User talk:SlimVirgin/June 2016

Clean talk page no more!

Hi Miss Sarah,

Will you please advise? King should not be taking part in any GMO related discussions. Since he is a scientist, i cannot offer him the benefit of the doubt. Please see here. Thus far no one has had the gonads to stand up and do something. Help? petrarchan47คุก 22:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, I know there have been problems there, but there's very little I can say about this area, because I know next to noting about it. It would take me weeks of reading to understand the basics, but I have no interest in it. Whenever I've commented it's only because I've seen dispute resolution break down, or I had an interest in helping with the writing. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Good answer. Be well, petrarchan47คุก 00:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciated that you came to comment there. I was appalled at the responses you received (that you complained about), but not surprised as I got treated the same way, and so have many others before, including one or more TB'd by the same editors. Your assessment of the editing environment is spot-on. It's a sad state of affairs, and unfortunate that ArbCom did not really address it--at least they did remove one problematic editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This RfC seems to be an attempt to avoid another ArbCom case, but frankly another case is what's needed, because this is about behaviour, not content. And it needs to extend beyond GM, again because it's about behaviour in several venues, not just in one topic. The only advice I can give, lame as it is, is to stay away from those editors. Ask yourself: "Does this affect my life?" The answer is that it doesn't, so find corners of Wikipedia where they're not active and work there. I feel incredibly stressed now because of that brief interaction on that RfC page, and will for the rest of the evening. It's not worth it. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I am so sorry that you had to experience that. It seems to me that you have been bullied. I think you are not alone. Bullies and gangs in real life and on Wikipedia can protect their turf by threatening you if you do not play by their rules. I do not think such behavior is acceptable at Wikipedia, but I have seen it in many venues from the first time I started editing. I think bullies often get their way and right now, sadly, there is very little that can be done about it. I would like to ask you: What can we do to address bullying at Wikipedia? I do not think walking away or ignoring bullies is the solution: That rewards the behavior. My proposal for juries below is one possibility. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Incidentally, I think one way to address problem areas like that is to have randomly selected juries adjudicate behavior, and possibly even content and RS disputes. The regular AN/I does not work at all, as all the parties to the dispute speak, no on knows who is and is not involved, and you get walls-of-text, TL;DR and any concern raised is lost and there is never any consensus--in fact, even raising an legit. issue about behavior can be used against you. So, it just becomes an extension of the talk page discussion. Unfortunately admins volunteer to close NB's, and they avoid the TL;DR, which just means that the issues are not really dealt with. A jury of randomly selected non-involved editors who are differentiated from the involved editors and tasked with making a proper decision, might be able to see through the smoke and mirrors and drama and properly identify what needs to be done. Or admins should be randomly selected to close AN/I disputes, not having it done by whoever feels or does not feel like it. This is how American courts do it, and I believe it works well. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

David, I think your idea has merit. A similar system works here in the UK where the jury is picked at random (you probably know this already). Perhaps being available for "the jury" could be a prerequisite of becoming an admin - with a further condition that an admin must become involved in a noticeboard thread at least X times per year. While discussing this, I think it might also be worthwhile discussing the boomerang. I feel this should be abandoned. Far too often, an editor will post to a noticeboard, the friends of the accused all pile in on the OP, the OP is sanctioned and the behaviour of the accused is not even looked at! I understand there must be a mechanism to stop frivolous or trivial accusations, but this should perhaps be dealt with by a separate thread being started, leaving the way clear for the original thread to progress more cleanly. Sarah, sorry you got stressed by whatever happened to you. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, thank you. I agree about the boomerang issue. It pains me to see it happen, except in extreme cases where it's clearly deserved. The Foundation is currently looking for ideas on how to reduce harassment, and sorting out AN/I could be part of that (making it easier to report things there; harder to end up being blocked because of reporting it; easier to find good people to take part, etc). So if either of you has ideas, now is the time to develop them. Also pinging David Tornheim. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your ideas. I do agree Boomerang has been misused exactly as you described. I will point out that in American law (I'm not an attorney FYI), there are mechanisms for boommerang, such as anti-SLAPP protections against malicious prosecution for exercise of free speech (which I believe have mechanisms to "SLAPP back" the malicious filers for the intimidation tactics), which are very important. And in general, if you file, your adversary can file a counter-claim against you as part of the same lawsuit. Since American Common Law derives from English Common Law, I imagine the system is similar in England.

The bigger problem is exactly as you described--the friends all pile on and make a mess of TL;DR and the original claims are lost. Or if your have a legit Boommerang request, it can be lost as well, with tons of b.s. posturing, etc. The major problem is that AN/I and the NB's are a free for all and anyone can say anything they want and there is no differentiation between the people providing evidence and neutral observers. And anyone who is neutral is too afraid to touch it or too overwhelmed to want to read all the never-rending drama and name-calling...

I will try to remember to speak up there. If either of you do, please ping me there to remind me. I'm in the middle of something else right now, but the jury thing is something I really want to talk more about. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

We're too harsh with people, that's the issue. There's an idea on the lab about identifying inadvertent harassment, and I think that's key, because almost no one wants to harass. Even deliberate trolls may not realize how much pain they're causing. We all see only our own part, and we don't realize that, to the target, we're part of a painful group assault. But group assault is the nature of AN/I. I can't think how to fix it, bearing in mind that we're volunteers, so formal structures (jury duty, etc) are hard to keep going. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

(E/C) I have just been reminded of another concern about noticeboards - premature closure. I have on several occasions seen threads being opened in the early hours of GMT and closed very soon after. The one that reminded me of this was closed after just 90 mins. This is a global project and I feel that as an editor from the UK, such quick closure actually excludes me from participating (this may happen the other way way round, i.e. UK to US, but I have not seen an example of this). Perhaps there should be a mandatory time (at least 24 hrs) before threads are closed (unless there are extreme reasons for an early closure). DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It's unfair to close something quickly if the consequence for the subject is serious. Closing quickly if the OP is causing trouble is a good idea. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

On the issue of AN/I's problems, some time ago on the Village Pump idea lab I suggested that discussions there would benefit from more structure. link I think the jury idea would also address these issues, but would require more active management and initial setup than just imposing a few common sense limitations on AN/I comments.Dialectric (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we would need help from the WMF. It would be good to have paid moderators patrolling, removing hurtful comments, watching for too many people commenting. But I can't see the WMF paying for it, in the near future anyway. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Dialectric - after reading the link you supplied, I think we are of similar minds. ANI postings should certainly be word limited, and I also believe in editor-specific sections as they are at ARBCOM. Having been a contributor there, I found this to be an absolute pain in the backside, but it stops/reduces frivolous, argumentative or trivial posts which are much of the problem at ANI. Surely this would help admins in their closures. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I always thought WP:FLOW would be more suited to AN/I-type discussions than to article talk. The WMF could have turned it on for AN to experiment, but it would be too contentious now probably. The editor-specific sections are a bit of nuisance; not sure I agree they would help, and there's a feeling that you're talking to yourself. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Just driving by to say, "hear! hear!" abut this discussion. Bullying is a huge problem on wikipedia, and though Sarah is probably right that some people have no idea how they are coming across, others know exactly what they are doing... and often are the first to accuse their victims of being the bullies (sigh). I kind of like the idea of eliminating the BOOMERANG... but allowing, for lack of a better word, the "countersuit." Montanabw^(talk) 02:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw, I think we should also have a rule that if someone is facing a site ban, the discussion should be open for at least 24 hours. Should we try to write up a proposal elimating boomerang and substituting it for something else (the countersuit)? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm in. Good ideas. Maybe an exception for blatent harassment to be slapped before 24 hours. Definitely a good idea. Montanabw^(talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

We should set up a user subpage somewhere, and start exchanging ideas. You can go ahead if you're ready, or I can set one up tomorrow. Agree about harassment, because that needs to be dealt with quickly if there's no doubt about it. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I have just been advised by an admin to read WP:CBAN. Lo and behold, it states Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. So, it is already in place, but possibly needs to be adhered to more. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Sarah and page watchers - has anyone set up a thread yet to discuss possible/proposed changes to the AN/I process? (I would do this myself, but I'm watched by elements who I feel would try to unrail anything on one of my sandboxes). I have another proposal. There seems to be an increase in suspect closures by non-admins. Perhaps these non-admin closures should be stopped altogether, or perhaps be allowed only in some circumstances. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes

I will absolutely bring those diffs and am actually in shock that an attempt is being made to continue to misrepresent the WHO. I'd also like to pick your brain about your brilliant suggestion (an idea so obvious and yet one I hadn't considered) that the GMO issue is only a tree - we need a new arbcom hearing to address the forest. You know as well as I that we have ample diffs to prove that this issue is not about advocate tree hugging fringe theorists, as arbcom 1 framed it, but about consistent and blatant attempts to make sure pesticides are shown in a good light on this website, and that bullying to the point of loosing many good editors from our dwindling pool of volunteers, has been the norm. petrarchan47คุก 00:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems we've been locked out of further discussions, but here is the edit in question. petrarchan47คุก 07:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, I don't know how to respond, because there are so many arms and legs to this, and I'm not involved in or knowledgeable about the content. I assume that The Wordsmith will re-open the discussion, because otherwise the RfC is hobbled, so perhaps something will emerge from that. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to support your RfC idea of quoting the WHO directly; that makes the most sense to me mainly because it avoids OR and SYNTH. It seems people have been manipulated into supporting this RfC, which is an idea that runs contrary to our core guidelines. If a consensus of any sort exists, it would be easy to source and addition to the Pedia would not cause drama. Since the WHO is a world renowned source, and since they have spoken to this issue, it seems a no brainer to defer to them.

I was disturbed to see that your proposal is not included in the RfC offerings. Because you are an Admin, I assume you can make this change yourself, and add it? Yours is the only valid choice, and without it, it seems WP is forcing editors to vote on OR/SYNTH: a guideline violation. It also seems that if editors who have penned proposals have been shown to purposefully misuse sources in a biased way, those proposals and editors should be disallowed from participation. Because of the importance of this issue (WP being the top source on the web, and GMOs being one of the most profitable industries the world has ever known), I am disturbed by the lack of actual justification for moving forward. In my understanding, the community is in charge of content, Admins are here to assist the community. But the RfC debacle looks more like Admin-as-dictator. From what I see, there is one Admin and two editors who have decided that the rest of us and our issues should be ignored. If the subject matter was knitting you wouldn't be hearing from me. But it is hard to sit by and watch such a serious blunder take place. petrarchan47คุก 09:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I have supported your proposal here; the WHO is Proposal 7. Thank you once again for your priceless contributions to the encyclopaedia. petrarchan47คุก 05:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Proud?

I'm done here. Hope you are proud of yourself, so you can go ahead and push your agenda against sexy women. Just to let you know, you are one of the worst people I've encountered in my 5+ years in Wikipedia. I've written 4 featured articles and 21 featured lists here and I have never been made to feel so terrible about what I write about the way you and your friends have! So why don't you and the other bullies Light show and Littleoliveoil write about Zeta-Jones yourselves? Surely you'll do a brilliant job with it. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm at least the fourth person to get a lashing for reviewing the article without supporting it (I can only imagine the response if I'd opposed it). I'll make allowances for the fact that FAC is very stressful; I know exactly what that feels like. But if everyone who offers criticism is attacked, no one will review FAs and that will be the end of the process. Just as reviewers should make allowances for stressed-out nominators, you should bear in mind that people give their time because they care about the article, not because they want to hurt you. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

That's what people pushing their personal agenda in FAC reviews normally say: "we are just offering criticism". No, you are not. You are actively sabotaging a nomination, not due to any existing FA-criteria, but because of what you want to see written in the article. In such cases, you should have been the one to have written the article in the first place. Why did I spend months working on the article only to be attacked by someone who wants to shove their personal opinion down my throat when the article is at the FAC and already has substantive supports from established editors for its promotion? Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You are seeing attacks where there are none. That's not a problem I can solve. I've been in exactly the same position – left feeling distressed by comments at an FAC, only to go back and read them days or weeks later, when I found that they weren't that bad after all. FAC is much more stressful to the nominator than it appears to others. I am genuinely sorry that you were left feeling that way.

The problem was that you had nominated a BLP that used tabloids and non-RS websites as sources. There was also the "sex appeal" issue in the lead. When the sourcing problem was pointed out (by others too, not only me), you removed some of the tabloids, but you didn't want to remove them all. That left a BLP at FAC that wasn't BLP-compliant. I hadn't decided whether to oppose, because the fault may lie with the BLP policy not being clear enough on that point. That's all I want to say about it, so please continue the discussion on the FAC page (or not at all, but I'd prefer that it not continue here). SarahSV ^(talk) 02:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry. I have admitted defeat and withdrawn the nomination already. So you are all set to remove well-sourced references to Z-J's sex appeal, and there will be no one to revert you. Hope you're happy now. Have a great time fighting the good cause of making sexy a bad word. I'm out of here. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker), FWIW, Krimuk90, Sarah is not the enemy here, Light show is. Sarah is one of our best editors and is a very good administrator. She is most certainly one of the good guys/gals. I do think you're barking up the wrong tree. Sorry, Sarah, I know you were keen on not continuing this here, but I felt compelled to say that. Cassianto^Talk 15:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

↑ What he said. There are editors being disruptive in an attempt to derail that FAC, but Sarah isn't one of them; she raised a legitimate query about sourcing. The FAC delegates will use their own judgement to decide if they consider her concerns significant; that's why we have delegates closing FACs rather than a straightforward vote count. I regularly disagree with Sarah's opinions (sometimes extremely strongly), but I don't think anyone familiar with her, even her most vocal critics, questions her competence as regards writing and sourcing on Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 15:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto and Iridescent, thank you very much for saying that. I really appreciate it, and I'm sorry to hear the FAC was disrupted. I hope Krimuk90 renominates it soon. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

And I concur, Krimuk90, you are attacking the wrong person. (I also have no clue why you are attacking Olive, who didn't even comment at the FAC). Take a break and come back once the dust settles. FAC is always tense and troublesome, these big articles more than others Montanabw^(talk) 02:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I am attacking no one. Light show, Littleolive (the two pro-infobox buddies) and SlimVirgin ganged up against me to further their own agenda of somehow making "sex appeal" a bad word. I'm aghast at such mentality. And even if SlimVirgin is a well-established editor, I think she's doing a massive disservice to women by considering sexy to be an ugly tag. Some women are sexy and have had film roles that have relied predominantly on that aspect of their personality. A biography is not a forum to discuss whether such objectification is good or bad. If that has happened, it will be reported. Believe it or not, it's not my fault that Zeta-Jones has had roles where her sensuality was at the forefront. It's not my duty to cherry-pick what some editors consider "appropriate for women". But SilmVirgin and the two others were very much interested in shoving their point-of-view down my throat, and tried to repeatedly portray me as some sort of pervert who is keen to represent women as a sex object. I am horrified and deeply disgusted by that! Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Krimuk90, I am an editor who has been there, and unfortunately done that. Specifically with Sarah, specifically for the first FAC for Ezra Pound. I can only let you know from experience that you need to let pride go and if you listen to those with experience, you'll find you have a much better article. Wiki is set up as unusually confrontational, and there are so many sharks its hard to tell the good guys, but weirdly once you get to know the people the ones worth listening to are first rate. Sarah is supremely so; her editorial judgement, to be frank, doesnt grow on trees and if you actually listen and work with her, it will pay dividends. She ended up being a co-nom at its second, successful FAC, and I would venture a friend to both of the original nominators. It might not seem like it now, but people are trying to help you, indirectly :) Also the FAC lot all know the stress that a nom might bring, and the emotions it might excite, so your not on your own there. Anyway, my random 2c ramblings; but I like to see new FAC nominators crop up, and as I've said, been there. My talk page for venting is that a way. Ceoil (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I missed seeing that the Zeta-Jones article was under review, but even if I had I would have made the cmt and revert I did - a single revert/edit and cmt with the intention of letting the editors on an article decide whether to implement the change or not. My past experience with articles, and I have pared back my input on WP for reasons that don't matter here, is that a GA or FA review is most useful because we do get input from other editors as to potential weaknesses in an article and have the opportunity to refine those articles. As an artist and teacher of performers, I know that while its not always easy to have work critiqued , it is always valuable because we have the opportunity to re review our own work and fix potential problems before the public has a chance to react. A review is an in house safe guard for our own work. We are collaborators on this project.

There are no dirty words. Words carry meaning, but not emotional impact. We provide that impact. Sexy, sensuality, and sexuality have very different meanings none of them impact me in a way that is negative. Becoming and being an artist of any kind requires hard work and often extensive training. That the viewer/reviewer of that art sees the work as sexy, as an example, is a response to the work and generally not a description of the value of the work itself, and is generally not based on intrinsic acting talent and years of work. When properly sourced, and in this case BLP compliant we can add responses to an artist's work, but that response must be placed where it carries appropriate weight per sources. If I have a personal opinion on any of this and which had nothing to do with making sure sources were available, compliant, and placed per weight in the article, is that artists, male and female, are much more than their sexiness and beauty; but a sum of their hard work, talents, and ability to connect and then withstand the forces that impact their careers.

Slim Virgin is one of WP's finest -ever editors and her input is invaluable. I have never worked with Light show and very little with Slim Virgin. Editors sometimes have opinions that coincide. This does not mean they are in cahoots and mean to damage someone else. I hope this article will be submitted for review again. My first critique as a graduate student in art was devastating, hard on my confidence, and I remember sitting on my bed looking at my hands for a very long time thinking I would never paint again. After a time, I came to realize the critique was useful and helped me develop as an artist. A friend and well established artist described critiques of his work as like Christmas, because he had the opportunity to see his work through others' eyes - an invaluable learning tool. He had learned after many years in the art business to separate himself from the art and the critiques of this work, an ongoing, difficult business but one the best artist and writers have to embrace no matter how painful. I find it gets easier every critique, but still can be hard. Just some thoughts.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC))

Ah, I see. Just because I didn't concur with another editor's POV, that makes me a bumbling idiot who can't handle criticism. Is that it? I have written 4 featured articles and 21 featured lists, and have handled constructive criticism very well, thank you very much. What I can't handle is the narrow-minded viewpoint of others. All my previous FA/FL nominations passed at its first attempt, and none of the reviewers accused me of being a novice who doesn't know what he's talking about. This nomination, my 25th one no less, has been one the worst experiences of my 5+ years in Wikipedia. So, no, I am not a newbie here who doesn't understand how reviews work. I have handled them very well in the past. But the kind of behaviour I was subjected to in this nomination is just unacceptable.

At the risk of sounding highly immodest, I must add that Wikipedia needs contributors like me. If people like you keep pushing us away, with such POV-pushing agendas, then you are doing a massive disservice to the community. I am a volunteer here, not a full time staff at an office job for you to make me feel so awful about myself.

Anyway, if I have done such a botched up job with the Zeta-Jones article, why don't geniuses such as yourself take over and make it the best FA it can be? I'm sure you'll do a much better job than a sexist fuck like me. Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw, Ceoil and Littleolive oil, thank you for the kind words. I think we need an essay on post-traumatic FAC disorder, which I know from personal experience is a very real thing! SarahSV ^(talk) 16:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

GMOs

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

Thanks, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I figure this is best way to answer the questions about the authority under DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you like to peer review Marilyn Monroe?

Hi Sarah,

I was wondering whether you'd be interested in peer reviewing Marilyn Monroe? I'd really appreciate your feedback. I've been lurking in the Zeta-Jones FAC thread, and agreed with your thoughtful comments; I also noticed that you'd commented on MM after Light show brought it up. While LS is not a very credible editor, I'm concerned that maybe the MM article has issues that I've overlooked after seeing your comment.

I started overhauling the MM article last summer with the goal in mind of writing an article that would separate myth from fact and offer a balanced view of Monroe, one that doesn't fall into the clichéd ideas that she was a passive victim, a dumb blonde or a crazy woman, or any stereotype about women that has been applied to her. I relied heavily on books by Lois Banner and Sarah Churchwell, two academics interested in gender and the myths about Monroe, and tried to provide analysis of Monroe's stereotypical image as a dumb blonde, and the part that she took in constructing it, even when she also came to suffer from it. As for the use of the "dumb blonde" label, to me it was clear that I'm only using it to describe the roles she was assigned and her public image in the 1950s, not as a description of Marilyn Monroe, the real person and actor.

I'd greatly appreciate it if you could help me in improving the article! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

TrueHeartSusie3, thank you for asking me. I really appreciate it. I did start to write something the other day, but thought better of it, so I didn't post it. I should say that the article is really well-written, and I've enjoyed reading it. It has a very nice flow to it. I'll write up some first impressions and leave a note on article talk. All the best, SarahSV ^(talk) 16:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Um, Marilyn Monroe is already a Featured article and was just on the main page a few days ago. I would really hesitate to "overhaul" it, though perhaps a paragraph of feminist analysis here and there might be carefully added with the consensus of other editors. JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I know, I'm the main editor of the article who brought it to FAC ;) I doubt it's going to need a massive overhaul, but it certainly can still be improved. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

COI/GGTF article advice

Sarah, I'm going to take the liberty of moving this section to User_talk:GRuban/Rebecca_Moore, so it will all be in one place to discuss issues with and changes to the article, hope that's all right. If you object, certainly put it back. --GRuban (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

FGM update

In case you missed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.228.141 (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This refers to the June 7, 2016, publication of the Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) - January 2016 to March 2016, Experimental Statistics Report. Coverage of the report here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.227.52 (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

New Ideas Re Juries, etc.

Hi again SlimVirgin: Above you said, "The Foundation is currently looking for ideas on how to reduce harassment, and sorting out AN/I could be part of that (making it easier to report things there; harder to end up being blocked because of reporting it; easier to find good people to take part, etc). So if either of you has ideas, now is the time to develop them." I just looked at the link. I'm not very familiar with how things work at Wikidata. If I post something, will it be discussed like a NoticeBoard? I'm a little clear what will happen to it, and who will see anything I post there. In other words, I'm unclear of both the audience and who I might be interacting with if I post something. Is it similar to Village Pump or totally different? --David Tornheim (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi David, the page is meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire, where the WMF is asking for ideas to combat harassment. It is one of their month-long Inspire campaigns. This one ends on 30 June.

If you scroll down, you'll see several of the ideas already submitted. For example, there is meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Training for administrators. It explains the project idea and goals, then there is space for who else is willing to be involved in the project (participants) and who endorses the idea. Each idea also has a talk page: for example, meta:Grants talk:IdeaLab/Training for administrators.

The WMF might end up supporting some of the proposals, including with funding, though I believe grant applications are a separate process. The proposals are usually ideas that can be applied to any of the projects, not only to the English Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

86.58.36.235

Block user:86.58.36.235 for vandalism. 2602:306:3357:BA0:8DB8:C6E6:5396:67C7 (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

• New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
• Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
• New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

ARCA

A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (June 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Covent Garden

The Covent Garden article has been scheduled to appear on the main page at the end of this month on the 30th. Shortly after it was scheduled, a FAR was opened by User:Scott: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Covent Garden/archive1. I am looking at addressing his concerns, though they are vague, and he appears unwilling to expand on his concerns. As you were involved in the FAC in 2011 (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Covent Garden/archive1) would you mind looking at the review, and providing some guidance as to how to proceed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork, I'll take a look. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Correction to count

I hesitate to correct this myself, in case I've misunderstood something, but shouldn't this say "17 opt out", not 10? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike Christie. It said 17 lower down, but 10 at the top. I've fixed it now. Thanks for spotting it. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Misconduct

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How do you explain your conduct? How can be that it is not notable that 200 philosophers signed a letter against him? That is a large percentage of the profession. Or that he wrote 36 page response to the allegations? The people who keep reverting are Pogge's friends, and they are laughing at you. Pearce reverted 3 separate dditors who coorectly saw this was notable; it was in the chronicle the major source for professional academic news; damning affidivats have been released , pogge himself wrote a 36 page response, and 200 philosophers wrote a letter about his alleged misconduct! It just simply makes no sense that you would remove the very neutral well-sourced claims and side with intellectually dishonest trolls who are misreprestning thr nature of the sources and playing you for a fool. Eminent Jurist (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You'll note that besides myself (who merely added sources and restored the edits of others )there are 3 other editors favoring inclusion. That makes 4. Against, is just you and Pearce. Who knew an administrator got to count themselves as 3 votes? Must be nice!Eminent Jurist (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)!

And Pearce is a well-known friend of Pogge's; hence, he shouldn't even be editing the article to begin with. Go look at David Pearce's own Wikipedia page if you don't believe me. Eminent Jurist (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Eminent Jurist has started a discussion of this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Please unprotect Thomas Pogge, there is a strong consensus on the talk page of a half dozen editors and 200 philosophers voting for inclusion of the well-sourced information Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jane Gazzo article

Hi Sarah. Thanks for your note on the issue in the Jane Gazzo article. In general I agree with you and I've removed the material from the current article. It was originally in interviews with Jane Gazzo in Australian magazines and articles, so it was and is in public sight before I added it as a good thing about her life. I didn't know User:Satchett was Jane Gazzo. One never knows on the internet. When Satchett/Jane informed me, I took out the material as a courtesy and as a necessity. I had posted a question on the WP Admin noticeboard and the BLP noticeboard. I can't speak for other editors. I asked Jane to write to the Wikimedia Foundation and see if they will open an OTRS Ticket so that the lower levels of article history can be expunged since a casual user can look at prior versions of the page which will have the added material as a historical record. My original intent in adding the material from multiple public magazine sources was altruistic and in good faith. Very Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Good points, well taken. Perhaps as you suggest, more clarity would be expedient and useful. Bests and thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)