User talk:Timwi

Notice:
 * I will reply here. If you ask a question here, please check back regularly to see if I have replied (or add this page to your watchlist). I want my threads to be in the same place, because otherwise the comments will be scattered around and out of context.
 * Please feel free to leave messages in languages other than English, although I cannot guarantee that I will understand it unless it's in English, German, French, or Esperanto.
 * All my "User talk" pages on other Wikimedia projects redirect to here. This is to ensure that all the messages you people send me are collected in a central place where I can manage and archive them. Also I will receive a "You have new messages" notification on the English Wikipedia this way; I use all the other projects rather rarely. So, please leave your message here.

User talk:Timwi/Archive

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"hell-bent on destroying other people’s work"
This is the second personal attack you've made over the Battle for Dream Island article. I am meditating opening a discussion concerning your conduct at ANI if you don't dial it back. I also recommend reacquainting yourself with the reliable sourcing policy and the notabilty policy, among others. Fandom is user-generated content. Wikipedia is user-generated content. YouTube videos are of questionable value as reliable sources in most cases, and are almost never a basis for notability. Find two or three solid references in journalistic sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking to establish notability. I should not have to tell an administrator of 18 years' tenure about notability, reliable sourcing, or civility. As I mentioned on my talkpage, the best course is likely to be draftifying the article until it can be brought into compliance with policy, or deleted.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I am another administrator and I find your behavior concerning and out of touch. I have opened a thread on you at Administrators' noticeboard. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 06:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Battle for Dream Island for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle for Dream Island is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 06:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Turn in your badge
Hi - I'm not looking to give you a hard time, I'm certain that everything you've done in the last couple of days has been done in good faith. However - please read the thread about you at WP:AN. It won't be a fun read, but it's important. Your judgment, and/or familiarity with our guidelines has been called into question, and I don't see how that is compatible with your continued tenure as an admin. We don't have an easy route to de-sysopping someone, the only recourse is to Arbcom. I think that it would be a nice gesture if you were either to respond to the concerns there, or to request that your admin rights be removed. Sorry this isn't a nice message to receive; I didn't enjoy writing it. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  20:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Like, I am not trying to give you a hard time. But including myself, there are around 10 administrators now expressing concern with your actions in that AN thread. The thread has been open for close to two days now, and you have not commented on it at all, instead arguing with others at Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island. There is this thing called administrator accountability- Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. You may not be familiar with the concept; it might be after your time. Your lack of a response to the concerns raised at AN runs afoul of what is expected of administrators. At this point, if you do not respond to concerns soon, I will file a case looking over your actions in front of the Arbitration Committee. They may remove your administrative privileges if they believe you have acted in an unbecoming manner. There are two ways to avoid this: you can either attempt to address the concerns voiced by several users at the AN discussion, or you can do like Girth Summit says and resign your rights as an administrator. You can do this at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 22:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to respond at the WP:AN thread. I can't promise what any particular course of action will bring, but...  My guess is that if you were to revert your undelete and explain on the AN thread that you understand what the issue is and will review current policies, you'll probably get nothing beyond a WP:TROUT.  If this gets dragged to Arbcom, the best possible outcome I can see is a stern warning, but I think there's a decent chance you'll get desysopped for cause.  It doesn't have to go that way, but it's really up to you at this point. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I second RoySmith's request - please participate in the AN discussion. A pledge to acquaint yourself with current policies and to abide by the community's requirements for administrator accountability would be regarded with favor.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration case filed
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 16:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

A simple plea
I'm probably nuts for getting involved. I have learned from editors much wiser than me that the key to arbitration and for that matter the drama boards is "Don't". But I believe so strongly in the goodness and kindness of the community and the principle purpose of the encyclopedia. I hope you do too. Wikipedia is a diverse community and we need editors that have done such great work as you have to stay involved in the project. It would be easy to look at all the admins expressing their concerns on top of a host of non-admins giving their opinion about your actions as a mob ganging up on you but I implore you to look at it differently. You don't know me. I've never interacted with you before. I'm very new compared to most commenting here and I try to stay out of controversial issues like this but I see a need and I am boldly trying and convey to you this. It would be easy to be hurt. It would be easy to step away and never say another word. It would be easy to give up. And sometimes it may be appropriate to do these things. But I ask you to look at your journey here and tell me if you really feel it's come to an end and this should be how it ends. See because what I see is someone that has a lot to offer still. You have great edits still in you. You have articles needing to be created/edited and new impressionable editors that need guidance from someone that might have experience from long ago but experience that counts for something or should. You have knowledge, valuable knowledge, you can extend to others trying to find a niche here that benefits the encyclopedia. Yes, it may require a refresher in what's changed over the years. You will have to answer at Arbcom and explain your actions and it's always a good idea to apologize where you know you have made a mistake. You will have to live with the results of the Arbcom case but you can be an effective member of this community with or without being an admin. Too many have left, Timwi. I genuinely don't want that to be the case for you. So my question to you is if you feel you have anything left to offer? Do you see what I see? I hope you will consider what I've said and I hope you will see the advice of others here as them protecting the community/encyclopedia while also trying to retain/help an amazing editor in yourself. I appreciate and respect you and I hope you consider my plea. -- A Rose Wolf  21:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to endorse what has written above. I'd furthermore add that, on occasion, I have agreed with your comment that "Deleting an article that other people have worked on is objectively worse than keeping it and letting people find out about the topic. ... All that serves to do is give a massive middle finger to anyone trying to give something to the world, and produces an inferior encyclopedia with less coverage". However, the converse argument to that is that Wikipedia articles need to be fact checked and maintained by anyone in the world. The original editors for a topic 15 or 20 years ago may have moved on. Some may have passed away. Without truly independent sources, it's very difficult to write a definitive, trustworthy and authoritative account on one of the biggest websites in the world. In particular, fan sites have a tendency to agree with each other and get things wrong, as they're some distance from the original source; I found this when cleaning up articles like Echoes (Pink Floyd song) that what was presented in the respected book sources contradicted what fan sites said. Indeed, I have heard the counter-argument "I went on Wikipedia to look at 'x' and it was a load of rubbish, full of factual inaccuracies and seemingly written by a high-school dropout. Who writes this rubbish?" - and in those cases, it can be preferable to delete the article. User:Uncle G/On notability is the best essay I can recommend to read on the topic; it explains how notability works on a pretty straightforward level. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  00:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh User:ARoseWolf, I knew it had to be you before I scrolled all the way to your signature. Such a kind creature! Your light is a blessing this project scant deserves. I ask you to look at your journey here and tell me if you really feel it's come to an end and this should be how it ends. See because what I see is someone that has a lot to offer still. I legitimately teared up. User:Timwi, rigid rules machine is right! Communities change, and survive thereby. Rules enthusiasts and enforcers of standards have certainly attained considerable sway in this iteration of the community. NOTBURO and NOBIGDEAL could plausibly be marked historical. Here we are, the canonical tertiary source, scraped by Google for their own infoboxes. And still we have kind folk who believe in a human touch, like ARoseWolf here, and brave old User:Floquenbeam, advocating grace at the ArbCom case request named after you. It's still a good website to help out at when you feel like complying with decisions you may disagree with. On other days, other hobbies. Balance. Come back though? Sending love, Folly Mox (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

New motions at the Timwi case request
Arbitrators have proposed two motions at the Timwi case request, which you are a party to. Your thoughts and comments on these motions are welcome and you can make these in your statement section. You can view the motions at and. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * hasn't edited since 30 January; I don't know why.  Mini  apolis  23:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Answer: because I have a life outside of Wikipedia. — Timwi (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Reiterating my statement at Arbcom
Hi Timwi. First off, I'd like to introduce myself, I'm Dave or Worm That Turned, one of the arbitrators who sits on the current Arbitration Committee. I've been around a while, though not quite as long as yourself, so I do recall the vitriol that used to be spouted between inclusionism and deletionism, as well as the IAR "cowboy" administration methods.

I made a comment on the case page which I do think is important enough that I re-iterate that here. [T]hank you for responding. As you can see from my colleagues votes, one of our main policies for administrators these days is Adminship Accountablity. As you can see there, it is required that you monitor subsequent discussions and respond regarding your actions - you should be notified of any such discussions on your talk page, and I can see you were. If you do not believe you can hold yourself to this standard, I do request that you go to the Bureaucrat's noticeboard and request that your administrator right is removed. I'm sorry to say that the years of power imbalance between administrators and non-administrators has meant that there is a responsibility inherent in the role.

What this comes down to is your current responsibilities as an administrator, even assuming good faith (and yes, I believe individuals are AGFing, I don't believe people think you are actively trying to harm the encyclopedia), there are norms that you need to work within - or be able to explain why you are not. I've said a few times that this whole thing is a bit rushed, and that's because there is a whole issue of the difference in mindsets between some legacy administrators and the active editing community. In effect - you have a choice here. You can resign your tools and accept things have moved on, or you can persuade the community (and therefore the committee) that we won't get back to this point. Either option is fully viable, and I'd rather see the latter. I've also asked a couple of questions on the case request - how you got to the article, and whether or not you'd discussed it anywhere on or off wiki before making your decision.

I'm also quite happy to have a discussion regarding the philosophy of deleting and notability - and the balance of content creation versus maintenance and harm that can be done to individuals in the outside world. I believe that Wikipedia currently has that balance right. WormTT(talk) 10:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Timwi. I'm also an arbitrator, though I've been around a few years less than Dave here. I agree wholeheartedly with what Dave has written here. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration case request clerking
Hi Timwi, I'm Firefly, an Arbitration Committee clerk. Just letting you know that I moved your most recent comments at the case request to your specific section - in case requests, users should only comment in their own section, even when replying to other users' statements, or comments by Arbitrators. I realise this is quite different to how most venues at Wikipedia work! If you have any questions, please do ask. Thanks, firefly  ( t · c ) 18:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Technically, I do have a question, but I doubt that you have a satisfactory answer to it. Namely: Why aren’t you using a forum or literally anything that is even vaguely made for discussion threads? — Timwi (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I can answer that. Well, to an extent. The community has firmly rejected any form of simple to use discussion style for many years - I think WP:FLOW was the last attempt - so we make do with threaded discussion on wiki talk pages. As for Arbcom in particular, we have a bit of different situation, where you can only post in your own section. This is because at Arbcom, you're generally at the final point of dispute resolution and there is often a lot of bad blood and disagreements at that point and threaded discussion leads to a lot of edit conflicts and gets people more riled up. Instead, we force people to use their own section and reply. It's a little tough to get used to, but it is definitely a positive in the long run. WormTT(talk) 20:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for all of your hard work around here. Wikipedia, and the entire world, has changed in the past 20 or so years. 20 years ago we didn't all carry smartphones with us, and I wouldn't have imagined it either. The things these phones can do is truly astonishing. Some people like the "new world" and some don't.

20 years ago is a LONG time. 20 years ago (some from a computing perspective, since you are a programmer, and some from a general perspective):
 * We were using IE and Firefox instead of Chrome and Safari.
 * There were no other highly "relevant" architectures than X86. Heck, 64 bit computers were still relatively new back then. Some also remember when Intel and AMD came up with competing 64 bit specs, then AMD won because their's was completely backward compatable with x86 and Itanium was not....
 * Windows XP was still the most popular operating system.
 * C++ was a "new" language, it was like the "Rust" back then. LLVM didn't exist either and people didn't take Javascript seriously (People still don't, but thats a discussion for another day)
 * This song came out.
 * No YouTube
 * No Tiktok
 * Analog TV still existed
 * Bush was still the president.
 * 9/11 had just happened and was fresh in our minds

You get the idea....

But some things haven't changed. People still have to pay bills. And people still go to school, grow up, go to college, get married, work, etc... People also drop out, people lose their jobs, people divorce. People still fight, and people still have conflict. And sadly, people die. But on the flip side, new people are born. Countries are still in conflict, just like 20 years ago and almost the eternity of human history.

Wikipedia is similar, lots has changed, especially regarding notability guidelines, but at the core, the purpose of it remains the same as it did 20 years ago ..... which is  to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. And I think alot of people, even me, still think you can live up to that. Hopefully your actions show everyone else that is the case.

Regardless, we (or at least me) really really want you to stay..... We have an amazing team of arbitrators, and I think they will allow you to keep your tools but with a strong warning. It would be a good idea to heed the warning, and when you disagree with something, voice out your opinion, but make sure you follow all policies regarding admin tools. I know your pain, trust me. There are a small group of people that have disagreed in the past with what I do on enwiki, but we talk it out and we find a solution. If you think there is something wrong with the current system, there is nothing stopping you from starting a discussion to get community consensus. I really look up to the long term editors who have been editing for 15, or even 20 years, no matter how active they have been. So it saddens me to see drama. I hope you can resolve it. Rlink2 (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"everything gets deleted anyway"
In 2006, we grew to one million articles. Today, there are more than six million articles. I'm afraid that sentiment just does not hold up. Perhaps you could encourage your friend to use the Article wizard and/or review the WP:Tutorial. Article creation can be very difficult. My first attempts were deleted, so I edited in small ways until I was better at it. There are many ways to build the world's largest online encyclopedia besides article creation. Perhaps your friend could try some of those. Best, -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 17:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

An impolitic statement
Hi Timwi. I'm a former admin, desysopped several years ago for blatant disobedience to Arbcom. It was worth it, though not 100%. I'm not a political animal, but politics is the art of the possible.

I also have an inclusionist and a pro-IP userbox on my user page, both unpopular opinions these days. I would have a "no political userboxes and no declarations of religion!" one if I could find one; I still believe that's actually policy, but ... some of my remaining friends on this project fly political/religious flags on their user pages. So I am clearly out of step. A lot of editors also proclaim on their user pages that they work to rid the encyclopedia of unworthy articles. So here we are.

I love this project. I have been unable to leave it, and even to stop creating articles (now in my userspace only). I am horribly aware that no matter how many articles we have, we are neither "almost finished" building this encyclopedia nor able to fathom quite how much we lack. Partly this is a Dunning-Kruger thing (I hope I spelled that right): someone confident they have a good idea of what we should have articles on is showing lack of awareness of how much they, and anyone, doesn't know about. Even without getting into Asian, African, and scientific topics on which I have next to no education, look at this lot of red links on a topic I do know a bit about and that is hardly common knowledge. We're a uniquely encyclopedic encyclopedia project: all nations, all times, lots of gazeteerish stuff, and lots of stuff paper encyclopedias considered too low-brow (I think I wrote the first article on a Barbie doll, and the amusing thing was, someone else, also an admin as it happened, was writing it up simultaneously). I am strenuously opposed to attempts to get editors to identify themselves, either by their legal names or by demographic profile, because our diversity and kaleidoscopic combinations are Wikipedia's strength; that's the source of our breadth of expertise in things most editors won't even have heard of, as well as our ability to help each other with formatting, copy editing, style .... I hate the WMF's bad research and their efforts to label and out us all in order to check boxes of their designing and to promote their ideals of whose voices should be heard. I try very hard to judge my fellow editors by what they do and say here; but part of that is also respecting that this is a volunteer activity. I have reasons I must limit my activity here; others just have reasons they can't devote much time here.

But the flip side of all this is that we don't have moderators (or even talk software that would either be a horrible mess not fit for purposes such as posting tables or alternative lead images to an article talk page for discussion, or would need to be replaced and everybody relearn every couple of years, or more likely both), we have volunteers with a few extra buttons selected mainly for their cluefulness and the low likelihood they will do something that either hurts the community or damages the encyclopedia. I've met a lot of admins here, some long-time, some very recent, some I usually disagree with, some I admire a lot, and they work in very different areas, and almost all do more with the admin tools than I did (I stayed away from whole areas, and took too long to consider how to act in others). I tend to agree with the wisdom that the really good 'uns calm things down; but at the same time, some situations call for decisive action.

It's become a very bureaucratic project. All too often, what happens to an editor or an article depends on who turns up and shouts the loudest. In my opinion, based partly on seeing consensus and fashion change to and fro. But at its base, we have the unavoidable problem that each of us has a different definition of what's "garbage" unworthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia (or of a separate article). Comparing different-language Wikipedias and what they give an independent article to shows this up; it rapidly becomes apparent that it's not entirely a matter of more coverage of things within that linguistic sphere, nor even what editors have got around to writing up. I default to the position you've articulated: that someone taking the trouble to write up a subject should count for something. The trouble is, they may have wasted their effort: it may be a topic of interest only to fans (probably should be included in some broader article); it may already be covered under a different title; it may not actually have existed (we've had at least one editor using a gazeteer that misread maps and invented settlements from notations on them); the editor may be promoting something (I think we go horribly overboard in pursuit of paid editors and their work, but people paid to promote something have disproportionate time and incentive to write things up). We have to have some sort of guidelines for what to include. I think our system is beyond messy (the more I look at the special notability guidelines vs. general notability, and the more I participate at AfD, the messier it seems to be), and I think internet content is one of the areas where it works most poorly, because the sources tend to be evanescent and not to pass the smell test for reliability. But there has to be some boundary, or the encyclopedia will become bloated with bands formed last week, books nobody reviewed except on Goodreads, local council members in every country of the world, under-17 footballers with a bright future, etc. ... your list will be different from mine, and there are categories of article I don't think we should have. But this is the system we have, and admins have a certain amount of responsibility to uphold the rules, if only by being familiar enough with them to explain them to editors who are having problems with them, by knowing where we discuss the flaws of the system and using those venues, and avoiding throwing their weight around as if they're the decision makers around here. Admins aren't primarily police, but are expected to know the rules and guidelines pretty well, and to have the cluefulness to realize they, too, can be wrong. (I can think of several examples of articles an admin speedy deleted in ignorance; see above, we can't know how much we don't know, and sometimes the article creator did a very poor job.)

This got bleak as well as lengthy. I posted partly to offset the post above this (!) and probably prematurely; I ought to wait till the Arbcom case request is closed, if that's what's going to happen. But I wanted to say I appreciate your point of view, but you need to pick your battles and buttress all articles with reliable sources, because otherwise it ends in tears. How much you do here is very much up to you, but I hope you do continue as an admin and even IAR again; but you need to pick your battles and be able to make a good case, precisely because you are an admin. (Sententious enough?) Oh and I'm Rihan on IRC; we use Libera now, Freenode went over to the Dark Side. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

what a beautiful write up! You sound very intelligent (not sure if that's the right word) &mdash Python Drink (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Timwi
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 22:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

New administrator activity requirement
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Klingon Wikipedia
Hey! I am working on a video retrospective on Klingon Wikipedia. Would you be willing to interview about it? &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure! Feel free to contact me on Discord (Timwi#0551). Timwi (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Please vote in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election
Hello hello. I hope this message finds you well.

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election ends soon, please vote. At least one of the candidates is worthy of support. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
<div style="display: flex; align-items: center; min-height: 100px; padding: 1em; border: solid 3px #2B547E; background-color: #E6E6FA;"> Wishing Timwi a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee!   Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 11:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Bcdb
Template:Bcdb has been nominated for merging with Template:BCDB title. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 20:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Seamless branching


The article Seamless branching has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Seems to fail WP:GNG, no sources indicating otherwise."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tooncool64 (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello and hello@Tooncool64
 * I dpd it and added sources. Best wishes - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  09:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Fucking deletionists. Thank you Mushy Yank for your help. — Timwi (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Bcdb has been nominated for deletion
Along with BCDB title, Bcdb has been nominated for deletion. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Music drafts?
I was just curious about whether you were still working on your music-related drafts, like "List of songs whose title constitutes the entire lyrics", "List of songs over fifteen minutes in length", and "List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums", as 3 examples of such. I've moved all of these to draftspace in the meantime, since I'm also seeing a good chunk of edits by other users and IPs that would allow for such moves. Jalen Folf  (talk)  06:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not been working on those for years and had almost forgotten about them completely. Please feel free to move them to draft space so others can play with them and expand them. Thank you for your help and contributions!! Timwi (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Timwi/List of sets of unrelated songs with identical titles
I have returned that page moved to an article back to User:Timwi/List of sets of unrelated songs with identical titles as it has no references, and has not addressed any issues brought up in Articles for deletion/List of sets of unrelated songs with identical titles. It may be an ancient AFD, but the issues remain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You deletionists are the reason nobody wants to help expand Wikipedia anymore. — Timwi (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, I am an inclusionist. A deletionist would have deleted with with a G4 speedy delete. I just want to see some references to prove that other lists like this exist in the world outside of Wikipedia. Are you able to add some? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So you’ll only allow content that already exists. You’re preventing Wikipedia from growing, expanding, and providing anything new to the world. That’s deletionism, and it’s the reason people are no longer contributing anything new and why Wikipedia has been stagnant since 2010. I’m curious what you think puts you in the category of “inclusionist” but it sure ain’t your reasoning here. — Timwi (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)