Jump to content

User talk:Liz/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Jose de Segovia Barron

Hi Liz,

Maybe I wasn't able to prove the relevance of this writer but please let me try again saying that there's no person with such relevance on Protestant community in Spain than Jose de Segovia Barron. He is probably the Spanish alternative of CS Lewis on United Kingdom or Francis Schaeffer on United States and it's also relevant for English speaking community because he studied and he is even teaching in Welwyn, UK. Why if Lewis and Shaeffer has a Wikipedia page, this Spanish writer can't start its page?

What about a more structure page like this?:

José de Segovia Barrón (Madrid, 1964) is a Spanish teacher, journalist & theologian. He studied Journalism on Universidad Complutense, (Madrid), Theology on University of Kampen (Netherlands) and Bible on The School of Biblical Studies Welwyn (England). He is currently leading active students groups as Grupos Bíblicos Universitarios and Unión Bíblica. He was also President of the Theology Department on Alianza Evangélica Española between 2001 and 2015.

He is teaching on the following schools

Books

  • Bob Dylan (Andamio, 1985)
  • El protestantismo en España: Pasado, presente y futuro (CEM/AMECAN, 1997)
  • Guerra Espiritual: Una reflexión Crítica (AEE. Barcelona, 1988)
  • Una fe para el tercer milenio (Peregrino. Moral de Calatrava, 2002)
  • Entrelíneas: Arte y Fe (Consejo Evangélico de Madrid, 2003)
  • Ocultismo (Andamio. Barcelona, 2004)
  • El príncipe Caspian y la fe de C. S. Lewis (Andamio, 2008)
  • Huellas del cristianismo en el cine (Consejo Evangélico de Madrid, 2010)
  • El asombro del perdón (Andamio, 2010)
  • Evangelio según San Lucas para la Unión Bíblica (CLIE, 2016).

Digital Publications

  • Evangelical Focus, including weekly culture reviews since 2015.
  • Entrelíneas, including more than 1000 culture reviews & podcast since 2002.
  • Radio Encuentro, including weekly radio interviews since 2010.

Personal Life

He is pastor at Iglesia Evangélica Reformada on Madrid, is married with Anna and is father of four kids called Lluvia, Natán, Noé & Edén.

Best, Pablo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmarkez-ca (talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Pablo, Webmarkez-ca,
Wikipedia has lots of policies and guidelines but a place where you can begin is at WP:Golden rule. Your article needs independent reliable secondary sources, as you can no doubt see at CS Lewis and Francis Schaeffer. The bar is set especially high for academics/professors (see WP:PROF), an article needs to demonstrated that not only has Barrón written books, taught and been a pastor but that others--well-respected writers--have written about him. All claims on Wikipedia need to have verified sources, Wikipedia reports what other publications (newspapers, journals, books, mainstream news organizations, etc.) have covered rather than writing about the editor's opinion (WP:OR).
Wikipedia has high standards for biographies of living people but if Barrón is truly notable, you should be able to find references about him and his work. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Another suggestion I have, Pablo, is to create an article at Draft:José de Segovia Barrón rather than trying to add an article to the mainspace of Wikipedia. User pages and draft pages can hold articles that you can work on over time and are not subject to speedy deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand, thank you!

Best, Pablo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmarkez-ca (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Following your suggestion, I created a new edition of the page including references and sources, as a DRAFT - so it can be leverage before it's pushed online.

Please let me know if it's ok for you: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Webmarkez-ca/Jose_de_Segovia_Barron

Thank you, Pablo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmarkez-ca (talk • contribs) 07:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, Pablo, I'm just one editor and since you submitted it to Articles for Creation (AfC), another reviewer will take a look at it. The article seems stronger than your original version but Wikipedia prefers prose (paragraphs) over than lists. You also have bare links for your references so I'll try to take a look at those and see if I can help out. AfC has a backlog of cases so it will be a couple of weeks before they get to it but your article has a much better chance of lasting if it goes through the review process. Liz Read! Talk! 10:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll add some additional prose including a quote from historian Gabino Fernández Campos, and also a quote from writer Cesar Vidal Manzanares, who already has a Wiki page. Hope it helps. You mean there is a easier way to ask for approval than (AfC)? Could I post it to you? for instance? If it's ok for you it's also ok for me, of course. Thank you, Pablo Webmarkez-ca (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Webmarkez-ca, here's how it works. If you just create an article in mainspace (Wikipedia itself), the article will be reviewed by the New Pages Patrol which quickly look to see if there are any major problems with an article (like copyright violations, nonEnglish articles, gibberish, blank pages or vandalism). Articles that are deemed not up to Wikipedia basic standards are quickly deleted.
If you submit an article to Articles for Creation, one of their reviewers will look over your article and give suggestions on how it could be improved. They'll either okay it and move it in to the mainspace or return it to you with their suggestions. You can always resubmit your article for review after you've addressed their concerns. Also, you can keep your article in your user or draft space and continue to work on it until you think it's worth submitting. The only problem with AfC is that they ordinarily have a backlog of several weeks so it can take a while until your article is reviewed. Wikipedia takes a long view and values accuracy over speed but if you find yourself frustrated by the wait, you can get started working on your next article.
I don't review new articles for AfC so you will be reviewed by another volunteer editor here. But I can help clean up the references which I'll get to later today, if that's okay. If you have specific editing questions, I recommend you visit either the Teahouse or the Help Desk where there are very friendly people who can address your questions. I hope this helps! Liz Read! Talk! 15:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok Liz, thank you very much. I did the reference hard work, thank you very much for your effort and offer to complete it. I am not totally new on Wikipedia but obviously there was a evolution since then and it is more "demanding" now, right? I will try to publish through "New Pages Patrol" if you don't mind since I would like to start working on a new page in my life if it's possible :)

Thank you, Pablo Webmarkez-ca (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That's your call, Webmarkez-ca, but, please, keep a copy of your article in your Sandbox or user space in case this article gets deleted. It would be a shame to have to start it over from scratch.
Good luck! I'll look for the article later and see if there is any way I can help. It's a national holiday here in the U.S. which is why my editing is sporadic today. Liz Read! Talk! 17:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It's your Independence Day, right?

I already posted the page as http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jose_de_Segovia ...

Thank you very much again and have a great holiday today!

Best, Pablo

Webmarkez-ca (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Wikidata weekly summary #165

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Messianic Judaism

I'm not able to discover much about the "Criticism" section in the Manual of Style. I cannot recall ever seeing such a section in a WP article. I thought I would attach a YouTube link to a practitioner who explains their personal experience. The only contribution under the "Criticism" section is a blog. How can a text blog be more solid in terms of reliability than a video blog? Is the Criticism section a consensus matter of WP editors? What is its purpose? The sole contribution under the section is negative. After your edit the section gives undue weight methinks. Church of the Rain (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Church of the Rain, I apologize for not seeing your comment until now. It's an essay, not policy, but Wikipedia:Criticism might provide some guidance on whether or how a Criticism section is incorporated into an article. As for including a link to a YouTube, that is generally discouraged unless the channel is that of a news organization; you can find more information at the essay Wikipedia:Video links. Liz Read! Talk! 11:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you again!

Webmarkez-ca (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

help make again deleted page

hey. LIz , thanks for your guidance, my article Public School Hyderabad was deleted kindly help to make it again with sufficient data.--Jogi don (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)--Jogi don (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, it was deleted, in part, because it had no independent secondary sources and very little information about it at all. You might be in a better position to locate local sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) than I. If there isn't any additional information that can be used to identify this school, rather than just its name, any future article may also be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 10:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Proposals for a Palestinian state

Hello, Liz. You have new messages at Goalie1998's talk page.
Message added Goalie1998 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for your input

Dear Liz it is good, that you took a moment to write a comment on my talk page in your own words! I appreciate that! You got a response. --Miraclexix (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Happy editing

... so you said to an editor who can't even edit the talk page? - Happy editing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me where I said this? Liz Read! Talk! 11:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Technical 13 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I see. That phrase is included as part of the template that Twinkle posts with every page that is tagged for a CSD. I tagged the page to be deleted and Twinkle added an entry to my CSD log and notifies the creator of the page. This page has been saved so I'll undo that message. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I felt badly that I could be so insensitive so I'm glad it was part of the template, not a message I'd written. Liz Read! Talk! 11:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for making you feel bad, - I probably should have guessed that it was part of a template. Perhaps these templates could be a little bit more flexible, - with a variable depending on the mood ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It's okay. It is a little twisted to notify an editor that their page is going to be deleted and ending that notice with "Happy editing". Most editors will not view those notices with any favorable feelings so it is inappropriate to be jolly. Liz Read! Talk! 12:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Same when notifying editors that they were "ArbCommed" - a new phrase on my talk, - your turn as a clerk to improve that. Btw, did you see my suggestions in the workshop? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to take a look at the ArbCom templates and scrutinize the wording to see if improvements could be made. It is typical though to solicit feedback from the clerks email list before making any changes to pages that are part of the arbitration process.
I haven't looked at your suggestions in the workshop phase because there are three other clerks assigned to this case while I am minding the Kww/The Rambling Man one. But now that you've brought it to my attention, I'll look it over. There have been moments I have thought of adding my own two cents to this case but decided the wiser course was to remain uninvolved. There are enough editors who have either participated at AE or been impacted by its decisions who probably have more relevant points of view to add to the discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 12:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I added my perspective from having been cited to AE and seeing others cited for almost nothing, and think it's a waste of potential, - I am known for dreams, AE not needed is one ;) - I believe the GGTF case was not needed to begin with which makes the resulting restrictions even more grotesque. - Back to content, perhaps I manage a third DYK nom (all women) on top of a GAN, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's been a nice surprise to me how often conflict can be resolved through discussion...or at least, one can come to an understanding with an editor one has a disagreement with. There are some policies like BLP and copyright where there is little room for debate. And an unfortunate number of editors who see the simplest solution in a content disputes is a topic ban rather than a compromise. We have dispute resolution but I don't think it is being utilized as fully as it should be. Liz Read! Talk! 12:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a little twisted to notify an editor that their page is going to be deleted and ending that notice with "Happy editing". Most editors will not view those notices with any favorable feelings so it is inappropriate to be jolly. LOL. You never ran civility patrol on him? He made a habit of denying protected edit requests, and then signing with "Happy editing". Looks like you'll be the subject of the 3rd high-profile crat-chat in recent memory. Good luck. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:AFC submission/draft/testcases CSD nomination

Please exercise more caution in the future as the page above is a Test case used for verifying that the proposed changes to a template aren't going to break anything if they are promoted to mainspace. I'll post a very generic reminder to WT:AFC about these exceptions. Hasteur (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur, that file was listed in the G13 eligible category. I don't know how it came to be included in the due-to-be-deleted category.THIS was the file that I saw listed. Liz Read! Talk! 11:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The page showed up in the G13 eligible category because the page hadn't been edited in 6 months and had the AFC submission template on it. It's up to you as an editor who is looking at the page to use discretion and realize that the page did not really need to be nominated (a simple registered edit would take it out of the category). If you can't be bothered to exercise caution in nominating pages, I will be forced to seek consensus as to how we should resolve this. Hasteur (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your explanation about the page. But mistakes are allowed. If you think because of this one incorrect tagging I should be brought to a noticeboard, well, please let me know where this discussion is taking place. Liz Read! Talk! 13:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Just between ourselves, Liz, I wrote the Simple diff and link guide; it was freaking me out that there was no reasonable info for newbies. They kept being told to give diffs, but not how. HELP:DIFF is just a nightmare. And then I was forced to also create the Complete diff and link guide, just to have somewhere to move all the extra stuff that the nerds rushed to add. ("Or even better, you can do <incomprehensible incomprehensible incomprehensible>" which has the advantage of <insert baffling technical term here>".) It works quite well to have both levels, because naturally the nerds wouldn't like to be simply reverted. There's a "simplest guide", too. I wrote that for my mother. :-) Bishonen | talk 17:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC).

Yes, Bishonen, I remember being completely baffled when editors would ask me for a diff...it sounds like they wanted to borrow a cigarette. Once you know how it's done, it's easy. But I think I even had to look it up in the the Wikipedia Glossary to find out what the term meant but the glossary doesn't tell the editor how to create one! Liz Read! Talk! 18:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I seek guidance from you in regard to proper cooperation in WP

Dear Liz, I feel the need for help and guidance. It results from certain edit related matters I became involved in, the last days. This does not mean that I would need help in getting a certain agenda through, be it far from me, but rather would like to have an adoptee (does one say so? a tutor?) or some equivalent help, or simply a person who helps in a more agreed upon relationship for help. I recognized, that your help on the teahouse for me was in deed the work of a 'guardian angel', because I detected that you in fact do a lot of edits in Wikipedia: (WP:). All fine in that regard. I also assume that you, very likely, have a lot to do. If you do not have the time to help me out, please direct me to a helpful person you know could help me. --Miraclexix (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Miraclexix,
I think some mentoring would be a great idea for you and there are some places on Wikipedia designed just for that purpose. Wikipedia:Co-op is a new pilot program to match new editors with volunteer mentors and I think they are evaluating the program right now. Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is a program that has been around a lot longer...it has some nice resources available on the Adoptees page but I'm not sure how active the program currently is. You should probably investigate both of them. Alternatively, you could just see who has signed up on either program as a mentor and contact them directly on their talk page (see Wikipedia:Co-op/Featured mentors for the Co-op and Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters for Adopt-a-user).
Of course, if you have a specific question, the Teahouse and Help Desk are handy or you could ask me and maybe I can help. I was also going to direct you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory but I see that you have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel so you are familiar with that project. WikiProjects vary in their level of activity and responsiveness so try others (there are hundreds of WikiProjects!) on related subjects and you might get a quicker response. They can be a great place to ask for help or get a second opinion.
It's easy to get discouraged editing Wikipedia when you are working on contentious subjects where every edit can be challenged. I find it a relief to vary my editing activity...sometimes I work on articles, other times I visit a noticeboard or the Teahouse, there is always vandalism to undo, I can review pending changes or spend some time categorizing articles or Wikipedia pages. When you have what seems like an intractable conflict with another editor, it's best to either discuss it on the article talk page, look into dispute resolution or just take a break and work on another editing project, especially on a different topic that you are also interested in. I hope this helps! Liz Read! Talk! 13:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
For sure it helps, has to :) Thank you! --Miraclexix (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from June 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in June 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 01:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination

Liz, don't you think having released records on a major record label and being included in a recently-released, genre-specific bound history of music book about music released 70 years ago would be enough assertion of importance to have avoided a speedy deletion nomination? We're not talking about some no-name drum-n-bass bozo living in his mother's basement releasing music on a self published pseudo-label between X cycles pumped up by his high-school fanbois. The Dissident Aggressor 05:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

DissidentAggressor, I wouldn't tag Danny Winchell for speedy deletion today now that you have basically rewritten the article from scratch and CSD do not apply now. But as the article existed then, there was no indication of sufficient notability to be included as an article in Wikipedia. I'm glad you were able to find additional references to build up this article into a more substantial biography although third party independent sources should be utilized rather than Winchell's website. It's a much stronger article than before but still WP:MUSICBIO sets a pretty high standard for inclusion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question, perhaps because you misunderstood its nature. WP:MUSICBIO has nothing to do with CSD#A7. You should know that. If an article asserts any credible claim of significance or importance it should not be subject to CSD#A7. The Dissident Aggressor 12:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I know that WP:MUSICBIO doesn't apply to speedy deletions. I was saying that the article, in its current, revised state, I would not tag as a speedy deletion but it still has to meet WP:MUSICBIO standards for notability now and the article could be vulnerable at an AfD discussion. I stand by my original decision for an A7 for the version of this article I saw which was later confirmed by Kudpung who moved it to a Draft article space because you wished to continue working on it. You improved the article a lot so I'm not sure why you are arguing about a older version I tagged when there have been 30 intervening edits between then and the current version. It was 549 bytes then and it is 4,290 now so it was very different version. Liz Read! Talk! 13:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Why are you talking about the current version? I'm talking about the version you speedied and IMHO should not have, given the importance asserted. The Dissident Aggressor 05:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as to say that my moving the article to Draft space was an endorsement of the A7 tag. It was actually moved there at the creator's request to restore it to userspace. However, I would have felt that if such an article were in mainspace in its nascent cast, it wouldn't be long before someone CSD tagged it. AFAICS DissidentAggressor, Liz did give you five whole hours to do something about it, so I don't really see the need for this discussion at all, nor for the agressive tone. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, sorry for going so far, Kudpung! I think what is ultimately important is that it is a stronger article than it was before so I'm glad you moved it into userspace and DissidentAggressor improved upon it. Liz Read! Talk! 15:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverting foreign sources

Please don't revert changes to articles simply because they are in a non-English language. Google Translate is available. It suffices in instances in which you wish to investigate a claim/source. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Willhesucceed, can you be more specific? Which article are you speaking of? Liz Read! Talk! 08:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
In Voat, you reverted a change I made based on a Finnish news source. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I see now, thank you for the reference. What I said in the edit summary was Please provide some information about this source on the article talk page which was really a question about the reliability of the source. I did use Google Translate to look at the text of the source but I thought it didn't strongly support the statement made. Torchiest identified it as being the website of a mainstream Finnish newspaper, Ilta-Sanomat which is really the information I was looking for. Liz Read! Talk! 08:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

ARBCOM question

Hi, Liz - I have prepared an ARBCOM case but it contains some sensitive material, and is longer than 500 words (closer to 1400). I think some of the information may require a private hearing. What should I do? Atsme📞📧 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Atsme,
If privacy is a concern, please read the information at User:Arbitration Committee and either email the arbitrators' list through Wikipedia or use the email address listed there to send them a message. Be patient for a response as the weekend is coming up but know that your message will be seen. If you don't hear back from an arbitrator within a week, post a message at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee and it wouldn't hurt if you pinged some arbitrators so they'd be sure to see it. I hope this helps. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Atsme📞📧 21:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad I could help. Let me know if you have any questions. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Liz - would mentioning the email on their TP serve as a ping? Atsme📞📧 16:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
That's what I was suggesting you do if you hadn't heard back from an arbitrator in a week or so. I don't know how much the email list will be monitored on a Saturday in the summer. Liz Read! Talk! 16:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byon Hee-jae

Please check the native language wiki where one exists. Take a look at ko:변희재, including the references and let me know whether you'd still consider nominating the article after that. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that Google translate is inadequate to assessing that article, whom Google says is about Byeon hui jae, not Byon Hee-jae. A small error in translation (the birth dates are the same after all) but I don't believe Google translate is sufficient to fully assess an article in a language one doesn't understand except to acknowledge that the article does exist and one can see how developed it is.
When I did a Google news search on Byon Hee-jae I found nothing but a search for Byun Hee-jae brought up some newstories where there was a one sentence (or partial sentence) quote but I found no coverage about him. Fuebaey found some better English language references than I did but I thought the mentions were still pretty marginal.
I don't see AfD as a quick path to deletion but an opportunity to review and assess a weak article that hasn't received much attention from editors. I don't see this nomination as a mistake because with new references, the article might become more than a one sentence stub. Liz Read! Talk! 10:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

About that sock

I am sorry if I came across as being a bit unkind, and your response is a good one (that is, that you had had interactions with the account and were trying to understand the situation). There is a RL name linked to the "sockmaster" (I have no opinion as to whether or not that RL name is correct), but given the nature of the last few edits (the nature of which I always take as being sincere) I thought it the better part of valour not to link them to an account which could quickly lead to the purported RL name. In fact, another admin and I were going to split the blocks to further dilute the linkage, but it looks like the other admin didn't block the other account, and I'll probably have to do it. Technically it's not *quite* a block evasion, but the user was under sanctions to operate only one account with no (apparently intentional) logged out editing, and wasn't following that, plus the other stuff. Risker (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Risker, that seems like a sensible response and I can understand your decision-making process. I looked at recent edits at the Reference Desk and just have to shake my head. Wikipedia is not therapy and I don't think editing here was helping either the editor or the project.
I appreciate your apology but it's not necessary. I often have questions when I don't understand the rationale that underlies decisions and at times I fail to realize that it can look like I'm challenging another editor. My desire to understand doesn't overrule privacy concerns and considerations for what is best for all parties concerned. Again, thanks for taking the time to explain the situation to me. It's much appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 23:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about "involved"

Who all should be listed in involved - I'm a bit confused on that part. Atsme📞📧 01:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have your complaint in front of me but I assume Jytdog and DGG, those names stuck out to me. But, basically, if you are asking the arbitrators to look at an editor's conduct, you need to inform that editor of a complaint, just like on AN/I. Failure to do this, to hear at least two sides of the issue, can cause the arbitrators to decline a case request. They need not to just hear from you but from those you are in conflict with, so they can judge whether this is a case that is intractable that needs their attention. Whether those editors are "involved parties" can be determined if the case is accepted. But I would assume by your comments that Jytdog is definitely an involved party. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I added all the names who I mentioned in the case. Only a few are the ones with the issues, not all. Was I not supposed to add all of them? I also screwed up the template. *sigh* Do I just leave as is? This is not a happy area to be in to begin with and it was exhaustive to say the least. I know it's over the limit of words, but there are different elements involved and there's no other way to introduce them. It's not just about COIN abuse. There 3 aspects of it and they are intertwined. Atsme📞📧 02:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #166

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

FYI

Just for your interest, GingerBreadHarlot came back both with IP addresses and a sock account.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GingerBreadHarlot/Archive. An obscene racist comment was removed from the sock's talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 12:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
  • Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
  • American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

"hab" one comment off

My comment at 01:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC), directed at Guy, was a quite civil comment, directly related to the topic, and unrelated to the exchange between me and The Rambling Man. I think your "hab" is placed one message too low in this edit. —Kww(talk) 01:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I realized that at the time, I just thought I'd include that whole section. But since you object, I'll move the hat section up. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Albert Eutropius

Hello Liz

You've just had an article deleted about a sportsman who played at the highest level for his country. That the admin deleted it is surprising, since A7 "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance"; and it had a proper reference and everything. It is one of a series of articles that is linked from the List of international rugby union players killed in World War I.

I'm going to have it recreated and I'll be turning it into a full article, as I have for Albert Downing and Henry Dewar; Billy Geen and Frank Tarr were Start class but they've just been classified as Good articles. In the meantime, you might come across some other stubs linked from that list. Please don't go CSDing them!

With kind regards

FunkyCanute (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the goal, FunkyCanute, is to have strong articles. I'm glad you are recreating it and making it a better article than it was. He was young when he died but perhaps he did accomplish something notable in the years that he had. I will absolutely not CSD it as I think it is always better to have a fresh set of eyes look over new articles. I look forward to reading it though! Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Just playing rugby for France meets WP:RU/N, even if it is a stub. No need to have done any more, like give up his life. But seriously, I am working on over 130 articles, the vast majority of which are currently stubs, and I'd be really grateful if you didn't ask for them to be deleted, since they are all for players that meet the rugby union biography notability criteria. A quick click on 'What links here' will show links from the List that I mentioned earlier as well as from the project page that I've set up. TTFN FunkyCanute (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

James Kirk (actor)

Must have been a screw up from AWB. I listed it for AFD so I don't know why I'd remove it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it was strange, Ricky81682, since you nominated it. Those automated tools can trip you up! I tried Stiki a long time ago and had so many errors, I quickly gave it up. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #167

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

HELP

No space on Talk page to leave message---stumbled on this space by accident? Should you have said on your New Section Editing User Talk page ? Having difficulty comprehending Wikipedia systems68.3.147.32 (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

You have to make new space when you post a new comment. I answered your inquiry on your talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 18:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

RfAr question

Liz, in an RfAr, uninvolved admin's comments area I had provided some diffs. I would like to know what the protocol/requirement is for notifying the makers of those edits and/or the the editors whose talk pages those edits are on. I'd asked Doug Weller, but he wasn't sure and given the more recent notes on that request he held that the question was moot anyway, but I'd like to know for any future events (a light browsing did not seem to shed any light). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff, well, in practice, editors commenting in a case request discussion usually link any diffs to the username so the editor will be pinged (as long as the comments are saved in one edit and you sign the comments).
But you can also just post a short, neutral note on the editors' talk page along the lines of "This is a note to let you know you've been mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen in case you wish to respond." As long as you are not advocating that an editor come to a case request page and present a particular point of view, it is not canvassing, just informing the editor they have been mentioned.
I hope this addresses your question. Let me know if you have additional questions. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I'm not going to do it here as the case it's going to move to ARCA anyway, but I'll keep that in mind for future reference. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Kww vs TRM

Is there any reason why the workshop hasn't been closed yet? The same was true of the evidence phase, so much so that other evidence was added after its closure time. Is this normal? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, there are two answers to that, The Rambling Man. The clear cut answer is that we close a phase at the end of the day, UTC time. So, according to my clock, it's 20:30 pm UTC so the phase is open for another 3 1/2 hours.
The less clear answer is that clerks typically close a phase after getting the okay from arbitrators on the clerks email list. And because arbitrators and clerks live in different time zones, the phase may not close at 23:59 UTC on the dot but the next day.
Since I'm the assigned clerk, I'll be up and I'll check in now with the arbitrators and see if they want the phase closed on schedule. Given that this case has progressed without delays, I believe they will say go ahead.
I hope this answers your questions. If someone rushes in with a great deal of additional content after the deadline passes, we will likely discuss on the email list whether their edits should be reverted. Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Liz, appreciate the timely and helpful response. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I aim to be helpful. ArbCom cases are generally stressful experiences for everyone, especially in cases when there are unexplained delays. Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, the closure of the Workshop phase has been delayed 24 hours due to an editor's request that the arbitrators are honoring. The date for the Proposed Decision will not be changed. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Liz. Since Joshua Jonathan actually asked for somebody to fix the link, I've put a permanent link into his statement (without going via a diff, as you did, but of course both ways work fine). I understand that you had a scruple about editing somebody else's statement, but I'm sure he won't mind, and I thought it was better that the link just worked. The page is heavy enough going as it is... Bishonen | talk 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for letting me know, Bishonen, I'll delete my brief statement. I wish there were word limits at ARCA but, alas, I've looked all over and there are none set. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Isn't civility and consideration a general rule of the site, though? I mean, as for the response to Thryduulf's polite request. Not that I care, in this instance. But obviously less TLDR would be to everybody's advantage. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC).
You make a good point and I'll ask the arbs on the clerks list. It doesn't mean they will give me an answer but we'll see! Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey.

OK, so there's this page that has been deleted since it's a hoax. It's called "Pīchi no Shiro de Rokkuman to Pātī". From the "Rokkuman" in the title and the fact that it was a hoax, I assume it's Mega Man fanon. Do you think I can copy the source over to the Mega Man Fanon Wiki? You can paste the source onto my talk page and I'll do all further actions. Thanks in advance. 67.82.89.253 (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll pass. And, by the way, you can't use a Wikia site as a source. Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Darn. Can I just have the source for the page to look at? 67.82.89.253 (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are asking for. If you want a copy of the deleted article, you should ask the administrator who deleted the page. It should have that information if you go to the deleted page. I'm not an administrator so I can't oblige. Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jackson

Hi Liz. If I'll ever need a second account at Wikipedia, "Joshua Jackson" would be a great name! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, Joshua Jonathan. When I see your name, for some reason, I think of Joshua Jackson. Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

KWW vs TRM Case Question

The Workshop phase has closed. When can I make a general comment on the talk page of the proposed decision? --NeilN talk to me 22:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, NeilN, all of the case talk pages are open until the case closes. It's just best if you post your comments in the talk page of the open phase because they are more likely to be seen. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
So the imposingly empty Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Proposed decision is fair game? I'm not going to get yelled at for posting there even if no proposed decisions have been posted yet? --NeilN talk to me 23:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN:, not at all, you will not get yelled at, mainly because I do not yell. Also, there has been little use of the talk pages in this case. Aside from a few outbursts, it's generally been civil.
The Proposed Decision talk page is to be used to discuss the proposed decision but in practice, I have also seen general comments about the case made there (see the Lightbreather case). The primary guideline is that for the Proposed Decision talk page, we have a policy of each editor posting in their own, devoted section rather than having threaded discussions. If you want to reply to another editor, please do it from your section. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz. The case states the outcome should be by the 25th. As this has now passed, do you know when it's going to be resolved? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Lugnuts. July 25th was the estimated time that the proposed decision would be posted by one of the drafters. The proposed decision was posted on Monday, July 27th and since then, the arbitrators have been supporting, opposing or abstaining from each principle, finding of fact and remedy. Most of the proposals have passed but a few are still being debated and not all of the arbitrators have weighed in yet. You will know the decision is finalized when there is a motion to close that receives an absolute majority.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Liz Read! Talk! 15:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Liz. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Red Dawn

On Template:Infobox film it does say under the parameters for starring "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release". To be honest I was surprised that both Charlie Sheen and Jennifer Grey weren't on the poster but I guess their names weren't as big as they were a couple of years later. Quentin X (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, Quentin X, you're right, Template:Infobox film is very clear about this. I didn't think to look at the parameter instructions on the template, I just looked for talk page conversation on this subject. I appreciate you pointing this out to me and I'm sorry for sounding a bit annoyed in my comment on your talk page. Whenever I'm reverted, I try to understand the reasons why and in this case, I didn't understand. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 19:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Five-million pool

Please do not add any new votes to the Wikipedia:Five-million pool. It has been closed for voting for almost seven years. Pools still open include the Wikipedia:Seven-million pool and all higher number pools. JIP | Talk 20:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't even remember making this edit in February. And, reviewing it now, I'm not sure why I made it but I don't see why I would ever add a further edit to that page. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the other "pools" though. Liz Read! Talk! 20:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

Sunday August 2: WikNYC Picnic

Sunday August 2, 1-7pm: WikNYC Picnic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Brooklyn's Prospect Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.

1pm–7pm - come by any time! @ Bartel-Pritchard Square entrance (Prospect Park West and 15th St), immediately on the lawn to your left as you walk through the lovely lotus columns.
Subway: "F" train"F" express train​"G" train to 15th Street – Prospect Park (IND Culver Line)

We hope to see you there! --Pharos (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(Bonus event: WikiWednesday Salon @ Babycastles - Wednedsay, August 19)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hi Liz! Thanks for the good wishes on the picnic, I understand if you weren't sure about coming this time all the way to Brooklyn. If you'd like to join for the next WikiWednesday, we often have a series of informal presentations, and it would be great it you'd like share a bit on your RfA experience. And congrats!--Pharos (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ten Year Society

Hey Liz,

When I set up the Ten Year Society, it was with the intention that eventually other people would start handing out invites - it was only just me doing it before because the idea hadn't taken off yet. Best,  — Scott • talk 17:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Scott: Well, I think it was 2014 when I came across the list you used to maintain about upcoming 10 year anniversaries and I put notices on the talk pages of any editor whose anniversary had already passed. It's only when I recently saw an editor lamenting that he didn't get his invite that I looked for the 10 Year Society page again so I could post an invite to the editor.
Although I started my original Wikipedia account in 2007, I primarily edited as an IP account for years until I set up this account 2 years ago. I don't know how longtimers would feel about me regularly inviting them to a society for those who have been around at least 10 years! I'm still a young 'un. Liz Read! Talk! 17:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Question – Adminship resources

Hi Liz! Does ArbCom keep a succinct list of Admins that have been desysopped "for cause" over the years? (I'm really only interested in numbers vs. time...) I'm asking in reference to this discussion that I am currently having. Thanks in advance! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/for cause will provide you with the information you need, IJBall. There are several different sections but you can sort by name or date. I wouldn't be surprised though if it wasn't a totally complete list but it would contain those cases where ArbCom took action to desysop an administrator and left a public record of it. There might be other cases which were not made public for privacy reasons or the actions were taken by WMF. It also doesn't include those admins who resigned in the midst of an arbitration case in anticipation that they might be desysoped, they are in the resigned category (Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/resigned) but there is often a note explaining the circumstances of their resignation.
There is also an interesting list at Wikipedia:List of resysopped users which includes those admins who either resigned or were desysoped and then were resysoped that you might want to take a look at. For some reason, these Wikipedia pages aren't widely known to most editors but I spend a lot of time in project space. I hope this helps! Liz Read! Talk! 18:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks Liz!! Those are all interesting, especially the last one! (As an aside, it's becoming increasingly clear to me now that I'm soon going to have to create an entirely new subpage, specifically just for the various Admin- and RfA-related links I've collected lately!!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@IJBall:, let me know when you do so I can watchlist it. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not finished yet! :)

Just wait until it's finished. Seriously, you're like a kid who sneaks downstairs at 3AM to sneak a peek at his Christmas presents. :-) Serendipodous 20:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I AM, you have me pegged, Serendipodous! I do sometimes read Signpost articles while they are in draft form. If I might flatter you though, this photo was the only glitch I noted, it looked like a final version to me. Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It's done now. You can look. Serendipodous 22:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #168

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Yahoo mail

I saw your comment at Bbb23's. Are you saying that sending Yahoo->Yahoo works on WP?—Bagumba (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I can't say that for sure because I haven't sent an email message to another Yahoo! Mail user. I've just talked to some GMail users about the glitch and it occurs when a Yahoo! email comes through Wikipedia rather than through a Yahoo! connection. GMail screens them out. If I have a GMail email address and I send a message while I'm on the Yahoo! Mail site, there is no problem. It's just when you use the "Email this user" on Wikipedia.
It was very frustrating to me until I was told that some GMail users had identified this problem. I don't send a lot of email messages but when you say, "Did you get my email?" "No", "No", "Try sending it again", "No". It's exasperating. Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Here's the bug report. It seems like a general outgoing email problem sending from Wikipedia through Yahoo. There was some mention of Google event before that flagging those Yahoo emails originated from WP as suspicious.—Bagumba (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, Bagumba. I know that the part about not receiving email list messages is incorrect as I am on a number of Wikipedia email lists. They describe it as a Yahoo! problem but I would think Wikimedia could figure out a way not to trigger this result. Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

And you are set to go

See you on the far side. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Blade. It's much appreciated. I'm a little tired right now, maybe I'll launch it first thing in the morning when I have my wits together. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem, whenever you're ready. I'd have gotten it posted earlier, but one of my clients at work decided to assault me (interesting story...) and I had to deal with the associated mountain of paperwork the state forces on us. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I'm so sorry to hear that. I hope you don't have to face that on a regular basis. Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Usually only once or twice a month, and I have about an 8 inch and 70 pound advantage; nevertheless, I'm definitely going to feel it in my shoulders tomorrow. At least it gives me some stories to tell. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

RfA

About time. Just wanted to let you know that I will indeed vote for you, but I don't want to be first, as there are editors here who would come out in favor of Hitler if I said I opposed him. BMK (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We didn't start off on the right foot when we crossed paths on ANI one day in the fall of 2013. I think you called me a busy-body as I was full of opinions. But I took a Wikibreak, I visit ANI less often now and it means a lot to have your endorsement, BMK. It should go live tomorrow morning. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I do indeed recall the incident, and my estimation of you is not at all what it was at that time. A number of current admins have recognized your potential worth as an admin, and I have come to agree with them. BMK (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!!!

You are one of the nicest Wikipedia editors I've met! You keep your cool and treat me like a real person! Thank you, thank you, thank you! I hope you will continue to stand up for me and support me in the future! YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think my best advice you, YoSoyUnHamster, is to take things slow, read over policies and guidelines and see how editing is done on Wikipedia. It's not like other writing on the internet and it takes some time to learn the ropes. Also, try not to take reverts personally as this happens to everyone. I hope you find an area of Wikipedia to work in where you can make a contribution. Happy editing! Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, yes! Thanks again! YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing my question

Hi, I'm ready to remove my question and vote. However I would request a voluntary interaction ban between you and me, though that's not a precondition or anything. (I also think I deserve an apology, but I can live without one.) Best, Manul ~ talk 02:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I would not give this any consideration. The question reflects badly on its poser and not on you. --NeilN talk to me 02:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
NeilN, like I said I am ready to remove it, but not because it reflects badly on me, which is a puzzling aspersion. I'm just ready to leave it behind. Manul ~ talk 03:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
NeilN was suggesting that Liz ignore the voluntary interaction ban request. I don't know what this is all about (though I did see your exchange on Blade's page) but asking someone who may be an admin in a few days to essentially recuse themselves from discussions involving you is not exactly designed to reflect well on you. You may be making the suggestion in good faith but it is up there near the top of the lousy ideas list. Just saying! --regentspark (comment) 18:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Manul, this is confusing to me because I have had no contact with you since you were known as Vzaak, a rename which seems to have happened during my wikibreak. And while we had different points of view, this is not uncommon on Wikipedia. Then, out of the blue, you post on my RfA and send me a long email message detailing all of my faults and how unworthy I am to be an admin. I didn't respond to that email and I didn't respond to you on my RfA so I'm not sure what interaction you want to ban. I've looked through my contributions to user talk pages and found that I posted once to your talk page on November 28, 2013 which anyone can check out.
If you want a voluntary interaction ban, I think that would be helped if you stop talking about me and about disputes that occurred two years ago and I promise not to mention you either. I'm just sorry you can't get past an old talk page argument. I'm sure that we have both moved on since 2013. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Liz, you were one of my on-wiki harassers, applauding the polemics that were falsely attacking me and other Wikipedia editors.[1] The polemics were based on the (provably false) notion that this person had been wrongly accused of sockpuppetry, a notion you helped promote.
Do you still believe that this person was not sockpuppeting? Your past statements on the matter continue to be cited in an harassment campaign targeting Wikipedia editors that remains active and extends to the present day. Your upcoming status as an admin is likely to further legitimize this harassment. Manul ~ talk 02:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall any harassment I committed and I don't see that a dispute in October 2013 contributes to an ongoing harassment campaign against you. I did question the SPI investigation into Tumbleman's account back then but I don't recall continuing to claim his innocence after this investigation was closed.
I disagreed with you and your approach to other editors which I thought demonstrated a lack of good faith. But disagreement is not harassment and I think all parties in that Sheldrake dispute were guilty of dishing out inappropriate amounts of sarcasm. I know Barney posted a lot on my talk page pointedly ridiculing me. I have not edited in the pseudoscience area since then and I chalk up this Tumbleman incident to my naivete as a newly active editor who thought a fellow editor was being bullied. That was my perception 21 months ago and my opinion would be different if it occurred today.
I also disagree that the misguided defense I made for another editor almost two years ago would legitimize any current harassment against you. Liz Read! Talk! 15:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Liz, thank you for acknowledging that your defense of Tumbleman at the SPI was misguided. That means a lot, and it eases my mind a bit. Until at least March of last year, you had applauded the defamation campaign against me which posited that Tumbleman was innocent and that I had been falsely accusing editors of being Tumbleman sockpuppets in order to get them banned because of their point of view.[2] It was wrong of you to do so -- regardless of how you felt about the SPI -- and I considered your behavior to be harassment. Manul ~ talk 19:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I was going to make the above my final comment, but considering the general lack of comprehension I see here and elsewhere, I need to say something more.
Above you said, "I disagreed with you and your approach to other editors which I thought demonstrated a lack of good faith." This accusation is emblematic of the toxic atmosphere that you helped promote in 2013 and 2014, which you have now carried to the present day. The apparent basis of your aspersion (you do not provide one) is that I filed SPIs -- SPIs which admins affirmed as containing sufficient evidence of sockpuppeting. Until your RfA I hadn't said a negative word about you, even as I watched you join with a known sockpuppeteer to falsely disparage and bully me, promoting the hogwash that another sockpuppeteer was being wrongly persecuted by me for socking.[3]
You said above that you "don't recall continuing to claim his innocence after this investigation was closed", yet the link in the very comment to which you replied shows that you did. With regard to the other sockpuppeteer, you also continued to claim his innocence after the investigation was closed,[4] as I mentioned in my oppose vote at RfA.
Though I credit you for (finally) acknowledging your mistake regarding the Tumbleman SPI, I am more concerned that there wasn't an acknowledgment -- let alone an indication of remorse -- regarding your participation in this bullying. And not only was it bullying, but it was bullying based upon fabrications that everyone had recognized as such but you. Manul ~ talk 15:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for putting yourself on the firing line, and for your willingness to serve this wonderful project. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, thank you, Jim. It took strong prodding for me to actually schedule an RfA.
Maybe you should consider throwing your hat in the ring, eh? There is always room for compassionate, level-headed administrators. Liz Read! Talk! 20:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for stepping up. Simple question, not for the RfA (which I supported, Precious and a woman!): why don't you just start an article and promise to expand it to GA, or even do that, now? Pick a nice limited topic. BWV 46 isn't GA quality yet but will be expanded and nominated today (promise to self). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought about doing that, Gerda. But I didn't want it to look like I was doing so just because of the RfA. But there is an article I have wanted to start for a while and maybe this is as good a time as any to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 08:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Great! Looks don't matter if your heart tells you to do it ;) - When the RfA is over I will get back to my other question: where you would find spirit in one of Wikipedia's restrictions, as the saying "the spirit of the restriction" implies. You can look at mine, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
nominated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations, Gerda, you are really an expert on writing articles.
I'll admit, at this point, I'm pretty disheartened. I've had messy romantic break-ups that were less painful than this RfA. I can't say I'd recommend the experience to anyone else. Have a good weekend, Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to hear "disheartened". Fit's the title of the cantata, sadly, - did you notice that irony? - I have seen a disheartening RfA but that was not yours (100+ supports! and your integrity was not questioned). - I once made a DYK about encouragement, DYK? (not my article) - Wish you all the best, and will be ready to assist with article work, I love collaboration! First I need to finish one more of mine, because it's for this Sunday ;)
You're right, Gerda. I should be focusing on the support I've received. And with that, I will take a very much needed break from the Wikipedia world. All the best, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to apologise for my pre-RfA comments where I stated that content creation shouldn't matter, evidently I underestimated how much some in the community value it for an admin candidate. I absolutely did not expect, however, that some users might go as far as to insinuate that you're somehow NOTHERE because you don't primarily edit articles; that honestly baffles me. Anyway I hope the RfA hasn't been too stressful, this has definitely been one of the least civil this year. Sam Walton (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Content creation shouldn't matter and it's not a traditional prerequisite that most people care about. I passed an RfA with literally nothing but one start-class article creation to my name that had been entirely rewritten by someone else and no one even mentioned any concern about it. Vocal content fiends always come and go, and usually their behavior is panned by the larger community and they go away once they've received enough criticism. A group of people have chosen to pile onto this one issue but I suspect it's more of a reactionary backlash to your massive initial show of support they felt was perhaps undeserved or needing to be counteracted. Regardless, hang in there. Swarm ♠ 10:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That has been my initial impression, too, Swarm...the early support was strong which I think surprised some editors who didn't think this RfA would pass. But it's always dangerous to speculate about why people do what they do so I'll stop here. I'll just end with saying that this has been the longest 7 days of my life. Pass or not, Tuesday can't come soon enough for me! Liz Read! Talk! 15:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015


Descent

Hi, thanks for your input. What changes have I made to these "descent" pages that you find contentious or problematic? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Bohemian Baltimore, thanks for replying here. There is a very large existing category tree for the "of descent" categories and the subject is contentious because there are editors who argue that the entire structure should be deleted because of the vagueness of "descent". While each individual's ethnicity should be verified through reliable sourced in their biography articles, things can get more sloppy in categorization, especially with tools like HotCat, categories are easily assigned and removed very quickly. You have to be careful that the categories you are creating logically fit into the existing category structure and are not just organizational division that makes sense to you. Each category has parent categories and often has child categories so their relationship to those other categories needs to be considered.
The area you are currently working in, the "of Jewish descent" categories are especially contentious and hours have been spent debating and arguing about them, particularly on the WikiProject Judaism talk page last year. Israeli categories are more straight-forward because it can be considered a nationality. But there was a point last spring where some individuals argued that if there was a category like "Brazilian people of Jewish descent", then it should be in the parent categories of Middle Eastern people or Asian people because of historic ties between Jewish identity and the Middle East (however distant that may be). Hair was pulled out over this and there was eventually an agreement to stay with the status quo, whatever that had been at the time the dispute started.
Many of the most intractable disputes that have landed at the Arbitration Committee have involved ethnic identity, it's an ongoing source of intermittent conflict. So, I didn't mean to chide you, because I work with categories myself. It was just a caution that when you work with "of descent" categories, please work within the existing category structures instead of creating innovative new ways to identify people by ethnicity. Be careful but I agree that it's a fascinating part of Wikipedia and I hope you will see the incredibly diversity of ethnic background for many of the individuals who have Wikipedia biographies.
Sorry to write so much but I think I've personally gone through every descent category so they are on my Watchlist and it just lit up with you edits. Let me know if you have any questions and please, take some time away from the keyboard and have a pleasant weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:MFD

Thank you for the comment. I wasn't really expecting the MFD last long, although I confess that I had hoped maybe one or two additional editors would have a chance to weigh in. Also, it should have occurred to me what you meant when you said "involved", but I missed that until just now. Would you mind terribly if I ask you a question related to your RFA here on your talk page? TomStar81 (Talk) 11:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Fire away, TomStar81...I'll do my best to answer your question. I hope you understand that I'll have a much better assessment about what is happening here once it is over. When one is in the midst of an experience, one is not terribly accurate in making sense about what is occurring which is one caution against putting too much faith in primary sources. Liz Read! Talk! 15:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the consideration. My question is this: When did you realize you were more of wiki-gnome person then a content creation person? I personally have no opinion on whether this is preferable, but usually its the articles that entice people to join so they can edit. Your contributions, though, are more 'behind-the-scenes' related such as it were, so it seems a little odd to me that you would take to wiki-gnoming as opposed to the showroom editing that me and so many others prefer. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, TomStar81...wikignoming is the kind of editing I did for years when I edited as an IP account. I'd be reading an article and see a typo or a sentence with awkward phrasing or a table that was completely malformed and I'd just fix it. It was basic copy-editing and I continued to do that once I created this account. It came naturally to me.
I fell into categorization because I saw a lot of miscategorization or inadequate categorization on articles and it appealed to my desire to organize information. I worked for years in a library when I was younger and later at a national archive for a year and a half. I worked on cataloging agency records which seemed to me to be a very similar type of work as we created finding aids. On Wikipedia, I began to spend time at WP:CFD where I learned more about standards of categorization on Wikipedia.
I don't have a strong desire to do "showroom editing" or get on the main page, you're right, I'm more behind-the-scenes type of person. But there is still a lot of work that could be done on articles in the sociology area which aren't as solid as those in other academic disciplines. So, I hope to make a contribution in that area as I have some of the necessary resources to provide additional references to articles. Maybe we can bring a few of them up to GA level.
I hope you are having a lovely weekend. All the best, Liz Read! Talk! 18:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. Interesting that you too started off as an IP editor, then graduated to account editing. As for my weekend, I've had better: one mental health veteran freaked us, one potential job loss for the family, one funeral at which me and dad and my brother were ostracized because my mother's half of the extended family apparently hates us now, and I lost my MFD without anyone having really had a chance to give their two cents on the matter due a perception of "disruptive edit", so...yeah. Somewhere out in the great distance a voice calls out "why", but I lack the ability to solve this riddle, and that bothers me immensely. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
That is a lot of grief to be absorbed, TomStar81. Your real-life issues always take precedence and it sounds like it was a rough weekend.
Regarding the MfD, well, there has been a lot of work and refection done on what is "wrong" with the Request for adminship process (see Category:RFA Reform for starters). If you noticed, this was the third time someone had nominated that page for deletion so you are not the only person to see a problem with it. I think if you have any proposals or float an idea for improvement, post it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. There are a lot of editors who have that talk page on their Watchlist and I think you will get a better response either there or at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
But most of all, don't let this weekend go by without doing something enjoyable. There is still time! Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not allowed to edit the RFA pages. It was a condition set forth when I sued for peace in the aftermath of a failed attempt to support a few candidates (incidentally, that is why I asked my question here instead of over at RFA, and why I haven't rendered an S/O/N !vote). As for the village pump, you are correct that I could bring this up there, but it wouldn't accomplish anything. The issue(s) have been discussed to death for eight very long years and all people have determined is that the process is broken. Despite the fact that everyone agrees its broken no one can push forward with any reforms because we still have a hideously broken but active process. If the MFD had worked we would have been forced to come up with something new and different that would serve us better than the existing RFA process, but that will not happen as long as the current RFA process continues to exist. As for the grief, this is not the first time I have been called upon to tolerate the intolerable and bear the unbearable. I've been playing video games most of the weekend to enjoy myself, and I am working on a project of personal interest. On an unrelated note, you remind me a lot of Phaedriel (talk · contribs), a retired editor who cared for the community as a whole and strove to make Wikipedia a happier place for everyone. Promise that whatever happens on this site you will not lose that heart, because from where I sit it is by far and away your biggest asset. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Comments on your RfA are starting to make my head hurt and the Gamergate doxxing stuff you had to go through (even if you were "fairly lucky") sounds absolutely horrible. The fact that you've managed to survive the last few days without exploding is amazing. You more than deserve this barnstar. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bilorv, this is very kind. Some of the opposes were expected, others less so.
But I need to focus on what I can learn from this experience! I actually thought that Gamergaters might put in an appearance here but I think I've done such limited editing on the main article, that I'm not on their radar any more. For that, I am grateful. I don't think there is much positive about being in an internet spotlight, even if it just lasts a few days. Luckily, most people on social media have a short attention span and move on to the next talked-about person or event. There's probably social research that's being done on this same subject somewhere right now which would be interesting to read. Liz Read! Talk! 15:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What Bilorv said. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Also want to agree with Bilorv. When you were active on ANI, you injected some sanity in the place. I find it really harsh that people are holding that, and your very generous AGF against you. I certainly hope you pass. Happy Squirrel (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
RfA is always a stressful time for the candidate, you never know what might turn up to cause people to vote a "pile on" oppose. I wish I could be more positive, given the nominators you'd have thought I'd be a "strong support"; still, I think the RfA will probably pass. Supports are still coming in (you've got far more than I accrued during my own RfA as it is) and even if the level of support drops below 80%, I think a Bureaucrat Discussion will probably conclude the same. What I would say is after it closes, do read the oppose votes back carefully and try and take whatever criticism you can find. The best summary I can think of is the excellent Observations on Wikipedia Behaviour - "Try to be as tolerant as you possibly can regarding edits by established contributors." For what it's worth, my Question 12 was based on this and real events such as Talk:Donner Party#Content Gaps. Best of luck, anyhow. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ritchie333 but the RfA is entering "discretionary range" so I don't know what to expect. Even when the percentage was at 95%, I knew that an RfA can radically change overnight and didn't take anything for granted.
I can guarantee that I will take all opposes to heart but I can't alter my editing patterns or my contribution history in seven days so the words will only have an impact on my editing practices after this RfA concludes. I also will have clearer eyes then and I'll be able to see the kernel of truth in the criticism which my adviser (and employer) used to tell me was always there. Right now though, I just feel the sting of harsh words. I realize that I'm not supposed to take any of this personally but when it's all about me, what I've done or not done, whether me being an admin will help or hurt the project, well, it feels very personal.
But I greatly appreciate you coming to my talk page and sharing this advice. Things got so heated on Friday that it was recommended to me to spend the weekend away from Wikipedia but I do intend to check in and see if any additional questions have been posted. Thanks again, Liz Read! Talk! 18:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Re "Things got so heated on Friday", FWIW, Friday was a Full Blue Moon @ 6:43am EST. (Do people undergo extra stress or act wilder then!?) IHTS (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This Month in Education: July 2015

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No-fun RFA

Hi, Liz. I can't blame you for feeling gutted by the RFA altogether, even though you will surely get the mop at the end of it. Also I've come to think my own blunt oppose may have been a bit of a shock for you. While I stand by what I said, it would have been kinder to prepare you better for it, because I don't think you read my original question as quite so serious or so critical as I meant it to be. I'm sorry about that. Bishonen | talk 12:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC).

Yes, Bish, shock is the perfect word for this entire experience. I am not assuming that this RfA will pass, a lot can happen in two days.
To tell you the honest truth, I was surprised at the early surge of support in the first two days and then stunned by the strong opposes on Thursday and Friday. I knew there would be some opposition to me because of my lack of content creation but I know there are a lot of admins who don't create content so I underestimated how serious this would be for some editors and admins.
I also didn't think that comments I made years ago would haunt me now. I took a long wikibreak away from Wikipedia last year and I don't feel like I'm the same editor I was in 2013. But, you've gone through your own RfA and you know that candidates are heavily scrutinized and everything one has done (or not done) can be the subject of criticism. It's the community consensus process.
I hope you are having a pleasant summer weekend. Be well, Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
My RFA was brutal and nasty, with a couple of blocks, side switching and the like, so I can empathize. RFAs are a bit more mellow today than then, but they are still difficult. It isn't uncommon to get early support while editors like myself ponder for a few days before deciding. I find myself supportive of you as an editor and look forward to supporting you as an admin one day, but I couldn't today. It isn't personal, it is just that affinity/friendship is moved to the side at RFA so that one can do what they feel is best for Wikipedia. I've nominated 12 candidates, 8 of them passed (3 by unanimous consent) so I'm pretty familiar with the emotions that are involved. Fortunately, the barriers in your way are generally fixable with time, and most everyone in the oppose section has been sincere and helpful (At mine, I was compared to a school marm and worse, for example, so it could be uglier). And yes, I had old AFDs dragged up (I had 1400 under my belt at that time, so it was easy to find ONE that someone disagreed with), and 5.5 years to make mistakes. I barely passed with 81%. RFA is never assured. Yours is on the edge, but regardless of outcome, take it in stride and as a learning experience, and you will go far. It isn't personal, and it doesn't speak to your worth as an editor. Most importantly, embrace those that oppose you and learn from them. Eric (then known as Malleus Fatuorum) opposed me but I chose to engage him, then he helped me create two GAs, an FA and TFA, all firsts for me. Funny how life works that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Liz, I opposed your RFA but also realize that receiving such frank, negative scrutiny no matter if a minority opinion or couched in polite terms is never a pleasant experience. And the off-wiki doxing is unforgivable, and even some comments that question your real-life qualifications are infuriating. No panacea to offer, but hope that you keep in mind that the RFA opposes are just opinions about some of your editing on wikipedia, and not informed comments about you as a person (fwiw, you come across as a sensible and nice person). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, Abecedare, there are lots of ways an editor can tell me that I need to improve in some areas that don't involve a public pointed appraisal of me where I fall massively short. You can post a helpful note to my talk page or say you are Neutral and can't support me because of X, Y and Z.
Editors and admins say again and again that the RfA is a brutal process and they want to make it more humane and bearable but, at this point, I don't think there is a sincere desire to change it. If you think a candidate is unworthy of the mop, then say "Oppose" and offer a simple reason why without dissecting an editor in public, pointing out a few of the mistakes they've made and say they are typical behavior. There seems to be some need to justify Opposes by going into great detail about why an editor is inadequate and, the craziest part of this is, is that the candidate is not supposed to take any of the remarks personally! We are supposed to be grateful and gracious about being put down. In fact, even this response to you is likely to be cited by someone as a reason to oppose me.
I looked at your RFA and see you sailed through with only minor bumps. How would you have felt if you had been under greater scrutiny, your edits combed through and any errant comments you had made examined and put up to the spotlight? Are you saying you made no mistakes, no snap judgments that you regretted, no ill-timed sarcasm, no edits you wish you could have taken back?
I beginning to think that the only way the RfA process will be less scarring is if all admins have to go through reconfirmation every five years. They might then remember what it was like to be in the hot seat for seven long days. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
RFA votes serve at least four purposes, (1) feedback to candidate, (2) justification of support/opposition to show that the opinion is based in reason/evidence, (3) campaigning other voters and page-watchers to vote likewise, and most fundamentally (4) as a community decision process for promoting a candidate to adminship. That is the reason, I don't believe they can be adequately replaced by messages on user's talk-page; neutral comments; short opposes; or simple up-down vote. Some of the unpleasantness may thus be unavoidable (or at last, avoidable only at a loss of some of the desirable features), but I do wish that the "campaigning" aspect of the votes didn't result in hyperbolic and polarized comments that project the candidate as a wiki-savior or wiki-destroyer, which in case of any candidate on the bubble is never true. I don't believe reconfirmation RFAs will make the process any more pleasant either; and I say that as someone who effectively had an (uneventful) reconfirmation.
But right now may not be the best time to discuss such theoretical issues. As you say, if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't be feeling good about myself or kindly towards the opposers, RFA or wikipedia in general. And unless you are superhuman, I don't see how that can be avoided in the short term. All I can urge you is to keep some perspective since it would be sad to gain an admin who is disgusted with the project, or lose a generally sensible editor. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Liz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtlawyer1 (talk • contribs)

There's absolutely no shame in the "shock" analogy above. I'm sorry this is so difficult. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • You're squarely in the "discretionary zone" between obviously passing and obviously failing. You should take that as a good sign, my first RFA was a flat-out failure that went down in flames long before it was due to close. Thre months later I ran again, and not only did I pass, I went on to become a member of the functionaries team and served a term on ArbCom. Whatever happens here you should see this is a win for you. Nearly 200 users have expressed their support, and a lot of the opposers express their regret at doing so . I would imagine that if this doesn't pass now a lot of those same users will support a second RFA in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The selected diffs in my editing history that some people take issue with aren't going to disappear, even if I write a GA or two in the future. It's part of my baggage, apparently forever. Pass or not, Beeblebrox, the challenge will be trying to repair working relationships that seem bruised if not broken.
As I rediscovered in this RfA, you can strike out or revert an edit (words) but it always exists in the page history. That's my main takeaway from this entire experience. An editor can forget her edits but Wikipedia always remembers. Liz Read! Talk! 19:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I knew from the start that I was not going to respond to opposes because I think it is badgering the editor and there are valid reasons for opposing any candidate. I did reply to one oppose when the editor was dismayed that I was not responding to editors' complaints about me. Otherwise, I needed to keep some distance, for the sake of the voters and for my own piece of mind.
Once this is over, I plan on going carefully through all supports and opposes and try to digest the feedback. Right now, my feelings are still a little raw and I'm not in the most receptive frame of mind to read through four dozen critiques of me and my editing history. The passage of time increases one's ability to be objective, when one isn't in the midst of the experience.
As for why people do what they do, that's what psychologists are for. It's difficult enough to know oneself and ones own motivations, much less speculate about other people's reasons. It's all about assuming good faith and being civil and respectful of your fellow editors. I believe that to be true but I also know that everyone has bad days...I know I have made decisions/edits I regret and I'd wager so has every other editor. Ultimately, I guess it's all about trust. Here ends the daily refection. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
You should look for opposes that are constructive criticism I agree, but don't let the opposes get to you is what I am saying as not all of them are good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Liz. I supported your RfA, and I want to give you a message of good cheer. I'm sorry to read that your feelings are still a little raw, although it's entirely understandable. I don't know what the Crats are going to decide, and I'm glad that I don't have to make the decision, because it really could go either way. But I want to say very sincerely that I don't think that stuff from your past is irreparable for RfA purposes. Give it plenty of time; think about the issues raised when you feel ready to do so; find some ways to demonstrate through edits that you have listened to some of the opposers; and when you eventually feel ready for another RfA, craft your opening statements to show that you have learned. If you end up in a repeat RfA, you don't have to change that many minds to get to 80% – and you don't have to worry about that other 20%. It's very do-able. And it's an irrefutable fact that a lot of editors, including me, showed up to express positive opinions of you! Wikipedia, well, it's just a website. It should be a hobby, not a job, not a hassle. I wish you lots of happiness going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Nokuse Plantation has been nominated for Did You Know

Wikidata weekly summary #169

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

AfD notice

Hi! I'm leaving you this note because you recently particpated in a discussion that resulted in a deletion request which you may be interested in. NickCT (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, NickCT. It looks like the discussion was wrapped up extremely fast, less than 2 1/2 hours after the nomination was posted. There was plenty of participation and I don't think mine would have altered the outcome. But I appreciate the notification. Liz Read! Talk! 18:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Extremely fast. I knew a delete result was a longshot, but I was surprised by the speed with which a keep came back. Frankly, I take the super fast response as more evidence that there's too much emotion surrounding this topic on WP for a rational decision. A topic which is pretty much a non-issue IRL.....
Anyways, thanks for the reply. And good luck with the admin request. Looks like you'll nail it.... NickCT (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
NickCT, I think that Gamergate-related articles will improve over time, I'm just not sure how much time it will take. I thought the entire controversy would be over in a couple of months but the social media discussion continues.
As for the RfA, last time I looked this morning, I was in the "discretionary range" (between 70-80% support) so ultimately one or a few bureaucrats will weigh all of the pros and cons and make a decision tomorrow morning. All I'm sure of is that I will be glad to be out of the spotlight and back to regular editing. Thanks for the good luck wishes! Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
They'd be crazy to decide against you. Best, NickCT (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts, late in the game

My dear Liz,

I have considered the recent opposes, many written by editors I greatly respect. I have considered their points, many of which have some validity, which I am sure that you are also considering in a careful fashion. I have weighed those opposes and believe that the best thing that I can do at this point is to reiterate my support for you and your candidacy, because I remain convinced that you will be a good administrator, whether now, or in the future.

The above is a slight rewrite of what I just posted at the RfA page. In addition, I must add that I feel great compassion for you in what must be a very difficult time for you. I can only imagine the pain you are now feeling, and the only thing I can say right now is that I would be happy to discuss things with you in days to come, as you try to understand this situation. I bid you peace. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've switched to support and you just hit WP:RFX200, and it's gone to a crat chat, so fingers crossed..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie333, this is a pleasant surprise! I appreciate your support. Yes, Wikipedia's bureaucrats are getting called on to decide a number of RfAs this year. We'll see what they decide, there seems to be quite a bit of discussion on the talk page but I'm steering clear of that. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Liz. I'm sorry about the whole RfA - you handled yourself beautifully. If I'd known how much of a tough experience it was going to be, I wouldn't have pushed so hard for you to run. Whatever the outcome, focus on the support, over 200 people turned out to say you're doing a fine job (even if some were later struck). That's a significant number by anyone's standards and you should be proud of what you're doing. There is some useful feedback within the opposition section, I know you've already taken some of it on board - don't be disheartened by the number. If there's anything I can ever do, you know where to find me. WormTT(talk) 12:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Halfway through, I began to think it was a decision that would come down to a 'crat chat. It seems that many recent RfAs that last a full week end up in the 70s% support range and need to be evaluated by Wikipedia's bureaucrats. I trust they will consider all of the votes and comments and come to a decision they think is best for the project. I appreciate your support along with that of Yunshui and Blade. Liz Read! Talk! 14:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
SwisterTwister has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit!†

SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Generally, I don't like visiting RfA as it's too unsettling and uncomfortable sometimes. Good advice can come from RfA even if overwhelming and disguised sometimes and, after my own RfA in 2012, I partly questioned and still question it sometimes the time I spend here. WJBScribe summarized it nicely that the good editors that spend good time here are not here to waste their time making this site better. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, SwisterTwister. I am relatively new to AfD and you have already taught me so much on how best to participate in a discussion. This is one area that I look forward to improving in, following the example of editors more experienced than I. And I appreciate the pie! Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I hope for the best here =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Knowledgekid87. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion, take it or leave it

Liz,

I don't think we've interacted much. I was an Arbcom clerk, resign for complicated reasons, and felt guilty about it. We technically overlapped, but you became a clerk about the same time I stopped contributing in that area. Why am I telling you this? To explain that my guilt for dropping out cause me to pay attention to your actions as a clerk, and your fine handling helped assuage my guilt for abruptly dropping out.

Your RFA has been interesting to say the least. I see editors I highly respect on both sides. I'm watching the 'crat chat, which may resolve even as I'm writing this but at the moment they appear to be struggling.

One person opined "that you haven't often "cut the Gordian knot". I'm not here to agree or disagree with that comment, my goal is to try to cut the Gordian knot myself.

You've seen a number of editors concerned about your lack of content creation. (I know you have many mainspace edits and I haven't looked closely, but I assume they are gnomish in character.) I read your explanation of why you spent so little time in serious content creation. It struck a chord with me. I have decades of experience with financial economics, yet I almost never edit in those areas. Why? Because it would feel like work and I didn't come to Wikipedia to extend my workday. So I am very sympathetic with someone who wants to contribute to Wikipedia but doesn't want to feel compelled to work in any particular area.

That said, you are interested in becoming an administrator. While there is no formal rule that one has to have substantial content creation to be an administrator, I think there is substantial value in having that experience. Even if one plans to not do any substantial content work after becoming an administrator, the experience would be quite helpful in dealing with administrative issues. Therefore, I recommend that you consider the following: Inform the 'crats that you are gratified by the substantial support for your candidacy. Very few RFAs in history have garnered 200 supports. That said, the concern that admins ought to have experience with content creation is a valid concern, and while you don't want to do it and don't plan to do it substantially in the future, you agree that spending 3 to 6 months with an increased emphasis on content creation would provide you the insight that so many editors think is valuable. You might even enjoy it but that's not the point. In fact, if you did it and it reinforced your lack of desire to spend much time there because it wasn't fun, it still would provide more insight into the mindset of content creators.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, in 3 or 6 months, Gamergate may be even better organized to brigade last-minute votes. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Just responding here to say that Sam Walton presented some data on this, which can be viewed here, especially this and this. Samsara 12:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, it sounds like you are arguing that I should withdraw my candidacy. To be honest, I did consider this on Friday when I was surprised by opposes I received from editors I had cordial relationships with. And I had a strong desire to pull the plug on the bashing I was receiving.
But I thought of the support I received from my nominators who all emailed me, volunteering to nominate me for an RfA. And I thought of the 100 supports that I received in the first few days which, frankly, blew me away. Maybe they were a lot editors I had welcomed when they started editing Wikipedia, I don't know. I certainly didn't expect to receive 200 supports...but I also didn't expect to receive 72 opposes!
I know it would be easier for everyone if I threw in the towel on this. But determining consensus in a RfA is what being a bureaucrat is all about. They are entrusted with making some of the hardest decisions on Wikipedia and I don't want to second-guess them. I'm content with letting bureaucrats do what they do and accepting the results with equanimity. Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
You couldn't "withdraw" at this point anyway – when Cyberpower did that during his "Crat Chat", the 'Crats concluded that you can't "withdraw" from an RfA that has run its full course, and so closed it as "No consensus". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Honestly Liz I see this as a bit of a success in your part. Yes I did "vote" in opposition HOWEVER look at the number of people on here that stopped, knew who you were and voiced their opinion. You don't get things done without pissing some people off! That is what is great about this place, we may not agree with each other but we can co-exist! Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Nokuse Plantation

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Chris. I appreciate it. Liz Read! Talk! 15:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I missed it

Can't leave much of a comment because my state is in a maelstrom of fallen trees and lost power, but I'm sorry I didn't catch your RfA in time to support it. You've been solidly aboveboard and fair in all the interactions I've seen and I wish you the best of luck in the upcoming Bcrat coin flip. Protonk (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral support, Protonk. I hope the bureaucrat chat will involve more deliberation than a coin flip but I do realize that it could go either way at this point.
Sounds like you had quite a series of thunderstorms come through your area. We could use the rain south of you, as the lawns are turning brown. That's not unusual in some parts of the country but is very atypical for New Jersey. i hope you get your power back on. Liz Read! Talk! 15:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I also missed your RfA and would have gladly supported. . Buster Seven Talk 15:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Buster7, You might keep an eye on the RfA process these days as there seems to be at least one candidacy a week. Liz Read! Talk! 15:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to WP:200. That's a rare accomplishment. Sorry to see you sitting the same boat I sat in at my RfA. Funny enough same percentage, resulting in a cratchat you apparently landed perfectly on the tip of the needle. :p It looks like the crats are leaning towards promoting you by a hair. If you do get promoted, let me be the first to congratulate you. If not, then better luck next time.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyberpower678, thanks for the chat summary...I haven't looked at the 'crat chat and won't for quite a while. As I'm sure you know, it's unnerving to be a subject of other people's conversations. It's better to read over all of the back and forth and absorb the information after the decision has been made.
I know I said on your talk page that I hope you would launch another RfA in six months. I still hope you do. But after this experience, I can understand it if you decide not to...it is quite an unforgettable experience. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
My RfA honestly didn't bother me as much as I thought it would. I would gladly do it again, and I plan to launch another RfA. The opposition can be made into useful advice, for the most part, which I find to be valuable.—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That is a healthy attitude, Cyberpower678, and one I hope I can adopt. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

Per the bureaucrat discussion, I've closed your RfA as successful. Good luck with the new tools. Maxim(talk) 01:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Maxim. I know it was a complicated RfA, lots of comments to go through and I'll be thanking every bureaucrat who spent their time participating in the chat. Liz Read! Talk! 11:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on the new mop! Well deserved. — Strongjam (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Very well merited. Congratulations. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It was mainly very awkward, Gobonobo being the subject of so much scrutiny and debate. I expected some of the oppposes but I didn't know my edit history would be examined so meticulously. By the end though, I was at peace with either passing or not passing. As for collaboration, I would be up for that, if it's on a subject where I think I could make a contribution. Liz Read! Talk! 11:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
+1. Congratulations! — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 01:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations on the successful request, Liz. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations for the promotion. And remember to fix the topicons on your page! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I guess those will have to change, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Liz Read! Talk! 11:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, there are so many congratulatory sections I'm not sure where to place mine! Congratulations for passing your RfA—calling it an ordeal would be an understatement at this point. Good luck with the mop! Altamel (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Altamel. It was less of an ordeal than it could have been when I made the decision before-hand not to counter each Oppose with a comment or explanation. That conduct looks defensive to me and I didn't want to badger anyone. There will be time enough in coming days to consider each Oppose and note the concerns raised. Liz Read! Talk! 11:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I was late to the party, but congratulations on your very well deserved promotion! Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC).
Lankiveil, thanks, congratulations can never come too late! Liz Read! Talk! 13:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Rock on!

Congrats on your RFA! You'll do great.--Jorm (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Indeed, congratulations, I hope that waiting to see which way it would go wasn't too unbearable for you. If you would allow an old curmudgeon one piece of advice: some of the opposes came from some very sharp people (I'm thinking of Dennis Brown, Drmies, Bishonen and Bbb23 in particular, but there were others as well), so I hope that you will take their comments to heart and learn what you can from them. Enjoy the bit! BMK (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, BMK, I will pay attention to their advice and concerns. Liz Read! Talk! 11:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, congratulations, Liz! And, again, I want to express my regret at what you had to go through to get there. Much of it was grossly unfair, I thought. But I'm glad that you triumphed in the end. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Listen up, I'm actually glad you got the bit – even though I opposed. I had my reasons, which hopefully were not bundled in with the content creation opposes, because that's not what I meant – but I digress. After seeing all of the pile ons, I really felt bad. This has got to be the most drawn out and intense RfA I've ever witnessed, and you not only survived it and kept your cool but damn it wasn't successful! You truly deserved it after all of that, and I am sure you'll take the more valid opposition concerns to heart and will fare well as an admin. Just know that despite my oppose !vote, I have no less respect for you than I do the next guy, and that if you ever need anything my door is always open. Congrats and welcome aboard, Liz! :) — MusikAnimal talk 04:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, MusikAnimal, that has to be the nicest oppose I received! I may knock on your door in coming days. Liz Read! Talk! 11:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

All right!!!!

It has become apparent that you

are now an administrator
are now an administrator
are now an administrator
are now an administrator
are now an administrator
are now an administrator
are now an administrator

so you are now officially awesome.

I'll have a glass of Kavalan whiskey in celebration, and I owe you at least two for convincing you to put yourself through this. I know you'll do great, and if you ever need another admin for any reason don't hesitate to ping me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That is an awesome message to greet me this morning, Blade! I appreciate your support through this whole process. Liz Read! Talk! 12:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Please note that it doesn't take RfA to be declared awesome, see my support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, Gerda. This isn't so much a change in status as much as it is about additional responsibilities and accountability. Liz Read! Talk! 12:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Christ. That was a bitch. In short of something significant to say, I will get drunk in celebration as well. Congrats! Swarm ♠ 01:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
After the 108 proof Kavalan I've got some 115.8 proof Sipsmiths gin and 110 proof Old Raj I'll share with everyone. I might even use one or both and my 100 proof Smirnoff to make a Vesper. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Ditto on the congratulations for the well-deserved mop! bd2412 T 01:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Adding another congrats! (With so many sections to pick from, I'll go with the colorful one :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Congrats! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, everyone, I greatly appreciate your support, especially those who came to my defense when they thought I was being unfairly criticized. I have a lot of feedback to sift through and I plan on taking the valid concerns to heart. Liz Read! Talk! 11:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats, Liz! Thanks for your willingness to take on extra responsibilities. I am confident that you will use your new tools judiciously. 209.131.236.219 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new toolset

They are very sharp tools, and can cut deep and swift. Be wise and considerate.
May your hand be steady, your aim be true and your mind be an oasis of calm.
→StaniStani 01:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you mind if I borrow that quote, Stanistani? I think I'd like those words to be permanently on the page. Liz Read! Talk! 11:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I have no objections. You are in for interesting times.→StaniStani 19:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

May you use your powers for good! :) Glad to have voted for you! Thereandnot (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Congratulations on your successful result as an administrator. I voted support so I wish you the best of luck EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Congrats and good job

Congrats on becoming a manager. You were always kind to me when I was new. Thank you Cavalierman (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz, we've never spoken, but I'm aware of you and supported you in your RFA. I was one of the people who defined the "admin" role to begin with, and in my assessment, you are ideal admin material. It is a shame that the whole RFA process has become such a drama-laden, axe-grinding experience. Anyway, congrats on surviving it and I'm sure you'll do a fine job. Warm regards Manning (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations Liz. We've never spoken either, and while I voted against you, I wanted to congratulate you on getting through the gauntlet. I wasn't expecting that it would become the drama-fest that it was. Please don't block me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
You deserve this for simply getting the bit after all that stress. Congrats again. :D —cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
+1 — Yash! (Y) 03:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

More congratulations!

  • Congratulations on your successful RFA, and I'm sorry it was undoubtedly rather unpleasant. However, if my impression of you from the RFA is accurate, you'll take it in stride and continue to be a voice of reason and common sense. Best of luck and feel free to stop by if you have any questions about your new role. Andrevan@ 03:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for helping us with our admin burdens. Remember that we are servants of the community and not the masters of it. If you have any questions or just want to know which cabals to join just pop by my talk page. Chillum 03:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Can't offer help, but support the service aspect, which I am sure you know anyway, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For navigating a thorny RfA without losing your cool. Thanks for stepping up to clean out the Augean stables. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Welcome to the Cabal! I'm sure that RfA was quite tough on you, but tomorrow's a brighter day. Have fun with your new buttons. ceradon (talk • edits) 06:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Your RfA

I'm sorry it took so long to close your RfA. Some important issues have arisen during the course of the RfA and I'd like to explore them to see if we can establish consensus on them. Please keep an eye out for the discussion. It'll be advertised at BN, the Cratchat talk and at Talk:RfA. In the meantime, congratulations on a successful RfA, but I hope you don't mind if I wish that the more significant legacy to Wikipedia will be improved RfX. --Dweller (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Dweller, it's better to have a thoughtful discussion regarding adminship than a rush to close. I really appreciate the care and attention this RfA received from bureaucrats especially considering the lively conversations going on on the 'crat chat talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 11:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet more congratulations

Looks like the struggle session is finally over - welcome to the world of adminship. Yunshui 雲水 07:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

All I can say at this point, Yunshui, is that it was probably the longest 9 days of my life! You were right to advise me to take a day off there on the weekend so I could return on Sunday and face the last minute questions. Thank you for your support through this all. Liz Read! Talk! 11:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats

Your new t-shirt. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on your RfA Liz! It was definitely one of the toughest I've seen for a while. If you need any help/advice/guidance please do let me know, I'm happy to help as always. And...I see no one has properly attired you yet, so this is for you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats from me too. When you get bored of hunting for the right block message, some nice person put some code into my monobook that gives you a dropdown menu - I heartily reccommend using it yourself. ϢereSpielChequers 09:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
You won't believe this, Callanecc, but after I read that I passed, I scrolled down the page, looking for the t-shirt! You were immensely helpful to me when I started editing and had questions about the arbitration process so I might take you up on your offer.
WereSpielChequers, that code would be very helpful, I might visit your monobook page. I'm not going to leap into admin activity but I do want to explore the tools so that when they are needed, I am familiar with them. Right now, I have only figured out how to view deleted content. Liz Read! Talk! 12:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Haha, oh yes finding all of the new buttons is one of the best things about being a new admin. Speaking of scripts I've got a bunch in my .js page which might be useful (including the one WSC suggested). This one is really helpful as a general tool! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pile-on congrats from me! The only thing giving me pause was figuring out where on this page I should say it. What you just went through, I wouldn't wish on anybody. But what I do wish for you now is a happy Wikipedia experience going forward! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I couldn't figure out which section to put this so this seemed as good any. I am after all arriving late to the party. I've always thought you were a good editor and my only regret was that I couldn't have supported you more in what was seemingly one of the most dramatic and intense RFAs I've ever seen. I'm so sorry you had to go through such an ordeal. I hope the experience hasn't dissuaded you from your love or commitment to the project, or if it has that you are able to find the time to fall back in love with it. All the best, Mkdwtalk 12:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Wow! what a stressful experience! I hope this kitten helps.

Guy Macon (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You wouldn't think that a tiny photo of a kitten would help but it totally does, Guy! Liz Read! Talk! 11:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Another RfA section

Hi Liz. I'm pleased to see the RfA has finally finished and that you are now an administrator. You know as well as I that it was a close call and when it comes down to it, most of the oppose votes were legitimate issues raised. So many editors I respect ended up in that column, I really don't them all to be telling me "I told you so". Don't let me down, Liz, be the excellent admin I know you can be. Also, now that the RfA is over, have you considered being open to recall? My method is available to pinch if you'd like - I wish more admins were open to something like it. WormTT(talk) 09:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It was a nailbiter, Dave, and I turned off my laptop and went to bed early last night so I woke up to see the result. By Tuesday morning, I was at peace with either passing or not passing. I don't want to let anyone down and, to that end, I'm going to follow my answer to question #1 and ease into admin activity slowly and cautiously. There is a lot to learn.
I was actually going to cite your recall page as one I would model my own on but the question on recall, surprisingly, didn't come up. Now that I have some distance, it's interesting to me that areas that I thought would be concerns--like admin recall or subjects like files and templates where I don't have experience--weren't a hurdle, while other areas--like a sarcastic talk page comment or a statement made on an SPI two years ago--ended up influencing some editors' votes. I would hesitate to give any prospective candidates advice on what to expect in an RfA.
By the end, I wasn't sure if I would thank you for the strong push you made for me to launch an RfA. But if questions were raised or debate started on different aspects of the RfA process that might lead to improvement, I think it was worth going through. Liz Read! Talk! 12:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
As I was an ANI regular before my RFA, mine was also bit of a nail biter, and not at all what I thought it would be, so I understand some of how you feel. And again, I invite you to engage with those that opposed in good faith like myself, as there is a lot to be gained by it. Overwhelmingly, those that opposed did so because of concerns about experience in the right areas, not because we questioned your character or intent. It took me months to fully shake off the experience, but I think it made me a stronger person for the experience. But the Crats made a logical choice, there is no remorse for the vote nor is there anguish over the outcome. I do find you agreeable, Liz, and I'm hopeful you will be a shining example of adminship in time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm just going to pipe in here and agree fully with WTT's comments. It's good to have another administrator on board, and I'll suggest that you take your time and not plunge into difficult or challenging situations too quickly; consider learning how and when to use the admin buttons as the Wikipedia equivalent of learning to drive a car - figure out how the acceleration and braking works before you worry about the stunt driving. I confess I'm not nearly as available as many others to provide information and direct support during your learning period, but I do encourage you to take advantage of the offers you've received. Best wishes, Liz. Risker (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

my RfA opposition

Not to be mean, but I opposed your RfA because I am not comfortable with your attraction to the drama boards, especially because I've seen you exercise some bad judgment and snap assumptions. Even my own case, you said I'd continue to be a problem and would be back at ANI...I haven't been. And much to the opposite of your assumption...haven't interacted with the user (Winkelvi) who was a problem.. a problem as evinced by his being brought back to ANI subsequently for like the 6th or 7th time and being blocked (insufficiently, imho) for the same behaviour with others that lead to our dustup. Now, as another negative, the overreaction just kept me from offering what could have been a significant improvement to an article that hasnt improved since the dustup--an action that has essentially stifled content improvement. No one cared about what was really important...the content. So I guess we don't get them right all the time. Your assumptions however left a very bitter taste in my mouth about administrator wannabes. I do however wish you luck. I hope you take something from the opposition comments and learn from it. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I said something that changed your editing habits, JackTheVicar, but I can't recall this incident. It's hard for me to believe I said you were a problem and would keep coming back to ANI but if you searched through my edit history, you might be able to dig up a relevant diff. I used to spend a lot of time at ANI not because I was an admin wannabe but because my graduate work involved dispute resolution and I was interested in seeing how conflicts get resolved on Wikipedia. It's also why I've been interested in arbitration, not because I ever want to be an arbitrator, I'm just interested in seeing how a committee can address disputes in an organization almost entirely composed of volunteers.
I know it does no good at this point, but I would say it's a mistake to let any editor's words ruin your enjoyment of editing here. In collaborative editing projects, it's inevitable that there is conflict, I know I've bumped heads with other editors. But what is important are the contributions each person makes. And if I had anything to do with you not improving an article, I'd like to apologize to you. Liz Read! Talk! 15:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    • It was your comment dated "12:05, 5 June 2015" and its in the ANI archive. Your rush to judgment and assuming my character were offensive. The apology isn't accepted, because it doesn't change anything. I had to serve an overkill 3 week block because, you, and others chose to let one user slide despite his repeated editwarring, who had been to ANI a half dozen times over a user (me) dealing with him (others complained if his behaviour, so my complaints weren't alone) with no disciplinary history. That shows a lack of perspective, a lack of seeing the bigger picture, that I hope you work on. In the meantime, I still have bitter feelings over the incident...and it does stymie my desire to contribute in certain areas where improvement is sorely needed only because of falling victim to the drive-by shootings of bad judgment and quick assumptions of people like you who show up to add their two cents without getting into the greater issues and thinking they are doing good. Just learn from it is all I ask. JackTheVicar (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I found the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Unblock of JackTheVicar. Given the number of editors and admins who participated in that thread, I think you are overstating the importance of my comment (which was a Comment, not an Oppose Unblock). I didn't say you'd be back at ANI, I said Despite promises, the parties usually can't seem to ignore each other. As long as JtV views Winkelvi as the truly guilty party, I predict that there will be future interaction between the two editors.
While I think the comment I made was valid, I apologized for any negative effect it had on your time on Wikipedia. But since you won't accept my apology, I don't know what else there is for me to say in response to your complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 16:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
while I concede your comment wasn't important in the scheme of things, it nonetheless became relevant given doubts that your reaction created and which given your penchant for ANI and other drama boards I continue to harbour about your suitability, hence my vote at RfA. When other people in that conversation who acted more or less the same come up for RfA I'll voice my dissent if they haven't grown from it. I see a few admin wannabes in that discussion who lack the temperament for the bits--at least you are a little more polite than they were. As Winkelvi has decided to wikistalk me here somehow out of the blue, despite no tagging him or provoking his appearance, I'll no longer be commenting or replying here lest it be seen as interaction (as I haven't been near him since that ANI) or give into his baiting. The only way I'll review and accept your apology, graciously posited above, is when I see if you've grown from my comments in opposition and those of others who had doubts at RfA. Actions, however innocuous in appearance, have consequences...and in Wikipedia even a polite rush to judgment causes bitterness. Like the encyclopaedia, with a little work we improve. So. Gauntlet thrown, prove my doubts wrong. Go get 'em. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Liz's talk page is on my watchlist. There is no stalking involved. You mentioned my name, further attempted to sully my reputation, and I don't have the right to comment? Au contraire. Mentioning me at all (and continuing to do so) very well could be seen as "interaction". Depends on the admin who sees this entire talk section, I suppose. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Two months later; I see JackTheVicar hasn't dropped the stick yet and is still blaming others for his block. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @JackTheVicar: - you were right in your incination to disengage from this thread once WV showed up, although since WV quite reasonably has Liz's talk page on their watchlist (as do I,) you were wrong to describe it as wikistalking. You also exercised rather poor judgment in editing your initial comment, after it had been made, in a way that easily reads to a reasonable person as as an attempt to inflame the situation further. In any incidental interaction with WV, it would be a very wise decision to refrain from language that can be construed as WP:BAITy - especially after you've recognized a need to disengage. Also, as a point, your block was upheld at full length after a week long ANI review, because your behavior went beyond the pale, including canvassing a bunch of admins off-wiki. You also had options other than serving out your block - I offered to significantly reduce your block length if you indicated you understood why you were blocked in the first place. Instead, you continually minimized your actions and shifted blame to other people. Serving out a three week block was one of multiple options, and was the one you chose.

Also because I've been busy and don't think I've said it yet, congratulations on your RfA Liz :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

Was your path to admin a difficult one because you were a woman or were you treated with respect according to your actions and edits? Overall would you think the nomination is akin to Affirmative Action? I do not but I am interested in your opinion on your thoughts on the matter. Just in my experience I have not seen anything that would disqualify you or show you needed special treatment to gain adminship, it's your perceptions I was interested in though as the person that experienced it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(Answering from my perspective)Hell in a Bucket, the issue is that Wikipedia's way of doing things is structured so people who are not part of the major demographic group will have a harder time fitting in. We need to be aware of the research that shows women and men are evaluated differently when they have exactly the same skills and experience. A system like RFA has no guards against subjective biases that cause people to evaluate the candidates differently based on their identity. It is not affirmative action to be aware of these biases when considering if the RFA evaluation process is making it harder to have a roster of administrators with a diverse background. I'm quite concerned that women are expected to be exceptional people with exceptionally strong achievements to move on to positions beyond editor. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
What little I've seen showed that women generally fared better at RFA than men, actually. This can't speak to individual circumstances, but it does show that sweeping generalizations aren't particularly useful, nor accurate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't mean it insultingly to Liz, just asking for her experience as a woman. Many people say there is a problem and some say that it is exceeedingly hard because of it. I am curious to her preception of the experience. Firsthand experiences from reasonable people help change perceptions of problems and how big they are. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, My concern is that too many of the women who come forward as candidates do so well because they don't agree to being nominated until they have a very very strong record of doing remarkable work. This makes it harder for other women (or other men, too) who are regular good editors to pass. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
This has been covered at Wikipedia Editor Retention. Three female admin came from the Editor of the Week program there (Anna Frodesiak, Anne Delong and MelanieN), in about one year, so there are some of us actively looking for women to nominate. Nominees are picked by any editor, not WER members in particular. It is a good way to actually get involved in the solution and has a track record of getting results because it starts with locating women (and men) who are great contributors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Hell in a Bucket, I'm not used to seeing your name in any other color but red!
I agree with FloNight in that there is no way I would have self-nominated and I only launched an RfA as a candidate because I received three email messages from three administrators over two weeks in June, suggesting that I try and offering to nominate me. I had occasionally received encouragement to try over the past two years but this just seemed like serendipity. Plus, WTT/Dave wouldn't take "no" for an answer! Seriously, he wouldn't. But even having three strong and supportive nominators didn't influence the RfA outcome as much as I thought it would.
As far as whether I was treated differently than a man, that is hard to say because I can't have an RfA redo with a male username. I will say that I was struck by how some of the critical comments were very personal, about me as a person, my faults and why I was unsuitable. I've participated in over a dozen RfAs and probably read over two dozen more in preparing for this RfA and it's not typical that voters get that personal. It has happened in the past if an editor is seen to have a temper and fights with other editors. But that wasn't my problem. I was seen by some voters as naive, meddling, drawn to conflict and sarcastic. These are judgments about my personality, qualities that seemed to some voters to be unfixable.
And I think this happens to more often to women than men. I was once told by an employer that I was bad at my job because I made him feel "uneasy", that he felt tension when I was around. This had nothing to do with my job performance, which was fine, it happened right after I stopped laughing at his awful jokes in the breakroom. Because I didn't care about making him comfortable, there was something wrong with me. And he didn't tell me what he wanted me to change, how I could improve. Most of my coworkers were men and they weren't expected to make the boss feel good about himself. This is what sociologists call "emotional labor" and it is frequently a part of stereotypical female occupations (nurses, teachers, stewardesses, etc.). One is not judged by one's skills but how you make other people feel. That is part of the gendered nature of the modern workplace and the situation is more subtle and complex than simply saying something is "sexist" or not.
I'm not sure how much this answers your question, HiaB. I find it most useful to talk about gender in terms of cultural expectations and not how specific women or men relate to each other. There are an enormous number of factors that impact human relationships and reducing everything to gender is reductionistic. Liz Read! Talk! 16:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, I appreciate that you shared your view. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Off to the beach ...
Right now I would suggest Liz do something fun and celebrate (like going to the beach for a few days!) I see no reason for this person to relive her recent experience to satisfy other people's curiosity about what it was like. Hazing and struggle sessions are unpleasant for everyone, regardless of gender. I'm sure Liz will offer her opinions on the topics under discussion at such time she feels it is appropriate. Djembayz (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Djembayz Forgive me if I completely ignore that as I did not ask for your permission or require your approval for asking. On a side note if you want a problem to be examined and ultimately fixed it requires uncomfortable questions so the truth however uncomfortable can be shown. If you truly do not want an environment with a gender gap then let the process play out rather then try and hinder and protect when neither is or was needed in the first place. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Djembayz. It's been a very long week and a half and it felt like I didn't exhale during that entire time. I really question whether RfAs need to be 7 days, it's a long time to be on the hot seat. Maybe 3 or 5 days is sufficient, that would be my suggestion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
With different people working different patterns of days, seven days gives most people a chance to see the RfA. BTW if you haven't got the admin dashboard yet, help yourself to a copy of my User:Peridon/links page. The top part is the dashboard, the bottom bit is an eclectic lot of links (some of which I don't now understand) which can be tailored by you to fit your needs. Good luck. Taking your first steps with the mop is a bit like the first time you drove a car with no-one there but you inside the car, and thousands of idiots outside all going different ways... Peridon (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
BTW 2 The sparrowhawk that visits my garden comes for woodpigeons or collared doves, and must be a female as the male couldn't carry one off. Peridon (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I've seen over this RFA, being female makes it much harder to pass since males (like myself) don't have the MRAtards / redpillers opposing you because you're a woman. Also, the level of scrutiny of Liz's "interactions" with other editors was appalling. I've been significantly more sarcastic significantly more commonly and not one person opposed my RFA for it. (I think one person opposed my checkuser appointment over sarcasm concerns.) It's a well-known fact that men will scrutinize women significantly more on their personality than they will other men. Seeing it in action in this RFA was abhorrent. Good luck with the mop, Liz, and ignore the people whining that you're "too rude". Half of them wouldn't know "rude" if it hit them in the face. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I have never voted in an admin election, as until two days ago I had never seen a name I recognised among those proposed. So I was disappointed that when I saw a name I did recognise as a very competent conciliator, I had missed the boat. Anyway, the outcome was clearly the correct one! Maproom (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the broom cupboard! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC).

Congratulations on the outcome, Liz, I was especially pleased to see that the bureaucrat discussion directly addressed a spiking rash/fever of opposes midway which seemed clear evidence of some caucusing/campaigning/rabblerousing going on behind the scenes attempting to muck up the process. – Athaenara ✉ 21:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Many congratulations both for a successful RfA and especially for the grace with which you handled the RfA itself.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC))
I'd also like to add my congratulations. I supported you and I"m glad in the end it worked out. If you have questions as you're trying to learn, please feel free to ask. Welcome! AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
A belated thank you, Maproom, Rich, Athaenara, Littleolive oil and AliveFreeHappy, for your good wishes. I was shocked at how contentious the RfA was because I don't think of myself as a controversial person. I'm left with a lot of mixed feelings about the experience but I am grateful for the support I received before, during and after the process. Thanks again! Liz Read! Talk! 20:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Now that that's over, have a cookie! Oh, and congrats. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  02:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Num num! I think I need a plateful, Etamni! Thanks for the munchies. Liz Read! Talk! 20:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Well done!

Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

One can't have too many virtual kittens, Doug! No smell, no mess, just cuteness! Liz Read! Talk! 20:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A few shameless plugs

Hi Liz, congratulations on the RfA. As several others have said, you're due a bit of a respite now and I know you said that you plan to ease into admin activity slowly and cautiously which is a wise decision. So no pressure at all here (seriously), but I thought there might be a chance that you would be interested in trying to mollify those from the lack-of-content-creation oppose camp by creating/improving a few articles, and if so I wanted to offer you a few suggestions:

  • WP:REQUEST - Articles that have been requested by others. Not all of them meet the minimum standard of inclusion, but if you enjoy a good research challenge then these may appeal to you. These requests represent one very easy way for we editors to respond directly to the readership.
  • WP:MISSING - A WikiProject devoted to listing notable topics that are covered by other serious encyclopedias and reference works and that are missing from Wikipedia. If your strengths lie more in collating and summarizing a plenitude of reliable sources then this may appeal to you.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red lists (scientists, writers, etc.) - Lists of Wikipedia articles on notable women that need to be created or expanded. There is no particular reason to recommend these specific lists over the lists from either of the above two bullet points except that it's a good way to address the concerns of the good faith lack-of-content-creation opposers (who would presumably be happy to see content creation on any topic) without feeling like you're capitulating to the demands of bad faith lack-of-content-creation opposers (whose blood pressures might rise to see you advancing GGTF goals).

Again, no pressure. You had my support even with your current level of content creation. But if you are looking for a content creation project those are some good starting places. -Thibbs (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

When you edited as an IP, and having a content creation mindset

Hey, Liz. With regard to your WP:RfA and you now being a WP:Administrator, I've been thinking about when we first met (at least I think it's when we first met) two years ago. It makes me think of how fast time flies by, and how I never thought that the IP I was talking to about Wikipedia's biography category policy (WP:BLPCAT) would be a WP:Administrator someday. Since you were editing as an IP at the time, and have removed your IP account from your user page, I won't point to the discussion where we first met...unless you want me to. But, anyway, looking at your contributions from that time, you seemed very much interested in content creation. You were interested in sociology and sexology/sexual topics (including LGBT topics), and other topics, and would commonly post to the article talk pages about improving these articles. You also sometimes edited such articles to improve them. I'm not sure why you moved away from editing/commenting on those topics, but, in my opinion, you don't necessarily lack a content creation mindset. If you ever do dive back into editing such articles, I can point you to some topics that need, or might need, a woman's perspective; for example, Talk:Mons pubis#Which image to use?. I'm currently the only woman commenting there. Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I certainly do remember crossing paths with you, Flyer22...I think we bumped heads! But I soon saw how experienced you were and that you had such good judgment. I have no expertise in sexology subjects but I'll check into that article and see if there is anything I can contribute. Liz Read! Talk! 20:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Liz. Yes, I know we remember that we bumped heads; as you know, I briefly noted in your WP:RfA (in the Neutral section) that we did, and that we also moved to being on better terms with each other. But above, I was talking about the first time we met; you commented once and I commented twice (the second time was an update), and there was nothing heated about the commentary. It was a decent first meeting. Anyway, I was simply thinking about the way you used to edit, and that you might be interested in getting back to that style. Thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

note

even though I would have opposed .. I congratulate you. Best of luck with the new buttons. — Ched :  ?  01:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Even though I did oppose and additionally think your intervention on my talk page was probably not quite appropriate, it would be amiss of me not to wish you a fast recovery from the suspense and a successful, not too steep learning curve now you have the tools. Good luck! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the good luck, it's appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats! (and a barnstar)

The Barnstar of Diligence
My goodness, Liz, congratulations! I don't know how I missed the outcome of the cratchat, because I had been following it blow-by-blow for several hours, but I just went to check RFA and saw you were successful. This is great! As I've said on several emails, it's an honor working with you on the clerk team. You've held me "in check" a few times when I was a bit over-eager to take action, and your ideas and suggestions are always valuable. Goodness, it's going to be weird seeing your name highlighted in blue in discussions and notices now. And darn, that just leaves two non-admin clerks - I'm kind of feeling left out now... Once again, congrats! Have a great day, and get ready for (what I hear are) the horrors of ADMINACCT! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, L235. They are kind and generous words. Yes, there was a bit of friction when I started as a clerk but I'm glad that time and focusing on the work has smoothed things out and that I have good working relationships with all of my fellow clerks.
I look forward to working on another case with you in the future. And, I'm really glad you had an opportunity to take such an awesome trip this summer. Thanks again! Liz Read! Talk! 19:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #170

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
    • Successful request for oversight rights: Sjoerddebruin
  • Events/Blogs/Press
    • Wikimedia UK is organizing a Wikidata training session. You can sign up here.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Talk pages on Wikidata can now be converted to use Flow. You can request migrating your talk page at d:Wikidata:Flow.
    • Mix-n-Match got a bunch of new catalogs for you to match up with Wikidata. Currently matching is happening at about 500 items per day. Pretty sweet :)
    • @happybirthdayauthors is a new Twitter account posting reading suggestions based on Wikidata data.
    • Arbitrary access is rolling out to a large number of wikis over the next two weeks.
    • Duplicity can help you match up unlinked Wikipedia articles to a Wikidata item.
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Made some small changes to the style of the edit warning and sitelinks so they are easier to notice and understand
    • Added error messages for Special:GoToLinkedPage and Special:ItemByTitle so you get a useful message in case no result is found
    • The Entity Selector now displays alias in brackets behind label
    • The number of entities loaded via the {{#property:…}} parser function and via Lua will be reported in the “Parser profiling data” (which can be found below a page preview or within the Html of a page)
    • Prepared for next rounds of arbitrary access rollout
    • Investigated growing lag of dispatching of changes to Wikipedia and co. We'll need to investigate further and change things so the lag between an edit on Wikidata and it being send to the Wikipedias and other projects is not too high.
    • Added the property ID to Special:ListProperties
    • Moved two extensions (Wikidata.org and WikimediaBadges) from Github to Gerrit. More will follow.
    • We'd like to drop a database table. Discussion is ongoing.
  • Monthly Tasks
    • Hack on one of these.
    • Help develop the next summary here!
    • Contribute to a Showcase item
    • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
    • Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.

WikiProject Television

There's an issue at WikiProject Television that I would like your input at. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 17:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on your new Adminship

I was unaware that you were running otherwise I would have thrown in my vote of support. But you made it without me! Congrats! — Keithbob • Talk • 17:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Keithbob, I appreciate your good wishes! Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Congratulations on gaining the tools, Liz.  Roger Davies talk 07:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Ditto - just came across that discussion, and am happy to know you'll have more authority to help, given your comments I've seen in the past. -Darouet (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Darouet. The RfA was quite a grueling experience, much more than I expected. So given that, I'm gently easing into an admin role. I'm sure it will one day become second nature but for now I'm being cautious. Thanks for your confidence though! Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I'm glad to see you passed RfA despite some heated opposition, and I know you'll do great things with your new responsibilities. That looked very stressful, so here's a beer to help you chillax. RO(talk) 20:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Does this come with a pitcher, RO? I hate to drink alone. I think it's been months since we crossed paths. I hope you've found some editing projects you enjoy. Cheers! Liz Read! Talk! 20:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Put it on my tab! Yeah, it's been a while, and I've been pretty busy. Chetro Ketl was recently promoted to FA, so yes; I've found some enjoyable and satisfying projects. Congrats on the promotion and corresponding pay raise ... lol. Hope to see you around! RO(talk) 20:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well done

If nothing else, you deserve a special barnstar just for sticking with it, that RFA was something to behold. Sometimes I think we've forgotten the purpose of Wikipedia, to expand and enhance an ever-growing tome of knowledge that's free for everyone to see and editable by (mostly) anyone. Sure it has its own crinkles but I had and have no doubt whatsoever that you will be a sterling example of what Wikipedia needs from its admins. Good luck, don't get too embroiled too soon, and remember that every single edit you make and every single admin action you take which improves Wikipedia justifies it all. My best to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, The Rambling Man. Some very wise words, if I may say. I did feel like withdrawing on Friday of the RfA, it felt like I, as a person, was under assault. But I gave myself the weekend off from the fracas...and it's amazing how time away from Wikipedia can enhance ones clarity when one returns. I will try to live up to the trust that was placed in me and always, measure twice (or thrice) and cut once. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yay for you!

I'm a little late to congratulate you on your RFA, but here I am!!
Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received eight long, sordid years ago from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you must ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll, who will threaten to ban you from the Internet for life.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. They're so, so awesome.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway.
  6. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.


KrakatoaKatie 22:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better.
All rights released under GFDL.
Thank you, KrakatoaKatie, this is advice I can use! I am easing slowly into the role of administrator. I appreciate the offer to be on call if I need feedback on an administrative action. As for having people point out all of your errors, after that RfA, I accepted that this would be my lot in life from here on out. Thanks again! Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Belated congratulations on your successful run for adminship. Thanks for all of your work to improve English Wikipedia. North America1000 22:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

August 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday August 19, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

WP:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted

I am approaching you as the clerk for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Everyone, including its creator Kww, agrees that this page now serves no useful purpose, but since it is referred to in FOF3 there is a view that it should be moved to a subpage of the Arbcom case (and the FOF edited to point to its new location). Do you think that is necessary for the record? If so, I will do it; otherwise, I am minded to close the MfD as delete. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

JohnCD, I don't see that any pages other the Kww's page and the MfD discussion that link to this page. I have posed the question on the clerks list to see if anyone has encountered this situation before and has an opinion of whether it should be a subpage. Thanks for asking me and I hope to hear back soon. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Received and replied, EvergreenFir. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Belated congrats. I just saw your WP:NAS edits in my WL. Regards. -- Tito Dutta (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm easing into the role, Tito Dutta. Have any advice for a newbie? Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from July 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in July 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 20:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Female saints

Dear Liz, I had pinged you at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_23#Category:Christian_female_saints_from_the_Old_Testament, not sure if you had noticed this. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I hadn't noticed your ping, Marcocapelle. Things have been a little hectic. I'll check out the discussion. Sorry for the delay. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

A kitten for you!

This wiki kitten is here to say you should not get discouraged. Better luck next time (at which point you are welcome to notify me on my talk page about your candidacy; I missed it this time). Cheers,

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually passed the RfA, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. It was quite a grueling experience though. One needs not just a thick skin but a flame retardant one. Liz Read! Talk! 10:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Want a pleasant job of diplomacy? Close as requested here? Don't recall to have seen a blocking admin giving a barnstar to the blocked, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
closed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Gerda, can you start a new thread when you leave me a message? I seem to have missed seeing these until now. I'll check out the talk page now even if the matter is closed. Be well, Liz Read! Talk! 20:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
For a new topic, I will. But "not just a thick skin but a flame retardant one" was exactly what made me think ;) - It all began - harmless I thought - on my talk, Boys will be boys, which proved to be a prediction ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter

July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
sent by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #171

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

AfD

Would you be willing to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the verified oldest people? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks to be done =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

For your wise words to Glacialfrost. I let the little twerp get to me, I know, but he's got this hall monitor mentality riding on the back of about a week's editing (under this account; I think he's a sock of The Editor of All Things Wikipedia, whose editorial patterns were remarkably similar), and a tendency to play Mommy, as I pointed out on his talk page. He's got no business going near Twinkle, and now he's looking to be a reviewer. He'll hang himself eventually, of course. But in the meantime, he needs some serious reigning in. --Drmargi (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I find his swings in reaction (from apology to rage) puzzling unless he is a young editor. I think hearing Yunshui's feedback will help and at least he is open to mentoring which the other similar accounts were not. If there is socking going on, it will become evident soon enough. If there is not, well, he needs to learn how to use automated tools with more care. Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
He's definitely young. His writing gives that away. It feels like he's playing a game. There's another sock master named Jason, I forget his user name, who gets up to the same nonsense. He's somebody's sock, no question. He's knows too much about non-main space activity for a one week newbie, and he knows how to evade a check user. --Drmargi (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page

I apologize, I did not mean to contribute to stirring up the nonsense from the RFA, and I won't respond regarding that matter anymore. I was genuinely surprised to see things you said described as expressing "open hostility" and I wanted to know if I had the wrong impression about you, but it's obvious now that it was an empty claim. I didn't think that posing the equivalent of "citation needed" would cause someone to get so ridiculously defensive. Gamaliel (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with you, Gamaliel. It was clear to me when the 'Crat Chat talk page had over 500 comments in the 36 hours after the RfA closed that only a part of this discussion was about me. There is a bigger debate going on among editors about what kind of administrators they want (or don't want) and my RfA seemed to hit a nerve. It's about more than me but I became a focal point, unfortunately. Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Following up

Hi Liz, as I mentioned above, I am ready to put this matter behind us. Your response and your subsequent deletion of my reply are an ongoing concern, however. I expected some kind of agreement to move on, but you continued the old pattern by making a baseless aspersion against me. You are free to archive the thread, of course, but I'll no longer permit attacks from you to go unanswered, so I've restored my reply.

Please read WP:Harassment carefully. Earlier I requested an interaction ban, but I think WP:INVOLVED already addresses my concern. Since you are on record as one of my harassers, you are involved with regard to any administrative dealings that relate to me.

In a nutshell, my take is that for whatever reason you were willing to extend an unlimited amount good faith toward these sockpuppeteers, but none toward me. If you wish we can continue this conversation and try to better understand what happened, or we can let it drop. Manul ~ talk 03:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you are on record as one of my harassers...what record is that, Manul? It's not a record that I am familiar with.
And as I have told you from the beginning of this fruitless discussion, you don't need an interaction ban with me because the only time I have had any interactions with you recently is when you have come to my talk page leaving disparaging comments about me. In fact, I went through your entire user talk page history and found out that I posted once on it, on November 28, 2013.‎ One comment on your talk page...21 months ago.
If you don't want to have any interaction with me, the solution is simple: Stop posting here. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It is baffling that you don't appear to understand what the issue is, even after Bishonen pointed it out in the RfA. You just archived the thread on your talk page discussing it. Do you really not know? Did I mention I am baffled?

You don't appear to understand the reason I initially requested an interaction ban. An interaction ban prohibits not only direct interactions but also attacks made against the other party in their absence. The latter is the harassment issue at stake here. You don't appear to understand that my above comment "but I think WP:INVOLVED already addresses my concern" negates the original request.

You don't appear to understand that I came here last month as a gesture of good will, removing my RfA question[5] and hoping to resolve the matter. Unfortunately, you proceeded to make an aspersion that was reminiscent of your past behavior -- as if no time had passed -- and then deleted my response to it. You don't appear to understand that that was a bad thing to do. You don't appear to understand the difference between raising concerns about your conduct, backed by evidence, and simply "leaving disparaging comments". Equating those is mutually exclusive with being a competent admin.

There doesn't seem to be much hope here, and as I indicated before I would be well satisfied with leaving it behind. But you continued the same problematic behavior. Liz-the-regular-editor is easily ignored, which is what I had been doing -- we had almost no interactions until last month -- but an admin exhibiting these issues is cause for serious concern. The purpose of my last message was (1) to make clear that continuing such behavior (casting baseless aspersions; deleting the follow-up) is unacceptable, and (2) to make sure you understood what WP:INVOLVED entails. I don't know what to expect from you, considering the behavior I've seen, but at least WP:INVOLVED, if followed, should prevent the worst case scenarios.

To soften this a bit, I will say that the situation which started this off was rather unusual. A user had been caught sockpuppeting yet didn't appear to understand that he had been caught. The explanations he offered didn't make sense, and he didn't appear to understand that they didn't make sense. I can imagine admins shaking their heads while reading them.

Not long after his block, the user created an attack website based in part upon the falsehood that he had been wrongly accused of sockpuppeting. His primary target was me, whom he painted as deviously accusing editors of being his sockpuppets as a means of blocking those who shared his point of view. His friend, who had contributed to the attack site, disseminated the story on Wikipedia, bringing the off-wiki harassment on-wiki.

And good grief, it turned out that the friend had also been sockpuppeting, and that the two had been conspiring since soon after the first got blocked. That last SPI shows outright trolling, and an admin there expressed displeasure about the deceptions involved. The two would later collaborate to disrupt the Deepak Chopra article with more socking, and I would be targeted again.

Such dedicated trolling might be unexpected, and one might be forgiven for not catching on right away. But once the evidence has been laid out, refusing to look at it is inexcusable, and then to actually applaud the harassment, even joining in ... well. If I were your employer, I would ask you to attend a seminar on online bullying. Since you're not (presumably), I can only implore you to carefully read WP:Harassment. This background should bring more clarity to my RfA question and the talk page thread you deleted. Best, Manul ~ talk 03:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

I would note for the record

Liz, I find the disciplining of Kww very disheartening (reported here [6], and here [7]), since it captures so many of the injustices built into the WP system of adjudicatory decision-making (even with regard to its Administrators). And that it can happen, so quickly and so thoroughly, to an Admin leaves me shaken to the core about this place.

Extended content

Before unpacking this a bit, I would note that I have twice been disciplined, regarding the same issue, once on each side of the matter—once, because I fought with an editor who mass reverted an edit because as a part of it, I had moved an unsourced BLP section of text, adding [citation needed] tags (because they viewed the move as inserting unsourced text into a BLP article), and in the second case, my misstepping based on the precedent of the first, disciplined for removing a block of misplaced, unsourced text in a BLP article (rather than move and tag it), only to be told I should have moved and tagged it (the matter over which I was chastised in the first case). Hence, in the Rambling v Kww case, I have been on both sides, and have been punished both times—yes, for the way I argued about it (but the root editorial issue was the same, though oppositely adjudicated, each time).

With regard to the particulars, the overriding conclusion I draw is based on (a) failing to see what I consider clear evidence of impartiality on the part of those adjudicating, and (b) failing to see clearly established standards to include or exclude perspectives based on the uniform application of principles of fairness. With regard to the first, I refer, as an outsider, to the lack of evidence that those voting had no interest or association with the parties involved, e.g., nowhere being asked to state no cause for recusal. That is to say, as WP gets smaller and smaller, the likelihood that those involved at higher levels will have had prior involvement with one another becomes greater. With involvement comes impressions, biases. Apart from such a clear process of query and recusal, the majority of those voting could, for all one might know, be "friend and family" of one or the other involved in the matter at hand. Without people being queried, there is no basis whatsoever for trusting that the proceedings are completely without bias. On this point, I will asked to be better informed: How were members of those deciding Kww's and Rambling's fate chosen (included, and excluded)? Perhaps I simply need to understand this process better than I do.

With regard to the second, failing to see standards, I would note the following. In the same vein of any ADD being able to empanel a grand jury to to "indict a ham sandwich" (Hon. Sol Wachtler), it appears, for lack of clearly codified rules of procedure, that it is possible to construct a charge that will result in a predisposition of a seated group of admins to harshly discipline the accused. I say this because the list of charges were a very mixed bag, and seemed to include accusations that should either have either omitted outright, or adjudicated separately. For instance, for one of the overarching conclusions of the proceeding to be that "the community is encouraged to establish a policy or guideline for the use of edit filters" makes clear that—since a formal admission is made that such guidance allowed for latitude, and that latitude contributed to one of the negative findings—by any fair standard one has to acknowledge that the finding that "Kww... misused edit filters" stands on far shakier ground that its vote seems to indicate. The fact that a group can agree how someone should act, absent clear guidelines, does not mean that someone acting otherwise is at fault, because it is the existence of clear guidelines that allows one to clearly find fault (not the opinion of a majority on an unclearly codified matter). Here, it seems that Kww was guilty, mostly, of either bad judgment, or simply not thinking like the pack (rather than guilty of not following a clearly established rule). If this is so, in a real proceeding, having such a matter improperly included might result in the whole of the set of charges being reversed (for the bias it introduces into the proceedings).

As troubling is the fact that technical bias appears to have crept into the process at key stages—something that I have seen repeatedly at WP, as a non-technocrat, just a subject matter expert: the fact that individuals add emotion and bias to decisions involving those doing technical things less proficiently than they might have done. (In this case, I am referring to the analysis performed by User:Dragons flight which is littered with "technically deficient design" annotations, regarding Kww's edit tools.) There are reasons why in fair proceedings, counsel for one side can say "I object", leading to evidence being thrown out, and statements being inadmissible. In this "sausage making" people were allowed to say anything and everything, in my book, calling into question the fundamental validity of the fairness of the whole of the process, and so the outcome. As well, the connection (and so importance, and clear admissibility) of a previous infraction "quickly reversed by the community as a bad block" seems to be questionable, and something that was allowed unnecessarily to introduce bias into the matter.

Finally, the true foundation of what might have been a tightly proscribed, clear case—that Kww was involved in a content dispute in which he had a longstanding interest, and then misused his Admin powers toward personal editorial ends—this foundation of Kww's interest in the articles in question, is simply not established at all. Perhaps I have missed a segment of the record of the proceedings, but from what I have seen, nowhere in the arguing—and perhaps this is Kww's failure to self-represent—does there appear the crucial question and answer of this matter: Had Kww prior involvement in the articles/lists in question, and if any prior involvement, were those involvements editorial or administrative? If no clear history or histories of involvement were found at the articles (or at least no editorial history, only administrative actions), then Kww's defense that he was acting administratively at the time in question sounds very solid to me. Did he or did he not have a personal editorial interest in the two articles in question? If he did, then perhaps all the rest of his arguments, about period of applicable time after of death of Philip Seymour Hoffman, and other defenses, may amount to so much smoke. But if the evidence supports he had no standing interest, and that he came on purely as an administrator, then in every Admin v Editor action I have observed being decided, one arriving as an Admin is acting as an Admin, from start to finish. I will say, in fact, that there have been situations I have observed of Admins editing at articles, where they have had long histories of interest in the articles, Admins I deeply respect, that have none-the-less been allowed to argue that "In this subset of my series of actions on this day, in this situation, I was acting as an Adminstrator." That is to say, in my experience, the standard to which Kww was held is by no means uniform among administrators, and a standard that is not uniformly applied is both a clear basis for misunderstanding, as well as being a standard that is fundamentally unjust. This apparent overwhelming oversight with regard to fairness—Kww may perhaps be faulted for not having forcibly enough argued the point of his lack of editorial interest, but he did repeatedly make it—further fuels the question of whether the group empaneled to decide was truly impartial.

Bottom line, it seems to me as a perpetual WP outsider—not much interested in its how the sausage is made (how the system adjudicates itself)—and as the son of a jurist, an individual that has had to sit on on his fair share of administrative "counsel" actions (in real life), and a widely read and fair-minded individual who always thinks of the rights of the accused (so I have been told), it seems clear to me that this matter was a formal, adjudicatory shambles. The system in force is neither of the English-type (based on uniform application of clearly applicable precedent, impartially determined), nor the French type (based on application of directly applicable codified example, again with impartiality), which brings it much closer to types of systems that are arbitrary, or based in politics (or authoritarian control). I will happily avoid putting myself in any position to have to be judged by such panels, under such ill-formed process. But I would also note that the smaller and smaller we become at WP, and the more invested that remaining individuals are (more than a decade of service by some), the harshness reflected when absolute penalties are imposed, and the personal damage that such penalties do—I do not doubt that at some point someone will be so aggrieved by their mishandling to pursue recourse in other places (where the rules are clear, no biased participants are allowed, and the playing field is certain to be level). In other places, they will have their cases fairly heard, and the damage from being improper handled here will be fairly assessed.

Meanwhile, I will just be sad over the lost dedication of this Admin, and at way things work, disbelieve in the system more fully, and avoid the whole of it more entirely. It is no wonder that so many flee at any hint of conflict, if this is the sort of thing that can happen so quickly, and thoroughly. My view, as an outsider. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming an admin! I just saw! Way to go. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

GWW reply

re Special:Diff/677533514, what you describe is not my take on things. Certainly being listed by GWW does not mean you necessarily set that record (perhaps GWW was fooled) or that you hold that record (someone who beat it may be unrecognized by GWW). What it means is that GWW said someone did it, that they set a record according to GWW, to keep in the bounds of WP:V.

I obviously would not include all information on the site, because the vast majority of GWW content is in regard to non-notable individuals who lack Wikipedia articles. I am not creating articles for those people, and thus am not including information about their records.

I am only including information as it pertains to individuals who are already notable, due to having Wikipedia articles.

It is not for you or I to decide on what is or is not important/noteworthy/trivial. Our own personal opinions and values would weigh too heavily on that. If GWW has gone to the bother of honoring it in a book or on a page, then they have established that it is not trivial, they have set it apart. This is why I don't nominate wedding dress of Kate Middleton for deletion. It seems pointless to me, but I recognize it's given prominence by sources.

As for the transitory nature, this is exactly why 'setter' was chosen instead of 'holder'. To aspire to have a 'holder' category builds the problem of having to monitor whether or not the record is broken, which would create too much work. If someone wants to set up a project and subcategory for that, they're welcome to it, but 'setter' is more achievable since then you don't have to remove anyone from the category, you just add them to it as they set records and don't have to worry about if they are surpassed.

Even if a record is surpassed, it is still notable to have been recorded as setting it in the first place, at least if GWW bothers to recognize it and it happened to a noteworthy person. Ranze (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #172

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Liz. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Mail about bracket problem

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

BluecometFlag (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

Chirag J. Roy

Hi Liz, long time no talk, and congratulations with your tool-set! Chirag J. Roy was unreferenced when Everymorning proposed it for deletion. Since then two sources have been added, both are published by Roy himself on Southeastern Hot Herp Society.[8][9] Do you really find these are "reliable source(s) that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article"? Best, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sam Sailor. I realize that the two articles were self-authored but I believed they were evidence of the subject being a herpetologist. After seeing your comment here, I looked into the website more thoroughly and it is run by individuals who are interested in snakes but are not herpetologists themselves. The website is more than a blog but I agree that it lacks the sufficiently rigorous editorial oversight to qualify it as a reliable source. Thanks for politely pointing out my mistake. Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure, Liz. Best, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 23:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"Removing CSD tag as there is an MfD discussion occurring right now."

Regarding this diff.[10] To my knowledge csd tagging things currently at MfD is allowed (or at least admins don't object most of the time). For example most of the pages on my CSD log are things I spotted at MfD and decided to csd tag to speed up the process. Brustopher (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen an article or page that is involved in an ongoing deletion discussion also tagged for speedy deletion. I would think that the deletion discussion would have priority. That said, if you are familiar with this situation occurring and want to reapply the CSD tag to this page, I wouldn't remove it and will see how other admins treat this situation. If I'm mistaken, you can tell me, "I told you so!". Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it's mostly because MfD trudges along at a snail's pace and no one ever !votes on anything. Sometimes its useful to just csd tag something if its an obvious delete case. However, it's just hit me that this page probably can't be deleted under g3 because it's not really and obvious hoax, and I suddenly feel like quite a fool (If you'd like, you can be the one to say "I told you so"). There's probably no reason for me to restore the csd tag, although I wish it could be IAR speedy deleted for system gaming. But in general I still stand by csd tagging during MfDs as being a good thing. Brustopher (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, Brustopher, I didn't think it was a G3 but it could fall under G4. I'm cautious about CSD tagging right now as I've had some tags I've placed on articles removed and been corrected in the past for being quick to tag an article that other editors thought should be nominated for AfD.
As for MfD, you are probably right that it could use more editor help there but considering that discussions at CfD can go on for months before they are closed, MfD looks almost speedy by comparison! Given that this is the second time this article has been to MfD, the discussion might be closed fairly quickly. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Personally I tend to stay away from CfD, because I can't for the life of me understand what falls under WP:CATDEF. On the other hand I think MfD gets few comments simply because of how boring it is most of the time. The discussions are a lot simpler so csd opportunities come up a lot more. Also worth noting that there are far fewer csd criteria that could realistically apply to a category. I guess you might be right about G4 being valid in an WP:IAR sort of way. I think I'm going to risk it and tag it.Brustopher (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #173

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liz/Archive_13&oldid=1090538189"