User talk:Isaacl/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

GGTF arbitration info in wrong place

I left you a note here where it belongs. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already responded on the workshop page. isaacl (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Inside Corner : November 3, 2014

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:


Can you take a peek @Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations? I'm using the "userlinks" so that editors interesting in commenting or seconding can do a little vetting if they want. My question is...Does the nominated editor get "pinged"? Thanks, ```Buster Seven Talk 20:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it would, but we can run a test: Buster7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Posts without an accompanying timestamp won't generate a notification, so you could add the links in an edit without a signature or timestamp. isaacl (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcoming user

Hey Isaac, Do we have an official WP:BASEBALL welcome template with a link to our newsletter? I was welcoming Sas3301, but could not find the right template beyond just the WER one ... he ostensibly could be a good contributor to the project, but does not seem to understand project consensus as of yet. No big deal; I just wanted to invite him to join the project to help formulate future consensus. All the best, Go Phightins! 05:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{WikiProject Baseball invitation}} is the general invitation template (there's a link to it from the project page). At the bottom of the newsletter, there's instructions on how to transclude a snapshot of the current newsletter summary. Good luck! isaacl (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Maurice Richard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 000 (${{formatnum:{{Inflation|CA|100000|1955}}}} in {{CURRENTYEAR}} dollars).{{inflation-fn|CA}})<ref name="Pincus86" /> Richard had also attended the game, but left immediately following the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seasons Greetings

Happy holidays.
Best wishes for joy and happiness to you and all your loved ones from ```Buster Seven Talk 08:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your message—I hope this season finds you well and jubilant! isaacl (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Inside Corner : December 16, 2014

A cookie for you!

--L235 (talk) Ping when replying 19:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Inside Corner

Isaac, due to a forthcoming on-wiki commitment that will take up an extensive amount of my time, I unfortunately will need to step down from writing for The Inside Corner on a regular basis. If you are ever in a pinch, I can try to help, but I am not going to be able to contribute on a regular basis for a reason that will soon come to light. God bless; all the best. Go Phightins! 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it's related to your immediately preceding edit, congratulations! I have a sneaking feeling that enthusiasm for the newsletter has waned, but we'll see. Thanks for all your efforts and good luck with the new project! isaacl (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for the feedback and information! I'm fine with using English-language school and French-language school instead. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consultation @ WER

@John Carter:, @Go Phightins!: I don't know if you have kept abreast of all the goings on at the talk page but I have question. I don't want to do it now because the discussion will get too unwieldy and hard (if not impossible) to manage. But at some point we will have to call out to the membership for ideas and comments and voting and what-not. Will you be able to do that? LightBreaker has pinged some editors and I would love to widen the circle with even more. But I resist because if the circle gets too wide we will not be able to have the simplest of discussions. There will be more cross conversation and bickering than at a cat and dog convention. I suggest we let a week, maybe two, pass before we consider a general "all-members" consultation. TKS. Buster Seven Talk 00:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope no voting is needed. Ideally, there can be a list of ideas that anyone interested can follow up on, and if there are any conflicting ideas, the interested participants can hash it out. Of course, the reality will probably be messier than that... As hard as it is to have large discussions (and to be honest, even the current discussion between a small number of people has been unwieldy, with my request for feedback being turned into a different discussion), I think once the chairs have been pulled out for some interested parties, they should be pulled out for all of them. So as much as I dislike pinging individuals (I feel more comfortable querying WikiProjects by posting to their talk pages), it may be the best way to ensure everyone gets to weigh in appropriately, and ought to be done promptly. isaacl (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...though, 174 members? I really dislike sending out that many individual notifications... I'm at a bit of a loss about how to proceed. isaacl (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have just now invited Editor LightBreather to invite the 80 or so editors from the members list that seem to her as though they may be women. I realize I do it with a little tongue in cheek trying to make the point that we can't really know the gender of an editor. Its really too bad that the discussion and the focus is now on this tangent but ......Buster Seven Talk 08:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me, a discussion on a project talk page is an invitation to all interested parties to participate, and anyone interested in participating in a project will watch the page so they don't have to receive individual notifications, which is an approach that doesn't scale well as the numbers of interested persons and discussions increase (it's a lot of overhead to ping 174 persons every time a new section is opened). It might be more fruitful to notify potentially interested editors who haven't signed up for membership. isaacl (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Letting you know

After todays events [1] and the potential for future upsetting events I wanted to let you know that I have stepped aside from any Project:WER talk facilitating or involvement for at least a month. I'll facilitate the Eddy Award stuff as usual and I'll most likely watch the page and work on the draft for the Signpost Op-ED, but that's all. I look forward to working with you again in March.Buster Seven Talk 23:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The truly unfortunate aspect is that a lot of people who mean well (whether or not you agree with their points of view or approaches) just fail at keeping matters low-key. While it can be good to inject energy into a discussion, there are times when it acts counter to everyone's best interests, including the person who is amping things up. For example, someone seemed to disagree with my proposal for a reference of sample responses. I don't mind if the idea doesn't gain support; if I can cross off this idea, then I'm freed up to look at other ones. But I was uncertain about the best way to tactfully address the questions about web pages changing people's dysfunctions. It seemed like a bit of hyperbole intended to denigrate the proposal by suggesting it had grander ambitions. (To digress a bit: in my workplace, people inevitably like to build up cheatsheets of the best ways of doing things. They aren't trying to change anyone's innate characteristics; they're just trying not to forget what they've learned and share it with others. I'm the first to say that Wikipedia processes that imagine people will change for the betterment of Wikipedia are unrealistic; real-world motivations don't go away and so we should take them under consideration.) I assume it wasn't meant that way, but how to clarify matters while defusing the level of rhetoric is a tricky thing. It's a bit of a catch-22: until we get a community that can play well together, it's hard to discuss the items that may help everyone play well together. isaacl (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Inside Corner : January 25, 2015

Primus inter pares (short form: Primus)

I just now added the coordinators for the project to the "pact' page. While there I read the following:
A project this large needs volunteers who are willing to help maintain the project and provide a neutral voice in disputes. As such, a group of initially 4 editors will be created to serve this function with the official title "Primus". This number may grow as the need grows, by majority vote of all Project Members. Primus will have no special powers or authority and their duties will be limited to determining consensus, closing discussions, maintaining primary pages, templates and other wiki-related aspects of the project, providing guidance and assistance and helping coordinate subprojects and events.

  • I think you, @Go Phightins!:Go P, myself and a fourth editor (to be determined0 should consider creating this "Primus" function. Dennis planned for the future and the future is now. I also think you should be one of the coordinators but that is an other issue. Thoughts? . Buster Seven Talk 17:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The "Pact" page did not gain consensus approval, and Dennis abandoned it after opposition. As much as I'd like someone to be able to sift through conversations and keep them on track, from what I can tell, most of the Wikipedia community either doesn't favour this, or hasn't had enough experience with effective group dynamics to understand its value. There are some WikiProjects that have worked well with a few members taking charge (for example, although there are a few dissenters, I think most people involved in the featured article process are content to defer to the judgments made by its co-ordinators), but most of them seem to want to have free-ranging discussions to talk about everything. (And to be fair, most projects probably don't need any co-ordinators, which can make it harder for some people to appreciate the scenarios where they would be useful.) So in my opinion, I don't think bringing the "Pact" page back into the limelight will lead to any productive change. isaacl (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair Enough. I just thought that maybe with those that want to separate EotW from WER "at the gate" , we three might get Dennis's blessing to our role as Leaders. I never saw the Primus mention back then so it was new to me today. As Rosanne Rosanadana might say, "Nevermind!" . Buster Seven Talk 20:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC) DRATS! I was just starting to create my PRIMUS COAT of ARMS and order some nice velvet slippers from Hammacher-Schlemmer. . Buster Seven Talk 20:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing is Dennis's only method for exerting leadership was through moral suasion, as a consequence of being one of the key founders of the project. As far as I can tell, no one else has a comparable lever to use to persuade others to align with a common set of objectives. (Taking the Teahouse as an example, Steven Zhang was also able to use his founder status to foster agreement, but since he stepped back, I don't believe anyone else has filled the same role.)
Now for Editor of the Week, where there is a degree of day-to-day, ongoing activity to sustain the initiative, I do think you have leverage for guiding the direction of the program. Those who put in the time get to do the crime, or something like that :-P. However, as you know, everything is subject to what a consensus of people want to do. But unless a whole bunch of people show up who are willing to put in the work to do things differently, and for some reason want to use the "Editor of the Week" name instead of creating a new name, I don't think there is much danger of a consensus decision to make drastic changes. (A consensus could decide to shut it down, but I don't think that's going to happen either, since I don't believe a case can be made that the award is actively harmful.) isaacl (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Isaac, you have eased my mind. It's like someone is attacking my adolescent child and I need to DO something to protect it. But, as you hint, many times doing nothing is the best course of action. . Buster Seven Talk 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks Isaac. I'm so glad you're watching! TRA! . Buster Seven Talk 17:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Isaacl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC). 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.

--L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 03:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can this template help?

Somewhere a while back we had a discussion about how threads get off-track at WER and how the original good idea is lost rather than fertilized. I call it "getting lost in the cow pasture". The talk just roams around with cows (editors) adding more and more cow pies to the already overflowing (and lost) mess. Would something like this template be a tool we could utilize:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: While your participation is valued, please allow us to return to the original editors query. Thank you, Buster Seven Talk 22:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, . Buster Seven Talk 22:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

or something like that. I just saw it for the first time, being used somewhere else and thought it might be something we could benefit from. . Buster Seven Talk 22:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, just realized I hadn't responded to this message. Although I'm sure the visual distinctiveness of a pre-formatted message would be a helpful prompt for some, I think if a polite request from the original poster to avoid diverting the focus of the thread doesn't work, then a template may not have any better success. Some times this may be useful (some posters may not see that a somewhat broader scope would improve the quality of the discussion), and some times it's a distraction from the key issues. isaacl (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Inside Corner : March 15, 2015

Future time

Bottom line: If something happened and I was not able to do the things I do at WER and at EotW, I think Li235 could (and WOULD) step in and do just as a good a job. . Buster Seven Talk 00:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A succession plan is always a good idea—you never know when unforeseen circumstances will require someone else to take over. Maybe more tasks can be rotated to Lixxx235 to increase involvement? isaacl (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Well. I just remembered that just as he started to get involved in helping at WER he became a clerk for the Arbitration Committee which I would imagine took up much of his available time. . Buster Seven Talk 04:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Added remembrance: He has nominated seven successfully seconded editors for the EotW award. . Buster Seven Talk 10:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


for collapsing at WER. Sometimes I'm just too lenient and unwilling to put a stop to what I know is not going well. And...I don't want to have to endure criticism from former members. . Buster Seven Talk 04:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dennis is the one to thank, not me... I just fixed up his edit so the following sections didn't also appear to be closed, which I don't believe was the intent. Real life commitments hampered me from intervening, but to be honest I'm at a bit of a loss regarding how to proceed in these situations, as I know my personal views on where the cutoff should happen differs from the views of others, and I don't like bucking the consensus opinion. I'm mulling over starting a discussion thread to ask that individual situations be discussed in other venues. I need to consider the wording further, though, as I know there are situations such as specific editors withdrawing from Wikipedia that some like to talk about. To some degree, discussion of retaining editors does have to look at specific data, so there is a balance that has to be managed. isaacl (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current Nomination page

Says: Just type their name using plain text, and we will replace it with User-multi error: no username detected (help). in a way that does not notify the noninee. Minor detail----Nominee is miss-spelled. Also, should I replace Awardee's name (talk · contribs · count · logs). . Buster Seven Talk 19:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This text comes from the editnotice for the nomination talk page, which is being transcluded into the page. Most editnotices can only be edited by editors with administrative privileges or with template editor privileges, so you'll have to ask someone like Dennis Brown, Go Phightins!, or L235 (who has template editor privileges) to correct the typo. isaacl (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Will do. Tks. . Buster Seven Talk 21:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What to do

@Go Phightins!: MelanieN just e-mailed to tell that the next recepient fore EotW is up for RfA. and one of his nominators is Kudpung so we want to do it right. Thoughts? . Buster Seven Talk 17:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He is next weeks EotW/. GoP agrees we should award anyway. . Buster Seven Talk 20:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For better or worse, it seems the assignment of the administrative privileges will likely happen around the same time as the next Editor of the Week is announced. Following the recognition guidelines, I suggest we pass over the nominee, and suggest that the nominator find an appropriate barnstar to award, accompanied with an appreciative note. isaacl (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the type of work being recognized not falling under the realm of administrative duties, recall that the restriction is just a proxy for filtering out editors that have already received gratitude for their work. Someone on the cusp of receiving administrative privileges would fall under the same presumption of having been well-recognized for their contributions. isaacl (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps but I am not sure that, seeing as someone nominated him for thinking he met the criteria probably more than a month ago, now it is fair for us to go back and say that because he is now an admin and has received consequent recognition, we are not giving him the award. I see your point, Isaac, about the presumption of having been well-recognized, but if he had not been up for adminship, we would not have been having this conversation, so I think it is fair to just award it anyway and move on. Go Phightins! 10:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree w/ GoP. Respecting the nominators wishes is important. But...then proper timing becomes an issue. The convergence of the Awarding and his RfA conclusion could be handled by presenting the award Saturday or very early as not to create the "which came first" problem. . Buster Seven Talk 15:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the order matters; whether or not the "lesser-known" criterion is satisfied doesn't depend on the Editor of the Week recognition being given first. I may not personally like it, but as there was no agreement on how to enforce the lesser-known criterion, it's become more a strongly encouraged guideline. isaacl (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The order WILL matter to someone (a former member of this project) who was and is an administrator and is a stickler for what EotW does wrong. If we give the award first there can be no criticism that we awarded an administrator.. . Buster Seven Talk 19:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, giving the recognition first will not insulate it from criticism regarding the lesser-known criterion. Unfortunately I have no ideas at the moment regarding how to improve matters, in part because my views on the importance of this criterion differ from others involved. It's not a matter of one side being right and the other wrong; it's just a disagreement on goals and how to achieve them, coupled with practical limitations due to a lack of volunteers. Optimistically, I chose to believe that this initiative could attract sufficient helpers to assist with screening based on the lesser-known criterion, but in retrospect, perhaps I should have proposed a more objective criterion to narrow the scope of potential recipients (such as number of edits, months since first edit, or something else similar). isaacl (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Isaacl. I have opened a discussion at the stolen bases page and would appreciate it if you shared an opinion there. I'd also like to add my thanks for your message here, defending me. Trut-h-urts man (TC) 20:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference errors on 27 July

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA run for Montreal Expos

Hi Isaac, my goal for the rewrite was an eventual FA run, but GA first. I plan on doing a copyedit this weekend (now that sufficient time has passed such that I should pick up on errors I missed from the write itself), and just wanted your thoughts on what else needs to be done first. I still need to do a paragraph on the retired numbers, and would love to expand the team identity part. Do you have any sources that can expand on that? Resolute 13:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry I haven't been able to do more copy-editing; I did a bit but would like to do more. Unfortunately I probably won't have a lot of availability to edit on Wikipedia in the next week and half. As I mentioned before, I think additional details on some of the team's key players would be good, such as Charlie Lea, Bill Gullickson, Tim Wallach, Jeff Reardon, Larry Walker, Cliff Floyd, Rondell White, and Vladimir Guerrero. A bit more info on Buck Rodgers would be useful, too, as a popular manager who had the third-longest tenure with the Expos. The near-firing of Felipe Alou was an episode that clearly demonstrated his popularity with Montreal fans. David Dombrowski had a significant impact on the team's scouting success, as well as successors Dan Duquette and Kevin Malone. I think the quote from Malone when he resigned is a particularly good one to include.
I'm not quite sure what you're looking for regarding team identity: something about how the fans and city identified with the team, and adopted it as a symbol of Montreal? I don't have anything readily in mind; I can try to find something in a couple of weeks or so. isaacl (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One other note, regarding the photo of the Expos banner in the Bell Centre: though the current photo from you displays the banner more clearly, I liked the previous photo of the banner being raised with Youppi! (though I see that the image has now been deleted from Wikipedia). isaacl (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other image could, if needed, be undeleted by any admin, however, it was non-free so the GA/FA process would end up getting you to change it to that one anyway. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I left it off because the image really only demonstrated two things: the banner, and Youppi in a Habs jersey. Since it is a non-free image, and since we have free images of both Youppi and the banner, I knew there was no chance that image would be viewed as acceptable at a FAC. It might sneak through GAN if the reviewer didn't think to check for it, but as an FA editor myself, I couldn't justify doing that. But for the rest, I'll see what i can do with copy edits. I don't have to nominate at GAN immediately if you want to take a look in a few weeks. (Nor would it be likely to be reviewed within the next two months anyway!) Resolute 13:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's something I may be able to work on in a couple of weeks, so if you want to work on something else, feel free. But don't feel obligated to wait, either, if it's something you'd like to continue developing. I appreciate the time and effort you have spent. isaacl (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Isaacl. You have new messages at B2project's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John McHale

Hi, isaacl. I agree with your point about team presidents not being listed as owners in general. In the case of the Expos, I included John McHale for two reasons: (1) per his bio, McHale was a minority owner who owned ten percent of the Expos; and (2) at least at first, Mr. Bronfman was the majority owner (45 %) of the Expos' ownership group that included a number of Montreal business people (Hugh Hallward, Lorne Webster, Sidney Maislin and others, presumably McHale at some point)[1]. Mr. Bronfman may have over time purchased McHale's stock and become sole owner. I included McHale based on his minority ownership stake and his influential role in the upper management of the club from 1968-86. I would prefer that the inbox include "club president(s)" as a title as the best solution. That said, I'm open to making the deletions you have asked for. Thanks.McGill1974 (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My understanding is that Bronfman was the managing partner, representing the ownership to MLB. I think noting the ownership group within the article may be more apt. Given the limited space in the infobox, though, I think it is sufficient to include Bronfman alone, who from what I know was the most involved owner and set the team's direction. If you can build a consensus to add "club president" to the infobox, then this information could be included. Be forewarned, though, that there will be opposition, as there are opinionated persons who would rather take things out than put things in. isaacl (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your response is very reasonable and I have made the deletions. (And your observation about the contentiousness that sometimes accompanies suggestions like the one I proposed is apt!) Thanks and take care!McGill1974 (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much for your co-operation; it is greatly appreciated! isaacl (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wishing you all the best, Isaacl

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much; I hope you enjoy your holidays. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm having a problem with Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page. Last weeks Eddy recipient is still displayed at the Project and Editor of the Week main pages. Everything looks OK to me. Thanks, Buster Seven Talk 19:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can force a page to be refreshed immediately by adding "?action=purge" to the end of the page address. For example, I visited in order to force it to be updated. You can try the same with any other pages that may not have been updated yet (they will all eventually get updated automatically). isaacl (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal essay

Hello old timer..hope all is well. Have a question ? Recently i have been creating an Wikipedia:Essay directory and was wondering if you ever had plans to move User:Isaacl/Consensus requires patience to the Wikipedia namespace? i think it would be a great addition for the community.--Moxy (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the positive feedback! For better or worse, I generally feel I should be conservative about what pages are created in the Wikipedia namespace, so I'd like to see some signs of community support. Your comment certainly helps! I know many editors would just put their essays into the project namespace and see what happens, but given the many essays in the Wikipedia namespace that are basically one person's view, I feel I shouldn't lay claim to a specific article title solely on my own initiative. I will certainly consider moving the essay should more people indicate interest. isaacl (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great ideas and well framed. Certainly worthy of community support. I think you should move it because we never know who reads what we write and is then challenged to greatness. Your essay may be the impetus they need to understand the challenges of acquiring consensus. Go for it! Buster Seven Talk 14:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eddy Award

Once again we have a shortage of candidates for the award. What I would like to do is "ping" all the previous award winners and ask them if someone in their "circle of editors" might be a good candidate. Is that possible? There are over 150 editors (I think. Maybe more). Buster Seven Talk 14:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, a mass message can be posted to a list of pages. Here is a sample mailing list—only the lines below the "Subscribers" heading, starting with a # sign are important. Then add a request on the mass message senders talk page, where you specify the mailing list, subject for the mass message, and the contents of the mass message. For the messages I've requested to be sent (example), I created a separate page that contained the contents of the message, and just pointed to there. If you need help with filing the request, please let me know.
Note since the message will get signed by the mass messaging bot, you should make it clear in the message text that you are the author, with your signature including a link to your talk page. Some people don't like mass messages, but hopefully EotW recipients will be open to receiving a request for nominations. isaacl (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to keep you in the loop and to stop me if I'm going down the wrong road---- User:Buster7/WER Nomination mass mailing is a page I am working on, compiling a long list of those Eddy recipients that responded positively when they received the award. Sprinkled among them are nominators that I recognize as frequent visitors. Ive also included editors that seconded a nomination or two. I'll work on the letter after I complete the list. Would you mind helping compose it? As Always, thanks. Buster Seven Talk 03:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, the first step is to get all a list of all the user names. Once that's done, all you need is a page that looks like this:
# {{#target:User talk:Kelvinsong}}
# {{#target:User talk:EricEnfermero}}
or, alternatively:
# {{Mailing list member|user=Kelvinsong}}
# {{Mailing list member|user=EricEnfermero}}
Yes, I can help with writing a message to send. isaacl (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rough Draft of Letter to Request Nominations

Isaacl As always, thank you. Buster Seven Talk


Jimbo Wales 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are receiving this request because you were either a recipient of an Editor of the Week, made a nomination or a second, congratulated a recipient, are a member in good standing of the Eddy Initiative or have been active at WER/EotW over the past 3 years. The spirit of camaraderie and co-operation that Jimbo talks about above is an important tool in the art of retaining editors. Editing articles can be dis-heartening at times and the ebb and flow of dealing with other editors can be tedious.

The Editor of the Week recognition is intended to demonstrate appreciation of an editor's positive behaviors and collaborative spirit. The award is now into its fourth year of production with more than 150 awards distributed. Each week the award has brought a little brightness and goodwill onto the talk page of a worthy editor. The many comments at the "What they said...." page shows that the award has a positive effect on the editing experience (at least for a moment). The clerks at WER have been glad to continue the idea of giving a selected editor a "pat on the back" for a job well done.

Every now and then a lull in the nomination of editors happens and the Queue begins to empty. That's the situation we have now. By the end of April the accepted nominations page will have run dry; there will be no names offered for consideration. That's where you come in and the reason for this mass mailing.

Is there someone in your editing circle that would be deserving of an Eddy? Which one of your fellow editors deserves a pat on the back?  

Editor of the Week recipients display sustained patterns of excellence and the award is intended to say "Thanks" for that effort. Since the beginning, forgotten editors, the kind that work tirelessly in the background, have been the preferred candidates but man veterans have received the Award.

I had started a very simple draft; I'll have a further look at yours. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WER Nomination mass mailing list

Please see the list of editors for the mass mailing that we discussed. Could you please send out the request? I'm really concerned that I'll foul it up and the whole idea will go down in flames. I wanna make sure its done right, which it will be if you do it. Thanks for your time and help. Buster Seven Talk 17:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, I can make the request. I apologize for the delay in working out a revision for the text in the request. I had meant to tell you that I think for this specific mailing, as the recipients are either those previously recognized or have otherwise been involved in Editor of the Week, the text doesn't have to be a hard sell of the recognition. Thus my suggestion would be to pare it down to a simpler message, as shorter messages usually get more people reading them through. It's just my opinion, though, so let me know if you'd rather stay with a longer message, and I'll adjust any changes I make accordingly. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, Isaac. Whatever you think. Let me know so I can watch what you do and, hopefully, learn something new. Buster Seven Talk 05:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have created a new draft version of the notification message. Please feel free to provide feedback or to make changes, and I can then post a request to have it delivered. Thanks for your continued service in seeking to recognize worthy editors! isaacl (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like it just the way it is. There are only two editors in the Queue. Fingers crossed! Thanks for your continued service in seeking to recognize worthy editors! Buster Seven Talk 03:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have submitted the request. Typically they get handled fairly quickly, so hopefully it will go out within a day. isaacl (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WER archives 29 and 30

Im sure you recall last moths conversation which began on Archive #29 w/ Single Purpose Editors in AFC on the 13th and concluded on Archive #30 around April 19. How do I or where do I cut and paste the whole thing and start to "nutshell" it and maybe lift the created Welcomes and collect them somewhere? Your help is always appreciated. Buster Seven Talk 17:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Budapest is Out 2024 Olympic Race.Reply[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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


As you have mentioned many times the biggest problem with projects, small and large, is management. With that in mind I started to consider how your challenge toward Action @ WER would look when incorporated with my old WikiKnights idea. I realized that rather than wait for someone to come to me....I would go to them...and just interject myself into there "scuffle". I went to Recent changes and scrolled down looking for any hint of a disagreement. I found one and with a little reading and minor vetting it seemed like a good fit for a test run. Check it out @ [2]. The next diff shows the WER Welcome which I thought was good to use in order to bring it out of mothballs. Way back when I first thought of WikiKnights I knew not to create something that would take alot of managing or time. In and out. Retain the new editor without upsetting the veteran editor, hopefully, and get out. Always interested in your input. Buster Seven Talk 03:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check out User talk:North Shoreman#Finkleman for some background.
I always thought the work you did welcoming new editors was an excellent way to make initial contact, so I think finding editors whose intentions seem to be getting short shrift is a good initiative on your part. I suspect it's a bit of a panning for gold situation, where the ratio of editors contacted to productive contributors is high, but as long as you're up to the task, more power to you! isaacl (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"panning for gold". I like that way of see it. Lots of pebbles; every once in a while a nugget. Buster Seven Talk 00:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Isaacl. 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.

Buster Seven Talk 04:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Isaacl: I'm reading A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy by Clay Shirky. Any suggestions of where to focus my attention? Buster Seven Talk 02:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's hard for me to pick because there's so much good stuff there. The section at the end of Part 1 on LambaMOO is very applicable to Wikipedia, as it discusses how they tried to eliminate a hierarchy, and in the end felt compelled to reinstate one. The sections on "Three Things to Accept" and "Four Things to Design For" are very instructive in what a community needs to understand and plan for. isaacl (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I tried to ping you here Template_talk:Paragraph_break#Using_p_tags but the ping didn't work. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to have worked; I have a notification about your mentioning me. isaacl (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, now it says the ping was sent, but originally, it didn't. It said only Frietjes was sent and that both you and the IP failed. No idea why it changed.
You seem to know more about how the software here works. What do you think the best way to ping IP's is, given the regular ping doesn't work. I went to the IP's talk page and left a note, just like I did here for you. I wish we had a more convenient way to ping IP's in the same way we ping regular users. It might be nice feature for Twinkle.
Are there any pages that describe how one deals with IP's differently than registered users? I know we are dedicated to supporting anonymous IP's, but I find them increasingly more difficult to communicate with--especially when one user ends up with multiple IP's because of their router features, like the one I responded to.
Thanks for your response to the ping BTW. I will have to look at that more carefully tomorrow.
I'm really enjoying the {{pb}} template, which I used liberally in responding to you. Makes responding so much easier that cutting and pasting all those colons the way I used to! --David Tornheim (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically, since your comment had separate paragraphs, it would be more semantically correct to mark them as paragraphs. However other than the possible effect on screen readers (which I'm not sure about), there isn't much practical difference in English Wikipedia. On a side note, the markup produced by the colon-notation is semantically wrong as it's intended to be used for definition lists, though I'm guessing most uses on the web in general are not using it for definitions.
Since IP addresses don't necessarily map to a single user, pinging them may not reach the same person. It's an unavoidable drawback: you can leave a note on the IP talk page, but ultimately the person behind the IP will just have to manually follow any conversations they are interested in. isaacl (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the response. Yeah, I have gotten the feeling that the original HTML is not really being used as intended, and I always wondered what unusual side effects might be caused. I always thought it weird that <p> made nesting optional. My way of thinking is a keyword, declarator, punctuation, etc. is either fully nested or not nested at all, but never optional (although "else" in C and Infix notation has the same kinds of grammar properties that make parsing for the compiler much more work). Hence, I have always been a bit uncomfortable using <p> without </p> wondering if one day the HTML reader will do something strange. Now I have to worry about the colons too.  :) Just kidding. My feeling is that HTML took off too quickly and it would have been nicer if more eyes were on it before it became standardized. It reminds me somewhat of the DOS commands like DIR that are so weak compared to the same commands in UNIX commands like "ls". And no, I am not willing to run Linux, even though my engineering friends insist on it.  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Great input at the poll candidate search pages. Thank you! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anna, I always fear that I might be taking advantage of your kindness and agreeable nature to unduly influence the optional poll project in a direction contrary to your wishes (especially since I don't do any of the day-to-day work). Your response puts my mind at ease for the current discussion; I appreciate your thanks! isaacl (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the kind words, my friend. Good heavens, no. Your input in the poll area is fantastic. The last thing I want is "my wishes" fulfilled. I put it out there and rely on editors like you to bend it in the right direction. I have limited confidence in what I do. I utterly depend on the community. A groups of brains always gets it right. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WER Hall of Fame

Just to keep you in the loop....the changes that are being implemented at the Hall of Fame by Primefac are the result of a conversation here. Buster Seven Talk 14:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
For your help with negative/positive lookahead regex. I've been trying to nail those down for years. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome! isaacl (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey Isaacl. I'm curious as to how you plan to proceed with setting up a new WikiSalute program. I'm going to continue to award the remaining accepted EotW nominees, and I'm willing to help you with organizing the new program if you so desire. Have a good day, Lepricavark (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Isaacl. You have new messages at Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.
Message added 05:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]

Winged Blades Godric 05:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Isaacl.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mister wiki case has been accepted

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Isaacl. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"tis the season...."

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
Thank you for your kind words; I hope you may enjoy a peaceful time with friends and family! isaacl (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor of the Week

I wanted to touch base with you about how to "give out" this nomination that I just did. Should it happen all in one week? Or (better for me) extend it over 5/6 weeks and thereby delaying the constant search for candidates. The cupboard gets quite bare at times. MrX and Another Believer are previous EotWs so I would award them last...toward the beginning of May. Also, it gives me the freedom to create separate, more individualized, banners for the Hall of Fame each week. Hope all is well. Thoughts? ―Buster7  18:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to recognize one person a week, I suggest it would be nice to find additional achievements for each, if only so the weekly writeups can show some variety and not look the same for six weeks, but also to differentiate their accomplishments. I really appreciate all the work you put into finding new nominees. Maybe it's time to ping all of the past recipients again for their suggestions? isaacl (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


See my talk page. Not sure if the ping is working. ―Buster7  18:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consensus requires patience

User:Isaacl/Consensus requires patience. I've read this before and will read it again and again. It will come in handy as the ensuing conversations expand outward. I seem to remember that we would take the initiative to lift diversions from one thread and start a separate conversation thread to prevent loss of focus from the original idea but at the same time allow the diversion to gather an audience. TRA!―Buster7  16:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes I think many disputes could be improved by everyone showing a little more patience and letting other people weigh in instead of responding right away. But like many other things in Wikipedia, there is insufficient incentive to show patience, since jumping in with your thoughts immediately gives you an advantage in shaping the discussion.
Yes, since some editors reacted vehemently when told to take their discussion to one of the many other available venues, we'd start new threads to reboot the original conversation. Just because Wikipedia allows open conversation doesn't mean every thread on every page has to wander in any direction that anyone desires, but sometimes it's just easier to let the diverted thread be and start anew. The problem is when it keeps happening, people start losing interest in that venue. Perhaps we should have split the editor retention talk page into an ideas page and a complaints page (well, maybe we'd have to call it something like "Identified injustices"), so the venting could be more easily separated from the proposal building. Something to think about for the next project :) isaacl (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Isaacl. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peace Dove Christmas

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Happy Holidays. ―Buster7  15:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Some heightened activity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention has brought on a potential reawakening of the project. I want to be sure to shepard the conversation for the benefit of the project and WP as a whole. Your insight is always welcome. ―Buster7  09:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to post something that takes a step back from the immediate situation and looks at the big picture... but it's hard, because Wikipedia's culture is difficult to explain to newcomers without sounding like you're lecturing them. My first thought was to suggest that those trying to help should start with short messages rather than the lengthy ones that were being posted, but to be fair a one-size-fits-all approach isn't necessarily the best way, either. Structurally, English Wikipedia is unfriendly to subject matter experts, because the community ethos is to be skeptical of everything unsourced, or not sourced in specific ways. There are good reasons for this, but to experts it comes across as a breakdown of trust, and they don't understand how a site can survive without it. (Yes, the overhead process sucks, but how else can the contributions of thousands be managed in a decentralized manner?) I'll keep letting it ruminate and hopefully come up with something to post in a fresh section on the talk page. isaacl (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I was not aware of the Community discussion page.Thank you for a great resource of previous discussions ―Buster7  22:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for input over at User talk:Iridescent. ―Buster7  23:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AN/I comment

In the current AN/I discussion about my behavior you wrote, "you replied that your behaviour wouldn't discourage you, and so it shouldn't discourage them. You have unequivocally told others that their views are wrong, and should be replaced with yours". What I meant is quite different, more like this: "frequent commenting by one editor in one section of a talk page doesn't discourage/bother/disrupt me, and so I don't understand why it would discourage/bother/disrupt others." I wasn't thinking, feeling or saying anyone else was wrong about feeling discouraged/bothered/disrupted by such behavior; I was just saying I didn't understand why it would. But you took the time to explain there; and I appreciate that. Which is why I'm responding here on your talk page instead of there in that discussion. Is that better?

What I do believe is wrong is sanctioning or warning someone for behavior that is not clearly against behavioral policy. If it's truly problematic, then it should be documented accordingly in wording that has consensus support. Making up special rules for particular individuals in an AN/I where people with a dispute history with the accused are the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner is not conducive to a congenial working environment, for anyone. --В²C 17:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand why you're replying here instead of within the discussion; I think it is better to hold the discussion in one place. Also, I read what you said about what you feel about sanctioning people for behaviour. It's not necessary to repeat it again. isaacl (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm replying here because you are my intended audience and my understanding is if I reply there then everyone is being burdened/bludgeoned/disrupted by having to read it. Point taken on the repetitive point. In any case I'm done now. Thanks. --В²C 18:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm glad you appreciated the explanation. There are shades of grey: since I made the comment in a public conversation thread, with the goal of adding to the conversation, it can be appropriate to continue the conversation in one place. (*) But unfortunately Wikipedia's talk page traditions of having multi-threaded discussions break out all over the place can make it hard to avoid repetition. Sometimes I will start a new thread to address multiple people.
(*) Though it pains me to say it, because I do think discussion is good, in this particular case I don't think your response would have helped your position. Everyone is aware you don't understand why other people feel the way they do; you've mentioned it already and your actions demonstrate this. But just because you don't understand doesn't mean those feelings should be ignored, as you've basically suggested by saying involved editors should not play a role in determining the outcome of the discussion. isaacl (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I did not feel, think, imply or say anyone's feelings should be ignored. I'm saying the proper venue for acting on such feelings in on the talk page of the appropriate behavior guideline/policy page to develop consensus for wording that clearly describes the problematic behavior and why it should be penalized. Then, when there is clear policy to backup the feelings, people can be warned/sanctioned at AN/I accordingly. I think a crucial step is being skipped here. That said, maybe I'll use the wording in your cogent explanation to me in the AN/I to propose such change myself. If there is consensus to add it, I'd be happy to comply, just as I comply with other policies and guidelines. --В²C 19:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In your "question 2", you said it feels really unfair to have all these people with whom I've had disputes in the past, many of whom have expressed animosity towards me, weighing in about whether and how I should be sanctioned or warned. You don't understand why they feel they way they do, attribute it to animosity, and feel they shouldn't weigh in. By saying you believe your behaviour to be harmless, you are indeed implying that your judgement is preferable to that of others. Now as a separate argument, you also said if this behaviour is not harmless, there should be a guideline for it. I considered the first point to be more important to address and so discussed that at AN/I. I have opinions on the second point, but I'll reserve them for any public discussion threads on the matter. isaacl (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your interpretation of my intended meaning is a bit off. I don't have a problem with involved people weighing in with "testimony" about their experiences; I have a problem with them weighing in as "judge/jury" (deciding "whether and how I should be sanctioned or warned") . I don't understand what I said that caused you to think it implied that "[my] judgement is preferable to that of others". I think the accused should have the right to "testify" and defend themselves, and I would support the accused (myself in this case) being included among the "involved" (anyone with a history with the accused) who don't weigh in as "judge/jury" in terms of deciding sanctions/warnings. --В²C 18:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe the survey section for any proposal should have two sections: one for testimony/comment/weighing-in by the involved/experienced (both pro/con the accused), and one for deciding outcome by totally uninvolved editors. --В²C 18:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You disagree with those who have concerns with your behaviour. You stated your disagreement by saying you don't understand why they feel they way they do, as you do not feel the same way. Thus you believe your judgement to be preferable to theirs (which is very natural; of course we trust our own judgement). However you made no allowance for others having good reasons that you just don't understand when you said your behaviour should not raise a warning and is harmless to others. In objective matters, it's one thing to tell people you think their judgement is invalid. But in this case, you told people that since you don't understand why they react a certain way to your extended commentary, you shouldn't be warned or sanctioned for it. Your understanding isn't necessary for people to feel a certain way; they'll feel that way any way.
I fully appreciate that you didn't intend to convey this message, so there is no need to continue explaining your views (I understand what you wanted to communicate). But when you dismiss other people's comments on their reactions without any accompanying statements validating their reactions, it comes across as telling people how to feel. I saw feedback to you on Levivich's talk page from that editor; I think it's good advice. isaacl (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This statement is interesting: "But when you dismiss other people's comments on their reactions without any accompanying statements validating their reactions, it comes across as telling people how to feel." I did not dismiss anyone's comments in the AN/I discussion, so there's that. How can I validate their reactions if I don't understand them? Since then Levivich has (finally) explained what pepper is and why it's problematic. I think it should be made an essay, ideally incorporated into WP:DE. --В²C 23:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, I'm telling you how your words are interpreted. Your telling me you right now that you didn't dismiss anyone's comments is telling me my feelings are wrong. Your saying Such behavior in no way discourages me from participating, and I don’t see why anyone would be discouraged from participating if I’m the one doing all the comment responses without making any allowance for there being good reasons that you aren't seeing comes across as being dismissive. You don't have to understand why someone feels a certain way to understand that there may be a good reason for it. (I can understand someone is sad without knowing why.) My having to tell you all this again immediately after saying it, well, several times now, makes it harder for me to feel sympathy when you say someone has "finally" explained something to you. And frankly it would be much too verbose to have essays on every single matter of interpersonal interactions. Like most other collaborative groups, Wikipedia relies on people learning these skills in all aspects of their lives. isaacl (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiding rollback link

Lovely, thanks! GiantSnowman 15:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


comments over the 2nd paragraph at Fae's ARC pretty much hits the nail on the head as to the current scenario. Thanks for writing that, WBGconverse 18:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad if you found the comments useful. Thanks for letting me know! isaacl (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good luck

@Lepricavark: I had some thoughts based on your talk page comments, but to be honest they kind of fall in the category of sticking my nose in middle of it. So if you're just planning to ride off into the sunset (for now), good luck! isaacl (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have returned. If you still have some thoughts to share, I'm ready and willing to listen. Also, for future reference, please don't hesitate to stick your nose into the middle of situations that involve me. You've always have good input in the past. Lepricavark (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Recently I was in a conversation on an arbitrator's talk page which reminded me that I've been less diligent now than in the past in evaluating the following criteria before posting commentary:
  • Is the situation under control without my contribution? How much additional benefit am I going to bring?
  • How likely is the target audience going to be receptive to my comments? Can my message be improved so it will be better received? Note the target audience could be someone other than to whom I am directly replying.
I appreciate there are times when I feel like I should stand up for a principle, or for someone else, but even then I ought to weigh these criteria carefully, because large group discussions don't scale upwards. There are only so many people who can talk at once and still be heard. Adding my voice might not be a net benefit to the conversation (as much as I'd like to think my words are priceless, I know others don't have this view). So although in the past there have been times where I thought my analysis for an arbitration case would be useful for the arbitrators, there are only so many words they can read and digest. Thus it would be better if I would be more selective about when I engage. It's really hard, though; once I've started, I have a natural inclination to respond to others, but sometime it would be better if I didn't, even if it might lead to them thinking they've outdone me in some way. If I have no chance of changing their mind, then it doesn't really matter if they're thinking that. As long as my points have been clearly described for others reading the discussion, it's good enough.
To take a small example relevant to you, I saw a recent posting where you said you were still waiting for an explanation regarding why certain discussions were an issue. I understand you're trying to press someone to be accountable. But the point is pretty much made when you asked initially. Either people agree with you, or they don't. Some editors like to post "sound of crickets..." when a response hasn't been given. I get they are probably deliberately trying to be provocative, but for me it doesn't help resolve issues.
I know it's not easy to try to remain pleasant in the face of others behaving in unco-operative ways. I can't claim that I am a model of virtue, and I only have mixed success at influencing others, so maybe being a bit disagreeable is better strategy.(*) (But it doesn't work if everyone becomes disagreeable: it only works when it takes advantage of the conciliatory nature of most editors.) All the same, I hope you might consider the criteria I outlined before you speak your mind, and perhaps choose moments where you can hone your message to target a specific audience who appears to be willing to listen.
(*) Nonetheless, I sometimes ponder writing an essay along the lines of "Please be co-operative; it's better for your long-term participation". I think in the end, being disagreeable makes it harder for you to gain support of others. isaacl (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Isaacl. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
Message added 00:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America1000 00:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WER/EDDY discussion

Please provide your input @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Accepted nominations for thread #319. TY ―Buster7  20:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about your edit

Hi, I am confused by your edit here: Can you explain what you were trying to do? As far as I can see, that edit created a problem by seeming to say that "a smorgasbord of subjects" was the Word of the day on English Wiktionary, which is incorrect. Also, why did you change the word(s) which linked to the Picture of the Day that I referenced? I might be OK with the second change if there is a good reason for it. Thank you, --Pine (✉) 18:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first edit was to remove redundancy, but I didn't quite word that accurately. I suggest something like the following to help tie the two sentences together: These "What's making you happy this week?" threads often mention a smorgasbord of subjects; incidentally, "smorgasbord" was the Word of the day on English Wiktionary for June 22.
The second edit is to follow best practice on link text. Ideally it should be descriptive of the link destination, and not just "this". isaacl (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the explanations. I prefer that the wording remain the same as what I wrote to the mailing lists, but I will not revert if you want to use the new proposed wording. Also, although I think that the link is okay as it is, I will accept the link change if you world like to make it. --Pine (✉) 03:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I leave it to your discretion regarding the wording. Using "this" as link text is an accessibility issue, but again I will leave it to you to decide how you would like the article to appear. Thanks for your consideration! isaacl (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I left the wording as it is but I changed the link per your comment. Thank you for considering accessibility. Also for accessibility, I added {{lang}} templates to the article. --Pine (✉) 01:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As a courtesy I thought you should know that I will not be implementing the Award for a while. Since I am the front-line employee of the EotW, I am entitled to withhold my services in support of the wider community of editors. I have left a note on the Nomination Page and something similar to what follows at WP:FRAMBAN#Strike and at User talk:Katherine (WMF). ―Buster7  13:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • In line with the concept of a worker strike (which I have participated in in RL more than once), I cannot in good conscience continue to implement the Wikipedia Editor of the Week Award at this time, until progress has been made toward de-escalating the situation at WP:FRAMBAN. This award has been distributed weekly since 2013. I'm not sure what progress I should expect but I'll know it when I see it. My sincere hope is that whatever comes about will lead to more respect for the workers in the front lines.―Buster7  13:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Just to confirm, I presume you don't want me to step in and present recognition to the worker bees already in the queue? What ever you wish is fine with me. isaacl (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community health

This is just hypothetical at this point. If the community was to set up a working group to draft up a package of suggested changes to improve community health & make future Framgates less likely, would you be willing to sit on it? The group might be restricted to possibly 10 members:

Role Description Seats
* pro "safe space" Editors sympathetic to newbies and sensitive editors, who are enthused by the Board's desire to see us "safer for all good faith editors" with "more diverse voices to join our communities" 4
* pro passionate content creators editors who want tolerance for the occasional outburst 2
* pro quality control editors who understand how quality control almost inevitably generates ill feeling 2
* facilitator folk good at balancing the different perspectives 2

Was thinking you might be a great fit for the facilitator role, as you've obviously been concerned with this for some time. The working group would maybe have a greater chance of coming of with a set of proposals ready to put to the wider community as a RfC. If the discussion remains free form, then until it runs out of steam, folk are likely to keep proposing various good competing ideas, and nothing will get traction. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I've written about using a working group to mitigate some of the issues with English Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making tradition. While I am personally happy to facilitate a working group, I do see a few barriers. First, if the community wants a disinterested party to facilitate, I don't fit the description. I have certain views and have made various proposals, though to be honest, many of them are sufficiently out of step with the set of editors who comment on such proposals that they're unlikely to be enacted. Second, if the community-at-large is expecting a minimum amount of time be spent each week by the working group, I will likely have trouble giving a firm commitment. Third, I failed in my last attempt to mediate a contentious issue with broad community interest (proposing an alternative paid disclosure policy), in part because the participants didn't trust my assurances that I was disinterested in the result and only wanted to ensure the strongest proposal was formed. (From my point of view, I felt the participants weren't sufficiently motivated to look for compromise solutions that could serve as a start, but I appreciate they were unhappy with how I tried to structure the discussion.) Some of them found my attempts to look for a true consensus solution—something everyone could live with—to illustrate bias. So anyone remembering that occasion will likely be dubious.
That being said, I am absolutely agreeable to participating in whatever role is useful, subject to my time availability, as long as the group members have realistic expectations. For better or worse, based on past history, it's really hard to get the community to agree to change. The ones most likely to succeed will probably only advance us in small steps towards a compromise approach. This doesn't bother me, as I think trying some things, re-evaluating, and trying something else is the way to go. I appreciate though that some might prefer to push for larger change. isaacl (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it's no surprise. You come across as someone who is probably well versed in the theory & practice of deliberative democracy. I agree the working group approach won't be easy here, and quite possibly will turn out to be a waste of time. I'm planning to suggest it to Swarm, and leave it up to him whether we go with it or not. (I suspect someone else will eventually use the working group approach though). FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hadn't heard of the term before, but it looks like an interesting concept, so thanks for the pointer! From Swarm's comments, it seems like he's intent on looking for changes on the enforcement side (though he has acknowledged the usefulness of looking at underlying causes). Perhaps separate working groups looking at different aspects could be initiated? (If there were just one group and I was facilitating it, it's what I'd do: split it up into subteams to examine different approaches, then come back together to discuss.) The set of people who like to participate in these conversations, though, often like to weigh in at every step, so we'll see if anything other than a massive discussion thread emerges. (That may also be partly because it's hard to get a consensus on anything, so it's easier to start talking about a topic than to first get agreement to create a working group to talk about it.) isaacl (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is a Wittgensteinian Elephant doing in the Room?
You two seem to think I know a lot more philosophy than I actually do ;-) Thanks for another pointer for me to follow up on! isaacl (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's most impressive if you've arrived at your thinking independently, you've been making several of the same points that James Fiskin does (arguably the leading scholar / practitioner of DD.). I don't think my old friend Buster was making a philosophical pointer - more of a much needed joke. The whole discussion has took a rather dispiriting turn. Two of the most learned editors on the site effectively saying we shouldnt make any changes at all, just wait for the WMF to publish their UCC. Sorry to have wasted your time Isaac, I don't think I'm going to try to advance the working group idea any more. Wikipedia discussions are starting to become almost as pesky as post 2016 real work politics. Grrrrr! FeydHuxtable (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feyd. can you give me a hint as to who the two learned editors are? For the longest time I thought the LH that was being discussed was LessHeardvanU. So glad I was wrong!Buster7  14:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the contrary, this thoughtful discussion with you has been a redeeming factor of this saga (which thankfully has diminished sufficiently in volume so my watchlist is usable again). The arbitration committee has said At a time yet to be decided there will be a RfC on matters related to WMF and to harassment on enwiki., so at the very least there'll be that opportunity to work toward changes.
I think there is a will to make improvements (although a fear of inflexible absolute standards); the problem is, as always, English Wikipedia's decision making is stalemated by its attempt to accommodate everyone through a consensus-like process. With rare exceptions, every option will have some outspoken opponents, and so the community as a whole runs out of energy to find something that will accommodate all of these opponents. It doesn't help that most of the time we don't follow a typical problem solving model used by real-world organizations, whereby we'd enumerate the pros and cons of different options and weigh them. Instead everyone jumps to voting yes or no, which makes it hard to figure out a true "would satisfy the most/disatisfy the fewest people" consensus position. I get why this happens: the N-squared problem means it's really hard to have a complex discussion in a large group, so participants prefer to just state their net vote and then dip in and out of the conversation as they wish. But the difficulty in scaling conversation upwards is a key part of why using consensus isn't suitable in a large group. isaacl (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Ive been reading the posts @ FramGate, especially the varied Harassment threads, the thought struck me that the wrong people/editors were having the discussion. It always gets down to bitching and moaning and telling old stories of trangressions or some gobbledeegook old theory of how people behave in groups. The thought then led to "we need new words, our own Wikipedia-editor-created words, to better describe what the hell is going on. Of course I could never say that to them...they would go bonkers! I'm not promoting new words or different people...I'm just realizing that brainstorming new ideas of solution won't happen at FramGate. ―Buster7  14:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, to be fair, my comments fall into the category of theories of how people behave in groups :-) I get why some people are really intent on understanding what the WMF had in mind with its actions. I don't get why people are letting arguing over it stall discussions on next steps. If there are a bunch of people who want to improve area X, great! Make a project page on the topic and let's go! I imagine the arbitration committee will take a more active role in guiding their RFC, which should hopefully better shape the discussion towards concrete actions. isaacl (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Isaacl. When I called them gobbledegook I thought you would know that I was not thinking of your posts which are always insightful and of a focused, forwarding nature. It was an other editors gobbledeegook that I was referring to. I'll let you guess who. ―Buster7  22:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only positive outcome to adding "that won't work" negatives during Brainstormong is that they may lead some ones brain to see an opening that is positive. ―Buster7  14:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was trying not to say "that won't work", but "that seems to be a more general case of what I'm saying". However I appreciate the distinction may be fine. On a separate note, I don't want people to start brainstorming on the draft project page and then everyone decides to use another venue (maybe even sticking to the current one). So while I want people to have ideas, the draft project page probably isn't the best place to write them down, yet. isaacl (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Got it!―Buster7  19:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evaluating reactions

@MJL: Regarding considering how other people feel, I suggest you may consider examining the effectiveness of your feedback to the editor in question. I suspect responding with "Huh?" didn't put the editor in a good frame of mind, and there's been a didactic tone in some responses that can make others less receptive. I appreciate, though, that it's very hard to provide and receive suggestions for improvement effectively. isaacl (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Thank you for the ping] Good advice! Stricken. –MJLTalk 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since there hadn't been any responses yet, I would have suggested just deleting the word altogether, but that's a matter of personal preference. I wish, though, you hadn't linked to this conversation in the edit summary. There's a reason I opened this thread on my talk page without putting a pointer to it on your talk page. I feel it's a lot easier to give feedback in a one-on-one setting and so would have preferred not advertising this discussion. isaacl (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood. I rolled back that edit summary, and I deleted the word altogether. Sorry about that! –MJLTalk 18:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's not much that can be done (within policy) to reverse it; the edit remains in the history. It's not the end of the world—odds are no one will follow the link, and if they do, they probably won't interject in our discussion. Thanks. isaacl (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Your anagram : "is a lac".

Mine: "is able".

Not basil :-) It's a common mistake.

Maybe see you in Calais ;-) Basile Morin (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Good News! Editor of the Week is back in biz. Threw a note here so as not to interrupt conversation below. TC! ―Buster7  14:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Isaacl. 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.

Cracking a tough nut

Hi Isaacl. I assume you're familiar with the perennial naming-victims-in-mass-casualty-articles issue, e.g. [3] [4] [5] [6]. Seems to me opinion is evenly divided among editors, and it's a large group of editors–too big for consensus, perhaps. Do you think there's a content dispute resolution system that can resolve this issue? Levivich 04:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A case like this is a matter of editorial judgement where there is no absolute right or wrong answer: it depends on how much weight is given to the applicable, conflicting policies. So it's pretty much a textbook case of a decision that can't be made by consensus in a large group. What can be tried (and will be part of the content dispute resolution proposal I am working on) is to sum up the cases for both sides in concise lists. At the very least, this will provide a reference for future discussions, so people can focus on raising new points and avoid rehashing old ones. I did this years ago for the then-perennial discussions on merging Montreal Expos with Washington Nationals. After that, if anyone proposed a merger, I'd point them to the FAQ I wrote and say, any new points to add? That pretty much stopped the arguing. Now the scenario you raise is obviously different and I can't see discussion stopping, but at least the conversation can start 12 steps ahead, instead of from scratch each time, and go right to the nuances of the specific article in question. isaacl (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other place where I used this technique is one you're familiar with: I wrote the FAQ on the relationship between the sports-specific notability guidelines and the general notability guideline. This still gets discussed as there are editors who would like a different relationship. However the amount of discussion on the current interpretation of the guideline has been reduced, because editors can point to the FAQ, which provides citations for the original intent when the guideline was created. isaacl (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The argument synopsis sounds like a good start, although I still wonder what happens when we arrive at any given article at a decision point that has no right or wrong answer and about which editors are evenly divided. Flip a coin?
The FAQs are helpful; unfortunately not universally followed. The closers in that area are quite good, though. I'm impressed it's such a contentious area of AfD, yet rarely ends up at DRV. Looking forward to reading you proposal as well; I'm watching the fostering collaboration page so I'll see it if you post it there but please let me know if you end up posting it somewhere else. Levivich 06:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The traditional answer is that a failure to reach consensus means status quo; combine that with biographical concerns and I would think that leads to exclusion. However what have you seen in your experience for these articles? Another approach would be to get the interested parties to agree to a vote, though I suspect for this particular issue where privacy is a concern, it may be hard to secure such an agreement.
If you are referring to sports biographies when you say the contentious area rarely ends up at deletion review, I suspect the large supply of potential biographies to create or raise for discussion results in editors being willing to move on to the next one. I don't want to get anyone's expectations up too much with my planned proposal; it won't be revolutionary and I'm fully aware it'll probably serve more as a strawman for discussion than something that is adopted in the near term. I am hopeful, nonetheless, that it can lay some groundwork exploring the problems with English Wikipedia's current decision-making traditions. isaacl (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'd think our PAGs like CONSENSUS, ONUS, and BRD, stating the "exclude-unless-consensus" rule, would settle these disputes, but so often instead of bold, revert, discuss, it's bold, revert, cry censorship/POV, edit war. I see people edit warring to include all the time, especially in political articles. (Granted, there are a lot of, uh, "repeat players" in that area, so maybe the problem isn't really that widespread.)
Funny, when I edited my comment, I edited out the part where I said what "that area" is, but you guessed right, sports bios (esp. BLPs). I think you're right about the "on to the next one" mentality keeping reviews down, and, unfortunately, that same thinking sort of applies to mass shooting articles, too: there will always be another one. I fear, though, that we end up in an endless loop, of arguing the same things over and over, without resolution. Meanwhile, the repeated arguing builds up bad feelings, leading to toxicity in the editing environment. With sports bios, for example, you can somewhat break that down into the SNG and the GNG editors. Essentially the same article can be kept or deleted depending on which "group" shows up for the discussion. When they both participate, it's a numeric stalemate, leading to either no consensus closes (which just leads to renominations and perpetuates the cycle), or the closer discounts !votes. And even though I may agree that the discounting is proper according to policy, I can see that if an editor's !vote is repeatedly discounted, it creates animosity between editors, and between editors and closers. In over half a year of regular footy AfD participation, it seems to me the core group of GNG and SNG !voters are no closer to compromise than they were at the beginning of the year, despite over a hundred conversations (and despite there nevertheless being a largely collegial environment, to the credit of the editors involved). In both the sports bios and shooting victims examples, the editors involved agree on 99% of the issues involved, and are arguing over 1%, but the argument is perpetual with no resolution in sight.
So that all leads me to wondering if either side would accept a binding dispute resolution method–i.e., choose an umpire or umpires, and let them decide. Or else, choose a method (like straight voting), the outcome of which is binding. But, as you've written in your essays and elsewhere, consensus doesn't seem to be able to resolve the disputes here. Levivich 15:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a key factor is how ideological is the disagreement. That's why I think it would be hard to get an agreement for a binding resolution based on voting or content arbitration where privacy is an issue, because people feel strongly about unduly including people's names and other information in one of the world's highest ranked websites in search engines. From the other end of the spectrum, there was a long-standing disagreement on what should be included in baseball biography infoboxes that ended up getting resolved through voting. People were amenable to it because getting a settled decision was more important to everyone than continuing to argue about it.
Disputes on sports biographies are somewhat straightforward, once everyone can agree that the general notability guideline is what really needs to be examined in the end (which has always been the consensus view by those who created the sports-specific notability criteria), and not achievements. It then usually boils down to disagreements on what constitutes significant, non-routine coverage from independent, non-promotional, reliable sources. The complicating factor is that sports journalism usually has a degree of local promotion, because that's what its audience wants, which needs to be discounted.
There are some who think policy should only be made from the bottom up, and so people should have lots of articles for deletion discussions, for instance, and then a standard for having an article can be derived from them. While it's true that policies stand the best chance of being followed when they reflect what has been done historically, the problem with insisting that what happens at AfDs is more important than policies is that it dooms people to eternally participate in all related AfDs. Otherwise, a perception can arise that consensus has changed when it hasn't. But this is terribly inefficient; the point of having a policy is so it can save editors from re-discussing the same matters over and over again.
So with the goal of making discussion more efficient, if an agreement on a guideline or policy can't be reached, having a pros and cons list of the different sides of a dispute will at least limit the redundant discussion, and thus hopefully decrease acrimony between editors. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...which led me to find WP:PROCON, which has some good additional arguments (and examples) of the utility of such lists. Levivich 20:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't want to clutter Thryduulf's page. Of the many things that have been written about the case, Boing has it shortest (on AN): "Support unblock. Praxidicae tagged a problematic article, Ritchie fixed the article in line with the tags. That's cooperation. The block was an example of ..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I understand the point of view of those who don't feel any interaction has taken place, or that a positive interaction (co-operation) has occurred. My point on Thryduulf's page was purely about providing an opportunity for broader comment on a common noticeboard, as opposed to individual talk pages. This benefits those who wanted an unblock, as it establishes a broad consensus. isaacl (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus is good, but not needed for things such as 2 + 2 = 4. It was such a thing, as explained multiple times on Ritchie's talk (not by me), spread to others only because of the unbelievable no-reaction. We should perhaps all be very quiet about it asap. You could look up my talk, for more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I understand your point of view, have read that talk page, and have said very little about this topic. isaacl (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deniz Yücel spoke on the Frankfurt Book Fair. I am quiet, perhaps too quiet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I apologize for not being sure of what kind of dialogue in which you want to engage. If it's a discussion of speaking up for injustices, as I said, I understand your point of view. Perhaps I misunderstood your previous sentence "We should perhaps all be very quiet about it asap," which I interpreted literally as meaning that further discussion of the settled matter should cease and we should get on with other things. In any case, I don't have anything new to add on this subject. isaacl (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine, striking what I thought about myself, possibly of no interest to others (I should have spoken up sooner, but now that it's over, it's too late). Now let's be quiet, per Ched. - In case of interest: I just created Börsenverein des Deutschen Buchhandels (at a least a stub), the organization behind the peace prize at the fair. I was there when Amoz Oz got it. Next: getting Erhard Eppler ready for the Main page. I'll think about a question for arbcom candidates. "no petty restrictions" is in the model for my peace prize, and I see too many of those being in the way of article improvement. Perhaps I'll ask them "Imagine you were an arb in 2019, would you have signed the desysop of Fram, the interaction ban of Ritchie and P, the block of Eric Corbett? - If any yes, explain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hope you don't mind my starting a new section. It must have been inspiring to be present for the peace prize presentation; I'm glad you got that opportunity. Regarding arbitrator candidate questions, my friendly suggestion is make it more about the general scenarios than specific editors. Yes, people will know the specific cases anyway, but I think it will come across as less inquistorial and more exploratory if you make the questions more open-ended to discuss the issues in general. Hope your work on the article progresses in a sufficiently timely matter to be ready for the main page. isaacl (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the last 2 years I could simply ask if they'd agree with Opabinia regalis ;) - Interesting that you'd think it's about specific editors while I put them as 3 examples for a trend. Do you remember the 2014 case? Similar trend: where a simple thank-you-click (but they were not invented then) would have done justice to an edit that improved the encyclopedia, we had discussions for weeks over several noticeboards, because of an (biting tongue to not add an attribute) arbcom restriction. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the problem if you simply ask would you have voted this way in cases A, B, and C—people will focus on the individual cases, and not the trend. If you want to highlight a trend, I think it would be better for your question to ask specifically about the trend you have in mind, and to describe the trend rather than to hope people get it by implication. (I had a hard time, for example, trying to understand why you were telling me about someone speaking at a book fair. I didn't know if you were just telling me something of interest to you (which is illuminating to learn about), if you were trying to comment on something I'd said, or something else entirely.) The question you asked in 2014 regarding how the candidates would have responded was more open-ended than just asking if they would have supported the ruling and so allowed for a broader discussion of principles. In a similar manner, my suggestion is to ask about the related principles for the trend you are detecting, and then tie them to the cases. Of course, this is only based on my own personal feelings on how to draw out the candidates in discussion. It's quite possible that other approaches are better. isaacl (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I described the trend: arbcom restrictions in the way of editing. Will think about it. In the 2014 case, I could point at exactly one edit people could look at, and the event was months ago when election came. I couldn't do the same with the Ritchie case, - it's a sequence of edits, and it just happened, and a closer look might damage an editor's reputation. I said "quiet" ;) - I have no time - article still needing work, 88% said The Rambling Man - to dig into your history, so don't know if you were ever cited to arbitration enforcement. I was, more than once, and lost time over it, and no pleasant time that was. In the end, they always let me go, but time is valuable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "I said 'quiet'", but I'll hush up now :-) Good luck with your article work. isaacl (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By "quiet" I meant that although I have a hard time to be quiet about perceived unfairness (and no apology, and no reply to the invitation to civil talk on my talk page), I am determined to keep quiet and let it go, per Ched (diff above). - I've seen no apology to Fram, victim of an unfair ban for months, and no apology could make up the valuable time lost that he could have editied. Did you know that my best article work was collaboration on Franz Kafka? Perhaps that could be a cand question: Arbitration is often perceived as kafkaesque, with "the frustration of trying to conduct business with non-transparent, seemingly arbitrary controlling systems ..." Please offer one idea to change that image. - Good luck happened, Eppler is on the Main page. Next Magnificat (Vivaldi). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Always good to have more arts-related articles improved! isaacl (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the Magnificat: would you know how to include the audio examples in the table, with less repetition of the titles? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oooh, never used the listen template before myself... I think the "plain=yes" parameter looks promising; see the example in the documentation under the "Plain" heading. You could put individual {{listen|plain=yes|...}} templates in a cell in each row. But the documentation says the title is mandatory, so I don't think it can be omitted. (It could perhaps be kludged with a non-breaking space, for example, but that would be breaking the spirit of the requirement and I'm guessing make a mess of the hAudio microformat.) isaacl (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, will digest after sleep, - managed to nominate for DYK - last day as always. More details and recordings to come. We'll perform it in December, twice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Up again, and watch list seen, but before I look at the Magnificat, I want to write at least a stub on a wonderful woman who died, and my planned article of the day, expanding Unterlüß today to honour my grandfather on his birthday. They have a peace church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process


The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!


Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 20:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.As I bop around here and there sending Holiday Greetings I occasionally read some of the talk and I smile to find your input. You are a Peacemaker. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7  17:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Awakening a WikiProject

I am confident that you already know that some young whippersnappers have started to use the ER as a chat room. They seem harmless and haven't scratched any of the furniture. Not yet anyway. Reminds me of Kevin Costner's Field of Dreams and the saying, "If you build it, they will come." Finally!! ―Buster7  07:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 05:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"or sourceable"

I did not insert it, actually - not sure, maybe I did, but it makes sense to have "or sourceable," since a wp:before check is required prior to nomination. It says "B. Carry out these checks ...If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)". And then D says "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability ... The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search ... If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."--2604:2000:E010:1100:1D06:C657:E7B:7CFE (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

new proposals, ideas

Hi. based on some useful input from yourself and others, I have started using draft pages more often for any proposed changes, ideas, proposals, etc. Please feel free to comment. I have one now, at User:Sm8900/item draft. feel free to look this over, and to send any comments, eg on the talk page there, or my own talk page if you want. I welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest, I think you need to spend more time understanding what current mechanisms are in place around the areas you are seeking to improve, and participating in them. Generally, people like to see proposals from someone who has engaged with an initiative over an extended period of time, thereby establishing their willingness to commit to seeing any changes through. Far too many people pop in, start making a lot of changes, and then disappear. That being said, your enthusiasm is welcome, and I hope lots of mainspace contributions will ensue. isaacl (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just saw your reply above to me just now. I highly, highly appreciate your positive sentiments that you expressed in the last sentence. I greatly appreciate your feedback to me. I find your insights to be of great help. and your constructive feedback that you have provided on ways for me to improve as an editor is most welcome. I truly appreciate your help, and I appreciate all your efforts here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few more words of advice: walking the walk is much more effective than talking the talk. Telling people how their comments have helped you improve and then not taking action on them engenders bad feelings. (No one expects you to blindly follow all advice, but in particular, doing things that improve the experience of other editors at low cost to you would illustrate sincerity in your thanks.) Repeatedly telling people how much you appreciate their comments comes off as superficial after a while, particularly when problematic behaviours persist. Please reconsider your approach to interacting with others. For someone who's been around for as long as you, there are higher expectations on your having learned community norms for discussion. isaacl (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that makes sense. based on your wise counsel above, I will defer offering my thanks to you for your suggestions above. but what you say makes a lot of sense. cheers! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

note re your comments

I appreciate your comments to me at my talk page. with respect, I think withdrawing from discussion on one's own talk page, is totally different than doing so in a shared workspace, project page, or other public venue. so I see the two statements as being intrinsically different, not the same. with that said, I do appreciate your polite manner and approach in expressing that valid input. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no need to post the same comments in multiple places. Again, you are showing a lack of concern for the time of others. isaacl (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reference formatting

Your change had no net effect, I had already fixed it in the previous edit. The issue was that {{reflist}} had a colon before it. That breaks things. Your change is harmless and makes the wiki-code easier to read IMHO so I left it alone. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not see your update until afterwards, so did not realize you had fixed the issue. I reverted my change. isaacl (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft of ideas for project page

Hi. Some editors had asked me to prepare a proposal to present to others at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council, to explain the changes that i wish to make, and to get their feedback and input, on what they think of the ideas.

I have prepared a brief, concise draft the way, I have made a sub-section break for this draft, just to make it easier to edit; obviously, if you wish to remove the section break, that is totally up to you.

could you please let me know what you think? thanks!!

  • Make page more accessible for editing; make it more inviting for members of active WikiProjects to come there and participate
    • remove decorative images on section breaks on main page; replace them with regular section breaks which allow users to edit easily
  • Provide links to web pages, databases or resources, that provide data on which WikiProjects are active.
  • Provide links to specific WikiProjects, or names of specific coordinators, where editors can obtain input on how to manage WikIprojects
    • Provide links to the WikiProjects that are most active
    • group WikiProject links by subject area
    • Provide names of a few of the WIkiProject coordinators who are most active, in order to enable others to request their feedback
  • Provide sections or pages where WikiProjects can provide updates on their efforts, or hold discussions about current methods and developments
    • this could be a sub-page of the project page, or it could be a shared workspace on a talk page.


ok. what do you think? I have deliberately kept this very concise. I can add to it if you wish.

Also, for discussion of this proposal, there are various options as to where to discuss this. if you wish, I could set up a shared talk page in my own user space. or I could make it a sub-page of the WikiProject Council; however, before I would add any pages there, I would need at least some other editors who wish me to do so. Any options for this is fine with me.

Could you please let me know what you think of the ideas above? does this accord with what you wish me to present there? you had indicated a while back that you had some agreement with some ideas. I am willing to adjust or revise these in any way that you might wish. feel free to let me know which parts need changes, or need expansion, or need condensing; whatever you prefer is totally fine. I appreciate your help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My advice from before still holds: I strongly suggest you become involved on the WikiProject Council pages first and demonstrate your commitment to and engagement with the project in its current form. Others will be more receptive to your ideas if you have a history of involvement with the project. isaacl (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
okay, I totally hear your input on this. in my opinion, some changes are needed to encourage more participation by others, including editors like myself, and editors whose activity and involvement in Wikipedia and WikiProjects is far greater than mine. I would like to make that page more active again as a resource, as a forum, as a meeting house, and as a place to receive genuine updates, input, discussion and ideas, from editors who are active on their own WikiProjects, even if they may not be significantly active at the page for WikiProject Council. I do understand your point in regards to me and my own editing practices individually though.
with that said, I did ask for your input and feedback, and you did provide it. i will keep your points in mind. however, I disagree slightly with some parts of your ideas above. Basically, I feel the whole point of WikiProject Council is to invite and to seek ways to encourage activity and input. if no one is doing it there, then the answer is not to wait until a specific editor is more active before hearing their input.
on the other hand, I don't expect any proposal like the one I suggest above to simply be accepted and enacted without some discussions and disagreement. so your points above are highly valid, as the input of one highly-credible editor. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For better or worse, your initial engagement on the WikiProject council page has not been positively perceived by many editors. Fair or unfair, proposals from editors that show commitment first get more consideration. I know this is not easy to hear, but the answer may not be for you to be the one to encourage activity and input, as you haven't demonstrated a lot of self-awareness about how your messages are interpreted by others. That being said, should you wish to continue, I strongly urge you to tread far more lightly, and start with small changes. This includes avoiding reformatting pages on your own initiative. Just leave them be, and if there is a consensus for changes to be made, let someone else do it. isaacl (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
okay. I am replying to acknowledge your input on that. I appreciate your insights. you make some good points above. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the off chance you may see this message, I believe I've always assumed your edits were in good faith and have not offered any personal commentary on your actions. Good luck! isaacl (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isaacl, just wanted to let you know, I did see your message above. and I do appreciate your positivity above. I'm very willing to listen to any points you have, and any input. the only thing I found a tiny bit, very slightly objectionable, was the thought that I had to discontinue editing in any areas completely. I have used a more deliberative approach now, which has gotten better results. so I appreciate your input, and also you respecting my preferences, to defer the colloquy when I asked, and then expressing your positive note above. I look forward to further group efforts!! so, anyway. thanks! glad to see your note here. see you. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main reason I raised it was because of what you said during the discussion at the incidents noticeboard. It's the kind of thing that can raised later ("The editor said they would follow all suggestions, but immediately failed to do so."). No one's saying stop doing anything, and I understand that you may be looking for an area of interest to pursue. Personally I hope to see lots of mainspace contributions related to something important to you, but best of luck in whatever tasks you work on. isaacl (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
okay, fair enough. those are highly valid and excellent points. so let me respond, because I dion't mind you raising those at all. basically, I feel I did follow the advice given to me, because I made sure to stick to the established processes, and the established channels for gaining a consensus. even the editor who initially raised those issues said to me, "the discussion at VPR [village pump proposals] is ongoing, stick to that."
I thought it was extremely fair-minded and constructive of that editor to say that. so based on that, I made sure to proceed more deliberately, to allow plenty of time for comment, to present my ideas fully beforehand, in other words to pay much closer attention to navigating all steps of the discursive process here at Wikipedia. so in that sense, I did take those points to heart.
And I do appreciate your highly-helpful and interesting insights. I am valuing this discourse between us, so you are welcome to make any points you may wish. I do feel we've covered all the existing points and concerns for now, but if you have any other comments or thoughts, please feel free to make them. I'm very glad to be in touch. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case:

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can you pop in at User talk:Clovermoss#Sharing My Thoughts In The Time Of Covid19? As always your input would be much valued and timely. ―Buster7  17:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you second Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Accepted nominations#353? I'd like to present it on behalf of you, me and CloverMoss. TY ―Buster7  00:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]