User talk:Barkeep49

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Hi

I was clear, in my opening paragraph or two, that I wasn't expecting any action or even discussion -- that I was merely posting the facts for the record, and giving fair notice to Beland. Your close made it sound like I was some neophyte posting a giant wall of text in the expectation that the community will spend its collective time reading it. My response to you makes it clear that's not the case, and for it to perform that function it needs to be adjacent to your comments. Otherwise people might think I'm off my wikirocker.

BTW, I do expect the community to read my post -- just not now, but rather the next time some drive-bys call for my head based on my block log. Thanks for understanding.

EEng 03:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. I thought I'd posted this earlier today but the stupid "new thread" interface sometimes demands you hit ctrl-ENTER for some reason, and I didn't notice.

@EEng I certainly understood your need to reply to my close. And so it's there in the place post close comments go at the end, after the closed discussion where it will be preserved, along with the rest of your comments, for anyone to read before the thread is archived and in the future. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that most people read only the close, and yours gives the incorrect impression that I'd made a foolishly overlong post on which I was expecting action -- which I explicitly said I was not. I also believe that your heat/light comment was inappropriate, in light of Brandolini's law. I therefore ask that you revise your comments to be consistent with the facts. I believe something along the lines of "Closing promptly since EEng has stated his post is not a request for action but rather for the record" would be appropriate. EEng 16:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I stand by my close. ANI is a place for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems with an expectation that people who file an issue are brief and include diffs. You made a choice to provide a complete documentation of the issues you saw with the other editor and to do so without asking the community to act on it. I described what you did and why based on those choices it made sense to procedurally close. If you feel that it makes you seem foolish that's your interpretation but not mine. I did not call you foolish or any other name or intend to do anything but describe why I was closing and options you had. It is not an accepted practice for reporters to have an in-line reply right to closers hence why I moved it to the place that post-close replies go. If you feel that you needed something else from the community that this didn't provide it remains open to you to find a way of reporting something more briefly for the community to act on - I think you have several options to meet the challenges Brandolini's law without going as comprehensive as you did. Happy to name what I'm thinking of but you might think of others if thats the route you decide to go down. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

In thinking about this a tad further, I added to the procedural close note the fact that you weren't requesting any action. That point of yours was in keeping with my general intent/approach of describing what happened and since you seem to feel that is an important thing to have in the close. If you don't find that part helpful I'm happy to revert it. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

What you did isn't perfect -- but then, what on WP is? -- but I'm OK with it. BTW, is a tad more or less than a bit? More or less than a scrunch? EEng 20:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

A tad is 5 ponderings, with a bit being 4 tads. At least that's what I was taught. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

• In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse

• Recent research: STORM: AI agents role-play as "Wikipedia editors" and "experts" to create Wikipedia-like articles, a more sophisticated effort than previous auto-generation systems

• In focus: Twitter marks the spot

• News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded.

• Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?

• Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing

• Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird

• Humour: I'm proud to be a template

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed motion in Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)

Hello Barkeep49. There is proposed motion in the amendment request where you were listed as involved. The motion would remove the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" in the definition of the "area of conflict" in which ARBPIA sanctions apply. SilverLocust 💬 17:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Referral from the Artibration Enforcement noticeboard regarding behavior in Palestine-Israel articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Minor typo at the AE referral case?

You wrote " I'd suggest it find a wait to "punt" that decision,". Didn't you mean "way"? Doug Weller talk 07:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

BLP NB editnotice

Thank you; I'd started it using a comment I had posted previously and hadn't really thought about it in a less-argumentative more useful-to-newcomers context. Your edits have made it much better. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@OwenBlacker it's a really good idea for an edit notice. Hopefully it helps lower the temperature in some places (even if we won't know when it did since success will mean nothing happens). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. We do already have {{Pronoun editnotice}}, but that's more "this is a reminder" rather than "dear gods, stop it people!", y'know? :) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 20:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Sometimes people need to know that they're crossing a behavioral line that people will notice and care about. Your notice does that nicely. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiConference North America 2024

Hello @Barkeep49! If you feel comfortable, could you please send me an email at jamie.flood2@gmail.com so I can send you correspondence (Acceptance!) about the session you proposed for WCNA 2024? Thank you for your time! JamieF (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

A question.

Hello @Barkeep49. I had a question and was not sure where to post it so I figured I might as well ask an admin. I have suspicions of undisclosed COI by a user and have uncovered potential off-wiki evidence. While I know not to post such things directly on wikipedia, I was wondering if I should make my case entirely through the provided email or if I should make a section on WP:COIN presenting the on-wiki evidence and only email the off-wiki evidence. Thanks. Yvan Part (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Yvan Part. Great question - and you're not the first to have it. Because your suspicions include off-wiki evidence you should email it to WP:COIVRT. There is a bit of a backlog there at the moment, but that is the right place to handle it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Cheers. Have a good day. Yvan Part (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

BLP-violating draft

Hi! I'm a little torn here (I also admit to being a little intimidated, having seen your name on things like Arbcom decisions as One Who Speaks Sense). While it's certainly nice to see an admin taking care to consider a speedy nomination instead of just hitting delete, I'm concerned that in this draft you then restored completely unsourced information alleging a named person was responsible for (and convicted of) various heinous offences. I've gone ahead and removed every instance of the name from the draft but remain concerned the surname is still in the title, the offending material is still archived in the history, and also by the question of if simply restoring it unedited was really in compliance with WP:BLPREVERT.

Am I wrong? I probably am, to be fair, but something about this feels not in-tune with BLP policy. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)