Hello, ProcrastinatingReader,

I remember posting on the Village Pump a month or so ago about categories not being filled by categories that had been tagged for deletion as G6s. Nothing came to mind when I was asked to be more specific and provide examples but I just came across these:

• Category:Use Irish English from June 2011
• Category:Use Irish English from October 2011
• Category:Use Irish English from November 2011

basically, all of the empty categories in Category:Use Irish English. One of the categories happened to pop up on Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories so I investigated it and found these other empty categories. Otherwise, it's likely that years would have gone by before an admin happened upon these categories.

Of course, deleting empty categories is not a high priority on the project. I just think that if these 14 tagged categories aren't appearing in Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion, it's probably the tip of the iceberg. There are thousands of similar maintenance categories.

Any ideas on a solution I could bring to the Village Pump so it looks like I know what I'm talking about? Thanks and happy holidays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect they just need null edits, but I'd personally prefer if we just waited for now. I'm curious how long it takes for the software to fix them itself -- it could be that they were just emptied recently and the software updates them in a few days or a week. Posting this on VPT now and I suspect someone will just null edit them to 'help', then it becomes hard to get an answer to this question.

If it takes the software too long, this would be related to (and solved by) Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_or_other_process_to_keep_categories_and_page_renderings_up_to_date. Though, not sure VPT can help further. That bot request is the only realistic solution to this problem, given the phab tickets are stuck for now (though, devs said they may resolve it later in 2021). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I didn't know about Wikipedia:Bot requests, there is another bot process I'm also concerned about that I'll inquire about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: quick update, see https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/51006. Basically what you're interested in here is "page_links_updated" (timestamp) and cat_pages (number of pages in cat). The page_links_updated should indicate that the cat wasn't empty as of the date it was checked (most of these are in December, one in late November). The next time the job queue tries to update the links, it should be added to the cat for deletion. I think that'll probably (hopefully) be by the end of this month, but we'll find out for sure I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PR,

I got tired of waiting, so I just deleted somewhere around 60-80 empty categories that should have appeared in Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion but didn't....see my deletion log for a list. There is no way of knowing how many days or months these categories had been empty and tagged for deletion but I'm sure it goes back to some time in 2020. I typically only go through Category:Monthly clean-up category counter once or twice a year, looking for empty categories, and I doubt any other admin does this. Just thought that I'd update you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we could add something like other_services2 ? A bunch of stations have former and future/proposed services crammed into one section, I was wondering if we could split those up. Cards84664 01:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cards84664: Sure, we could add that. But I had a little concern with services in the station infoboxes I was going to bring up at some point (may as well do it now), and so I dunno if even more services sections are a good idea. Pinging in Mackensen too, for thoughts.

We have what I think is a slight issue with these on mobiles. Collapsing doesn't work on mobile Wikipedia (it automatically expands the collapse). And on mobile the infobox goes after the lead's first section. So the effect is that on some pages the infobox is a very long scroll until you can read the prose. Example (you'll need to be on a mobile, or resize your screen horizontally very small to see): [1][2]. I feel like this may be a slight UX issue. Whereas on desktop it's on the right hand side so it doesn't matter, on mobile it pushes the prose way down. I have no ideas on a solution, though... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen other_services used for former and future/proposed, and also in some cases for connecting metro services at a mainline rail station (I consider that non-standard, but anyway). I haven't seen former_services used outside of the US, but then the state of things with US rail is somewhat unique on Wikipedia (English-language editors + English-speaking country + widespread loss of rail services). The UK handles this by generally (though not exclusively) indicating line succession, grouped by operator, with notes for closed lines/stations. That wouldn't work in the US at all. If we did implement additional fields I think I'd want to deprecate other_services in favor of explicit former_services and future_services fields, but even then I would have concerns about the first of these because it wouldn't make sense outside the US, and you can argue that the entire US approach needs a rethink. Mackensen (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: That was my main reasoning for keeping the parameters generic, since they could be interchanged for a number of unique headers case-by-case. Cards84664 17:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader and @Mackensen:, I've modified the testcase at Template:Infobox station/testcases#Los Angeles Union Station. Can that be implemented? Cards84664 15:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you made a section at the template talk, I’ll try to review that change. Personally, I still wonder if these would better fit in the prose rather than the infobox (noting length, and also the fact that they can’t be collapsed on mobile). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ProcrastinatingReader, what do you think about working together to draft a community general sanctions regime (Wikipedia:Community general sanctions perhaps) similar to ArbCom's discretionary sanctions (obviously with adjustments to make it community based)? Once we've got a working draft we can look to doing an RfC to replace all of the current ones (the GS subpages) with a single system? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising this Callanecc!! This whole thing has bugged me for a while, but I've rarely managed to convince someone to take an interest in this mess. Various people have different interpretations of what is and isn't the reality, and I think this confusion is bad for transparency/clarity. Whereas the practical impacts tend to be minimal in a principles based approach, things like the current WP:AN case show that this can occasionally cause practical issues.

When I've previously considered creating an "official community regime" of sorts, like WP:AC/DS, I've had these main concerns:

1. I do not think the community is able to manage a full discretionary sanctions regime. Unlike any clear policy page, I think DS is really just a [complex] set of procedures allowing an undefined set of actions, whose 'correctness' is only determined on appeal, which makes it rather unique to any other PAG which is more concerned on principles. ArbCom often offers clarifications or amendments to WP:AC/DS (eg 2018 ARCA clarifications on awareness/page restrictions, 2013 DS review, etc), but the community fails at reviewing the system - I'm not sure if it ever has? Partially, I think, because community DS is less consequential than WP:AC/DS (ArbCom takes over the larger dispute areas, so GS is left with the smaller ones; only so many pages fall in scope), and partially because getting consensus on AN for such a complex regime is difficult or results in insufficient participation, verses having 15 arbs decide one way or another ('right or wrong', at least there will always be a clear and decisive outcome). Anyway, with a separate page such changes/clarifications wouldn't propagate to this new system automatically. I think it's important to 'stay in sync' with ArbCom than accidentally create forked sanctions regimes, which will be confusing for admins and editors alike if certain DS/GS actions are legitimate and others aren't: imagine trying to explain this to the avg sanctioned editor lol
2. The easiest solutions to (1) that I could think of are:
   1. Create a new page and transclude WP:AC/DS, showing that full page, with certain text replacements for the differences. This stays in sync, while changing the differences (eg the venues for appeal). Downside: in a full page, it won't be immediately obvious to admins which parts are different if most of the page is repetition. Especially given the relatively low volume of GS-affected pages, I don't think it's feasible to even create the expectation that there is much different about the "two systems". I think this will just lead to confusion and less usage of GS.
   2. Simply saying on WP:GS/elsewhere that the formal regime is (something like): "WP:AC/DS applies, except that the venue for appeal is WP:AN, a different set of templates should be used, and GS cannot be used for page deletion". Then, remove the "Remedies" from the subpages (heck, in my opinion redirect all the subpages to a central WP:CGS_LOG like WP:AELOG, since the only useful purpose of the subpages nowadays is sanction logging, with notifications being automated. This fixes the problem permanently, and a single log is more convenient anyway).
   3. Expecting the community to, at AN, pass regular amendments like "the community approves ArbCom's motion/clarification/whatever". Realistically, I think we'll probably forget to keep doing this in a year time tops. It's also slightly bureaucratic.

I feel like my preference is trending towards something like #2 as the simplest option, but I'm open to any, and any other ideas too of course. I actually think your rewrite last month of WP:GS#DS summarises the status quo very well and in plain English (better than I imagined my own rewrite reading, in fact). It's also not overly complicated or verbose, and inherently stays in sync with WP:AC/DS. So maybe some kind of variation of that is an option to get consensus on, potentially on a new page which can explicitly be designated as a 'policy page'?

All the above are just some broken thoughts. What do you think is the best way forward? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think #2 is pretty much what we need. Basically, a new sub-section policy at the top of WP:GS which effectively says that community general sanctions are exactly the same as AC/DS except the dot points at WP:GS#Discretionary sanctions. I agree that a central log is a good idea (WP:Community general sanctions log/WP:GSLOG?). To do this, I think we would need an RfC to:

• authorise a community version of discretionary sanctions which is the same as the ArbCom one but with the exceptions dot points currently at WP:GS#Discretionary sanctions
• convert all existing community discretionary/general sanctions to the new version
• create a central log similar to WP:DSLOG and hence move any current sanctions (from the subpages) to there.

Thoughts? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan Callanecc. w.r.t. bullet #1: maybe make it (just the community DS part) on a new, separate page, then turn that into a policy page and transclude it into WP:GS? A bit like how AC/DS is transcluded into ArbCom's procedures page. Just a bit clearer than having an info page with a sub-section policy tag imo.

Whilst we're at it, may be worth thinking over some of the disadvantages of community-authorised DS (compared to ArbCom DS, in terms of outcomes) and see if there's possible fixes that can be bundled into the RfC? One key reason it's inferior may be that ANI is an inferior forum to AE? Another perhaps that community-authorised DS is less well known than ArbCom authorised DS.

On a smaller note, maybe it's worth addressing the semantic issue? Somehow, over the years, it seems community-authorised DS has become just "GS". Though maybe it's ingrained enough to stick with it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a new page for clarity is probably good idea.

Maybe the disadvantages are something that El C and EdJohnston might have some ideas about. We've also discussed something similar before.

I guess the benefit of "community discretionary sanctions" brings the idea that suggests it's the same as the ArbCom one just a community version. General sanctions suggests it's a different things, it also has the downside that WP:GS is an overall term. I don't really mind either way to be honest. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: looks like there's something on VPI about the broader issue. Maybe just worth leaving it for later?

If so, and if we still want to press ahead with this, could you do a first draft of some Wikipedia:Community general sanctions or similarly named & I can make changes? I think your policy-writing skills are probably better than mine. For the RfC itself I think the 3 bullets you wrote above hit the nail on the head. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Quick draft: User:ProcrastinatingReader/sandbox10. Thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Editing team has scheduled a major update to mw:Extension:DiscussionTools (the new Reply tool) for next week's deployment train. Since you invoke the feature from a script (I do, too), you're probably going to see that update next week, before it's officially released in the mw:Beta Feature system. The new update will use a similar system for starting a ==New discussion==. As before, full-page wikitext editing will not be affected. There is more information on the project page at mw:Talk pages project/New discussion.

If you encounter problems next week, please ping me or leave a note on the talk page for the project. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note Whatamidoing (WMF)! This looks very cool and excited to test it out here. The rest of the tool is pretty nifty so far! One thing I noticed at the demo is that it takes a long time to load after clicking "Add topic" -- hopefully performance will be faster on the live site ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be much faster on the live site.

Supposedly we'll be seeing this towards the end of WP:THURSDAY, but I think it'd be safer to describe it as "not before Thursday". Last I heard, it was still in QA's hands. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whatamidoing (WMF): One interesting thing I noticed at Template:Did you know nominations/Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others is that the tool doesn't seem to be active there. I'm guessing this is because DYK nominations are in the template namespace (which generally shouldn't have replying enabled), but it would make sense for pages with the prefix Template:Did you know nominations/ ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user scripts that we're using are namespace-specific. I also find that they occasionally don't load. The Beta Feature is a bit 'smarter', but still won't display in the Template: namespace. (Should DYK really be happening in the Template: namespace?)

I suppose I should start a discusssion about getting the Beta Feature here. I can't imagine anyone really objecting, since it's already been used thousands of times here, and if there were going to be serious problems, they'd likely have already surfaced. I'll check with the devs next week, to see whether they expect any problems with the volume that will cause. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should DYK really be happening in the Template: namespace? Probably not, but I think the last time it was brought up people decided the effort to move it all over, and make sure nothing was missing, was too much a cost. Possibly things like this would be a good reason to revive that discussion.

Re beta feature: that makes sense to me. Surprised it's not enabled already, heh. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything takes longer than I want it to. Three of the biggest Wikipedias are still on the list for the Beta Feature: enwiki, dewiki, and ruwiki. The French Wikipedia, which is very large, already has it, so it should be okay at dewiki and ruwiki, but enwiki's scale is unmatched. There are also about six Wikipedias that write simultaneously in two different alphabets, and almost all of the sister projects to go. On the other end of things, there are three Wikipedias that are already using the Reply tool by default for all editors, and an A/B test will turn it on for half of editors at 24 Wikipedias (maybe in 48 hours, about six weeks later than I'd originally hoped). That will include the French Wikipedia and a few other large Wikipedia, so the question for the devs on Monday will have to be whether enwiki's Beta Feature plus half of the editors at those 24 Wikipedias might be too much to throw at the system all at once. (They can scale up, and they will, but Ops usually prefers a little warning before anything dramatic happens.  ;-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see it enabled as a beta feature. Could we also have it enabled by default for IP editors? See latest section on my talk page for an example; newer editors are sometimes not aware of talk page indenting and I don't really think, with everything else they have to pick up, it's really worth bothering them about. Not sure what your rollout plan is like, but I imagine that'd be most helpful and generate some interesting data! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to update Wikipedia:Talk pages project and ping some of the other editors who have been using it. If we're all agreed that it's stable, then I'll make the case to the devs. They're kind of distracted at the moment (Did you know that they call the huge collection of weekly software updates a "deployment train"? Well, I guess you could say that the train's wrecked two weeks in a row, and not much can happen until that's fixed), but I think they'll agree. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whatamidoing (WMF): One other thing. See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, the tool doesn't seem to work on this page. I'm guessing it's due to the formatting around the page, but the wikitext is still totally normal (view source). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's probably due to the 'box'. I had the same problem at User talk:Iridescent until he removed his box for me, and I know the box/green background is the problem with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19. I assume that for the most part, editors will make individual choices about what works best/makes them happiest on any given page. I don't see it as a big deal. If someone doesn't get value from it, then why should they change the page's appearance (especially on a User_talk: page)? If they do want to use it, then they're free to make the necessary changes, but I don't think the WMF dev teams will be telling them that they're required to close their div tags just so the Reply tool can work (i.e., without screwing up the rest of the page, which is the primary alternative in practice). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal for you to be quite so rude and hostile to a new editor? who is improving a very messy article? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a welcoming place to people of all genders, races and backgrounds? I think an apology is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions exclusively come across as pushing a POV against making any mention of devolution, including by removing references from the lead, blanking the lead, and changing section headers. I suggest you discuss on the talk page and not edit war. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you had read my edits you'll see I haven't deleted anything I had just restructed into a more logical order and added to it to explain the nuance such as on state aid.

Okay, IP. I see you're now working iteratively on the article and adding sources as you go. We've perhaps gotten off on the wrong foot; I'll assume good faith that you're neutrally trying to improve the article and it'll all come together when you're done. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. Do you know how I would add images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The syntax for doing it is like this: [[File:FILENAME|thumb|right|Caption here]], but it has to be uploaded first. There's a simple 4 small page tutorial at Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1 about it. Note it does have to be either freely licensed, or meet one of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Do you have a particular image in mind? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I was thinking some of the graphs from the institute of government's explainers, some of the maps from the Government white papers and images of people speaking on the matter during debates in the Lords, Commons and devolved assemblies. Do you think those sound sensible?

On content, you have to be careful with primary sources. Wikipedia generally works from 'reliable sources'. Secondary sources which analyse the policy, rather than government papers and think tanks etc, are preferred, especially on an article like that. I suspect you may get pushback from other editors on the article for using government white papers. Try news reports and academic sources?

But that's all about the text. For images, I saw you linked to this as an example of something to add. It might be a good idea, but it also has to meet licensing rules to be included. It appears to be licensed under WP:CCBYNC which is usually not an acceptable license on Wikipedia, but there are some weird policies around non-free images which may make it allowable. I don't know anything about them, though - images isn't really my area of expertise. Maybe ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse, someone there might know? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that's really helpful. I'm going to take a break now, but I will check out the teahouse for further advice later. Thanks again for all your tips and sorry we got off on the wrong foot.

I should warn you, IP, about edit warring. I'm not going to report you myself, partially because I have a slight admiration for someone willing to push through with something, but you should note that someone else might report you, and edit warring can result in blocks from editing. I suggest reading at least the first two paragraphs of Wikipedia:Edit warring. When you end up at the "3 revert" point, you're supposed to engage in discussions on the talk page to develop a version which people are happy with. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted about everything on the talk page. Anyway I'm going to take a break so if people revert it all, maybe it'll just be better to give up. But I do appreciate you could understand that was trying to make it better.

You've picked a difficult article to start out with :) -- It's been controversial with a lot of talk page discussion before (which I don't expect you to know about, but just to give you a bit of history). I think pausing is a good idea, since it gives people a bit of time to review the changes. A frustrating thing to learn about Wikipedia, as an open collaborative environment, is that sometimes you need to pace yourself to give other people a chance to review, especially on controversial articles. By the way, you can sign your talk page comments with four tildes "~~~~" to include your signature, so people know who wrote each message. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who would guess that UK legislation would be such a hot topic! thanks again 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you have any advice for engaging with John Maynard Friedman and Cambrial I took JMF at his word and suggested a new longer lead as a compromise and Cambrial just instantly came back with nothing constructive, just a bunch of policies I'd breached with the proposal? 80.42.39.51 (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE is a policy section that gets quoted a lot, so I think it's worth a read. The sources also don't appear to be reliable sources - I think for you the first half of this page may be useful too.

Academic Integrity at Princeton (2011): "Unlike most books and journal articles, which undergo strict editorial review before publication, much of the information on the Web is self-published. To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material before it's made instantly available across the globe."

I don't personally think a law firm's view, sourced to their website, should be included in the article. FSB is slightly better, but it should be covered to an independent source (say, a news article, or an academic source or analysis) to illustrate its significance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, they are a well regarding law firm and I don't understand what the issue with citing a major organisation view directly is? surely a British newspaper is more likely to biased the Daily Mail, Guardian etc all have wild biases and not great reporting.

Anyway that wasn't what I was driving I was thinking more how to overcome the constant hostility. I tried to engage by suggesting a new longer lead but it just met with hostility not any constructive criticism. You were initially hostile but were open to reasonable argument. These just seem like a boys club that don't want to let anyone else play. an new one FDW is particularly rude and aggressive, I tried reaching out on his talk page to explain the old lead he restored still refers to the act as a bill and uses the present tense to refer to its passage (some of the more glaring problems with it) and he was very hostile and even deleted my comment and told me I was unwelcome. It's just tiring. TBH I'm thinking about just giving up on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to advise, IP. The norm is to go onto talk pages and discuss, but in some cases that may just end in status quo stonewalling / 'no consensus' outcomes. You can keep slowly pushing, and maybe get somewhere, but as with all volunteer projects you have to decide for yourself which battles are worth your time. There are articles which are far worse to edit, for example Donald Trump (that's a real picnic). Some people enjoy editing those areas, indeed stick exclusively to them, and others don't. Myself, I pop in and out of them but don't particularly enjoy them - they're time sinks.

In short, what I'm saying is there's no real formula for breaking through the impasse you find yourself in. At least not as I see it. Their points are not entirely wrong, at least on matters of policy, but as far as hostility goes controversial/busy articles are not the best place to learn editing, and not the most fun places to edit even after that. If you wish to persist with this, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for your options (in short: either convince editors to your view, or solicit the input of more editors). The alternative is finding different areas to edit in; most UK legislation is uncontroversial, for example. Either way, I hope you stick around! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just thought it was something I have a bit of expertise on so could lend a hand. At least I got some images in there! brighten up all that dense text a bit! If you have any views on the lead text I suggested in the "tidying up" section of the talk page I'd welcome it as i feel you'd at least be constructive with any criticism! I was trying to be as neutral as possible! Now I know how the BBC feels when all sides call them biased! Thanks again for all your advice 80.42.39.51 (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in a rare leapfrog appeal the UK Supreme Court decided that insurance companies can be liable for business losses arising due to the COVID-19 pandemic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Admin-overturned RfC closure at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol. The discussion is about the topic Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidden Lemon (talk • contribs) 11:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hidden Lemon. I don't really see anything there requiring my response or comments at this time, but I will say here that I think you ended up in a sticky situation. If it provides any encouragement, there were elements of your close that I did like. For example the last paragraph requires deeper thought about the RfC question than just counting numbers to realise that particular nuance. I imagine many closers wouldn't have mentioned it (but it should be). So it seems like you're not stuck on solely counting numbers, at least, which I think means you'd be good at closing discussions some time in the future. For comparison, I think when I was around your activity level I was active in TfD holding discussions but hadn't really closed a TfD, so closing a 120 editor participation RfC is really jumping into the deep end! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the civility. Re my close, my rationale on Yes rather than No Consensus was that those who chose Wait largely had already “finished” waiting for the greater verifiable source material to arrive. The close should take that into account rather than statically organizing them with the No’s. Otherwise duplicating the RfC on the basis of new info would likely occur. In that regard for a contentious subject like this, it probably would have been more productive to decide how and where to characterize the event within the article if the question was answered piecemeal (e.g. RfC #1 Is it terrorism? Yes?; RfC #2 Should the lead state ‘...the event was X, Y, Z, and an act of domestic terrorism’?). That way the question of agreeing it is terrorism is already established (or not) and comments on the context of where to say that stay focused on the actual question of phrasing.

Anyways, I was hoping this kind of discussion would have been properly fleshed out via a more structured closure challenge. Oh well, no ill will about it all, I appreciate the positive message. Best of luck over there! ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 17:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd guessed that was your reasoning. Some of the wait votes were qualified (not unless conviction, not unless RS' converge on a descriptor, being some common ones), so I presumed you believed those qualifications were met. Hence my question for the sources from the discussion, in the first instance, in case I'd missed something. Personally, from my read, I couldn't really see those wait comments being qualified satisfactorily by supporters. Usually when current events RfCs happen like this and new information comes out, a switch in the trend of votes happens (so, say, a wall of yes votes based on current sources). Changes like that during an RfC do weigh in on the close. But, as I say, I don't think that really happened here. Nor were those qualifications met in general, I think.

Two phase RfCs, as you describe, can sometimes work too (deciding on a more abstract notion, and then applying that to article texts via the normal editing process, BRD -> dispute resolution). But I don't think that quite works here. Labelling individuals as terrorists vs adding it to the methods in the infobox vs adding it to the opening sentence are all very different propositions, with very different policies to be considered (eg BLPCRIME may take a larger role in the former case). Some may be highly supported and others not. It's better for an RfC like this to be clear on what it's proposing, and for participants to have something tangible to analyse, otherwise it's just a barrage of opinions and feelings.

In my view, this RfC had too many critical flaws (some of which I describe in my close) to even be described as a consensus even if the numbers were better than they were. There's a little bit about fatally flawed RfCs at Wikipedia:Advice_on_closing_discussions#Common_results (a great page to read in general I think). It's often still possible to evaluate editors' thoughts, but in this RfC many were quite literally opinions. Honestly, I think this RfC was just poorly timed for when emotions were still quite high, and that reflected in the discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment on the nature of the RfC itself, though my view of the outcome of consensus may have differed. Thanks for the link too, I’ll check that out. Again, I appreciate the civility and openness to discussion. ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 22:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was considering having a second look at your closing. Alot of of the Wait votes were really early on. I just don't know if I really agree with the logic of using that for no consensus. I see a decent consensus to use the term. Thoughts? Casprings (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See section above for my comments (I don't believe the wait votes were accordingly qualified). Besides, the rate of growth of both the "no" and "yes" sections continued roughly the same at later periods in the RfC, and most of the yes votes were also early on. And even if the numbers were different, given that it's such a flawed RfC (paragraph 2 of the close) there's no substantive consensus that could be determined and it would only lead to confusion (as the previous close did). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. We don't do it like that in the infobox. If you're going to put in chairmanships, you do so in a separate title. You don't mix it up with the US Senate tenure. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: I reverted simply because I gathered from the edit summary you didn't notice what it was outputting. No objection from me if you're intentionally removing it because you think it's poor form. The consensus of Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_14#RfC_on_the_infobox_length was to not have it in separate titles, so I think a valid step forward is either applying the current diff I did (which I proposed in the RfC) or removing them entirely. I don't really mind which of these two options is done, as long as it's not a separate title. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't think it looks so bad under the senate heading. I mean, his chairmanships are a subset of his actual senate tenure (can't chair a committee unless you're a senator). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you put in, makes it look as though Biden was the chairman of those committees during the entirety of his Senate tenure. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. To my eye I'm not sure it's likely to cause misconception, but I don't feel too strongly about it either way and it's certainly worth getting some more perspective on it. Should we copy this over to Talk:Joe Biden for more input? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had to make adjustment there. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a procedural error by reverting the material here. A disagreement has arisen over the bold removal of that sentence; therefore, the bold removal was reverted and the discussion went to the talk page. It's best for productive editing to follow BRD. If you could revert that edit, that would be appreciated. Let's make Wikipedia a fun and productive environment. It's great to meet you. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I've just looked for the long-standing consensus text in Special:Permalink/998539912 and preceding revisions, up to Special:Permalink/953874110. It says: Scientists such as U.S. molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright, who had expressed concern of previous escapes of the SARS virus at Chinese laboratories in Beijing and had been troubled by the pace and scale of China's plans for expansion into BSL–4 laboratories,[2] called the Institute a "world-class research institution that does world-class research in virology and immunology" while he noted that the WIV is a world leader in the study of bat coronaviruses.[11] I'm happy to revert to this consensus text, preceding all recent bold edits to change it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

Alexbrn (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Procrastinating Reader, I saw your response to my paragraph in Talk at "Covid 19 misinformation" article, and I'd like to understand a little better.

I'm surprised that you think there is no point in referring to pre-prints. Is there some history behind that view? I'm new to all this.

Re the other things you listed, I wasn't aware I was doing any of them, and indeed I hope I was in fact not doing any of them.

But willing to engage in civil exchange, if that is just my ignorance .. yours cordially Leo Brennan (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preprints aren't peer reviewed and aren't acceptable sources on COVID. Anyone can write some nonsense and upload it to a preprint server. This restriction is also part of the COVID general sanctions, see [3], and WP:MEDRS may be worth a read to see an overview of better sources for such claims. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will look at the Covid general sanctions, I had not done that so far. But I feel sceptical of your comment "anyone can write nonsense and upload it" - the authors of the Cornell pre-print aren't "anyone", they include e.g. JJ Couey, a professor at a leading university; and the Cornell paper isn't "nonsense", as you can see if you glance at it. So I feel your comment is a bit like a "straw man" argument?

Also your initial comment suggested I was "misrepresenting sources", but I assure you I was posting in good faith and not seeking to mis-represent any source - was there a source in particular that you had in mind that you thought I had mis-represented?

Re the 2 links in your initial comment, the first was to a Washington Post news item of 29th Jan which I had not previously seen, so thanks for that. It includes a quote from Dr Ebright that seems to run counter to his inclusion in the Telegraph list, but I would suggest solution to that is to say something like "Dr Ebright has said X [source: Washington Post], though he has also said Y [source: Daily Telegraph], rather than prioritising one over the other. Would you agree?

Re your final link, to a BBC news story yesterday about WHO's Wuhan press conference, I would humbly suggests that is some way from amounting to showing that I am "ignoring science" (a bit of a sweeping statement imho! :-) ).

So, in summary, the Cornell paper was a pre-print yes but it has reputable authors; Dr Ebright can be quoted on both sides of the argument, but we can easily do so; and the BBC has reported a WHO press conference that says a lab leak is "highly unlikely", but that needn't mean that an article about the lab leak hypothesis constitutes "mis-information".

Are we edging closer to a common view point perhaps? Cheers - Leo Brennan (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: have had a look at the general sanctions as you helpfully advised, I can now see the guidance is that pre-prints "should" not be used as references, which imho is quite a high standard! But I've had a look at the "lab leak hypothesis" article that started this off, as Bill Bostickson had archived it earlier & has published the link to that archived version on Twitter; I can see that that article does cite plenty of peer-reviewed papers - indeed the peer-reviewed papers are a central part of its argument; so am still puzzled as to why Wiki editors wanted to replace it by a re-direction to the "misinformation" article. Even before it was replaced, people were editing it in a way that seemed to me to be over-reaching, e.g. saying that the hypothesis was "discredited" by critics: I agree it has been "attacked" by critics, but to say it is "discredited" seems a value-judgment too far? Better get on with rest of today's chores now ...Leo Brennan (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have been following discussions at articles related to COVID-19 and I agree with your assessment of Arcturus' behaviour. Most admins, however, won't be that familiar with the goings-on there. In fact, those that are would likely be WP:INVOLVED. So I think you'll need to add some concrete evidence at AN/I – diffs etc. – if you want anything to come of your report. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: Yeah, you're right. I guess I'm a bit tired by the situation myself and don't currently have the time/energy to collate all the evidence currently, and present the situation succinctly as a conduct issue. Partially also because I'm low on hope that anything will come of it. Hence the somewhat driveby comment. Perhaps Alexbrn will have an interest in collating evidence. c.f. topic @ AN, and editor discussion @ ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. AN may be a step forward. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: I have to say I had the same thought. The problem has been long-term over several articles and the evidence is more of a pattern rather than one or two slam-dunk damning edits. Thus assembling the evidence would be a huge amount of work, and the effort to understand it is such, that the community has a good chance of not appreciating it. In the old days we had WP:RFC/U, which might have been an appropriate forum, but now there is no venue for discussing user behaviour short of a full ANI posting. Anyway, for now, I'm just hoping enough WP:ROPE plays out that an admin is going to notice at some point that action is required. Alexbrn (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: I think valereee and Wugapodes's comments on the threads are encouraging. If you (or someone you know, if there's particular people to ping in) can even paint half a picture I'm happy to pick up some of the slack and fill in the blanks from my memory. I withdrew from much of this crap quite quickly, with despair at my time being wasted, so I wouldn't be best placed to start. Alternatively, there could be enough support for a CBAN, rather than a GS TBAN, since skimming over archives I see a lot of different community members engaging once-off in frustration, but given the experience with SS it could be overly optimistic.

@admins: If you can be bothered to skim walls of text, I'd start at the talk pages of the pages linked @ AN (eg Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology), and their most recent archives. This isn't complete (since some of it is also forked discussions on noticeboards), but hopefully sufficient to demonstrate the problems. I can link single diffs of portions like this but I feel like it's quite hard to present POV/competence issues in a few out-of-context diffs. So I'm not sure there's a shortcut to appropriately presenting the issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add, I suspect the least invasive method, and most acceptable, is the sourcing restriction requiring MEDRS sources for [disputed] claims relating to [the origins of] the coronavirus. I wonder if that'll reduce issues, or at make talk page discussion manageable. For example, it would fix the entire "MEDRS again" section at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is currently over 50% of the talk page, and also split off into the further sections. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And at least some comments are borderline Sinophobia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake and didn’t mean to undo that, sorry. Terasail II^[✉] 02:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the note. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the way I've been treated since I started here you have the audacity to warn me? The toxic mansplaining is constant and I think FDW88 is geniunely on the verge of being an incel if he isn't already given his behaviour. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are just even more personal attack on another editor. Just a warning that this conduct will get you blocked, and if an admin saw it you'd probably be blocked already. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now at ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, but maybe click here? You're obviously qualified. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Though, it's usually less work to just yell at other people to do something ;). I guess also it comes across as slightly self-interested, given my past voiced concerns on EFH gatekeeping (which I do honestly think is an issue, and I think the key to any backlog is to be more welcoming to people who can operate in them, or has the competence to be able to learn how to do so).

As an aside, you come up as one of the top % accuracy reporters at AIV in enterprisey's tool (see this proposal and data). You should take up this - wiki would be better off for it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AN rules say I should tell you that I mentioned you on AN, advertising your EFM discussion, no reply is needed at AN. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious, but unsure if JustStalin (caught before) or ScrupulousScribe (also needs a new account to email anyway), or someone else, so SPI seems quite useless as usual... —PaleoNeonate – 13:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the duck-like features and two most likely candidates. I think the dates are interesting, of the registration and first edit, compared to the block log. Maybe there's enough for a CU comparison. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Spidey Sense is definitely tingling. Mind you, surely nobody is daft enough to sock an account named ScrupulousScribe (SS) with one called TacticalTweaker (TT) ?! One thing to be aware of is that during these fringe "flare ups" there have sometimes been long-past users with long-held grudges who start participating mischievously merely with the intention of amping up the drama. Alexbrn (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only infinite thing in the universe is human daftness (to not use the s word; you get the quote). The fact is, sadly, despite best efforts to the contrary, that the only way this is probably going to end is with A) mass block evasion (if this is not already the case); including copious amounts of Idonthearitis; or B) COVID ending (and even then, will take some time until all the nonsense calms down). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that happens too, —PaleoNeonate – 16:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both ScrupulousScribe and TacticalTweaker blocked indefinitely for socking. Quack-quack! El_C 14:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C Shouldn't you have also removed email for Special:Contributions/TacticalTweaker, if they're a sock of SS? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 18:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two ideas, maybe this was discussed before (I really need to read through the previous deletion discussion...!) but (1) what do you think the community would think of converting the WikiEd template into an article milestones parameter? Considering that we include AFD there, I don't think there's any requirement for the milestone to be an upgrade/downgrade in status (e.g. FAC, GAN, FAR etc.). (2) I'm also considering bringing the ((Annual readership)) to TFD—I've never found any use for it other than clogging up the talk page. We already have page views in the article history which seems desirable as a more flexible and helpful system, thoughts? Aza24 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally have AN on my watchlist, but today I spotted a thread from last week where you raised issues about behaviour concerning the lab leak COVID conspiracy theory. Leave aside our disagreements about templates, I genuinely am more than willing to take admin action, including adding page-specific sanctions, where necessary to protect the articles. Please feel free to ping me directly or drop a note on my talk page if you encounter substandard editing behaviour on any of the COVID-19 articles – unfortunately, there are just too many for me to keep them all watchlisted – and I'll do my very best to resolve the problems. --RexxS (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]