wikipedia for a few minutes. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I tried to explain arbcom with the Colbert segment ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll need to watch that later. The only thing I can find about stewards is a bit exaggerated I'm afraid. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
You mean you don't run everything? How disappointing! Funny that within the wiki-bubble everyone reacts to "hat collecting" with distaste, but from the outside it looks like Thousands of people around the world actually apply to do more work for free. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Haha, yes it was disappointing to find out. Maybe I applied to the wrong path of free work. To be fair to the bubble, most volunteer organizations have extra roles that people volunteer to be a part of, though we're probably unique in that we actively discourage people from looking like they might want to do that extra work. Imagine if someone at your local animal shelter was not allowed onto the volunteer board because they spent too much time helping the existing board people with their paperwork. Ah well, such is the nature of these projects I guess. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I actually came to your talk because I had lol-ed at your comment at meta in the Community Wishlist Survey, about editors who are paid nuisances versus regular nuisances. So I figured I'd be a nuisance and tell you how funny I found that. But while I'm here, and having seen this section, I'll tell you that I have been very happy with your work, as per your answer to my question about the e-mail workflow. So (aside from your failure to see how awful those paid nuisances are ), I think that you have been a good influence on your fellow Committee members. ~~(But one of your colleagues should really learn that commenting that a woman has "gigantic breasts" is not much of an improvement over saying "gigantic tits". [5] Sheesh!)~~ --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

To put a bit more, um, flesh on those bones, I'd like to add this. Something I've come to consider important is that ArbCom avoid a sort of circle-the-wagons style of responding to concerns expressed by the community. Of course, I get it that ArbCom is often the designated kick-me sign for nuisance editors, and that it's entirely understandable for real human beings to be sensitive to criticism (myself included). But I think that it's an improvement when ArbCom engages openly with community concerns. And I think that ArbCom has been getting better at that during 2016, and I think that you (and DQ) have been providing most of the leadership in that improvement. So that's something specific that I appreciate, and that I would urge continuing with. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a professional nuisance, thankyouverymuch.

Thanks, I'm glad to hear we've managed to sound a bit less like the Borg/the Star Chamber/the architects of forced disappearances/various fascist dictators/etc that we're sometimes accused of being ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Message received ...

... re: the term in question. My point was just to demonstrate that the definition I was using is well known and applicable, but in hindsight I see that wasn't necessary or helpful. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my comment at DF's page

As per your comment, I thought I'd point out that I've negatively interacted with DF before, so a reasonable amlount of monitoring was necessary. I've only watched as the user essentially self-destructed, mainly for the reasons I'd noted in my post: its all about that user constantly seeking to reframe any given argument (even a small, seemingly insignificant one), esp. one in which 'winning' means a toehold into another, larger argument. Her statement was blatantly false; she has self-identified as female, and she was seeking to harangue others for doing so. If you feel my comment there was inappropriate, I respect your sentiment, but to my mind it was a cautionary note. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom should probably get in the habit of using the {{pronoun}} templates, but that's a side issue. It is reasonable for someone to ask that arbcom use their preferred pronouns, regardless of whether or not they've changed preference at some point or have different preferences in different contexts, and unreasonable for uninvolved editors to object to that request. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the good laugh, came at just the right time. And hey, that's great news about adminning--glad to know that C I got in Rocket Surgery won't hold me back if ever I want to stand ;) Innisfree987 (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

C in Rocket Surgery? No problem! Incomplete in Vandalwhacking 101? Sorry, you're hopelessly unqualified ;) 07:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

no kitten?

Aware

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I meant to post a new kitten but you beat me to it! So much the better, you always pick good kittens :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You are being watched by the curious watchful kitteh! Keilana (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Opabinia regalis. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/RNA silencing suppressor p19.
Message added 19:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

It's a beautiful time of the year!

Christmas tree worms live under the sea...they hide in their shells when they see me,
So with camera in hand I captured a few, and decorated them to share with you.
^{Atsme📞📧} 15:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Atsme, I love these critters! Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Opabinia regalis: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, GAB^gab 03:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Thanks GeneralizationsAreBad! Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Opabinia regalis!

Happy New Year!

Opabinia regalis,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Thanks Donner60, happy new year to you too! Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this edit OK?

Hi. See this edit. Some people may claim this is also a not needed edit since modern browsers auto-close the small tags correctly. This is my fear that since people refuse to accept CHECKWIKI as having "larger community consensus" and also refuse to contribute in formulating a list of errors many willing editors are in danger to get blocked. So, the entire thing it's not only about me. This edit was only to demonstrate you the nature of the problem. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to that edit, nor do I think any would based on COSMETICBOT or AWB rule of use #4. If old browsers don't render it properly, it is a necessary change. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

See, you're right when you say that "cosmetic" is in the eye of the beholder('s browser ;) and as far as I personally am concerned, that's not a problem at all; it's a useful edit that corrects a defect, even if one that many people won't see. But here's the problem: in this context, when people are already frustrated, it's not a good idea to look around the edges of what might be acceptable and try to find where the loopholes are. I'd encourage you to stay well clear of these very minor issues and make only edits that unambiguously correct a visible defect in the rendered page as most people will see it. Typo fixes, template errors, that kind of stuff. Of course you're right that "cosmetic edit" is not a well-defined category, but remember that many of the people frustrated with "cosmetic edits" are not primarily technical contributors, and are frustrated because of how these edits intersect with their own workflows - maintaining articles, reverting vandalism, etc. I think you should not expect those people to give you a very specific definition based on things like distinct categories of checkwiki errors. Often people will give a fairly general description of a problem and it's up to the more technical editors to interpret it and implement a fix - in this case, that means choosing maintenance tasks judiciously. Maybe someone else can take over this particular set of errors for the time being and you can focus on things that aren't likely to confuse anyone. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point and as I wrote already some of the edits BU Rob13 submitted as "super minor edits" are really super minor and they should not have happened. Also Fram has right in many cases. Still the problem appears to be bigger than it really is because if someone complains that an edit I did is cosmetic and leaves a complain in my talk page nobody really examines whether the complain is true or not. What I expect from the ANI is that I also get some protection from some complains. I may be wrong with some edits but we should not make the problem look bigger than really is. I can keep away from super trivial edits but I would prefer if the definition of what consists a cosmetic edit becomes more specific. I am not afraid about me. I am afraid about other editors that may get bitten. I know the AWB code and I can understand whether it's a bug or a bad edit.

And a side-note: I also expect that people realise that I never used my bot account to intentionally make trivial edits. This can be seen because when I use my main account I usually pick random pages and when I use bot accounts I only load the specific generated lists. Nothing more.

Happy new year. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if people got a response of "it was a bug" from you more often than from other AWB users, because you're more likely to know whether it's a bug.

To follow up on this thread on your talk - is it correct that the problem Yobot edits involve checkwiki tasks that didn't exist at the time of the original approval?

One more question. I'm confused about your last paragraph. Are you making the same types of edits on your main account and your bot account, with the only difference being the source of the lists of articles? Are you doing the other things associated with non-bot editing - e.g. running at a slower rate and reviewing each edit?

Thanks again. Happy new year to you too! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed you questions. Yobot's edits involve checkwiki tasks that didn't exist at the time of the original approval. For one of them I requested and got approval (error #101) Bgwhite organised a discussion asking from people to suggest new errors. In addition some older errors were removed. Some changes numbering. The new errors are 93, 102, 103 and 104. They all change the visual output. Also errors 102 and 103 had no pages in the scan of December 2016.

An inconsistency between en.wp and Mediawiki of when quotes are needed in the generation of 104 created a huge list which Yobot did the mistake to load and run. This initiated the recent drama. Dexbot fell in the same trap. no actual harm has happened but people did not like the idea of adding quotes in ref names inc cases the addition was only optional in en.wp. This is the "untested list" i write in my talk page. In the past I did a similar mistake the day error 2 was expanded to cover more broken tags than only br tags. Till that day AWB's logic covered only br tags. This was updated soon. Minor updates to the code happen almost daily.

I should be more careful when changes happen but I do not always pay attention. I asked NicoV to show numbers to the edit summary of generated lists. This will work as a red warning light for me. I have a feeling about the size of each generated list. If the size explodes then something changed drastically.

The changes are related in an effort to synchronise CHECKWIKI and WPCleaner. When this happens Yobot will probably get outdated and be replaced by a WPCleaner bot. This year we did a lot of progress in this direction.

I am not sure to which paragraph you refer to. From my main account I save everything by pressing Ctrl+S and I usually make some extra changes not done by general fixes. Usually minor stuff but still. This is certainly slower than bot mode and certainly hurts my fingers more.

I think I replied everything, didn't I? -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I meant the second paragraph; apparently I can't count :) I was wondering how you chose which edits to do on your bot account and which ones to do on your main account, since some people have said that they had concerns about bot-like editing on your main account. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record - if you view the HTML source of the revision prior to adding the <small> tag, here [6], there is no issue, because the Mediawiki software automatically fixes the issue. Indeed, using an HTML validator shows some other issues that are common to many Wikipedia pages, but nothing about an unmatched <small> tag [7]. The edit actually had no effect on the HTML generated by Mediawiki, and so it did not help old browsers or any other browser. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

CBM exactly. But how is the html output created? I recall I tested similar pages in a text only browser in Linux and the page was throwing errors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

There may be HTML errors - in fact, there are, as the second link shows - but the unmatched <small> tag is not one of them. That unclosed tag was caught by the HTML cleaner within Mediawiki, and so there was no effect on the rendered page by fixing it in the wikitext. It is the sort of thing that could be combined with a more significant edit, but has no effect done on its own. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This is interesting, and a good example of a case where whether or not something is "cosmetic" is not very obvious :) Sounds like maybe some of the checkwiki errors themselves need to be reviewed. Which isn't quite in the scope of the now-likely case, but it would be useful to have evidence supplied by technically minded editors, and of course the existence of an arbcom case shouldn't preclude attempts to address the technical side of the issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The ArbCom so far wants to narrow the investigation to me and my bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's a lot of discussion in the case request about things that would be useful, but that aren't really the job of an arbcom case - like developing a more specific definition of "cosmetic" edits, explaining more effectively why what looks like a cosmetic edit on common browsers may not be, or working on technical solutions to the "obscuring possible vandalism with bot edits" problem. One thing that might be useful evidence for the case is a comparison between Yobot's tasks and complaints vs other bots doing similar work. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Lobbying

Don't take my comments out of context again. It doesn't instill confidence in the influential position you hold. Thank you for your cooperation.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

After some head-scratching, I think you mean this comment I made responding to this post? Well, yeah, I hope I misunderstood you; what did you mean? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Need your brain

Are you busy? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I think someone might have already borrowed it and neglected to give it back! ;) What's up? Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I know how you feel. :)

You posted some great stats here, and I was just wondering if you can glean any 2016 stats by looking at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Results and Wikipedia:2016 requests for adminship.

I see that in 2016, out of the sixteen successful RfAs, eleven (nearly seventy percent) had first used the poll to get an estimate of their chances. During that same year, only two of the twenty unsuccessful candidacies had used the poll. Is there anything else that might show what the poll is doing, if anything? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure I'm much help on this one, though - there just aren't enough RfAs anymore to get good data! Looks like the NOTNOW/SNOW rate for 2016 is 28%, which is... right about average (~25-33%). But like I said in that old thread, essentially nothing has ever made any sustained difference in that rate. If I had to guess I'd say it's like putting an extra credit problem on the exam: the people who were going to pass anyway do it and feel better about their chances, and the people who weren't going to pass weren't going to pass whether they tried it or not. The biggest benefit is probably the subjective sense of preparation that good candidates have going in. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, I think you're right. Something tells me that this poll doesn't actually do much. I guess I could ask individuals if they would have run anway. I'd like to think some of them took the plunge because of the poll. Many thanks for the feedback and best wishes. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think the subjective sense of confidence is valuable, even if hard to measure. On the other hand you have cases like the thread below, where an obviously good candidate gets a bunch of worrywart advice from doofuses like me :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

When it rains it pours...

Thank you for your comments at ANI. I'm a bit annoyed that it's turning into a "thing" when the OP could have just asked me and I'd have reopened, but it is what it is.

On that note, though... there's a TFD which I closed (in similar circumstances) which I re-opened after a discussion with a disgruntled user. Plastikspork, Rob and I have all !voted, so I think you're the only admin left with TFD experience to close it; it hits a week old tomorrow, so I thought I should let you know.

On an unrelated note, thanks also for your comments re: RFA; I'll be taking all of the advice given and probably pull the trigger once I get that article up to GA. Hope you had a good holiday. Primefac (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:Great Dismal Swamp, you know... ;) I'll try to remember to look at that TfD, feel free to poke me again this weekend if I haven't yet and it's still open. I've been really bad at remembering to do stuff lately - I blame the eggnog. Hope you had a good holiday too, and I'm glad to hear you're going to take the plunge! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I just read through that discussion and thought "isn't Primefac an admin?" (old cliche alert) I have just commented at the candidate poll and saw your comments there. I think the time may be ripe to file an RfA, provided we can get somebody to write a really good nomination statement, particularly as we seem to be in a phase of "throw as many candidates up as we can", which may not last. Are you in? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I'm of two minds at the moment. On the one hand, I know I've made a lot of improvements over the last year+ in response to the criticism of the first RfA. On the other hand, I can see Rob's point about having more content creation. On the third hand, it just seems disingenuous to all-of-a-sudden bump an article to GA purely in the interest of making me look better for an RfA; (to me) it reeks of desperation and reads like I did it purely for the nomination (of course, I still want to get the article up there...) Plus, I personally think helping/working with people get their drafts through AFC is just as useful as getting a few articles to GA.

That being said, I think I will be starting to work on a few more articles here and there as I see them to get them a bit higher quality.

The long and the short of it is that the major issues (AFD, CSD, etc) brought up at the last RfA have been met, and any content complaints that I haven't met I probably won't meet. So... I'll just say that I'm at the point where I won't turn down a nomination if it arises (be it next week or next month). Primefac (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that there's no point taking Astronomical spectroscopy (assuming it's the article you're referring to) to GA just so you can mention it at RfA. In fact, I'd say that's worse than just improving it to B class and leaving it at that, and seem to recall some years back there was discussion about some slapdash GA reviews that were done as part of an "RfA checklist" than an any serious desire to improve the article to a professional standard. Nowhere in User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content does it say that you must have any number of GAs before seeking adminship (and I've had a go at some people who think it does). FWIW, this revert, throwing out information cited to The Sun because its badly sourced speculation, or this removal of unsourced content to make the page look more like an encyclopedia article and less like a church newsletter, is the sort of stuff I'm talking about. The problem is if you do a lot of Twinkle / AWB edits, the ones where you apply editorial judgement get lost in the noise. I'm amenable to working with editors who want to gain some writing experience; I worked with Samtar to beef up Cafe Royal Cocktail Book which hit the main page yesterday. All said and done, it never hurts to wait until you are absolutely sure you can tackle it. FWIW, I think K6ka just about clears the bar in terms of content, and while I'd prefer him to wait, I'm hardly going to complain if he passes the RfA, which I expect he will. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, if I'd known RfA was about to experience either a sudden improvement or a dead cat bounce, I would've kept my big fat mouth shut :) I mentioned the GA thing because you're an excellent candidate and I'd hate to see a bad result due to "leaving points on the board", so to speak, but on the other hand giving that kind of advice just reinforces the, ahem, tendency toward less evidence-based criteria. And Ritchie is the strict content creation guy, after all! Like I said at OCRP, I'd be happy to (co?)nominate you whenever you're ready. (Hey, I have a 100% success rate! For two nominations... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Just can't make this an easy decision for me, can you... ;) Primefac (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to put together a nomination alongside OR; hopefully we will cover different ground and put you in good stead. While I'm doing that, have a think about how you might answer the standard three questions ("What is your name?" "What is your quest?" "What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?") Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

See, Ritchie knows how to get things done around here. But, but, I did remember to deal with that TfD! ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:Great Dismal Swamp... that's hilarious. First time that shortcut caught my attention, thanks for the laugh. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, there's a lot of those... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

On International Talk Like a Pirate Day, you can visit Wikipedia:Requests for Arrrrrbitration, m'lad. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Acne Vulgaris FAC Take 2

Hey Opabinia, a new FAC has new been opened if you're interested in weighing in with support/opposition/suggestions. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you still interested in participating in the FAC? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I'll give it a re-read tomorrow. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

IRC

Just wondering, are you generally on IRC? --JustBerry (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I don't do IRC. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Herschel K. Mitchell

Hello! Your submission of Herschel K. Mitchell at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

When the 'spork is away...

...some TFD's just don't get closed ;) Got a few mouldy ones here. No rush, really, just seems like there's no one around to close/relist them that hasn't !voted already. Primefac (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You guys want me to do actual admin work?? ;) I'll take a look, probably tomorrow. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't sweat it OR, Primefac can do it himself now :-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't count on it, those were ones I started! ;) Primefac (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Shows how much I know about TfD (and pretty much also nails a key reason I thought you should get the mop) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

<devil on shoulder> IAR delete them... no one will notice... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

CHECKWIKI

Hi. I am not sure what exactly you ask me to do. If you check the CHECKWIKI archives there are a lot of requests for errors and a lot of discussion. At least for the people participating in the project there was never a distinction between bots and humans. This is perhaps the reason I don't understand all the panic. If someone wanted an error disabled they could just post in the talk page. IIRC the new list numbering was changed after the project coordination passed from Stefan Kühn to Bgwhite. In 2009 Kumioko suggested that AWB looks at the project. Something I started implementing all these years. In 2014 NicoV joined the game for good. If you read the archives you'll see that many people have been working on various errors with no complains. Errors have been added, errors have been removed based on suggestions and discussion. It's not true that the CHECKWIKI complains are connected to the earlier complains about Yobot. It's also interesting to not that there are many kinds of complains: Those who complain that they do not know which CHECKWIKI error was fixed due to bad edit summary, those who complain that a CHECKWIKI error was never fixed, those who complain because a CHECKWIKI error was fixed without doing something else in addition. I am not sure I answered to you question. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is similar to what Anomie seems to be suggesting here: Again, it would be helpful if someone would identify which checkwiki errors have cosmetic fixes and which are "substantial", and then identify which of the cosmetic fixes have a consensus to override WP:COSMETICBOT (in the community beyond the few editors who actually deal with checkwiki). Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Someone has to do it. I have provided some very useful lists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you link the lists please? While I wouldn't expect that the case will get into the details, it would help to know how some of these problems are currently being addressed. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/List of errors shows all errors and provides info about them.

User:Magioladitis/AWB and CHECKWIKI shows which bot do which error and shows which lists are also generated by WPC. It also contains hints in order to make skip condition in the ear future as it has been requested by many and many times. The last one will be the final solution to the "cosmetic only" problem. Another solution is exactly to pass all lists to WPCleaner. This has started recently. If you check the edit history we try to synchronise the two lists. This means in he future w can even create a WPCleaner bot and Yobot will be replaced by a better bot. There has been a lot of effort to include things done by Smackbot, things done by the old CHECKWIKI version, WPCleaner. There is a lot of work not really shown and it give the impression I do not actually look into the problems. This is not true. Even the longstanding AWB bugs have been reported by me. I even keep record of all the AWB changes related to CHECKWIKI at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia/Archive_8#AWB_fixes.2Fdetects_more_of_some_errors. I also dded comments in the AWB code (open source) in order ot help in the future to create standalone functions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Herschel K. Mitchell

On 25 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Herschel K. Mitchell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Herschel K. Mitchell, Roger J. Williams, and Esmond E. Snell isolated folic acid from four tons of processed spinach? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Herschel K. Mitchell. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Herschel K. Mitchell), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede 66 12:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Note of thanks

Hi. I just wanted to thank you for your input on the interactive gene structure diagrams. I put you in the acknowledgements in the recent WikiJournal article (here)! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't really followed that journal project, but it's a really cool idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for RNA silencing suppressor p19

On 8 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article RNA silencing suppressor p19, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the p19 protein (dimer pictured) evolved in an arms race between plants and viruses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/RNA silencing suppressor p19. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, RNA silencing suppressor p19), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede 66 00:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

watching

A good one, made it to the stats ;) - You deserve another kitten, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Awww, a calico! She's such a cutie, thanks. I'll have to figure out how to write a DYK about biology that has a cute kitty in the image slot :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea! - I had/have two pictured DYK today, DYK? First time I recall, - not even in times of four slots a day I had that. See top of my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a fun result, congratulations! Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Today's fun: 3 times music, DYK? Last year's harvest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Opabinia regalis. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Ixazomib.
Message added 10:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Concerned

About your remarks here and your confirmation of your meaning and rhetoric here...

Talking about "framing", I am very concerned about the way you are framing my remarks at WT:HA, and I ask you again to redact them. As I already said here, the depth of assuming bad faith (and I will add, assumption of stupidity and thoughtless on my part) is not acceptable in an admin much less a sitting arbitrator, in a discussion of a charged issue, and is actually disruptive with regard to productive discussion of the actual issues.

Please adjust your remarks. Please. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Replied there. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on "No paid editing for Admins" at WT:COI

I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3 as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Opabinia regalis,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 819 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Progress on new page scoring!

Hey Opabinia regalis. I've completed work on a preliminary new page quality scoring model and I've filed a task for getting the scores included in the PageCuraion tool. See Phab:T157130. I think we'll want to do much more with using this scoring system to alter the curation process, but for right now, I just want to get the predictions surfaced so that we can critique the AI's performance. It's likely to have issues right away and I want to work with you to address them ASAP. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@EpochFail:, Whilst I welcome any form of AI that will help preserve what is now a seriously dwindling public respect for the quality of Wikipedia content, before deploying (or even developing) ORES for Page Curation, we need to establish why the patroller community is largely resistant to adopting the New Pages Feed and its Page Curation Tool as the default process for controlling new intake. The reasons are actually quite clear but on its own admission the Foundation no longer regards addressing them as a priority.

One important way to address this and significantly reduce the fire hose of trash is to educate new users the instant they register, on what they can and cannot insert in the Wikipedia. A proper welcome page has never been developed and a 2011 attempt by some employees to create one (Article Creation Work Flow) as part of the Page Curation process was thwarted by internal events within the WMF. This was the other half of the Page Curation project which was begun by the Foundation in answer to the community's overwhelming demand for WP:ACTRIAL which might now soon become a reality

AI is not a panacea - it should assist but not seek to replace the dysfunctional human aspect of the triage of new pages, or be a palliative for the improvement of the parts of the Curation GUI that the Foundation will not prioritise. New Page Patrolling is the only firewall against unwanted new pages, not only is it now a very serious critical issue, but it should be the Foundation's single top priority before anything else of any kind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@EpochFail: Great, thanks for letting me know! First thought is that, in addition to the page curation tool, it would be useful to expose these results through the API so they can be used in other common tools as well and easily extracted for analysis. A log specifically of ORES scores of new pages, including those subsequently deleted, would also be useful - it would be good to see how well the scores match up with the human actions taken on each page. Depending on the overall performance that would help both with refining the model and with identifying likely human errors (such as individual users who are systematically making mistakes, either by creating lots of bad pages or by performing lots of bad taggings). Will the page curation interface allow sorting by the scores you show in your example prediction? Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Opabinia regalis. I totally agree about making this score available via APIs. Right now, it is publicly available via the API at https://ores.wmflabs.org (soon it will be available at https://ores.wikimedia.org too), but we'll need to get this implemented in MW api.php as part of the process of integrating it with PageCuration. Eventually, that will be a matter of a simple configuration change. :) We've already got fitness statistics that suggest we can score new page creations the way that patrollers tag them with pretty high accuracy by the numbers, but I'm sure we'll notice some curious trends in what ORES gets wrong once we start using its predictions in-context. My vision is that this score will be used by many different types of tools and that through innovation of these tools we can re-imagine new page review to work better in practice. Right now, I'm focusing on getting https://ores.wikimedia.org ready and starting some patches for the configuration changes that we'll need. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 17:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good! Just curious, how are you validating your sample of patroller-tagged articles? I'm wondering because "in the wild" people do a lot of different things with articles that probably "should" be tagged as attack or spam pages - e.g. a lot of stuff that meets a different speedy criterion will be tagged as A7, or someone will try prod or use a tag like {{promo}}, or a spammy page might get moved to draftspace, etc. (And I just did a few spot-checks with some new pages, and so far I think you might need to crank up the sensitivity on that spam detector ;) Will there be a way to do the query the other way around - e.g. "show me the last n articles to score above x on the spam component?") Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I used the deletion logs to find all of the article deletions that were flagged as G3, G10 or G11. Those are labeled "vandalism", "attack" and "spam" respectively. All other page creations are labeled "OK" whether or not they were eventually deleted. Though, I did include a flag for whether or not they were eventually deleted so that we could do some follow-up analysis there. See my queries here: m:Research:Automated classification of draft quality When I validate the model, I train it on 80% of the dataset and test it against the remaining 20% of the data. From that, I get the following table:

Actual	Predicted
	~OK	~attack	~spam	~vandalism
OK	241645	13	935	177
attack	310	42	60	150
spam	2374	3	2487	65
vandalism	1127	43	181	388

As you can see, we're pretty good at flagging articles that will eventually be CSD'd for spam, but not quite as good at flagging "attack" and "vandalism". We can always increase the sensitivity and that means we'll be pulling more "OK" page creations into a "needs review" subset. I'll on some analysis to make sure that we know where to set those thresholds and what they'll mean about how this model can affect the reviewing workload. See Phab:T157454 --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)