User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 36

FA mentor request
Hi Vanamonde93, hope you're doing well - and sorry for doing a repeat of Nosebagbear's message above

I was really pleased to see 1986 enlargement of the European Communities passed GA relatively quickly just now, and I'd love to get it through FA as well. This being my first FA, I thought I'd seek advice on that before going for it, though, and your mentor listing shows you as having an interest in recent political history, which this definitely is!

If you have any thoughts on it, even if it's just "yeah, this looks like it'd have a decent shot" or "no chance at all, it needs a lot more work", I'd really appreciate hearing them

All the best! Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 21:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That generally looks like a very solid piece of work. The one thing that stands out to me is a rather heavy use of primary sources. Given that you are writing about sometimes obscure legislative processes, primary sources are going to need to play a part in the article, but I think it's worth checking for instances where you could replace them, and to ensure that you're only using them for factual detail, and are relying on secondary sources for framing things and for making analytical statements. After that, I'd say go for it. Nice work. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/NoMachine (2nd nomination)
Hi Vanamonde93. You closed Articles for deletion/NoMachine (2nd nomination) as "redirect to NX technology". Would you explain with examples how "the article as written violates NPOV, and specifically NOTPROMO, almost to the point where CSD#G11 would apply"? To comply with NPOV, the article could be improved by including negative commentary about NoMachine such as the "Cons" section of the Business.com article. I reviewed the article and do not see a violation of NOTPROMO once negative commentary is included. Cunard (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * NPOV isn't just about including negative information, it's about not giving undue weight to positive information that no indpendent source has covered. As written, the article is full of puffery from their website. Had this been purged, and the article pruned to a bare-minimum stub, I would have closed as "keep"; but I explicitly said in my closure that that was still an option. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Interest in your editing work
Hi Vanamonde93,

Hope you are well. If you'll oblige my reaching out, I'm a student doing some research for a summer internship related to improving content safety online. The company I'm interning with is trying to keep the web free of misinformation. We are hoping to learn from dedicated Wikipedia editors about their motivations to spend time doing editing work online (so that we can motivate others to do the same on other platforms). I saw that you are fairly active with edits; would you be willing to chat with me about your work for about ~20 min one day? If you prefer I can give you my questions in writing, too.

Thanks for considering! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LailaAtTrustLab (talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but at the moment I don't have enough information about your organization to be willing to discuss anything off-wiki. A short statement about my work is available on my userpage. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand, and apologies for both my late response + lack of context earlier this week. I work at Trust Lab, which was co-founded by former trust and safety leadership at Google and YouTube. Here are website links: https://www.trustlab.com/, https://www.linkedin.com/company/trust-lab/, and our cofounders are Shankar Ponnekanti, Tom Siegel, and Benji Loney, all of whom can also be found publicly on LinkedIn as well. We are relatively early stage so the website is a bit sparse and should be fully live in another week or two. I can definitely appreciate the concern about responding to questions off Wikipedia when you don't know much about us. Would you mind if I sent you a few specific questions about your Wikipedia experience here via your Talk page? We are trying to create better technology to mitigate issues like misinformation and hate speech and are interested in a crowdsourced model; that's why we are trying to learn from passionate Wikipedia editors aged 18 or older. We ran an analysis of certain Wikipedia pages and randomly identified users who had done a lot of edits to reach out to. No pressure at all to respond if you're not comfortable; I really appreciate you letting me know about your concerns! LailaAtTrustLab (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to answer some questions about my work here on my talk page. I do not really have the time to get into very long and involved discussions. You do realize your website has virtually no usable information, right? The "About us" link doesn't even exist yet. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have softblocked due to promotional username violation. Hopefully, a minor hitch only. El_C 17:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Atari Punk Console
A mistake was made in the final summary of Articles for deletion/Atari Punk Console. Two people agreed to merge into 555 timer IC article.

See my comment at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Atari_Punk_Console.

• Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 09:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read my summary more carefully. I said there was consensus on merging and redirecting, but not consensus on the target, and so that would have to be resolved through discussion on the talk page. You need to initiate such a discussion. I am not changing my summary, and have no opinion on the target. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Recently you have closed the Bag of Holding deletion discussion. While I don't quite agree with your verdict, I wanted to thank you for doing this generally thankles job. Especially I wanted to say thanks that you took the time to explain your decision, which is often not done, so that folks like me can understand the reasoning. Daranios (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for Carlos Castillo Armas, "about a controversial character in Guatemalan history. Castillo Armas was a military officer exiled during the Guatemalan Revolution, who then led a rebel force armed and funded by the CIA to topple the Guatemalan government in 1954. He was President for three years before being assassinated."! - What do you think about this nomination? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It looks really good; thanks for helping pull it together. I know next to nothing about opera, though, so I don't know if my participation would add anything... Vanamonde (Talk) 14:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is my first meeting with the topic of Featured topics, - I think there's support and no oppose, no wonder as the article were written by Brian Boulton, highest quality guaranteed, - but I have no idea who would close it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 * Thanks,, much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Orlando Bosch
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Orlando Bosch you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Orlando Bosch
The article Orlando Bosch you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Orlando Bosch for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Red Phoenix
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Euryalus • SQL
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg GB fan
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news
 * There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
 * Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
 * Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
 * There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

24.47.240.38
If you are so smart and passionate, perhaps you should know the subject before asking top delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.240.38 (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 24.47.240.38, I honestly have no idea what you are referring to. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Orlando Bosch
The article Orlando Bosch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Orlando Bosch for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

MEDrs revert
Hi, I removed much of the content on 2020_novel_bunyavirus_outbreak whilst Afding it as unsourced medical content, do you think it would be justified to revert to the one sentence which was the only verifiable content. My understanding was that the restoring editor needs to add MEDRS citations when it is removed on that basis, I left a note on the talk page but I would appreciate your input as an experienced user. Cheers PainProf (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * With the qualifier that I am not an expert on medical articles: my understanding is that reliable news media sources are acceptable for the social and economic aspects of a medical topic, but not for the scientific aspects. The article may be pared down with that in mind. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I will ask the user to revert, and adds MEDRS before including those claims. PainProf (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

What to do?
Hey, I saw your name popup here, so decided to contact you. I have been recently hounded by Grufo, and I posted about this on ANI but no one responded. Basically, Grufo has followed me around on 10 different articles they've never edited before and undone my changes in whole or in part.

The user is edit warring on Rape in Islamic law to restore material added by an indef blocked user. In the last message on the talk page, Grufo makes no content-related justification, instead says I will not go into details, because discussing with Vice regent is exhausting and I do not have the time now, before making personal attacks on me. Grufo also made another personal attack a few hours ago, for which they were warned by an admin.

Can you advise me on what to do next? Talk page discussions aren't productive with someone who refuses to talk and makes personal attacks.VR talk  18:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, really should not be speculating about anyone's motivations (see WP:ASPERSIONS) but aside from a few poorly-judged comments I'm seeing this as fundamentally a content dispute. I do not have either the time or the inclination to explore the sources in depth to determine if there's any source misuse going on. I would recommend going to DRN. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What about user behavior? Are my concerns that I'm being followed around (WP:HOUND) valid? If so, what should I do in that case?VR talk  18:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Following an editor as such is not a problem. Following with an intent to cause distress is a problem. Determining whether that is happening here requires determining whether Grufo's concerns with your edits are valid, and as I said before, I do not have the time to make that determination. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand you're busy. I believe my edits valid, is there anything I can do to show that? Or just wait for someone to respond on the ANI?VR talk  01:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for someone to investigate on ANI, or go to DRN. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Eric Rosen
Hello!

You recently deleted the Eric Rosen (chess player) page, and I wanted to have a bit of a follow-up about that. I have read and understand the reasoning you gave for deletion, but I would like to discuss it a bit more in-depth. Several users who have a clear grasp and understanding of the rules in question (i.e. User:Roman Spinner) weighed in with a "Keep" vote. In my understanding, the AfD space is about gaining consensus on an article's deletion before deleting it (essentially "innocent before proven guilty"), but I don't see that having happened here. Obviously I am a relative newbie when it comes to these things, so if you could point me to a page that explains where I'm going wrong here it would be much appreciated. Thanks! AviationFreak 💬 21:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, consensus is built on strengths of arguments, not just on numbers. The argument that he was notable because he won a championship was significantly weakened by the fact that it was a school championship. The press coverage was entirely local. The number of citations in an article (also referred to by someone who was arguing to keep) is really quite irrelevant, because it's the quality of those citations that matters. And arguing for notability based just on youtube views doesn't carry much weight either; a hundred thousand views doesn't indicate much these days, and while the WP:ENT argument isn't unreasonable, it's not strong enough to overcome all the opinions in favor of deletion. In sum, there's not really anything major you're misunderstanding, except perhaps that we often rely on the notability criteria as written, and don't stretch them beyond that. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Goulburn Valley Seconds Eighteens Football Association.
Hi, I am really disappointed with what you have done to months of research work I have put into the both the GVFA and GVSEFA sites, compiling months of valuable grand final history from 1888 to 1930 and you go and delete it because you think it's not newsworthy". This really is a despicable act to do without discussing with me how to improve the site. How on earth has this improved the site ?

Your have also deleted the site - Goulburn Valley Second Eighteens Football Association in the process. There was heaps of valuable history citations and links to back up each and every entry.

Why would you do such a thing ?

I am really disappointed with your actions.

I am a local in the North East / Goulburn Valley Victoria region and have got very positive feedback from the initial history information I loaded and you go and delete it. I think my research standards are are invaluable and all backed up with citations and would appreciate your response why you took such actions.

Thanks, Justin Kelly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Kelly (talk • contribs)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but many locally important topics are found not to meet our standards for notability. Morever, nothing has been deleted; the article has merely been redirected to a different title, and all the material is easily recovered from the history of those articles. Please do not restore it at the moment, because I redirected the article after a deletion discussion. I suggest you find enough references to show that the association meets our basic notability guidelines for organizations, write a draft article in your userspace, and then use the articles for creation process to create it. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Who made you the decider of what is relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raemike0 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am an administrator, and closing deletion discussions is one of the things administrators do. If you disagree with the outcome of that discussion, though, you need to find evidence that the subject of that article meets our notability standards. Under no circumstances should you edit-war over the closure. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Proving Anti Hindu bias on the page Anti Hindu Semtiments
Any authour who speaks about Genocides of Hindus by Islamic invaders isnt "reliable" for Wikipedia. The reason is as simple as that the Marxist Historians will never talk about the gory history and what isnt from Marxists will not be allowed on Wikipedia, Thus provong Wikipedia's role in 'suppresion' of information regarding pogroms against Hindus even at pages particularly designed to reflect Anti Hindu sentiments. Congrats. Mr IndianCotton (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have issues with our guideline about reliable sources, the place to take that up is at the village pump, not in a rant on my talk page. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Revision Delete request
This edit on Stone pelting in India introduced BLP violations on ex-AAP councillor Tahir Hussain. Please also see Tahir Hussain (politician). SerChevalerie (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed, per WP:IAR, for anyone watching. The user has been warned about discretionary sanctions before; a trip to AE seems warranted. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have done the needful. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding DYK Franz-Peter Weixler
Hi, I have removed the self-publishing source (BOD books) as references both from article and the hook and added it as a publication. Please have a look. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬  19:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated as per your latest suggestion ~ Amkgp  💬  19:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Franz-Peter Weixler
Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syria national football team results 2009
You closed this AFD a few days ago, but have not executed the close ie the pages have not been redirected... GiantSnowman 14:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That was intentional; there wasn't sufficient discussion to determine what the aggregated titles should be, and they didn't all exist, meaning I could not perform the redirects. The onus to do that is on the OP and whoever else cared strongly enough to support that proposal. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Standard naming convention is eg England national football team results (or England national football team results (2000–19) if the history is to be broken down) - so we need:


 * Syria national football team results
 * Oman national football team results
 * Qatar national football team results
 * Saudi Arabia national football team results
 * Turkmenistan national football team results
 * Kazakhstan national football team results


 * All of which already exist... GiantSnowman 14:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but as with most "merge" closures, I don't see why I shouldn't let the nominator handle this. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your ping didn't work btw. can you resolve please? GiantSnowman 14:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotcha covered! KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 21:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Speeches of Narendra Modi
Please see my reply to your comment over at Talk:Speeches of Narendra Modi. Thanks. DTM (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

New User
Vanamonde84, account recently created with very similar name to you, thought i'd let you know in case it amounts to anything. Regards, Zindor (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Orlando Bosch
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Babri Masjid
Please would you consider moving the heading What article is about what so that the section includes your post of 16:47, 28 August 2020 and my reply. Talk page guidance makes me extremely reluctant to put my heading above your comment, whereas it is perfectly OK for you to do it with my agreement.

Regarding the issue of which articles I think lack neutrality - I will answer this another day, under a different heading. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you asking, but I think it's in the right place, actually; the comment you link here was in reference to the "replacement" mosque in the lead, and should stay there. I'm happy to reiterate anything I said there in any other discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were


 * Free Hong Kong flag.svg Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
 * 🇮🇩HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Wishing Vanamonde93 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Megan Barris  (Lets talk📧)  00:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, that's appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Eddie891
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg SQL

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
 * A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
 * A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration
 * A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
 * An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Adminship request
Hello


 * I have been a user on Wikipedia for a long time now. I wanted to acquire adminship to stop vandalism on particular pages that contain topics which are extremely communal in our country but are protected by extended protection. I request you to please nominate me as I gone through the Rfa guidelines and I think I am capable of being an Admin.

Thank you! Superbsic (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , being an administrator on Wikipedia requires substantial experience with one or more areas in which administrators work, and substantial knowledge of our basic policies and guidelines. With one week's tenure and 25 edits, I'm afraid you're rather far from having that experience. I suggest you find some topics you are interested in writing about, and work on improving them using good sources. Don't worry about adminship. If you have the right sort of background, other users will look to nominate you of their own accord when you've been here long enough. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And as a follow-up, if you persist in adding egregious BLP violations like this one, your chances of being indefinitely blocked are high, and your chances of becoming an admin are nonexistent. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarify
I saw this and this comment of yours. My proposals were in good faith and I took time to carefully craft them - if you feel they're too long I can trim them further. I am still familiarizing myself with the process of RfCs, so errors can happen. If you have any suggestions on how I should edit/discuss differently, please leave me a message.VR talk 16:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say they were not, I was pointing out what they looked like, in the context of the history of that discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 '''Wishing Vanamonde93 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes!''' ◊ PRAHLAD balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

RfA Flight Candidates
Hi Vanamonde. As someone who frequently serves as a nominator at RfA I was wondering if you had anyone on tap who might want to join in on the RfA flight in a couple weeks? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking in; unfortunately, I do not. The number of people I have failed to persuade to run far exceeds those that have been willing, and there's no one willing at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk about some true words . Thanks for the response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Aurora: Beyond Equality
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Operation PBFortune scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Operation PBFortune has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 27 August 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/August 27, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I reviewed the blurb when it was written post-FAC, and it looks good. I'll keep an eye on teh article, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the article "about an abortive attempt by the US government to overthrow the Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz. It was a prelude to the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, an episode of major importance to US-Latin America relations. I have dredged through virtually all of the substantive English secondary source material, and some of the Spanish material, too."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, ! Vanamonde (Talk) 15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Every once in a while, I have a TFA as well, happy that it was also a tribute to Brian, in great collaboration, fine Main page, and see also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're most welcome. I'm sorry you've to deal with that crap. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ricardo Morales (FBI informant)
Hello! Your submission of Ricardo Morales (FBI informant) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmmmm
I have no wish to pick a fight with good people like you.

FWIW, I think that Cassianto and Hal333 will end up at ArbCom sooner rather than later. We obviously disagree on how to handle this, or avoid it, and actually I'd like to know your views on that. A search of the admin board archives for them (and SchroCat) yields much evidence of doing basically good things but in a bad way, which is something we definitely struggle to handle as a community. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes two of us...I was rather annoyed about AE, not because we disagreed, but because you overruled me and the others. But I meant what I said at your talk page re: respect for what you do, and I am not one to bear a grudge over a genuine difference in judgement. I've been aware of the infobox wars and Cassianto and SchroCat's drama board presence for a long time, just because it's so...loud. I agree they do good work (I've reviewed at least a couple of FACs for SchroCat, possibly more; he's done the same for me; I know his skills as a writer are valuable to Wikipedia). But when someone disagrees with (either of) them they get treated like dirt, and when that someone is also pushing the envelope with respect to behavioral norms, it becomes a conflagration very quickly, and a drain on everyone's productivity, their own included. We don't want to indef any of them, because we know it doesn't help the behavioral issue and would be a loss to Wikipedia. We don't want to do nothing, because these conflicts (it's with HAL333 et al today; it'll be someone else tomorrow) are consuming editor time, which is our most precious resource. Hence my approach, of removing them from sequentially larger areas of conflict until the remaining disruption is manageable. SchroCat is abusing the one-click-archiver? Well, he shouldn't archive things on that page any more. HAL333 and Cassianto keep arguing for no reason? An IBAN seems indicated. etc. None of these represent permanent solutions; they are all treating the symptom; but I think the only permanent solution is some internal recalibration by the protagonists, and this is the next best thing. I know many people will see the dispute differently, and that's okay. Just my two cents. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 14:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I can absolutely understand how you see this as "overruling", though it was not intended as such. I apologise for this, and for any resultant prolonging of the underlying problem. I think we should probably give some thought to writing guidance for this kind of thing, but maybe it's not common enough to warrant it.
 * For the avoidance of doubt, I would have no problem at all with taking the I-82-I stuff inside the hat and spinning the discussions of SchroCat and the rest into a separate AE with parties notified. Maybe that's me being ridiculously bureaucratic, I don't know. I am not convinced that AE is the best venue for this one because of the number of parties and the incredible persistence of this issue over time.
 * I honestly hadn't thought about the point about picking them off one by one when there are unambiguous infractions. That makes sense to me, though I'd still rather see it in the context of its own AE - though again that may be wrong.
 * Basically this is the vested contributor problem, isn't it? And we have always handled that really badly. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree we've always struggled with the vested contributor problem, and there really isn't a silver bullet for it. My approach certainly isn't, it just represents what I think is the closest approximation. As I've already said, I think you were acting in good faith, but the effect your closure had was to overrule us; not just because it closed the discussion, but because it throws into doubt whether any administrator can now take discretionary action against those editors in reaction to the edits discussed at AE. Yes, I think a new AE discussion would be far too bureaucratic; involved editors commenting at AE are explicitly subject to sanctions, everyone arguing about infoboxes is subject to sanctions, going through a bunch of paperwork to repeat the conclusions we had already come to seems not just silly, but a deterrent to effective dispute resolution. There's precedent; you may not have seen it, but this discussion sanctioned eleven editors, including the one being reported and the one who reported him. If we were not at ARCA I'd ask you again to reopen the discussion, or amend your closure to say you were not assessing consensus with respect to other editors. But that's water under the bridge now. At this point I'd just like ARBCOM to say that a single admin cannot prohibit others from implementing DS (which would be common sense, but is an interpretation of ambiguous wording), and then we can move on from there. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , wow, now I had not seen that. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ARBIPA
Template:ARBIPA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Ricardo Morales (intelligence agent)
— Maile (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

RfCs
Hi Vanamonde: as you've seen, we've been trying the RfC process on the MEK page, but keeps complaining about each closing that doesn't go his way to the point that the last two have been re-opened and overturned (even with  quitting Wikipedia altogether as a result). What are your thoughts on this please? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Do I need to add that the first closure was deemed by the admin having the most experience with this page as being closed improperly (another admin had the same idea, too). The result of the second one changed after it was determined Stefka Bulgaria had inserted things which could not be found in the given sources. The latter probably requires a warning or like. -- M h hossein   talk 13:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The responses for that are here and here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in haggling about this. I may not be a fan of how most RfC closures are treated on that page, but anyone is entitled to challenge a closure unless they're being actively disruptive by doing so, and Mhhossein isn't yet. I will examine issues of failed verifiability in due course. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Sept 2020 AE
Vanamonde93, did you see SPECIFICO's already under an two AE warnings for behavior (I just added one)? And did you see the BLP/N discussion about Aziz Ansari I linked to? This and the misgendering are Gender DS violations. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw that, but issuing a block when the misgendering was struck three days ago doesn't sit right with me. I do wish I'd been aware of the full context earlier. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Even though he's lying? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that what I think is appropriate to do is biased, but I think it's important for me to voice it. I would like to see an indeff topic ban from sex and gender topics specifically for lying.  The misogynistic personal attacks towards editors and the misogyny towards women who make sexual misconduct allegations are the influencing factors, but the most toxic behavior to the community is the lying and manipulation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, please file a full AE request against SPECIFICO, and if the problematic behavior extends to areas from which you are TBANNED, find another editor willing to discuss those areas. I have looked at the totality of the current dispute, and am not likely to change my mind. A full investigation of SPECIFICO's behavior is out of scope. I also find it slightly concerning that you felt the need to leave me four messages here rather than keeping the conversation to AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * May I add that third comment to my AE response? I do want it there. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have closed the AE discussion, and I do not see what purpose it would have served. There are times when it is best to let go of a specific conflict, and I rather think this might be one of those times for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Castillo Armas painting deletion
 : P Thinker78 (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Kolkata Suburban Railway
Hi, we're in the middle of a DYK review and the nominator requested a revdel. Would you be able to handle the revdel? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)