User talk:Barbara (WVS)/Archive 4

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg None
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
 * Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news
 * IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
 * There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
 * It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration
 * A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous
 * In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Cite
I've cited and (for a particular angle) summarized your recent Signpost bit about the editathon survey, at my infrequent newsletter on [mostly] PoV threats to Wikipedia: On the Radar. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming Signpost gallery
In Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Gallery, is "price" a typo? Maybe supposed to say "prize"? Also, the link following the typo is Wiki Loves Africa 2017/photo essay/Glass in Swaziland, a nonexistent page. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been offline or working in the French Wikipedia and will take a look later. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  21:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

== June 20: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (and Pratt Women Wikipedia Design this Saturday June 16) ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive! Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
 * Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: NPPbarnstar SE.png. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: RR3217-0014 100 rubles USSR 1989 Gold avers.png, Swiss-Commemorative-Coin-1991-CHF-250-reverse.png, Coin of Kazakhstan 500Thinker averse.png, US-$1000-SC-1878-FR-346a-PROOF.jpg.
 * Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Signpost
The newest issue of the Signpost will be published by June 29, 2018. Barbara ✐ ✉  23:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 28
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 28, April – May 2018  Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
 * # 1Bib1Ref
 * New partners
 * Rock's Backpages
 * Invaluable
 * Termsoup
 * User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
 * Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Offline Editing for Wikipedia pages
Barbara:

I thought about the sandbox but I think I can only test one page at a time

I have the code for each major page of the structure saved as .doc files and can create html pages for them so that may be a way to test them

I have been working on some other projects and need to get back to Otis's project soon

thanks for posting and your kind words

Lew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis buttery (talk • contribs) 04:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I just hate to see someone like you who has drafted up about 40 new article pages off-wiki discouraged from adding content! I assume you have much to contribute and hope you aren't chased away by editors who want to watch your draft space. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  12:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Migration
Barbara, thanks for inputs. I'll get back to this in some days, out of office just now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Gogo Dodo
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
 * A request for comment closed with a consensus that the promising draft template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news
 * Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
 * Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon (Codemirror-icon.png) in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
 * IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous
 * Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thursday July 12: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ Jefferson Market Library
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Moved humour section
I moved the Signpost humor piece you started over to User:Barbara (WVS)/Television plot lines, making way for the new one as you. By the way your fictional project sounds reminiscent of WP: Requests for medication. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Sunday July 29: Annual Wiki-Picnic @ Prospect Park
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Barbara (WVS)/tv template
Template:Barbara (WVS)/tv template has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Le Deluge (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers. Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
 * June backlog drive


 * New technology, new rules
 * New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
 * Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
 * Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.


 * Editathons
 * Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Signpost
 * The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Midget professional wrestler
Was looking over your latest opus for The Signpost and of course Dwarf tossing took me right to Midget professional wrestler. Serendipity? Kismet? Fate? Or just everyday clairvoyance? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is slightly disturbing that we are starting to see the world in very similar ways. Irony just knocks me over sometimes. This next version of the humour article is taking on a life of its own but all I can do is shake my head. I don't think I'm very funny this time...but the topic just goes on and on and on and ....... Barbara ✐ ✉  03:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I too read the draft and it is hilarious. Expecially the chart. I laughed out loud at that. I am Pollyanna and you are Jeremiah. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It was definitely clairvoyance. Pro mud wrestler Dee Booher just popped up on the main page. Not a midget, though. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Sro23
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news
 * After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
 * Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news
 * The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

YGM
&#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   21:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * When I first started to edit WP and I was roaming around various article and editor talk pages, getting my feet wet, it struck me how often I found editors singlehandedly trying to fend off attacks from other editors. Many times the individual was new and the "others" were veterans. The newbies didn't know the ropes and the veterans didn't have concern for the real person behind the Username. I thought how good it would be if there was a group of editors (I planned to call them WikiKnights) that could provide assistance and a friendly voice so, at the very least, the lone editor didn't feel isolated and forgotten...so that there was a group that could get the newbies past this moment of stress and strife and help them move on to bigger and better things. I was too young and inexperienced to get it past the draft stage. What I envisioned was "the helpers" just showing up in the "conflict arena" and showing concern for the editing future of the bullied editor (who is most likely a newbie). Whatever "the issue is" would be of little importance compared to retaining the editor. Whatever "The issue" would be handled by the machinery of Wikipedia. What the "editor rescuers" would be most concerned with would be the possibility that the new editor will get chewed up in the machinery process, spit out and never seen again. I'm advocating that we don't need one more voice to handle the issue. Those voices are not rare. What is rare is a voice that speaks to the "bullied" editor with support and understanding.&#8213; Buster7   &#9742;   07:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't like the language of "bullying" used here, but otherwise I like this idea. I fear, though, that burnout may be a problem. EEng 07:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Having experienced this first hand, I must say that it sure felt like bullying at the time. It was only thru the guidance and conversational support at the article by a couple of "editor rescuers" that I didn't quit. When you're the one being admonished, it sure feels like a schoolyard clique that won't let you on the playground. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   21:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sure that I couldn't agree with you any more. It seems like things are more hostile now than ever before. Take a look at the talk page conversation below. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  21:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it can feel like bullying, but that's not the same as it being bullying. And the distinction's important, because if you take the position that the veteran editors are bullying the new editor (instead of just being... well... maybe brusque or something) you're going to put them on the defensive, and that won't help. EEng 22:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What we are discussing is rescuing editors. Rescuing them from what you might ask? Depressed.svg. It is quite intimidating to be confronted by some editors about some innocent novice mistake and maybe an administrator drops by to give the brusqueness some strength. When it comes to rescuing editors that are on the verge of leaving, the defensive position that needs support is that of the newbie. I don't worry about the defensive position of the veterans. Again, I resist getting in the middle of what the newbie has done, what mistake they have made or rule they have broken, why they are being chastised. That's a different valid discussion and completely independent of rescuing the editor. Guarantee: the editor that is being reprimanded feels bullied. In order to rescue him (or her) from that feeling, you need to sit down on the bench next to him (or her) and support their potential and their future as a Wikipedia editor. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   06:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Helping an editor involved in a dispute
This may not be the best place for this discussion but I know Barbara has interest in rescuing editors. Here are some suggestions to consider;
 * Offer a softer, more congenial explanation of the situation. More honey, less vinegar.
 * Motivate them to get past the hurdle. "There is so much more to WP than this minor predicament. Hang in there!"
 * Encourage them to stay calm and develop a collegial editing style. "Don't take it personally because it's not meant to be personal."
 * Support their potential, not necessarily their stance. They may be way off base but their potential is what is important...to them and to Wikipedia.
 * By example, show how to collaborate with the other editors rather than confronting them. This will provide an opening for the new editor to partner with established editors rather than argue with them.
 * Emphasize, in your messages, co-operating and working with other editors. This creates the awareness of the true Wikipedia collaborative environment and should offset any sense of competition that may be prevailing.
 * Don't take sides in a disagreement of opinion or in discussing the reason they are "in hot water".
 * &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   21:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't even begin to tell you how ironic this conversation is in light of my recent block. You are welcome to continue this discussion here as long as you would like. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  21:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for creating an article within the health and medical topic contrary to your topic ban, as you did at Mycoplasma iguanae. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. SilkTork (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand you may not have been clear that the health topic covers animals as well as humans, but I see no evidence of you having asked first, so I assume the creation of the Mycoplasma iguanae article was a test to see if it does include animals. It does because animal health and anatomy does merge with human health and anatomy in places, such as in Clitoris where both human and animal anatomy is discussed. If in doubt of the extent of your topic ban, it is better to ask first, and to link to such discussion when editing articles than to test the water by editing first. SilkTork (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of problems with what just happened.
 * One problem was that I was unable to even edit my talk page to respond.
 * Another problem is that I should have 'asked' first. How would I show that I asked first? Who would I ask?
 * I was not testing the waters.
 * I regularly edit and create articles about this genus of bacteria-as my editing history shows. I have not been editing articles about this genus of bacteria related to human health.
 * Barbara ✐ ✉  12:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This seems kind of drastic for writing about an iguana microbe. AFAIK the dispute that led to the tban never touched veterinary issues. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me see... you're saying a topic ban on A is violated by editing related to B because somewhere there's an article that somehow relates A to B? That's ridiculous. The topic ban (WP:Editing_restrictions) is "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed". Here's the entirety of the article:


 * Mycoplasma iguanae is a species of bacteria in the Mycoplasma genus. It is classified in the Bacteria domain, Firmicutes phylum, Mollicutes class, Mycoplasma order, and Mycoplasmataceae family. It has been recovered from abscesses of the spine of the green iguana, Iguana iguana.
 * (Except the taxobox is supposed to say Mycoplasma iguanae, not Barbara --- these stupid templates...) Seriously? You might as well say that she can't edit an article on rats because Black plague mentions that rats carry fleas that carry a bacillus that causes a human disease. How tenuous can the connection be? This is hair-trigger enough that I've opened an ANI thread on it. E<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * added a name= parameter for you so the taxobox renders as intended; the taxobox template family presumes that if no name is specified, the taxobox title = page title (minus namespace and parenthetical disambiguations where present)  AddWitty  NameHere  05:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I knew there was probably some way to do that, but I thought it was kind of amusing that it said Barbara so I didn't bother. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not really something most folks outside the taxobox-using areas would know, I suppose. Feel free to remove the parameter again for the sake of amusement/humour if you'd prefer. (Though as far as taxonomy goes, Barbara wouldn't be out of place on a taxobox: it's an actual genus of tortrix moths :P) AddWitty  NameHere  05:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Most folks are unaware that I actually have my own taxobox. See Wikipedia Signpost/2017-07-15/Humour Barbara ✐ ✉  12:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , a health and medical topic-ban covers human health. If it were to cover animal health in general, that would have to be specified at the time of the ban. Barbara created an article about a species of bacteria found in the spine of the green iguana. No obvious connection to human health. SarahSV (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware Barbara was topic-banned until now, so I may be missing context, but upon reviewing the ANI discussion and the article in question, this block seems unreasonable. Were there examples of problematic edits related to animal health? If so, were they to a degree that animal health was clearly within the scope of the topic ban that the community agreed to at ANI? I'm not seeing it. Also, saying that she created this article to test whether it would fall under her topic ban is a fairly strong assumption of bad faith, and I question whether that was warranted. — Earwig   talk  02:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging who closed the AN/I discussion in which the sanction was imposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've commented at the block review posted in the AN/I section . This is really ill-advised. Alex Shih (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Unblocked

 * Per the developing consensus at WP:ANI and here on this talk page, I have unblocked this account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Barbara ✐ ✉  12:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I followed the entire episode including the TB (which was unanimously supported including four admins). I generally have a high opinion of and I'm sure this block, which has now irrevocably stigmatised a top quality editor, was a momentary lapse of discretion. It happens to us all sometimes, including me - but I'm very careful when it comes to blocking established users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Responding to the ping. Thanks for the comments Kudpung. While I don't feel stigmatised as such, I do feel embarrassed that I didn't explain the block clearly enough that other folks would understand the rationale, and that I wasn't available to answer questions, and so allowed concern and doubt to escalate to the point where people are now discussing softening the Topic Ban to allow Barbara to edit veterinary medicine articles. As I point out in the ANI thread, a significant part of the reason for the ban was concern regarding Barbara's poor understanding of medicine related articles, and her introduction of errors into some of those articles. It would be very unfortunate if through my clumsiness Barbara were allowed to edit veterinary medicine articles as then she would need to be watched very carefully to ensure that any errors she introduced were found and removed. I feel Barbara has much to offer this project without straying into the medicine related areas which have historically given us cause for concern. SilkTork (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi SilkTork, I just want to point out that people are not discussing softening the topic ban, but clarifying it. That is, do people think it was originally intended (by those who enacted it by !voting, not by you) to cover veterinary topics too, and/or what is the most reasonable interpretation of the ban as worded. (Clause added, which I think better defines the scope of the discussion.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: I suspect Kudpung กุดผึ้ง was suggesting that it's Barbara (WVS) who was stigmatised by the block? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha! I thought Kudpung was looking at the criticism of my block, and suggesting that it was putting a stain on my reputation (I have accrued a few stains in the last couple of years so I don't think my reputation is quite what it was!). I confess that when concerns were initially being raised to me earlier this year about Barbara I considered then the negative impact on her involvement in the Visiting Scholar scheme. I was initially reluctant to pursue sanctions, and wished to work with Barbara to direct her away from areas of concern into safer territory. We discussed that possibility, but eventually Barbara declined. My feeling then (and now) is that the Topic Ban would have looked bad both for her and for the VS project; but her behaviour - continuing the same hounding that led to her User:Bfpage account being blocked (she is not block evading, this Barbara WVS account was created a few months after the Bfpage account was unblocked), and her problematic editing of health related articles was more of an overriding concern that any embarrassment to either the VS project or to Barbara herself.
 * And, yes, "clarifying" is a better term than "softening". That wording came about emotionally because of my concern that through mistakes I made, an editor with a history of unreliable edits in the areas of health would be allowed to edit veterinary medicine articles with potentially damaging consequences. Boing!'s comments in this incident has allowed me to reflect more soberly on what is happening, and I am more philosophic about events right now. When I returned online after being away for two days, I was rather dismayed at what had occurred, and did take on board a little too emotionally my responsibility for the errors that have led to this. SilkTork (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need worry about your own reputation - we all indelibly stained those the moment we became admins ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And now my block/unblock has turned into a discussion that may end in being banned from all articles related to Biology. Barbara ✐ ✉  13:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I emailed you a suggestion earlier - don't know if you got it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll just add that, right now, all that is happening is a discussion to clarify the scope of the topic ban (which I think was the only way forward on the "What next?" question). Before anyone gets involved in anything beyond that, you should just wait and see how it turns out. I'm sure it's frustrating, but a few days of patience now is surely better than possible further confrontation later. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * actually, the comment above from 8/3 is not an expression of frustration but rather a request for clarification. I look at talk page discussions and ANI discussions as a means to measure the distress/concerns of the other editors. Since concern with editing biology articles was expressed, editing in that area may be a problem. You see, even reversing a block has created a context for future bans and blocks. All the concerns and questions raised during this most recent ANI discussion will now be used a measure of my attitude and skill. All the concerns about my skill (with no diffs) has set the tone for further discussions regarding my ability to edit in areas of interest and education. It's not that I think that 'everyone' is out to get me-of course not! The stage continues to be set to question my ability to contribute. And my behavior - if it no longer exists, why does it continue to be brought up? What I am suggesting is this: why would I ever think I could ever edit or create bacteria articles from this day forward without an editor thinking I am gaming the system or introducing grave errors? Just because it has been determined by consensus that my editing of a bacterium article was 'okay' doesn't mean I can continue to edit in bacteriology since that could be seen as 'testing the limits'. If an editor has expressed concerns about my skill in editing biology articles, why would I edit biology articles? That would most certainly be seen as pushing the limits and be brought up during any future discussions about my topic ban. Without question, this most recent ANI discussion will be used as 'evidence' against the removal of my topic ban in the future. It's not looking good no matter how much I change my behavior or increase my skill. The damage is done. Though I firmly believe that these consequences are real, I can't believe that it was the intention of to further confound the removal or even the application of more restrictive topic bans. The whole ordeal has worked out well for everyone except me. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉  13:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't answer all those questions, as all I can really do is evaluate the consensus, which I intend to do later today. And it hasn't actually all worked out yet! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Consensus
I've closed the discussion about clarifying the topic ban, and my assessment is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Close rationale/consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time, energy, attention and skill in handling this discussion. Your advice is always welcome and appreciated. I don't really understand the complexities of discussions like this and you brought much needed clarity. The Very Best of Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  20:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Barbara, as you know, Boing! has closed the section about the topic ban. The upshot is that you're topic banned from "human health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed". That includes no editing of non-human sections in human-health articles. Otherwise, you're free to write about non-human animal health, non-human animal medicine, and non-human animal anatomy.


 * You're also banned from interacting with Flyer, which includes not using the notification system to ping or thank her. It would be best not to mention her name again. If you have to refer to the interaction ban, you can simply say there is an interaction ban and that you can't go into detail. She has said that she won't be looking at your edits for the most part, so you don't have to feel you're under scrutiny. SilkTork has agreed that it would be wise for him not to be involved in sanctioning you again.


 * Having said that, it's important that you don't test the ban's boundaries. For example, you created this sandbox page on 11 July with a WHO citation, and on 4 August this Signpost page with health-related links in the template. The latter was copied from an earlier page, but the earlier creation was after the ban too. Those are frankly odd pages to create while you're under a health topic ban, especially during an AN/I discussion about the ban's scope.


 * The ban means that you should make no human-health edits anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Please read WP:TBAN: "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase 'broadly construed'". It covers edit summaries, your user and talk page, and any sandboxes. Therefore, please replace the WHO citation in your sandbox with a non-health citation. I don't want to interfere with the next Signpost edition, but please don't write jokes related to human health for them again.


 * If you can show that you've respected the ban, and that you're making good edits in other areas, there's a chance that it will be lifted in future. But any testing of boundaries will delay that and might lead to a block. If you're unsure whether an edit falls within the ban, either refrain from making the edit or ask your mentor or an admin, but don't go ahead if in doubt. I hope this is clear, and please feel free to ask about anything that isn't. SarahSV (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Monarch butterfly migration
The article Monarch butterfly migration you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Monarch butterfly migration for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand. I left a message on your talk page four hours before your note here that I withdrew the nomination. I thought the nomination failed because I withdrew it. I appreciate your review, none the less. When my topic ban is lifted, I will be able to return to editing the article. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  11:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I closed it at your request. Either you, when allowed, or any other editor who feels like it, is welcome to take up the reins and I'll resume the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Barbara, there is no need for you to withdraw from editing that article. As explained above, the consensus of the topic-ban discussion was that you're allowed to edit articles about animals, including animal health. SarahSV (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Before I resume editing that article, I have to assess it to see if contains information-the butterfly is toxic. I need to go over it in detail along with its references to see if such information is contained in the article. I understand the consensus, it is the opinion of many editors that I am pushing the limits or gaming the system. Avoiding editing topics that have to do with toxicity is probably the best at this point. Thank you for your comments on my talk page. Just because I am 'allowed' to edit articles about insects doesn't mean I should. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  15:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you discussed this with ? There is nothing in that article that should stop you from editing it. That it might be toxic to humans is not an issue (toxic if eaten? do people eat these butterflies?), unless there's a sentence that says so; in which case don't add that material. You have to be careful, but not so careful that you're constantly anxious. SarahSV (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with SV here, Barbara. You should not be worried about editing this article to address the issues that were identified in the GA review, as long as you avoid matters pertaining to human health. That should be easy. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you and . The butterfly contains a toxic chemical but I'd like to make sure that none of the references contain any health/medical information or words. I had a subpage that contained a reference that I had saved to study a referencing format and that was very close to being considered as being inappropriate. Your advice is appreciated. Since I am not sure at this point of the review if editing is ok and have my doubts, I prefer not to edit the article. I am not anxious, just concerned that I am perceived as gaming the system, pointy and pushing the limits. Now I have experienced a block. I am editing on another Wikipedia and so I am able to still enjoy my "hobby" and contribute to other Wikimedia projects. Also, I have been making good edits in other areas, but that did not seem to enter into the discussion. I can't ask any editor if something is appropriate without violating my topic ban. How would that even work? Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉  21:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Barbara, you are surely right to be cautious, but on the matter of the GAN, you have been assured by two admins that it'll be fine, so it is safe to proceed. More relevant and direct reassurance could hardly be provided. In addition, a modest amount of good and careful editing will provide you with a record which you can use in some months' time to request the eventual lifting of your topic ban. I hope you'll resume the GAN. Note however that I will be out of office quite a bit in the next few weeks. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What you are saying makes complete sense. So while you are gone, I'll comb through the article making sure that there aren't issues. I'll check the refs and other things. I have already done good and careful editing since my topic ban. Perhaps no one has taken a look to see that. That is fine. I will be able to appeal my topic ban some time in the future. Thanks for reassurance! You are very kind. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  00:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Barbara, you wrote above: "I can't ask any editor if something is appropriate without violating my topic ban." The one exception to the topic ban is that you're allowed to ask whether particular articles or areas are covered by it. You can ask your mentor, any admin or any experienced editor. SarahSV (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Signpost humor
Really sad to see you go. Would you object to us using User:Barbara (WVS)/Television plot lines for the next issue? (Please ping when you reply, thanks) — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 22:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

IP block exempt
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How does something like this happen and what can I do to make sure it doesn't happen again? Did I do something wrong? Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  17:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Check your mail. On another note, are you going to be able to come up with an alternative humour article this month's Signpost, or shall I scrap the page this month? As I will be leaving at the end of the month, the future ob The Signpost is uncertain unless  takes over, and in any case he is away until the end of the month. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will be taking a break this month. I'm having trouble reviving my sense of humour. I'm one edit shy of a block and I would prefer to work off the en:Wikipedia for a time. I very much enjoy writing for the Signpost and look forward to contributing again in the future. Perhaps writing for the Signpost should be exempt from a topic ban but that will have to be a discussion at some future time by other editors. Bans may have a chilling effect on possible future contributions by other editors who are in the same situation. My edits have never been done with the intention of gaming the system, being pointy, pushing the limits or being disruptive. I can see that other editors may not see it that way at this time. Thanks for all that you've done to help me out of this latest block. The Very Best Of Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  18:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

General response to page watchers
It has never been my aim to foster divisiveness or controversy. I have experienced two blocks within sixteen days of each other and though each one was resolved quickly, it is quite jarring. I have limited my editing on en:Wikipedia to help others who may have taken on the role of helping me and the community through these events. I don't like to create a situation where others have to take their time to observe or comment on my editing. Limiting my editing may bring some calm to the events surrounding my recent blocks and discussions that have taken place on the recent ANI debates and on various talk pages.

I am not confused, anxious or nervous. I understand that my topic ban is broadly construed. I understand completely that I 'may' edit in those areas that consensus has allowed. But why would I? If it disturbed enough editors who endorsed my block then that is enough for me. If I edited in areas that editors think is inappropriate then I would be pointy. There are editors who I greatly respect. Their opinions hold a lot of weight in my eyes. If I receive a kindly warning with the best of intentions from such folks, I will respond respectfully to their cautions and warnings. But assurances from two editors is simply that. There are no assurances that the other 4998 active editors would see things the same way. Another discussion at ANI regarding my editing could easily expand my topic ban, get me blocked and even trigger an Arbcom investigation. I see no other alternatives at this point. Barbara ✐ ✉  13:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 15 – 21 August 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Latest message for Collaboration team newsletter; Growth team's newsletter invite
Hello

Sorry to use English if that's not your favorite language.

You are receiving this message because you were reading the Collaboration team newsletter.

The Collaboration team doesn't longer exists. That team was working on building features that encourage collaboration. This is the latest message for that newsletter.

The Growth Team, formed in July 2018, supports some former Collaboration projects. The Growth Team's main objective is to ease new editors' first steps on wikis, through software changes. You can discover all objectives and missions of the Growth team on its page.

If you wish to be informed about Growth team's updates about easing new users first steps, you can subscribe to the new list to get updates. The first message from Growth –with a call for feedback on a new project– will be posted in a few days!

If you have questions or you want to share experiences made on your wiki about new users' first steps, please post them on the team talk page, in any language.

On behalf of the Growth team, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 29
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 29, June – July 2018 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
 * New partners
 * Economic & Political Weekly–10 accounts
 * Wikimania
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

August 29: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg None
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news
 * Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
 * Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says . An example is   which is now.
 * Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Question
Hi again. This is strictly out of curiosity; with regards to this notice you posted, have you figured out how you ended up with my name, or that article? If you know, then when you have a moment, can you let me know? Thanks - wolf 05:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh surely. I was monitoring large scale edits via Wikipedia Hatnote/Listen to Wikipedia site. I noticed a large edit and went to the diff page to see the edit. What I think happened is that I mistook you for the editor who made the large change of content when in fact you corrected/reverted the inappropriate change. I hope this explanation is good. If not, please continue the discussion here. I appreciate your question and I feel better telling you how this happened. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  18:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, that sound like simple (and harlmless) mistake made in good faith. Kind of thing that happens to all of us at one time or another. So, no problem, it's resolved. Thanks for letting me know.
 * Oh, and as it turns out, your "mistake" turned me on to that problem edit, from a known problematic editor. He created a new page by copy & paste and I wasn't aware because the new page was not on my watchlist. So, because of you, I was able to fix that, and take the issue up with that editor and other editors dealing with the issue. So thanks. Happy editing! Cheers - wolf 02:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Not an attack page in my view
Hi Barbara. Please would you read my detailed response to the post at the Teahouse which you've also replied to. I really don't agree at all with your assessment that User:AWCzarnik/sandbox is an attack page, so would ask you politely to reconsider and remove the CSD G10 template yourself. I spent a good hour assessing this article and writing a detailed reply to their Teahouse request for help and genuinely feel the editor is trying to write about a legal case which meets WP:CASES - but has gone about it in a rather clumsy manner, especially as they were so involved in the case. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am glad you found that the article could be 'redeemed' and I would be glad to withdraw the template. I'll write more later. Someone has already removed the template. I resist nominating pages for deletion because I like building an encyclopedia. If you can rescue this article that is a wonderful thing. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  21:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Barbara. I'll do my best to help the editor. It's not yet even a draft - just a sandbox. In the end it was me who reverted your template - but I do appreciate you were acting in Wikipedia's best interests. We can't expect everyone to respond instantly, but I didn't want the extra hassle of having to get a deleted page reinstated, so felt I had to act. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are quite gracious. I never freak out over reversions to what I do and I am glad you feel comfortable doing so. I am glad the article wasn't speedily deleted. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  16:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Userfy
Hi Barbara. In case you were wondering where it had got to, I have just moved Userr:Barbara (WVS)/sandbox/table to User:Barbara (WVS)/sandbox/table I'm hoping the extra r was a typo and this was meant for userspace.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.


 * Project news
 * The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
 * As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.


 * There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See New pages patrol/Coordination for more info to see if you can help out.


 * Other
 * A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.


 * Moving to Draft and Page Mover
 * Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
 * If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
 * Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
 * The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
 * The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

September 26: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)