User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 12

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. 16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and a real-life connection!
First, thanks for closing my requested move at Talk:Dan Cronin! Second, I took a look at your user page and noticed that you're from UChicago. I studied at the College in 2010–2013, so we might have crossed paths. Pleasure to meet you on-wiki! Edge3 (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Edge3 Ohai! I am pretty sure we did cross paths at least once or twice, at a party perhaps? Did you ever play Humans vs Zombies? It's not every day I see someone from RL here on wikispace! Mostly I'm jealous that you're still living in the windy city I hope to make it back there soon myself. I hear it's just getting that crisp in the air and that it's about to snow... Pittsburgh is a lot more rain and a lot less fun, lol. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sadly no, I didn't do Humans vs. Zombies, but I remember a few of my friends telling me how fun it was! My main activities were Triple Helix and Blackstone House Council. We probably met at some point; it's a small world in Hyde Park, after all! We did just get our first sleet in Chicago yesterday, so winter is definitely around the corner lol. If you're ever in town, I'd be happy to meet up! We don't often get to meet fellow Wikipedians in RL. Edge3 (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 15:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Heed the 3 revert rule or risk getting barred
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BrandonTRA (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The key difference is that consensus is in favor of not including the unreliable source. If you continue to revert, you will pass the 3RR before anyone else. That's why consensus is an important tool in building the encyclopedia. We must work together to write these articles, and continually reintroducing content when multiple other users disagree is an example of why the 3RR exists. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Vlach language in Serbia&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 01:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Refactored discussion of what is appropriate on article talk

 * a person's capacity for pregnancy is a medical condition that is dependent upon biological sex, and it's definitely not "a disease". Regardless of what the folks over at reddit.com/r/childfree may think about the matter. This made me lol. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally inappropriate comment here. Your "lolz" against some reddit sub has no bearing on, what should be, a straight forward article move. Maneesh (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:Why do you care? and WP:Don't be officious. My two line comment does not impede any closer's ability to evaluate the consensus of this discussion. If you had not responded at all, it would have had essentially zero effect. And it will have even less of an effect once I collapse this thread. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the two essays you cite more carefully before you use them to excuse your behavior. "...harmlessly opinionated statements in other people's userspace..." "If a user is contributing well to articles, why do you care how good or bad their userspace pages look?". Maneesh (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Maneesh: Moving this here per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. I was citing the spirit of these essays, they are not PAGs and do not need to be read as a wikilawyer would. The pertinent line in my opinion is As long as that user makes good contributions to the article space, and their interactions with other users are polite, why do you care what else they do on Wikipedia, or why they're here? See also Don%27t be a jerk and WP:NOTBURO. You appear to disagree, that's fine. I'm now done talking about this matter, you may reply if you wish. I will not.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

AfDs etc.
I noticed it looks like you have some familiarity with LondonIP in other DS topics, and I haven't really run into them before. Do you have a quick summary of what's been going on with them? I mostly hang around fringe and agricultural subjects nowadays, but after some conversation on their talk page, they're definitely setting off some red flags in terms of tone/behavior, especially the whole don't threaten me projecting comments. Definitely getting a chip on their shoulder vibe at least, so just curious how widespread this has been. KoA (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please use email templates if you are communicating off-wiki. If I am being accused of something, I ought to know. LondonIP (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Who said anyone was communicating off-wiki? It seems as though you may be assuming bad faith in this situation. Something I have warned you about in the past. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Abraham&#32; on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 03:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

VIIT
"Agree VIIT is the more common term and the one used among experts." I think you mean "VITT". :) — Omegatron (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hahaha yeeeep. Classic slick fingered move :) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Using SPS on BLPs is very limited
I was going through the archives to confirm a memory of something and came across this Talk:Pierre Kory/Archive 1 where it sounds like you misunderstood my IMO important point. First for clarification, I was aware that the author was Michael Capuzzo and not Kory. My point was that per WP:BLPSPS we cannot used self published sources to make claims about living persons unless WP:ABOUTSELF applies which means among other things it cannot involve claims about third parties. I tried to explain this clearly applies in the case of Capuzzo since whoever he is, I'm confident he is not Kory nor his parents so ABOUTSELF doesn't come in to it and if his article was self published which it looked to be, it's excluded completely. I think less people get confused about this although I was concerned from that thread not everyone understood even this point. However as an additional followup to emphasise the point and try and reduce future confusion I tried to explain it would apply even if it was Kory himself publishing such details (say on a personal website or blog). My explanation was apparently without success in your case and I didn't notice your followup. This is something that confuses more people since they incorrectly think since if it's Kory publishing something about himself it might be okay which is true but they forget it cannot be okay if he's publishing something about family members who might still be living. As a regular at BLPN, I consider it important editors understand our usage of self published sources for information about living persons is intentionally very limited so feel it important to followup in case you're still confused about our strong limitations on the usage of self published sources hope you don't mind. Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see where the confusion happened. I get what you're saying. My understanding of WP:BLPSPS is that it does not necessarily apply to non-contentious material, as with all non-contentious material looser sourcing restrictions apply. But now I see that the description is quite clear, that SPS should not be used for any details about BLPs which are not the source. You are free to remove the content from the article if it's still there, I don't think the bit about his parents is particularly important enough to worry ourselves over. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
There is currently a discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding behaviour of another editor. You're mentioned, though not by name, in coverage of personal attacks upon you. The thread is Maneesh. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I was going to probably put a small comment in there as well. I would describe the behavior Maneesh is exhibiting as "battlegrounding" more than anything. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular, , and for closing the most difficult conversations and for  for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
 * 1) Revision of standard question 1 to Special thanks to  for help with implementation.
 * 2) A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
 * 3) Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to and  for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
 * 1) An option for people to run for temporary adminship ( proposal, discussion, & close )
 * 2) An optional election process ( proposal & discussion and close review & re-close )

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months. This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned. 01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia
Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny Associate Professor Hanyang University If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The mess with the cover-up article.
First of all, not trying to be a prick here. Really. I came because you do appear to have the ability to look at things from the other guy's point-of-view. Feel free to tell me to get lost. Just to put the shoe on the other foot, suppose that there were a close move discussion on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. The discussion was close, and someone came along and moved it to Alleged investigations into the origin of COVID-19 on the grounds that the WHO investigation was not really an investigation, because the investigators were denied access to raw data and the head said the conclusion was reached under Chinese pressure. Then the closer immediately AfD'd it, calling the article an embarrassment for the above reasons, regardless of how much sourcing treated the WHO study as an investigation. Suppose further that the community agreed that the latter title was not a reasonable title for a Wikipedia article.

What, in your opinion, be a reasonable remedy? Adoring nanny (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you coming over to chat, and I want to take your question at face value. But before I do that, I also want to start out by saying there is a fundamental difference, because no one is saying it wasn't an investigation at all. They merely disagree about how effective/thorough it was. Whereas a cover-up is a negative thing by its very nature, an investigation is a neutral term to start with. But, I still want to take your question at face value. My answer would be that if a consensus of editors agree to the AfD, then it doesn't matter what I think about the name, even if I disagree with the outcome of the AfD or the name change, I would respect it. I might put a DRV if I think the consensus was misread, but not just if I disagreed with the outcome. If I disagreed with the reading of the rename consensus (which I actually might, in this instance), then I would put it up to Move Review. But the AfD trumps the move. If it were me, I would instead choose to work on a different more neutrally worded draft that would be more appealing to wikipedia's consensus palate, whether I agreed with that consensus or not.I think the Move Review of the rename close is fair and completely in order. I think it's entirely justified to think the closer was a little biased in their wording. I think if I had closed it, I would have said "no consensus." That being said, I also think their close is within the realm of reasonable, enough that I wouldn't personally move review it. I also think it ultimately won't matter because the article will likely be merged/redirected, so I wouldn't have wasted my time doing the MR. It's become a move review out of spite, not out of effective wiki-making. It will help no one, and that is why it should probably be procedurally closed.All of which to say, I think time would be better spent on making a version of this article that is closer to NPOV, and that more people can agree upon. Rather than tying up the bureaucracy in a way that will ultimately fail and make everyone more unhappy and disillusioned than when they started. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-bCIA_vyVc&t=45s What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?]

Saw on your infobox you're a Futurama fan, and this quote seemed relevant :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol, an excellent reference for an excellent moment. Thank you for this reminder of a great episode in a great series. That will start to re-syndicate on Adult Swim this month!!! —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Alas I'm over in the UK, where it's not on Netflix/Prime so I'm stuck with my DVD copies! Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)