User talk:Thryduulf

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Don't Worry Darling on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Administrator changes

ScottishFinnishRadish

Staxringold

Ahoerstemeier (deceased) • Ched

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678

CheckUser changes

GorillaWarfare

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
• Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
• Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news

• The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

• Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
• A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
• The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous

• An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
• You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
• An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
• Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

comment disappearing

In my AnRet compulsion to make sure I didn't somehow remove it along with other important things (by inadvertently editing an old version or something), what looks like happened is you posted your !vote but without signing. @Enos733 made an identical vote immediately below. @Vanamonde93 removed your unsigned identical comment as an apparent copy-paste error/dup. :D Valereee (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• That's on me, but to be fair it looked very like a copy-paste error...apologies. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  It totally did look like a copy-paste error creating a dup. I noticed when the comment disappeared but figured Thryduulf was rethinking. Valereee (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  At that explains things. Sorry for the confusion! Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

New show nearby articles feature on Kartographer maps

Hello!

nearby articles on a Kartographer map (round markers)

You receive this message because you have voted for show nearby or related articles in maps in this year’s Community Wishlist Survey.

I am happy to let you know that soon it will be possible to automatically display nearby articles in a map on Commons and other Wikimedia projects using Kartographer. This feature is one of the improvements to Kartographer the Technical Wishes Team from Wikimedia Germany has been working on. Each Kartographer generated map in full-screen mode is now given a new “Show nearby articles” button at the bottom. It can be used to show and hide up to 50 geographically close articles.

The deployment of this feature is planned for 12 October on a first group of wikis. After the first feedback phase, more wikis will follow. Read more on our project page. Your feedback and comments to our open questions on this feature are very much appreciated on this discussion page. Thank you! -- Timur Vorkul (WMDE) 15:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Thryduulf

Can you close the TNT (TV station) RfD tomorrow or on Monday once the other people who are contributing to the discussion of TNT (TV station) withdraw their votes. Bassie f (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

No, because I'm WP:INVOLVED. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to bother

Hey, not related to the EC protection. But i have a feeling that this is recently cbanned user LaserLegs. Writing style was a red flag, checked geo location and that matched as well from the information they shared previously. Anything to be done about the quacking? Don't really see the point of going to SPI, they won't connect ip's to accounts anyway, right? Any suggestions how to proceed, your opinion on the matter would be nice. Have a good day anyway. 91.96.24.241 (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

WaltCip does agree that it is a sock as well. Wrote to me on my talk minutes after my msg here. Just as an fyi. 91.96.24.241 (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For your hard work in the effort to get Robbie Coltrane to RD quality when it appeared doomed to not be included on quality grounds from the start; I award you this barnstar of citations! You recognized how important it was to get Hagrid onto RD owing to the emotional response of people to the beloved actor’s death (even the oppose votes were visibly upset and reluctant about their vote), so you worked hard to make it happen to the glee of the fellow Wikipedians. Well Done! :) DrewieStewie (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

ANI

Very disappointing. – Sca (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

RfD for Royal Guardsman/Royal Guardsmen

Since the RfD for Sovereign Protectors was closed, are you planning on starting one for Royal Guardsman? – Scyrme (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It's rather fallen off my radar, but I do intend to doing it if someone doesn't get there first. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems someone has: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 1#Royal Guardsman – Scyrme (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2022 Morbi bridge collapse

On 31 October 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Morbi bridge collapse, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 05:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Administrator changes

• 
  • Isabelle Belato
  • Whpq
• 
• 
  • Atama
  • Astronautics~enwiki
  • Athaenara
  • Eddie891
  • GraemeL
  • Marianocecowski
  • Natalya
  • Pratyeka
  • SB Johnny

Interface administrator changes

• TheresNoTime
• Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

• 
  • Blablubbs
  • Firefly
• Joe Roe

Oversight changes

• DGG

Guideline and policy news

• The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
• An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
• AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
• You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
• Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Leslie Phillips

On 11 November 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Leslie Phillips, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

thank you ...

November songs

... for a constructive comment in the Laurence Olivier RfC, to which I referred in my arbcand questions. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

you're welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

Administrator changes

• Eddie891
• Euryalus
• TheresNoTime

• Alex.muller
• Excirial
• RedWordSmith
• Ron Ritzman
• TheresNoTime
• Stephen

Interface administrator changes

TheresNoTime

TheresNoTime

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
• The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
• An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news

• A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
• The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
• A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mark Rylance on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Memory loss

I can remember promising.. but I can't remember what. Was it this link https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mujnfycbt6e1vte/AADuBeU6_RcY-CxA4_yv1bvra?dl=0

User:ClemRutter 81.174.224.233 (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It was indeed, thank you. I'll grab them today. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how to deal with this...

Hey Thryduulf - I'm hoping you can help me with a problem I have. I'd ask my assigned wikimentor (Dr vulpes), but it seems they haven't been very active of late...

I see one user consistently WP:GAMING the system, and I don't see any path toward resolution. In our many interactions, I've realized that reasoning with them doesn't work, so I can't ask them to stop. And on that guideline page, there's no clear cut method for how to deal with this problem; it's mostly information on how to identify gaming.

The more I read of that guideline, the more checks I realized this user was ticking off, and the more concerned I became that there's nothing that can be done to stop this. The behaviors they're exhibiting among the clear examples on that guideline are:

• Filibustering the consensus-building process by sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected
• Using policies to prove a WP:POINT that they had previously emphatically argued against
• Always muddying the waters in disputes (encouraging tangents, not materially addressing topics, etc)
• Frequently quotes policy without explaining why it's relevant; on the converse, they often claim "policy is on my side" without linking to any policy
• And more... don't want to get too deep here

Is there any way to get someone to stop behaving like this? I've explored the various noticeboards and enforcement methods, but I don't want to jump right to those without building a strong case. Further, I'm not even sure there's an appropriate board for something like this...

Any advice you can give, either as an administrator or as an experienced editor, would be much appreciated. I'm getting pretty disheartened here that this is a problem with no solution. Thank you. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If you can supply diffs of all the things that you allege the editor is doing, then you have more than a strong enough case to start a discussion at WP:AN/I. As you'll have noticed I'm also not the most active I've ever been at the moment (that damned real life!) so I can't really help you with putting an AN/I post together, and anyway without knowing who the editor in question is I can't advise how strong your case actually is. Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a week late with this, but thank you for the advice and suggestion! The ANI thread I opened has... not gone well. But I'm trying to work through that. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to help. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure adopted

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

ITN recognition for Adrian Shooter

On 15 December 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Adrian Shooter, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi by Luca Signorelli is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Thryduulf: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

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

From my family to yours: Merry Christmas! TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Thryduulf!

Happy New Year!

Thryduulf,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Administrator changes

• ComplexRational
• Extraordinary Writ

Stephen

• Andrew Yong
• Dbenbenn
• DESiegel
• GlassCobra
• Joe Decker
• Nancy
• Pathoschild
• StuffOfInterest
• William Pietri
• Wwwwolf
• Xdamr

Interface administrator changes

Nihiltres

CheckUser changes

Moneytrees

• Ivanvector
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• GeneralNotability
• Moneytrees

• Guerillero
• SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

Arbitration

• Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
• The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
• Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

closed means closed

Why is it acceptable to close a discussion eight hours into it? nableezy - 23:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Nableezy: I think that you should be directing your question to Kiril Simeonovski (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I did that implicitly in my comment on WT:ITN. But that too was archived. nableezy - 02:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Because it was the wrong venue (as is this page). You should have asked explicitly by means of a direct question at User talk:Kiril Simeonovski, a page which I find has never been edited by yourself. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

When a discussion has been had multiple times and come to the same conclusion each time, the latest discussion brings nothing new to the table and has already generated exactly the same answers as the last times the discussion will not result in anything other than a waste of time and possible acrimony. It's better for the project to close such discussions before that happens.

If you object to a discussion being closed, you need to discuss that with the person who closed the discussion on their talk page. Continuing if the discussion had not been closed is disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is an editor permitted to determine that a discussion will not bring anything new to the table within 8 hours? Why can I not raise the issue in the same forum as the closure? If I open an RFC to add that item to ITN/R, with an RFC tag, will that also be closed out of process? Will that be disruptive of me? nableezy - 04:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Because there are no new arguments to be made. There is a very strong consensus that for items to be added to ITNR they must have had consensus to post for at least two consecutive instances at ITNC (some people want more than that) and (a slightly weaker but still strong) consensus that only the top level of sports events should be posted. The nominated item met neither of those criteria. Yes, reopening or continuing the discussion now, with or without an RfC tag, will be considered disruptive and closure will not be out of process.

Given that despite being on Wikipedia for over a decade you consider an uncivil, sarcastic comment followed by arguing about it with an administrator who was not the one to take the action you disagreed with to be appropriate behaviour, I am not going to engage further with you on this matter. Thryduulf (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for angering the gatekeepers. nableezy - 14:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Chivalry of a Failed Knight on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

• For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
• A brief guide for administrators may be found at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
• Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
• Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

I edited your comment without permission yesterday

@Thryduulf, I edited your comment yesterday on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 16#File:Southern Cross Ten.svg to include my actual gender without permission. Next time, only if I say, can I edit your comment with permission? and only if you say, Yes you can edit your comment, I may edit your comments. Just letting you know. From Bas. From Bassie f (his talk page) 01:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Heat on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Administrator changes

Gimmetrow

• Bjelleklang
• Bob the Wikipedian
• Leithp
• WhisperToMe
• 100 inactive admins

CheckUser changes

• BDD
• Bradv
• Donald Albury
• Maxim
• MusikAnimal

Oversighter changes

• BDD
• Bradv
• Donald Albury
• Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
• Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.

Technical news

• The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
• In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
• Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your arguments at Wikipedia talk:In the news

As a frequenter of ITNR, the bizarre arguments put forward by Andrew toward removing sports, removing certain elections, and generally being unhappy with how consensus works have become quite exhausting (seriously - I fail to see the logical consistency between arguing the Super Bowl has no long-term significance, while trying to get a minimally-detailed story of UFO shootdowns posted to ITN), especially when, with a lack of RfCs/etc, it's effectively just an endless stream of complaints; your responses may have been the most eloquent summary of that I've seen here, and hopefully they do in fact convince him to either take action or stop complaining. The Kip (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Andrew has been doing exactly the same as he is now for literally years so I don't hold out much hope of him stopping any time soon, which is why I mentioned the possibility of a topic ban. Fingers crossed though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (politics) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Nice to have you working ITN again, you were missed!

Curbon7 (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Editing news 2023 #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

Some of the upcoming changes

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

Daily edit completion rate by test group: DiscussionTools (test group) and MobileFrontend overlay (control group)

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

early photography / cinema bios

Hi,

I see that you list yourself on the Photography wikiproject. Through some work on author pages for enWS for the 1927 DNB, I have come across some authors who seem notable enough for articles through being fellows of the Royal Photographic Society

• s:Author:Will Day
• s:Author:William Bates Ferguson; and maybe
• s:author:Basil Fenwick Howard

I have transcribed obituaries for these, and plugged data into WD. I am caught over at enWS doing stuff so not creating articles, esp. where I have little expertise. If you are not active in the space at the moment, can you tell me where the best spot to suggest these would be. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Administrator changes

The Wordsmith

• Fuhghettaboutit
• Spinningspark (deceased)

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
• Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
• A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.

Technical news

• The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

Arbitration

• Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
• The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
• A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
• Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
• The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

About the T-ban

About this diff here... Are you going to be able to do that by yourself? I'm wondering if that would be considered WP:INVOLVED, or perhaps it's not considered involved because you're acting in a purely administrative capacity and not trying to resolve a content dispute. Or did you plan on reporting it to a noticeboard? ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@WaltCip I was planning on going to AN or ANI (haven't decided which) with a proposal that I'd link to from WT:ITN (and Andrew's page, obviously). I don't have time to pull everything together today (which is why I went with a final warning rather than starting it directly) and probably wont tomorrow so if he doesn't stop being disruptive (which would be the best outcome, but none of the dozens of previous requests have worked) don't expect me to start anything before Friday. It doesn't have to wait for me though if someone else thinks it is a big enough issue and has the time to put together a proposal that details the years-long background for those not familiar. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

May I have a copy or userfied restoration of List of mass shootings in Australia?

Per the other pages of List of mass shootings in the United Kingdom and List of mass shootings in Switzerland which were created by the same sockpuppet, I am not able to find any pertinent issues with those pages and find a list for Australia equally as useful. (The latter of those two pages even survived an AfD, so their work was already vetted by the community.) It seems strange to allow those two articles to stay and not allow for me to request this one on the basis of WP:BMB when the bulk of their work is going to stay regardless. Obviously, in the case of userfication, I will only restore the page to mainspace when G5 no longer applies due to my edits.

Furthermore, according to two other admins, I am allowed to continue asking others if I find one that is willing, where they explicitly said it was not forum shopping. So in the case of a potential ANI for that reason, I can cite two admins that said it was not. There is also nothing that prohibits userfication, even if other editors oppose. (I am also not trying to game the system or am a sock, so no issues there.) Thank you! Why? I Ask (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

(For clarification: At the policy page, zzuuzz said: As I said above, there's nothing prohibiting a request for G5'd content. If you find an admin who says no they won't do something, find another admin who will, if you can. There's a lot of stuff I won't do but it doesn't mean it can't be done. I asked right after if this was forum shopping. Kusma said: It is fine, and we even have categories to facilitate finding an admin who might help you with a specific issue: Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination.) I don't appreciate a certain user's comment that I am forum shopping that they now have removed. Clearly, I asked two separate admins if this was allowed. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

OK. Enough. I have replied at User talk:Why? I Ask#Bludgeoning at WT:CSD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I have replied back! Clearly you do not want this page restored, for some reason. I just want a copy so I do not have to manually go source-by-source to put in numbers. Clearly, there are no detractors as to whether or not this page topic is notable! Why? I Ask (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

If the discussions were not ongoing then I would be happy to restore it, indeed I don't understand all the opposition to doing so, but as the discussions are happening I would rather wait until the have concluded before acting. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright! Why? I Ask (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The DRV was closed as do not restore, but the closer said it could be restarted again. May I have an emailed copy? Yes, I know not to blanket copy-paste (due to copyright and such), but I would like the sources and having the number counts and dates to double check would be nice. Personally, I disagree with closer on several counts, but felt he did it in a decently fair manner. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to this when I next have time, probably this evening (UK time). Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Why? I Ask You've got mail. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC

Sorry, just saw your edit where you too had written an RfC. Happy for you t0 insert some of your text into my rationale (or I could just paste in the bit about discussion being above. I didn't put that in as other editors coming in probably don't want to wade through reams of stuff outside of the RfC itself). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Your choice. I'm not good at writing things that are concise or focused (possibly why you were quicker!), I'm also not that experienced at starting RfCs. If you want advice then Redrose64 is a better person to ask. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I will leave it as it is then. As I say, I wasn't going to mention the previous discussion because hopefully it will be more succinct in the RfC itself. However, as Redros64 was pinged in here, I'll just include a link in case they want to suggest any improvements, or point out things I did wrong! It's: Talk:List of ports in England and Wales#RFC: Determining page scope. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be a discussion on whether to merge the article with the Scotland one and also whether to split Wales off. As such, it's simultaneously a WP:MERGE proposal and a WP:SPLIT proposal, and both of these are outside the purpose of RfC - see WP:RFCNOT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I have to say I am a bit lost as to how to proceed in that case. Isn't the fact that it is simultaneously both these things the reason that an RfC is required? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC's are valid for questions of page scope, and the fact that it is simultaneously a merge and a split discussion is the reason I chose an RFC. I don't think changing the RfC now in favour of something else would be a productive use of time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Agreed. And thanks again for your help. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Administrator changes

Aoidh

KillerChihuahua

CheckUser changes

Ferret

Guideline and policy news

• A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Technical news

• Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
• The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
• A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

Arbitration

• The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
• A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Appeals

Regarding the first appeal you mentioned in this edit: I thought I remembered somewhere where Jimbo had written something about how he reviewed the evidence, but the best I can find is User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 145 § Wrap-Up on Block Appeal to Founder. isaacl (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, my search should have found that section but evidently I missed it somehow. I've added a note to my comment. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Other stuff exists

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages you argued that redirects are assessed on their own merits but aside from the possibility of breaking links from being there years ago and someone having bothered to create then it is probably sensible to be consistent with the other DAB pages that don't have the "(Disambiguation)" redirects. An example of a redirect that may qualify as significantly different is if say it had been linked/discussed by the press before being moved to the correct title. Per Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments while up to a point we should assess things on individual merits or check if a previous consensus was a poor decision we still should develop some kinds of precedents. If you look at Scotforth/Scotforth (parish) can you work out why the parish has a separate article but all the rest of the Lancashire parishes like Croston that have the same name a settlement are covered in the settlement? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking regarding parishes, nor why these parishes are relevant to either me or to a discussion about disambiguation pages from 9 months ago? However I fully stand by the argument, which I have made repeatedly and consistently, that redirects are discussed on their own merits. Especially when it comes to redirects, precedents can have some limited utility, but they always need to be examined to see how relevant they are to the current situation. (Disambiguation) redirects that point to disambiguation pages are, in general, harmless and potentially helpful - there is little benefit if creating them routinely but if one is created then it is safe to infer that it does have use for at least that person. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The argument about other stuff was about if all parishes that share the same name as a settlement should have separate articles or not or if (almost) all shouldn't for consistency. Can you work out why Scotforth (parish) is separate but the rest in Category:Civil parishes in Lancashire are combined with the settlement? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That's absolutely something that needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis because it will depend on how much there is to encyclopaedically say about the parts of the parish that are not within and/or about things which do not pertain to the named settlement, and possibly other local factors too. I don't have time to investigate your query now, try asking at the wikiproject. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Its standard for 4th order divisions that have the same name as a settlement to be covered in 1 article. There are over 10,000 parishes in England a lot of them having the same name as a settlement. If we assessed each individually it would likely lead to very inconsistent outcomes and would unnecessarily complicate things. Instead we have a simple rule that we don't split them with rare exceptions like when the parish doesn't include the settlement of the same name at all which is the answer for Scotforth. Look at Stanhope, County Durham which is the largest parish in England by area which includes a huge amount of rural land and other settlements but we have just 1 article for it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

we don't split them with rare exceptions this is assessing them individually to determine how best to cover them. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Procedural notification

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021 on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

April thanks

April songs

my story today

Thank you for helping Irma Blank to the Main page! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

My story today mentions a piece by Max Reger. In 2016, I had a hard time discussing an infobox for him, but - looking at Mozart - it seems as if the ice around the topic is melting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Estimated percent of households with guns by country on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Administrator changes

Spicy

• Ale jrb
• Dbachmann
• DGG (deceased)
• Jimbo Wales

CheckUser changes

Jimbo Wales

Oversighter changes

Jimbo Wales

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration

• The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous

• The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The caps kerfuffle

Sorry if I've been too strident in that debate, and I'm clearly irritating you, but I somehow don't seem to be getting across what's irritating to me. In a nutshell: you've said "the issue is the behaviour of Dicklyon and your endorsement and enabling of that behaviour", but there isn't a clear set of diffs showing Dicklyon doing anything wrong. He's using the processes a previous ANI instructed him to use. Me observing this isn't actionable "endorsement and enabling" of rule-breaking behavior, since there is no rule-breaking behavior (except on the part of people, especially Oknavazed, attacking Dicklyon over and over again). This (among previous comments by you in other, similar debates) is why I get the sense you have an axe to grind with regard to MOS:CAPS or maybe MOS in general. It comes across as "I don't like MOS applying to topics I care about – or when other people in topics I don't care about get mad – so some means of censorsing those MOS editors must be found, even though I can't prove any wrongdoing."

So, what am I missing or misapprehending? Help me understand.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I've not responded to this yet, but I'm genuinely struggling to think of any way to explain the problem that hasn't been presented multiple times by multiple people already. I'm getting the impression that you are genuinely unable to see what the problem is with the way you and especially Dick are behaving in these discussions. I don't care about (the capitalisation of) ice hockey articles, I don't have a problem with the manual of style or with it applying to topics I do care about. What I do have a problem with is way some people who care about the capitalisation of articles interact with other editors when there is a disagreement about the capitalisation, e.g. whether something is or is not a proper noun. I can't give you a single diff, because individual edits are not the problem, the problem is the long-term pattern of behaviour. The best I can suggest is to review contested RMs about capitalisation and compare those in which Dicklyon is involved with those in which he isn't.

I don't know that this is what will help you understand what you aren't, but that's as much a failure of me to explain as it is of you to comprehend. I'll keep thinking about this, and maybe that will help me come up with some other way to explain things that will help, but it's been a good 12 hours since I saw your message and you deserve some sort of response at least, even if it isn't ideal. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. :-) I have kind of a lengthy response, but my point's not to be argumentative, but observational. One thing I've noticed again and again in these RM discussions (and sometimes at WT:MOS, etc.), is that the over-capitalizing camps use blatant circular reasoning to arrive at "this is a proper name". Condensed down to its core, it goes "We should capitalize this because it's a proper name, and I know it's a proper name because I see it capitalized in the non-independent sources I favor." And they don't agree on what "proper name" means, because there are two wildly conflicting theoretical approaches to this: proper name (philosophy) and proper name (linguistics). (Capitalization fans favor the former, because its definition is far more permissive.)

In the rare spots that MoS mentions proper names at all, it means the linguistic sense, always and only (and usually links directly to it for clarity). This should already indicate why MOSCAPS, from its very opening, is about following capitalizing only when the vast majority of independent source material does so. It's to avoid any "proper name" argument at all. But the over-capitalizers just will not have it. They refuse over and over again to accept the across-all-sources evidence that is put under their noses, and retreat to "is a proper name" assertions based on non-independent sourcing (the WP:Specialized-style fallacy in a nutshell).

They do this so frequently that it necessitates multiple refutations, which is the trap Dicklyon finds himself in: they then accuse him of bludgeoning when what's he's really doing is addressing their go-to tactic of proof by assertion and argument from repetition. "If I say it's a 'proper name' enough times I will WP:WIN." And it's all steeped in topic-specific vats of WP:OWN, as others at the ANI have observed. The argument is that Dicklyon, SMcCandlish, and whoever else drops by in response to site-wide RM or RfC listings, should be kept away as non-members of the club who control the hockey/tennis/whatever category of articles. It's unmistakeably a WP:CONLEVEL problem.

What can Dicklyon do differently? I'm not sure. I guess one tactic could be to wait longer, and address multiple fallacious !votes in a single reply. That runs the risk, of course, of ceding the entire discussion to the fallacies, since incoming commentators have a strong tendency to go along with a simplistic and repetitive pattern of !votes that they already see there (not to mention these discussions tend to be heavily canvassed by whatever wikiproject has its undies in a bunch). In the end, DL has done such an enormous amount of capitalization cleanup (about 99% of it uncontroverted) that there may really be few of these "style fights" left to happen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Poetry on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)