User talk:Joe Roe/Archives/2019

97: 17725:, but: I think it's fair to say that the only guilty parties for the failure of this RfA are the candidate themselves and their nominator: the former for not getting their ducks, as they say, in a row, and the latter for not ensuring that they were watertight. Indeed, a good nominator would have alleviated many of the opposes with a well-crafted nomination. While it's not necessarily the fault of the candidate who their nominator is (that is, the faults of the nominator are not and should not be confused with those of the candidate), it's hardly the fault of the RfA reviewer that they did not do so. And it is not JoeRoe's fault that the nom has taken the trajectory that it has: 3075: 8995: 6917: 22235: 3082: 4879:

this whole sorry saga to own up to the disruptive editing. I never had an opinion on the sock issues, leaving that to others, admins, to decide. However, I am very upset that you chose to overturn both blocks, when the Arbcom only considered the sock. What should have happened is the terms of the block should have been changed from "Abusing multiple accounts, and long-term disruptive editing" to just "long-term disruptive editing". Until the editor faces up to this issue we will continue to suffer their disruption. -

22619: 20120: 15802: 11014: 9183: 4992: 20935: 22595: 20975: 18868: 16360: 14414: 12920: 11292: 9580: 7758: 5683: 3522: 1713: 148: 31: 20236: 3143: 21187: 21142: 19098: 19053: 16572: 16527: 14626: 14581: 13132: 13087: 11504: 11459: 9810: 9765: 7970: 7925: 5895: 5850: 3752: 3707: 1925: 1880: 360: 315: 12520: 4834:. They've restarteed their idiosyncratic re-categorisation program, making many edits each day with nary an edit summary in sight and no apparent consensus for the changes. If they have in fact obtained a consensus somewhere then they should be referring to it with a link in the edit summary. Not happy, Jan. Can you please fire a shot across their bows and remind them that the block was also for this sort of behaviour, not just the allegation of sock puppetry. - 22512: 22717: 22650: 22495: 2984: 4772: 16202: 10839: 104: 20305: 21226: 19137: 16611: 14665: 13171: 11543: 9849: 8009: 5934: 3791: 3058: 1964: 1476: 399: 20382: 18581: 15936: 14181: 12686: 10917: 9289: 7502: 5270: 22173: 19803: 17277: 15331: 13837: 12479: 10785: 8945: 6875: 4731: 2904: 1340: 20915: 5359: 5349: 1486: 22572: 17585: 6990: 4797:. It was a private appeal. We're aware that there were other conduct issues but as the block was initially and primarily for sockpuppetry, and we determined that there was no basis for this, we lifted it (noting that at this point he has been blocked for more than six months). We've warned Couiros22 that our decision is not an endorsement of his disruptive conduct and that he will likely be blocked again if that continues. – 3068: 20905: 21052: 18963: 16437: 14491: 12997: 11369: 11094: 9675: 7835: 5760: 3617: 1790: 225: 16054: 16043: 7291:. And in general the absurdity of declaring an outcome that at least a third of participants opposed a consensus. I brought this up on the crat chat talk page before it was closed (twice), as did other editors. I don't think the fact that I'm on ArbCom makes my opinion more important than other's, but as we were asked to comment on the matter, I think I'm entitled to share it. 17925:

accreted to you, your department, or your field in general. If you find this line of argument to be ridiculous, surely you can understand why some feel that your line of argument that updating version numbers raises a financial conflict concern is ridiculous as well. I agree that a disagreement over policy was used to cast aspersions on Greenman, which was unfortunate. –

4944:. It was only draftified because someone said they would work on it, and they haven't, so I don't think it's appropriate to submit it to AfC. I left an unsubmitted AfC template on the article specifically so it wouldn't hang around in draft indefinitely. Since there haven't been any significant edits in more than six months, I am going to delete it under 20489:. That page is not a talk page. It's an arbitration case request, which is there for the sole and specific purpose of helping ArbCom decide whether to accept a case. Arbitrators (like myself) and clerks have the full remit to maintain pages in arbitration space, for example by removing comments that are not directly relevant to the case request. 2945:. There's nothing that you, as the creator, can do right now. The discussion will be closed by an experienced, uninvolved editor (usually an administrator) who will decide if there is a consensus and if so implement it. It looks like there's a backlog at CfD so it might take a while. In the mean time the category can still be used as normal. – 12636:

respond to questions without long delays. I recommend you follow the standard process for taking cases. I’d also like you to look at the behavior of people complaining anonymously about Fram. There may be an issue of off-wiki collusion, and a pattern of head hunting. Knowledge is not a game where editors try to get perceived opponents banned.

3430:. We were forwarded your detailed evidence and understood that you were aware that we were considering an appeal, so I believe the policy requirement to consult the blocking admin was fulfilled. I'm sure you can appreciate that we couldn't involve you in the subsequent discussion directly, as would happen in an on-wiki block appeal. 20520:

off with me. There's not much I can do to make you do anything but I am proposing something here that you, as a dispute settler, should be agreeable to. Sorry about getting all up in your station here but that really is an infuriating thing you just done whether Usedtobecool cares, or rolls over, or whatever basically.

9530:. The page doesn't belong to its creator or its subject, but to the Knowledge community as a whole. To be clear, the rules I linked above mean that you or any other representatives or employees of Shad White should not make edits about him. Thank you for understanding that encyclopaedic coverage is not for sale here. – 17692:. I acknowledge that there is some room for interpretation in the COI policy and that mine is on the stricter end. Making a sharp distinction between "paid editing" and a "financial conflict of interest" seems to be important to some but I just don't see that as a hair worth splitting. I very much agree with 17885:. Archaeology is a field of academic study. It doesn't pay me – because it's not an organisation and has no money. The idea that experts can't contribute to their area of expertise is a tortuous misinterpretation of the COI policy that would shoot the encylopaedia in the foot. There's even a passage in 22544: 22160:

Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to

20638:

please correct me if I've misunderstood). Your point, as I understand it, is that removing others' comments can be seen as inflammatory? My response was that removing off-topic comments is a routine part of clerking arbitration pages. I think most reasonable people understand that and don't get upset

20081:

18129:

what do you think? Is this better? If so I'll leave it for others to contribute. But if this isn't enough for notability (I listed the UK government site which advises customers where to sell online!) then none of my interested marketplaces that I wanted write about will work. 13:40, 15 October 2019

17548:

15609:

14113:

12466:

10772:

8932:

6862:

4878:

So you choose to wash you hands of the matter. The editor was blocked both for the sockpupetry, which the Arbcom overturned, but also for long term disruptive editing. Which disruptive editing they have simply continued with since you lifted the block. The editor has steadfastly refused throughout

4718:

3453:

OK, thanks. For some reason I didn't get a Knowledge notification of your email, so it's just as well you told me here that you were sending it. I have read your email. I understand everything you say, but I see it as misunderstanding some significant aspects of what I had said, as well as simply not

2891:

1327:

20519:

for the talk page. Sorry to challenge your comfort but you are going to confuse somebody, they are going to get upset about it, edit war their comment back onto the page or, go away with the idea they shouldn't make that comment on that page. You could just leave it there. Instead you edit warred it

18016:

My apology, It all seemed very relevant to the issue per the linked discussion. Feel free to reverse my undo or offer your two cents at the discussion. I won't edit war but if you could please trim it sparingly, I'd appreciate it. I just can't believe there is all grief over one sentence with enough

17907:

It's fine that we disagree about the interpretation of the COI policy. It's not okay to throw around absurd accusations. That is the issue at BN right now and a recurring problem at RfA recently: legitimate disagreements over policy are used as excuses to badger and cast aspersions on the competence

17698:

his continuing engagement with the MariaDB article (his part-time employers) makes it impossible to differentiate what is paid editing and what is not. If you're editing your employer's page, even if you are not getting paid for the edits but are being paid for any other work, the differentiation is

15704:

I agree! But can you please show how Fram was abusive after his last warning, to the extent that he needed to be banned, precluded from commenting on his own case, and then desysopped? So far no diffs have been posted, and nobody has explained why Fram was locked in a cage and muzzled. That's not a

7294:

But yes, while we're on the subject, I also think this 'tradition' is unfair and unsupported by policy. As a crat you're supposed to judge consensus. You're not doing that properly if you adopt one rule for one side of a debate and another for the other – especially when the position you deweight is

3200:

Yes, we really try to discourage the idea that it's an affirmation or mark of an established editor. Its only function is managing the NPP queue and you don't have an appreciable effect on that unless you're creating dozens of articles a month over a sustained period. If I were you I'd ignore it: if

20514:

you shouldn't do this. I am inclined now to watch out for you and when you upset someone like this annoy the s*** out of you. There is absolutely no need or valid reason to delete that comment. The fact that arbs have the power over that page does not lift them above simple things like this, as you

18068:

Thank you for your message. I will give up on Knowledge I took an interest in this company because I believe what they are doing is right - but having wasted my time for you to come along and delete it because you feel superior is just a waste of my time entirely, and I was simply doing what I felt

12635:

The current state of play is that Fram will be away July 15 to July 30. You can’t do much of a case without his input. Since the case can’t really get very far before he leaves, I now think it best to wait until Aug 1 and let Fram make a case request. By then you’ll have been briefed and be able to

3185:

Well I do intend to continue at the same pace, so at some point I suppose the NPP will begin to get clogged with the biographies -- so far my metier on here -- that I've been creating. It would also be nice as an affirmation of sorts that I'm not completely screwing this up. So would your advice be

17924:

Certainly it could be argued that you have an ongoing financial interest in keeping these articles up-to-date, well-written, well-cited, and showing your field to be producing useful or interesting discoveries even if not your own. Having these articles up-to-date may impact future funding that is

17904:. I don't directly edit articles on sites I've worked on, even though again that is allowed by policy and there are tonnes of red links in that area. I don't edit biographies of colleagues I've ever been in contact with, even though I'm one of the main contributors to biographies of archaeologists. 15669:

It's been a rough few months to us whom you (committee) put in distress. I don't want to repeat what I told Katie, Eric and the notice board, but please take some to heart. I read to myself "go on with life, have a laugh, don't get too upset over this" (from my talk) again and again, but it hasn't

1377:

Hi Nahom. I find it's best to let go of these things. It's easy to get offended online but, whether the offence was intended or not, it's more productive to focus on the substance of an argument rather than the person making it. But if you really want to take it further, concerns with user conduct

15751:

Can you answer the other point please. Each of you got a differently framed set of questions based on your specific statements. My other question that you didn’t answer was what are you going to do about Fram having been banned improperly and not having been allowed to comment on the case pages.

10894:

that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to

7381:

So you are suggesting we change the 15 or so year old process and no longer treat naked supports as per nom. That's fine, but there needs to be a consensus to change than and thus an RfC. Furthermore, I believe well established consensus is that the ranges are not sharp; if they were, strength of

7142:

I'm fairly experienced with Knowledge guidelines, i created 80+ articles to date. Most of my past work has been reviewed and passed successfully. I also have Autopatrolled, Rollbracker, New Page reviewer right in Bangla Knowledge. I try to edit or create page in both English and Bangla wikipedia.

3433:

I apologise for not notifying you of the unblock. I was following the normal unblock procedure and assumed you would be watching their talk page, but given the circumstances, you're right, a direct notification would have been courteous. That's on me; the rest of the committee weren't involved in

20169:

the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be

7433:

The 'crats don't evaluate on a score card points system. They each have their own way of examining the evidence for support or oppose as objectively as possible and that's what we pay them for, but it would needlessly prolong the process if, for example, a unanimous verdict were to be insisted

12554:

I saw the same accreditation from Worm. Impressive. You're kind of a "new blood" or "freshman" arb, yet during the election I remember a lot of resounding confidence that you'd bring something very important to the team. It's good that you took the initiative to write the statement you did. You

7265:

open to receiving constructive criticism as to how I may better serve. However, I'd ask that you do not conflate your frustration with what you believe to be an archaic and ill-considered tradition in and of itself with valid application of that tradition in context. Thank you for listening. --

3403:

If you did see that evidence, then can you tell me why you disagree with the conclusion I drew from it? I think it is really important for me to know that, because I found the evidence convincing way beyond all reasonable doubt, and if the arbitration committee has decided that my judgement was

20509:

Those are another editors words. You cannot predict thanks for questionable actions. If you deleted a comment from me saying please don't ignore this comment, I'd be infuriated. There was no need to delete the comment. It was an expression that arbitration is not needed in this case. I have no

17988:

I don't think that was a good idea. It was still there for anyone to read, but uncollapsed the sheer length makes the discussion (and by extension the whole DRV page at the moment) cumbersome to navigate. This isn't helpful for other participants who have already read your comments, or whoever

17754:

Another tps: I was determined to just let the RfA go without a comment, but "doomed" has alerted me. Too bad, I really don't have the time to investigate a candidate I don't know yet, but I am defiant ;) - will vote support or not at all. - Could someone else please deal with "my" referencing

7444:

than the RexxS but nobody saw fit to re-debate the RfA system or the role of the Bureaucrats. The community needs to wake up to the fact that we have the Bureaucrats, a user group with the highest level of trust within their sphere of remit (even higher than that of Arbcom) and we have

3399:

Another administrator told me that he forwarded to the arbitration committee a copy of the evidence which I emailed on two separate occasions to two different administrators, both of whom agreed with my conclusions. Can you confirm that arbitrators did receive and read that before coming to a

20544:, are you sure you've understood Usedtobecool's comment? They asked why there has been a delay in accepting the case, and I pointed them to a comment from another arbitrator that explained why. They didn't say anything about being ignored, and in the immediately preceding paragraph said 7260:

than other editors, and I would hope you hold yourself to higher standards of civility, clarity, and accuracy. If you believe that our decision was "a poor close," by all means, please explain how in the context of current accepted Knowledge policy, guideline, and tradition. I am

16404:

Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,992 last month to 15,070 on 30 September 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 155 is ahead of

21019:

Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 15,112 last month to 15,231 on 29 November 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 156 is ahead of

3566:

Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,522 last month to 14,683 on 27 February 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of

20655:

The first sentence was in fact directly relevant to the case at hand. Usedtobecool said, "and I think I've words to spare". They weren't interested in being deleted. They just said they weren't going to press very hard for a response. Deletion was not very encouraging was it.

18912:

Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 15,079 last month to 15,112 on 30 October 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 155 is ahead of

7802:

Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (down from 14,745 last month to 14,729 on 28 April 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of

1757:

Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,488 last month to 14,522 on 30 January 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of

14458:

Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,957 last month to 14,992 on 30 August 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 153 is ahead of

1385:

There's nothing wrong with calling for a broader range of perspectives but I'm not American and neither are many of the other editors who have commented. Regardless, I don't think this is an North American usage vs. other usage. I'll comment further on the article talk page.

192:

Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,430 last month to 14,488 on 5 January 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 148 is ahead of

5727:

Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,683 last month to 14,745 on 29 March 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of

12964:

Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,804 last month to 14,957 on 29 July 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of

11336:

Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,757 last month to 14,804 on 29 June 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of

20493:'s question was a perfectly valid one, but it was misplaced – it should have been on the talk page. As it happens, I was able to answer it in my edit summary, so there was no need to move it. And judging by their "thanks" for my revert, I don't think Usedtobecool minds. – 9624:

Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 14,729 last month to 14,757 on 28 May 2019). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 150 is ahead of

7364:

The same way I would close any other type of discussion (where, for example, I have consistently ignored every single "per nom"): by considering the extent to which they're in line with established consensus, their context, and the strength with which they were expressed.

5428:

OK, we disagree on the use of tags in Knowledge articles. No matter. My goal here is to to remove that one by answering the tag’s question and improving the article, which I have done. I assume you approve? If not, how can we work to do so, rather than leave it as it was?

5179:

Seeing as the case has been declined without other discussion, I went ahead and filed at AE. Not something I absolutely needed to notify you about, but I figured I’d do so in case the procedure question comes up related to what was declined versus what’s open for request.

20594:

you know about not to delete others comments. There is no need to try and game your way around accepting it if indeed the action was innocent enough. If you want to respond to Usedtobecool, you should use the arbitration area and the notification system, as is standard.

16125:

I counted 11–8, but it comes down to the balance of arguments as usual. There was a lot of regurgitating the MfD arguments in the endorses, when DRVs are supposed to be about the deletion process. Also several bold-endorses said they didn't object to relisting as a

12618:

It's certainly not my intention to create that impression. But realistically, T&S have already banned Fram and we can't take on the case without them passing us evidence, so they have to be involved in some way (essentially as a party to the case, in my view).

20338:, I appreciate it. To clarify, I do agree with you that it would be helpful to have the new arbs' help on this, I just think it will happen anyway without an explicit suspension. I certainly don't plan on doing an arbitration work over the Christmas holiday! – 7322:

Responding in anti-chronological order, first, as I said, I'm thick-skinned and thick-headed. As long as those arrows are cast with EnWiki's best interests at heart, feel free to pincushion me. Second, I'm sure you are aware, but for the benefit of any

7120: 5411:

I reverted you because the tag was justified and your edit didn't fix it. I'm not sure what needs to be discussed? I think those tags are very useful when the draw the reader's attention to potentially misleading statements, until they can be fixed.

7251:" when the very concern you have are the bureaucrats upholding a Knowledge tradition as old as RfA. The proper mechanism to change that is RfC, not to tar and feather the bureaucrats. If anything, ignoring tradition would be a greater example of 7453:'s reforms lowered the bar and doubled the voter turnout, but none of them addressed the core issues or led to an increase in the number of candidates coming forward. It's time to put an end to this drama and look for ways to address the 15687:

I make no apologies for acting to remove people who are abusive to other editors from the project. I'll continue to advocate doing so for as long as I'm on the committee, no matter how good their contributions or how many friends they have.

20564:

Usedtobecool asked you to close the request and move along. It includes words to the effect of what is the point of making comments if they are not allowed to stand. Removing, and changing the nature of another editors comments, is the

17946:, I'm sick of you hounding me and deliberately misrepresenting my words over this. It's totally inappropriate for a bureaucrat to so doggedly badger oppose voters in an RfA. Please do not ping me or post to my talk page from here on. – 20189:

on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other

7108: 18052:), but you didn't make any improvements to it and it was deleted again. I'm not willing to restore the draft again. There is nothing stopping you writing a new article on the company but it will probably just get deleted again. – 17634: 7448:

Anything else that may be wrong with RfA is the fault of the voters themselves: vindictive voters, clueless voters, trolls, vandals, socks, general drama mongers, and those who always resent the role and existence of admins.

9060:. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh 15849:

is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the

14231: 5057: 20714:

Nothing superceeds deleting comments pertinent to discussion. Here is Joe about my complaint, "actions aggravate people simply because they come from an arb/clerk". I've made the point. Let's just see what happens then.

20569:

inflammatory thing you can do with them. There was no need to delete the comment. There is no need to try and shuffle around the point I am making here, like as if I didn't make a point, like as if you just deleted it.

4762: 7255:

than upholding it. As I've said before, I'm thick skinned enough to weather the slings and arrows thrown at Wikipedians who volunteer in contentious areas. However, you are an arbitrator; your words carry more weight,

9105: 15752:

This was highly irregular and at minimum should be noted as a finding with an explanation of how it happened. As for the PD talk page, it seems like these questions were asked multiple times and no answer was given.

3393: 5141:. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them. 15774:. Finding of facts are supposed to be observations that directly inform our decision. They're not a complete record of the evolution of the case; for that we have the request, evidence, and workshop pages too. – 17938:

You cannot be serious. The field has existed for 200 years and will almost certainly get along fine regardless of my Knowledge edits. There is no comparison to editing the article on the company that pays your

20355: 18402:

claiming there are sources is neither irrelevant nor an invalid vote. With only three participants, no consensus has emerged; there needs to be more discussion to see whether others agree with you or Carajou.

1530: 10896: 7382:

argument would be irrelevant. Strike all policy violations and then just tally, and that isn't how RfA/B has behaved, at least since 2006. I have to log off now, it's late in EDT. Thank you for your time. --

4923: 18101:

I'm sorry to hear you are giving up on editing. As I tried to explain before, I don't personally decide to delete articles, Knowledge admins like me only implement what other editors agree should be done.

9496: 4933: 3110:

did a round-robin move around the redirect that was the result of the last AfD. At this point I would say it would have to go back to AfD. It isn't eligible for G4 because it's a wholly different article.

7439:

Thus comparing the RexxS and the JBHunley RfAs is comparing apples with oranges - the only similarity was that they were both in the discretionary zone and both went to a 'crat chat. There was actually

4763: 5450:

Sure, it's fine without the tag now. I think the article still puts too much weight on Schmidt's interpretation (especially his interpretation filtered through journalists), but that's not an easy fix.

5045: 17701:

So while I'm sorry that Greenman is having to suffer a bad RfA—they're an unpleasant experience even when they go well—I did vote oppose so I obviously can't claim that I'm unhappy with the outcome. –

5077: 5049: 18348:. It's perfectly fine to start small and add material over time – that's what drafts are for. The key thing is that before you hit "submit your draft for review", you've put in enough references to 18434:

case related to his or her participation in the NewtonX deletion discussion, for which one or more admins raised eyebrows at the listed users' coordinated involvement. I suspect this was a case of

12656: 20221: 17636: 4782: 16036:

BTW, just for the record, I disagree with your close as relist, but I didn't come here to argue that. I just want to ensure that if we are to have a renewed debate on a page which gets only

7249:

I feel strongly that this was a poor close by the crats, essentially supervoting away valid opposes because they were not convinced by them, while, as usual, being far laxer with the supports.

20548:. I don't think anyone is upset here except you, and I'm scratching my head as to why you care so intensely about another editor's comment which, at least initially, you didn't even read? – 16037: 22148: 21079: 20360: 20069: 18990: 18125:

I've given it one last go. If it works I'm going to spend the next six months of my retirement reviewing marketplaces as it's where I have an active interest. I've kept the page very short

17536: 16464: 15597: 14518: 14101: 13024: 12454: 11396: 10760: 9702: 8920: 7862: 5787: 3644: 1817: 252: 18438:

on Carajou's part, so figured he or she would just vote counter to emerging consensus on a number of articles when the NewtonX discussion wasn't going his or her way. At any rate, I think

15731:. A FoF on ADMINCOND has already been suggested multiple times (including by arbs). We're working on it. You really don't need to repeat the same point on all our individual talk pages. – 3419: 3166:. You've only created 25 articles and most in the last few days, so I don't think you need autopatrolled. It's not a right that affects your ability to edit in any way. Why do you want it? 14253: 6850: 5073: 4706: 2879: 1315: 12737: 10964: 5087: 18360:

in this case). That is the main thing reviewers will be looking for. If you're unsure about whether a subject is notable or if a draft is ready, the Teahouse is a good place to ask. –

7480: 4858:

I'd prefer to leave further interactions with Couiros22 to other admins. I'd suggest talking to them about their categorisations and, if that doesn't find a resolution, taking it to

3027:

Okay, I'll note that on the talk page. We discourage editors from writing about people they know, so your article will need to be checked by an independent reviewer at some stage. –

15864:. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it. 20318: 12597: 1498: 18377: 10881: 15986: 20942: 20639:

by it. It's particularly banal in this case since I answered the editor's question at the same time, apparently to their satisfaction. I don't have much to say beyond that. –

15330: 7441: 5160:– automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar. 2978: 22172: 19802: 2903: 15860:

A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with

17276: 4892:

Like most arbs I try not to get involved in day-to-day conduct disputes because there's always the chance they will end up with ArbCom, and then I would have to recuse as

1339: 16050:

My evil twin is mumbling that another 130 manual restorations is karma for your decision to exercise your discretion in this way, but I couldn't possibly comment on that

14151: 7306:

I'm sorry if you feel I'm throwing "slings and arrows" but, at the end of the day, you hold the highest position of trust in our community. You should expect scrutiny. –

13836: 12533: 7221: 20266:

Thank you for writing so many nice articles in such a short time! If you're interested, we have a small working group working on biographies of women archaeologists at

7059: 22854: 22838: 22790: 20798: 20790: 18752: 18704: 16291: 14353: 12811: 12795: 11151: 9412: 7617: 6874: 5540: 4925: 4730: 3301: 1581: 1503: 7090: 22830: 22806: 22782: 20846: 20814: 20287: 18744: 17782: 16267: 15795: 14337: 14297: 12827: 12787: 12478: 11199: 11167: 11127: 10784: 9460: 9436: 9428: 9404: 7665: 7649: 7633: 7601: 5580: 5564: 5556: 5524: 5198:. I think that could have been handled equally well by us, at AE, or at ANI. As the other arbs didn't pick up on my suggestion, I agree AE was the best way to go. – 5053: 4777: 3349: 3317: 3285: 1652: 1620: 1604: 1565: 1493: 18251: 7488: 22750: 16235: 10824: 9380: 8944: 7609: 7114: 5532: 5500: 3293: 3261: 1573: 1456: 1371: 22822: 20830: 20766: 18728: 16275: 14345: 12835: 11191: 9444: 7657: 7096: 5572: 4931: 3333: 1628: 7466: 22798: 22766: 22758: 20862: 20806: 20774: 18712: 18696: 18672: 16329: 16259: 16243: 14329: 14305: 14273: 12851: 12843: 12819: 12771: 11223: 11183: 11159: 11135: 10999: 9420: 9388: 7697: 7625: 7585: 7335:

where X lists arguments against the candidate are treated like X. lastly, and most importantly, in light of your particular concerns about the process, how do

5622: 5614: 5548: 5508: 3309: 3269: 1589: 1546: 22884: 20892: 17768: 11261: 6945: 3387: 18788: 18782: 18427: 18262: 17836: 12658: 11110: 11085: 9253: 7084: 7001: 1682: 18069:

was right after seeing a company regularly on the news but having no page. I will bow down to your obvious superiority and retire from Knowledge. Be well.

14383: 7299:

one to make, practically and socially. We don't do this anywhere else on the project. We also don't carry on doing things that are contrary to common sense

22774: 22167:

Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...

20782: 19797:

Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...

18664: 17271:

Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...

16251: 16085:

I thought the consensus was pretty clear, and my rule of thumb is that more discussion (almost) never hurts. Still, I closed it, I'll take my 130 lumps. –

15325:

Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...

14289: 13831:

Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...

12779: 12473:

Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...

11143: 10779:

Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...

9396: 9151:

Ah yes. Good point. I've done some more tidying. I see despite how long they've been around, they were still consistently adding unverifiable information.

8939:

Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...

7727: 7593: 6869:

Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...

5652: 5516: 5154:– allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself. 4725:

Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...

2898:

Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...

1554: 1334:

Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...

20150:

It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

18729:

Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Knowledge

12889: 7209: 7190: 7176: 3127:

I make no comment on if it should be kept or deleted. The page had been reviewed and as I saw no obvious BLP violations I made the necessary page swap. --

22207: 20465:

In fact, now that I read the enquiry, it is a request not to be ignored. Deleting this enquiry was inflammatory indeed. You know not to do this. Thanks.

11007: 9490: 2998: 10977: 10854: 5094: 20437: 18630: 18559: 9219: 5189: 5041: 3136: 17827: 17749: 6968: 20362: 18688: 17656: 16140: 16120: 16096: 16080: 16028: 9509:

Knowledge is not a means of promotion. It is a neutral, volunteer-written encyclopaedia. The Knowledge community strongly discourages editing with a

8976: 7689: 7033: 4842: 3237: 3223: 3195: 3180: 2935: 9523:

was not honest with you about this is not surprising given he also attempted to deceive the Knowledge community to circumvent these and other rules.

9110: 1422: 1397: 22730: 22708: 22223: 20854: 20694:

are currently opening the case, and will have completed that process in the next few hours. This seems to supersede the question of restoration.

20111: 18680: 16299: 14281: 14255: 12859: 11215: 9504: 7396:

I think I'm saying that you should judge consensus at RfAs the same way we do everywhere else. Including giving "per noms" (explicit or otherwise)

7152: 5604: 3277: 1538: 1404:

Yes, you should be able to edit it now. ANI has to be protected often because of vandalism, but as a general rule anyone should be able to edit it.

18826:

Thanks very much! I just clicked on the grey box which I initially was afraid to do and it is now a draft for review. Thanks again, best regards,

17670: 15699: 15679: 5209: 5005: 3489: 3469: 3448: 3020: 22814: 22215: 20822: 18720: 18345: 18135: 18096: 18076: 18041: 16283: 15887: 15879: 14321: 12803: 11207: 11175: 10816: 9168: 9026: 7681: 7641: 6996: 4911: 4887: 4873: 4821: 4808: 3325: 1612: 18835: 18817: 18207: 17781:

at the RfA. The reason the semantic difference is important is because one is a TOU violation, while the other merely a local policy violation:

5083: 4977: 4959: 22868: 20876: 20281: 18766: 17867: 16313: 15785: 15765: 15756: 15742: 15709: 14367: 14159: 12873: 12640: 12630: 11245: 9541: 9474: 7711: 7673: 7482: 7020: 5636: 5588: 5250: 5217: 3371: 3357: 2972: 1666: 1644: 18371: 18113: 18088: 18063: 17919: 15916: 5476: 5462: 5438: 5423: 2956: 22846: 20838: 20429: 20423: 20417: 20411: 20405: 20399: 20393: 20206: 18736: 18622: 18616: 18610: 18604: 18598: 18592: 18151: 18126: 18049: 18026: 18000: 17837: 17804: 15977: 15971: 15965: 15959: 15953: 15947: 14313: 14222: 14216: 14210: 14204: 14198: 14192: 14143: 12728: 12722: 12715: 12709: 12703: 12697: 11231: 10952: 10946: 10940: 10934: 10928: 9452: 9360: 9330: 9324: 9318: 9312: 9306: 9300: 9160: 9142: 7543: 7537: 7531: 7525: 7519: 7513: 7414: 7391: 7376: 7352: 7317: 7275: 7242: 5596: 5311: 5305: 5299: 5293: 5287: 5281: 3341: 1636: 1428: 18545: 18529: 18520:

except when demonstrated, habitually, otherwise. But still, do you not at least admit that the sources provided were completely irrelevant?

18508: 18477: 18459: 18414: 18218: 16177: 16154: 15664: 14389: 12591: 3122: 12599: 10969: 7403:

I fully agree that tallying and percentages are a naive way to gauge consensus. Incidentally, that's another aberration unique to RfA/B. –

20950: 20349: 18843: 18489:

It's not a closer's place to decide on the quality of the sources. We judge whether there's a consensus – and there isn't one yet. Please

17957: 17933: 17712: 12563: 9198:

Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

1688: 21112: 20671: 20650: 20585: 20559: 20535: 20504: 19023: 18796: 18379: 16497: 16195: 14551: 13057: 11429: 10832: 9735: 7895: 7327:, the reasoning behind the tradition is that every RfX comes with a nomination, which is usually detailed. Blank supports are considered 5820: 3677: 1850: 285: 21737: 21641: 20922: 19648: 19552: 18045: 17122: 17026: 16335: 15176: 15080: 13682: 13586: 12054: 11958: 10360: 10264: 8520: 8424: 6445: 6349: 4302: 4206: 2475: 2379: 910: 814: 123: 21850: 21747: 21742: 21732: 21651: 21646: 21633: 21613: 21608: 21598: 21482: 21453: 21122: 21117: 21107: 20295: 19761: 19658: 19653: 19643: 19562: 19557: 19544: 19524: 19519: 19509: 19393: 19364: 19033: 19028: 19018: 17793: 17235: 17132: 17127: 17117: 17036: 17031: 17018: 16998: 16993: 16983: 16867: 16838: 16507: 16502: 16492: 15289: 15186: 15181: 15171: 15090: 15085: 15072: 15052: 15047: 15037: 14921: 14892: 14561: 14556: 14546: 13795: 13692: 13687: 13677: 13596: 13591: 13578: 13558: 13553: 13543: 13427: 13398: 13067: 13062: 13052: 12648: 12167: 12064: 12059: 12049: 11968: 11963: 11950: 11930: 11925: 11915: 11799: 11770: 11439: 11434: 11424: 10473: 10370: 10365: 10355: 10274: 10269: 10256: 10236: 10231: 10221: 10105: 10076: 9745: 9740: 9730: 9547: 8633: 8530: 8525: 8515: 8434: 8429: 8416: 8396: 8391: 8381: 8265: 8236: 7905: 7900: 7890: 7472: 7065: 7026: 6558: 6455: 6450: 6440: 6359: 6354: 6341: 6321: 6316: 6306: 6190: 6161: 5830: 5825: 5815: 5380: 4831: 4415: 4312: 4307: 4297: 4216: 4211: 4198: 4178: 4173: 4163: 4047: 4018: 3687: 3682: 3672: 2588: 2485: 2480: 2470: 2389: 2384: 2371: 2351: 2346: 2336: 2220: 2191: 1860: 1855: 1845: 1023: 920: 915: 905: 824: 819: 806: 786: 781: 771: 655: 626: 295: 290: 280: 21752: 21656: 21618: 21496: 21467: 19663: 19567: 19529: 19407: 19378: 18273: 17137: 17041: 17003: 16881: 16852: 15191: 15095: 15057: 14935: 14906: 13697: 13601: 13563: 13441: 13412: 12895: 12069: 11973: 11935: 11813: 11784: 10375: 10279: 10241: 10119: 10090: 8535: 8439: 8401: 8279: 8250: 6460: 6364: 6326: 6204: 6175: 4317: 4221: 4183: 4061: 4032: 2490: 2394: 2356: 2234: 2205: 925: 829: 791: 669: 640: 21583: 21569: 21356: 21127: 20730: 20709: 20610: 20480: 20147:

It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.

19494: 19480: 19267: 19038: 18426:

at the sources quoted, though? They aren't even relevant. They link to a spammy site CoinDesk, and have literally nothing to do with

17815: 17737: 17676: 16968: 16954: 16741: 16512: 15639: 15022: 15008: 14795: 14566: 13528: 13514: 13301: 13072: 11900: 11886: 11673: 11444: 10206: 10192: 9979: 9750: 8366: 8352: 8139: 7910: 6974: 6291: 6277: 6064: 5835: 4148: 4134: 3921: 3692: 2321: 2307: 2094: 1865: 756: 742: 529: 300: 21554: 21426: 21391: 21366: 21361: 21351: 20250: 19465: 19337: 19302: 19277: 19272: 19262: 17729:

editors opposed before them, and it was no more doomed after one particular !vote than it was previously. Except Lourdes's perhaps.

16939: 16811: 16776: 16751: 16746: 16736: 14993: 14865: 14830: 14805: 14800: 14790: 13499: 13371: 13336: 13311: 13306: 13296: 11871: 11743: 11708: 11683: 11678: 11668: 10177: 10049: 10014: 9989: 9984: 9974: 8337: 8209: 8174: 8149: 8144: 8134: 6262: 6134: 6099: 6074: 6069: 6059: 5658: 4119: 3991: 3956: 3931: 3926: 3916: 3497: 2292: 2164: 2129: 2104: 2099: 2089: 727: 599: 564: 539: 534: 524: 22663: 21706: 21540: 21436: 21431: 21401: 21396: 20443: 19617: 19451: 19347: 19342: 19312: 19307: 18636: 18494: 18338: 17091: 16925: 16821: 16816: 16786: 16781: 16215: 15992: 15922: 15145: 14979: 14875: 14870: 14840: 14835: 14237: 13651: 13485: 13381: 13376: 13346: 13341: 12743: 12023: 11857: 11753: 11748: 11718: 11713: 10983: 10329: 10163: 10059: 10054: 10024: 10019: 9338: 8489: 8323: 8219: 8214: 8184: 8179: 7551: 7046: 6414: 6248: 6144: 6139: 6109: 6104: 5319: 4271: 4105: 4001: 3996: 3966: 3961: 2444: 2278: 2174: 2169: 2139: 2134: 879: 713: 609: 604: 574: 569: 21713: 21525: 21242: 21158: 20510:

opinion on that. I have an opinion though about deleting others comments or changing their meaning, or preventing discussion. You

19624: 19436: 19153: 19069: 17098: 16910: 16627: 16543: 15152: 14964: 14681: 14597: 13658: 13470: 13187: 13103: 12030: 11842: 11559: 11475: 11267: 10336: 10148: 9865: 9781: 9555: 8496: 8308: 8025: 7941: 6421: 6233: 5950: 5866: 4278: 4090: 3807: 3723: 2451: 2263: 1980: 1896: 886: 698: 415: 331: 21681: 21345: 21318: 21280: 21252: 21247: 21237: 21207: 21202: 21168: 21163: 21153: 20449: 19592: 19256: 19229: 19191: 19163: 19158: 19148: 19118: 19113: 19079: 19074: 19064: 18642: 18252:

https://www.techbullion.com/onbuy-com-becomes-number-one-uk-marketplace-and-sets-sights-on-100-countries-in-the-next-three-years/

17066: 16730: 16703: 16665: 16637: 16632: 16622: 16592: 16587: 16553: 16548: 16538: 16223: 15998: 15120: 14784: 14757: 14719: 14691: 14686: 14676: 14646: 14641: 14607: 14602: 14592: 14243: 13626: 13290: 13263: 13225: 13197: 13192: 13182: 13152: 13147: 13113: 13108: 13098: 12749: 11998: 11662: 11635: 11597: 11569: 11564: 11554: 11524: 11519: 11485: 11480: 11470: 10989: 10304: 9968: 9941: 9903: 9875: 9870: 9860: 9830: 9825: 9791: 9786: 9776: 9344: 9266: 8464: 8128: 8101: 8063: 8035: 8030: 8020: 7990: 7985: 7951: 7946: 7936: 7557: 7127: 6389: 6053: 6026: 5988: 5960: 5955: 5945: 5915: 5910: 5876: 5871: 5861: 5325: 5225: 5056:

for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (

4246: 3910: 3883: 3845: 3817: 3812: 3802: 3772: 3767: 3733: 3728: 3718: 2419: 2083: 2056: 2018: 1990: 1985: 1975: 1945: 1940: 1906: 1901: 1891: 854: 518: 491: 453: 425: 420: 410: 380: 375: 341: 336: 326: 21328: 21323: 21313: 21290: 21285: 21275: 19239: 19234: 19224: 19201: 19196: 19186: 17629: 16713: 16708: 16698: 16675: 16670: 16660: 14767: 14762: 14752: 14729: 14724: 14714: 13273: 13268: 13258: 13235: 13230: 13220: 11645: 11640: 11630: 11607: 11602: 11592: 9951: 9946: 9936: 9913: 9908: 9898: 8111: 8106: 8096: 8073: 8068: 8058: 7733: 7078: 6036: 6031: 6021: 5998: 5993: 5983: 3893: 3888: 3878: 3855: 3850: 3840: 2066: 2061: 2051: 2028: 2023: 2013: 501: 496: 486: 463: 458: 448: 22872: 22738: 21511: 21418: 21383: 20880: 20754: 19422: 19329: 19294: 18770: 16896: 16803: 16768: 16317: 14950: 14857: 14822: 14371: 14167: 14153: 13456: 13363: 13328: 12877: 12545: 11828: 11735: 11700: 11249: 11118: 10903: 10134: 10041: 10006: 9478: 8294: 8201: 8166: 7715: 6219: 6126: 6091: 5640: 5387: 4076: 3983: 3948: 3375: 3249: 2249: 2156: 2121: 1670: 684: 591: 556: 22526: 18328: 10860:

We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have

5026:

tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Knowledge pages still require attribution per

20289: 18652: 18567: 16115: 16075: 12664: 9260: 1518: 1462: 96: 18317: 17856:

would you like me to reopen the discussion? Note that there's no guarantee that it will change the outcome, but it might. –

15705:

nice way to treat a volunteer while their case is being heard, at least not until they start misbehaving on the case pages.

22880: 22517:

Thank you for continuing to make Knowledge the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season.

21670: 21231: 21192: 21147: 20898: 20888: 19581: 19142: 19103: 19058: 18778: 17055: 16616: 16577: 16532: 16325: 15109: 14670: 14631: 14586: 14379: 14261: 13615: 13176: 13137: 13092: 12885: 11987: 11548: 11509: 11464: 11257: 10959: 10826: 10293: 9854: 9815: 9770: 9486: 8984: 8453: 8014: 7975: 7930: 7723: 6378: 5939: 5900: 5855: 5648: 4235: 3796: 3757: 3712: 3404:

faulty in coming to that conclusion then I need to know why, in order to avoid making similar mistakes of judgement again.

3383: 2408: 1969: 1930: 1885: 1678: 1558:'s investigative story recognized, Knowledge turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized 1513: 843: 404: 365: 320: 18263:

https://www.prolificlondon.co.uk/news/tech/2019/02/‘british-amazon’-onbuycom-gets-top-ranking-plans-‘aggressive’-expansion

17971:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

22209: 22151: