User talk:Alanscottwalker

User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive1

User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive2

User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive3

I started using one-click-archiver in 2017, it labeled the new page with a Capital 'A':

User talk:Alanscottwalker/Archive 1

		The Original Barnstar
		Neat fact, I think it's worth a barnstar. Good job. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for caring about Jessye Norman and her article, borrowing her smile --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for participating in last May's RfC (Request for Comment).

I wish to invite you to join a new one with the specific question of:

Should our lead sentence describe Bettelheim as a "self-proclaimed psychologist"?

RfC on lead sentence

started: Feb. 25, 2020

Any time and effort you wish to spend on this will be most appreciated. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving that paragraph into chronological order - I had intended to do that while I was editing that section, thought I had, in fact! Glad you picked it up. Tvoz/talk 00:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

I enjoyed having the TFA yesterday, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk)

Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thank you for your considered statements over the last couple weeks at Talk:United States Electoral College. I wanted to expand on a string of Congressional reform addressing state mal-apportionment in federal elections. I noted previously, efforts to curb state majority abuses included three Acts of Congress passing both House and Senate in an effort to shape political communities that resembled the underlying populations geographically, socially, and ideologically (the culturally-related basket of religion, ethnic practice, and politics): contiguity (1842), and compactness (1872), including equal population (1911) (but only for a few sessions at a time, and never enforced).

If we expand the observation from listing Acts of Congress to exploring who was sponsoring them, the topic takes on an interesting aspect of US political intellectual history. The 1842 legislation was sponsored by Jacksonian Democrats, the 1872 by Lincoln Republicans, and the 1911 by Republican and Democratic Progressives. Wiki-fencing on Talk pages notwithstanding, I understand the impulse to the National Popular Vote generally to be aligned with that intellectual tradition. To take another page from the same democratizing impulse, if the states abuse their Constitutional duty to elect US Senators by their legislatures for thirty consecutive years as they did in the Gilded Age, then the American people will pass a Constitutional Amendment taking the abused trust away from the bad actors subverting their democratic republic.

So it is, that if the states do not refrain from the egregious anti-democratic practice of winner-take-all selection of their presidential electors, I expect that in due time the American people will take away the state legislature role in choosing a president, in one way or another. I will regret the loss of political community that might follow uniform standards for redistricting by equal population, contiguous boundaries, compact shapes, and respecting political boundaries aligned with the state geography. But the voting people are sovereign, at the very least, even if the non-voting populations of the voters' neighbors who are immigrants, young, and transients are left out of the national equation the future.

But whenever a persistent political majority takes form of the same opinion, it must be allowed to prevail, or we lose the American experiment that the London Economist last week noted is the political reason that Americans respect themselves and why others around the globe in turn respect them. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per history, it rather seems inertia will prevail, unless there is sustained political crises in multiple states over multiple elections (we maybe in the middle of such, but perhaps not and over-time the College will continue to most often produce outcomes most everyone can live with and endure, regardless of whatever principles some people see as being served or not). The College was and is a compromise, and it seems hardly surprising that in every generation the compromise will be questioned, and that talk of recalibration will arise, this is especially so in that ideas of what or who a democracy encompasses, change. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your help with Jerome Kohl! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main page today, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Former NARA employee here. One certificate is for public inspection as mandated by law - that is what is uploaded. There is a difference between a certificate of vote and ascertainment hence why my edit says "certificate of vote." However, since in the immediate one is available to the public - there is no real difference in the change made. Furthermore, I was simply replacing a certificate of vote from 2012 from one from 2020, hardly a controversial edit. Please refrain from making subtle jabs at other users. I am fully up to speed on the American electoral process. Cliffmore (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cliffmore, Hi. Sorry, I did not think the image was controversial, I thought it was redundant, uninformative of the Process, and ultimately misleading in its redundancy. And since the two Certificates are different, created at different times in the process with different info, etc., and both events recently proved to be controversial, in addition to essential to the links in the chain from popular vote to inauguration, it makes sense in the Process section to illustrate the process with both certificates. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Appreciate your clarification --Cliffmore (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lenten Rose

Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Alanscottwalker. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

Nice to see your datestamp in support. Trust is especially valuable when given by contributors with whom I interact regularly. Please help me by keeping sharp eyes on my foibles as they arise. I'm happy to learn something new. BusterD (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

---

Hi Alanscottwalker! Could you please help me understand why you reverted my bot's edit? My bot's edit was to delete a duplicated author from a reference. I'm not sure what "removal of TOC" means, as my bot's edit did not remove a table of contents. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been some kind of glitch, because when I went through it at the time the TOC had disappeared and I scrolled through history to see it was the bot edit but now the history does not show that, so, now, all I can say is, apologies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The TOC issue was discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Missing TOC? Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alan, thanks for your work on Slave states and free states, but I want to clarify the edit of mine you've reverted a couple of times. The Emancipation Proclamation did not end the institution of slavery in areas under Confederate control. It just freed the slaves currently held there — an action enforced by Union forces as they moved through the south. ("...all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State...shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.") Slavery as an 'institution' continued until it was legally eliminated by individual states or by the 13th Amendment. That's one reason former Confederate states were required to ratify the 13th as a condition of readmission.

For example, if someone who owned a slave in a non-emancipated place (like, say, Kentucky, Delaware, or New Orleans) moved them to a place covered by the Proclamation (say, Alabama or Georgia), that slave was still a slave under the law. That's why the individual state changes and 13th Amendment were necessary: to end the institution itself. The Proclamation was the equivalent of a governor commuting the sentences of everyone on his state's Death Row: It protects everyone currently facing a death sentence, but it doesn't ban the death penalty or prevent future people from being sentenced to death. Flaggingwill (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced. The states were under matial law, and martial law ended slavery -- it is also practically certain that should there have arisen a second Dred Scott v. Sandford (of claimed enslaved moving between states) that the courts would never make that horrific mistake again, after the war they just went through. ~~ Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's not accurate. Neither the Proclamation nor Union military control "ended slavery" anywhere, legally speaking. Black leaders, as well as Northern Republicans, expressed fears that as soon as Union forces returned home, freedmen would be re-enslaved so long as slavery was still on the books as legal. (From the Toledo Blade: "When the rebellion is suppressed, the same Constitution will be operative as before. Although every Slave in the South be emancipated, the institution in its legal sense would not be destroyed. The Slaves, if they remained in the States, could all be reenslaved as soon as the army that liberated them was removed.") The Proclamation had been made in the narrow context of Lincoln's war powers, and those powers would at some point end.

The Wade–Davis manifesto in 1864 specifically complained that Lincoln's Reconstruction plan "does not secure the abolition of Slavery; for the proclamation of freedom merely professed to free certain slaves, while it recognized the institution. Every constitution of the rebel States at the outbreak of the rebellion may be adopted without the change of a letter, for none of them contravene that proclamation." The whole point of each of the state actions in this article, as well as the 13th, was to remedy the fact that slavery 'as an institution' was still legal until it was made illegal by state or federal legislation. A few months before Lincoln was shot, his Secretary of State William Seward made a speech that made it very clear slavery in the Confederate states would still be a live matter at the war's end:

While the rebels continue to wage war against the Government of the United States, the military measures affecting Slavery, which have been adopted from necessity, to bring the war to a speedy and successful end, will be continued, except so far as practical experience shall show that they can be modified advantageously, with a view to the same end. When the insurgents shall have disbanded their armies, and laid down their arms, the war will instantly cease, and all the war measures then existing, including those which affect Slavery, will cease also, and all the moral, economical and political questions, as well questions affecting Slavery as others which shall then be existing between individuals and States and the Federal Government, whether they arose before the civil war began, or whether they grew out of it, will, by force of the Constitution, pass over to the arbitrament of courts of law, and to the councils of legislation.

And here's his Interior Secretary John P. Usher around the same time:

The moment they submit to the Government and support the Constitution the war must cease, an a matter of course, and peace will be the natural result. Then the question as to whether the President's Proclamation has in fact freed the slaves of the people of the South will come up for decision. It is a question of law, and can be decided only by the courts. The President believes the Proclamation is constitutional and lawful, and that it has effected all it was intended to effect, but if it should turn out, as it may, that the Proclamation does not in fact free all the slaves, the law must take its course over the President's Proclamation, for we are a law-abiding people.

Flaggingwill (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thesis is still not convincing. Martial law did end slavery, and you can quibble about it not being civil law, but that does not matter - it was the law of the land and it did end slavery. And Lincoln insisted that for a state to ever get out of being under martial law it had to affrim the EP. It seems like you contend the Emancipation Proclamation was illegal, and the courts would have found it illegal, but that is a pipe dream. And of course no court did find the Emancipation Proclamation illegal. Indeed, people argued for more beyond martial law, but that does not mean that martial law where it was in effect did not end slavery - in law, and ´´in fact´´ it did. (Nor did martial law end when the war ended, in some ways it only just began.) By law, martial law ended slavery where it was in effect, or as predicted there would have been nothing to be in court to fight over afterward, were it ever to get to court. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John H. Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arkansas City.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

• Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
• The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

---

Do you know how many times these parties have been to AE over the last decade? [1] An AE filing often results in an immediate retaliatory filing, and so much mud slinging that it's very hard for the uninvolved to determine who's in the wrong. El C, is that a fair summary of the dynamic? Jehochman ^Talk 18:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. It's an exceptionally challenging subject matter for the non-expert to orient themselves in. And on the WP:APL side of WP:ARBEE, there's also WP:APLRS to contend with. El_C 18:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One editor has appear on 76 AE archive pages, and the other on 110 pages. They could be AE's most frequent customers. I think it's time to come up with a more systematic solution rather than continuing this revolving door. Jehochman ^Talk 18:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jehochman, you're here (and at the RfAA [2]) falsely insinuating that there have been 110 AE filings against me. Of course you don't say that explicitly ... because it's so blatantly false that if you did say it explicitly people would laugh at you and you yourself could be sanctioned for WP:ASPERSIONS. So instead, being careful, you only INSINUATE it. ... It's still blatantly false. Yes, there's passing mentions of me at WP:AE [3], or me commenting on someone else's report [4], or even some sock puppets trying to sling mud at me [5] [6] and getting themselves blocked in the process. If you've been editing in controversial areas for 12 years the number of times you get mentioned adds up. And here's another false insinuation - most of these mentions don't even have anything to do with Eastern Europe. They're about Donald Trump, or Race and Intelligence, or Economics, or Mexican history or some other unrelated topic. You either know this, in which case your "some statistics" comment is made entirely in bad faith, or you don't know this, which means you haven't even bothered to do a basic fact check before spouting off.

I also see that you're doing the same type of mealy mouthed insinuation here. Buddy? If you think that I'm guilty of "falsifying history in Eastern Europe for nationalistic ends" then have the guts to say that outright and name me by name, rather than doing this cowardly hint-hint-whisper-whisper crap on people's talk pages. And guess what? At that point, when you actually make the accusation explicitly, I will ask you to back it up with diffs. And if you can't provide such diffs, then *I* will report you myself for WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA. If you can't do that then stop with this "everybody's talking about it" Trumpian nonsense. Volunteer Marek 19:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No, Jehochman, the editor who has made most trips to AE is actually.... Icewhiz, you know, the guy who you're busy carrying water for right now. Volunteer Marek 19:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's been banned. So you're saying that a lot of trips to AE correlates with users being banned. Are you sure you want to point out that correlation? Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bang head against table. No J, no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I believe others already pointed out to you how ... specious (at best) your argument is [7]. Volunteer Marek 20:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this conversation should be here. What issue has AE not been able to deal with -- if the issue is whether someone should be banned from the project or a topic, put in your filing to Arbcom, who should be banned, why, diffs and what steps have been taken to secure the ban prior to Arbcom. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AE has had trouble dealing with some of the editors who are its most frequent customers. No process is going to handle every situation perfectly. This looks like an exceptional case where delegation to AE probably won't solve the problem. The problems are outlined in the four threads I linked. I will respect your wish to end this. You asked and I answered. Thank you for your indulgence and please have the last word if you wish. Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for catching the missing "an" in my description of the second inaugural address. Please explain your other change, which was adding }} to the end of the block quote. I don't understand what it did.Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

I believe you are being disruptive, although at this point I'm not willing to say that you are doing so deliberately. I respect your right to express your opinion, but not repeatedly and not in the wrong place. I don't plan to repeat myself about the "malformed" issue. I think you have made your point quite clearly. The resolution isn't for you and me to repeatedly disagree with each other. I'll respectfully ask you to take that issue to an administrators' board. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the discussion of malformation and the misleading nature of the RfC belongs in the RfC, not elsewhere. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

---

Hi Alanscottwalker,

In case you missed it, you added here Roosevelt issuing Executive Order 8802, but unfortunately ref name="Leuchtenburg" appears not to have been defined, so it was removed by another editor.

Best, == Peter NYC (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

starting an article on the Arrest of User:Pessimist2006? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is an article under a different name now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The name in the infobox should reflect the same common name used for the article title. The |other_names= parameter should be used for names not in common use, such as tribute names that are not used on station signs, schedules, etc. See 30th Street Station and South Station for typical usage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

• Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
• When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

---

As a major editor of the article this may be of interest. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
• Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.

Technical news

• The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
• A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.

Technical news

• Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
• The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
• An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.

---

Please see my entry, which I've titled "End date disputed?", on the Talk page of American Civil War. I am also asking CaptainEek to look at it. Thanks.Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a further comment.Maurice Magnus (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just, fyi, I usually watch where I comment so no need for this extra step. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Messenger award
		Thank you for trying to get the message out there at DYK! Bruxton (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

• user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.

---

Hello. Just popping in to suggest that you might consider expanding your recent Talk:V post into a little essay/checklist.

:::::The thing is, the onus, or responsibility, does not first arise when there is a dispute, it arose at the time an author's first article addition, including at article creation. The principle for adding content is that it improves the pedia, we judge what improves the pedia by whether it accords with editing policies and guidelines: an irrevancy does not improve the pedia, a mangled context does not improve the pedia, a misplaced context does not improve the pedia, a lack of context does not improve the pedia, an overstated or misunderstood source does not improve the pedia, a trivia does not improve the pedia, a POV does not improve the pedia, a CVIO does not improve the pedia, an original research does not improve the pedia, etc. The onus, the responsibility, never moves, it is always on the author. No author is perfect or can be perfect but they do have to work to improve the pedia, and show it to the world, in their work.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

My personal, pessimistic observation is that important articles are increasingly overwhelmed by inexperienced or ill-informed editors who consider the extent of their personal knowledge to be the extent of all human knowledge. Lots of bad content is being promoted without enough research into the broader sources that would ensure useful NPOV narratives for our readers. One telltale sign comes in articles relating to current events where we see citations to local news media or third-tier broadcast reports rather than globally recognized journalism or academic sources. SPECIFICO talk 13:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it was ever thus, that is the nature of the beast, we can't expect people to know how to write an encyclopedia or Wikipedia, we must still continue to insist that they do it right. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see it getting quite a bit worse in articles relating to current events, perhaps because of media silos that reinforce some editors' casual conclusion that they are well enough informed to differentiate valid content from POV or NOTNEWS. Also, the number of politics-related articles has proliferated to such an extent that the relatively small number of well-informed editors is spread too thin. They are easily overwhelmed by perhaps well-intentioned, perhaps partisan, newcomers. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

Valereee

Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
• An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

• The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
• Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
• Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
• Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

---

Let me tell you more about my most recent edit. Instead of changing "Congress" to "the House of Representatives," I considered changing "By late 1864" to "In 1864," and leaving it as "Congress." But I have no evidence that Lincoln lobbied the Senate as he did the House. I have the Holzer and Gabbard book, and the pages cited do not mention the Senate. Neither does another relevant essay in the book.

Also, the book is a collection of essays, and the footnote should cite the essays and then say "in Holzer and Gabbard." I didn't make that edit, because I am not familiar with the abbreviated form of the footnote, and I'd have to redo the footnote in an unabbreviated form. If you'd like to work on this, the essay that includes 172-174 is Belz, Herman, "The Constitution, the Amendment Process, and the Abolition of Slavery." But equally relevant is Vorenberg, Michael, "The Thirteenth Amendment Enacted," pp. 180-182. The entire essay is on 180-194; the entire Belz essay is on 160-179. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I simplified it, the aside is better noted in other articles. As general context (not for this Civil War article) Lincoln was very much keyed to election promises/mandates, he ran on non-expansion of slavery in 1860 and would not bend on that when he won, even to avert the civil war; he ran on the 13th amendment in 1864, and pursued it when he won in November. Also, Lincoln generally ascribed to an older Whiggish institutional philosophy where the law making lead was in the people's legislature, while the executive was more suggestive in that regard (whereas, the suppression of the rebellion power was in the executive). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment at Talk:American Civil War - Wikipedia. I posted it moments before CaptainEek edited the article. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
• An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

• The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
• The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
• The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
• Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

---

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Soldiers' Home, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Camp Douglas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
• Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
• Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news

• The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

• Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
• A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
• The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous

• An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
• You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
• An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
• Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

---

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 1933 Chicago World´s Fair and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 15#1933 Chicago World´s Fair until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
• An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
• AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
• You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
• Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.

---

Thanks again for catching my error; I had forgotten Booth's comment. But any reader who was unfamiliar with the comment or had forgotten it might be confused by Wikipedia first quoting Lincoln advocating Black suffrage and then stating that Booth reacted by wanting to kill Lincoln for supporting Black citizenship. I propose that we change "became determined to kill Lincoln for supporting citizenship for blacks. Booth is reported to have remarked: 'That is the last speech he will ever make'" to "and reacted by saying, 'That means nigger citizenship. Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.'" I would footnote that to Ronald White's A. Lincoln, p. 672. Would you go along with that? Wikipedia quotes "nigger" where appropriate, as I think it is here. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I think, it's clear and direct the way it is, and already sourced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, I explained why the version you prefer is unclear. To repeat, it jumps without explanation from Lincoln's advocating Black suffrage to Booth's opposition to Black citizenship. You have not attempted to dispute that, but only to assert without offering a reason that it is clear.

Second, you imply that my version is unclear, which is patently false, and you do not explain why it is unclear.

Therefore, I will revert back to my version. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that editing wars are frowned upon, so I will not undo your change now. But I intend to pursue this, after I figure out the arbitration procedure, which I've never used. In light of the fact that I offer reasons for my version and you rudely do not, I expect to prevail. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1st, I reverted to the longtstanding version, you made a mistake by reverting back, see BRD. If you don't understand my reasons you can ask and discuss.

2nd: Any reader with a modicum of sense, can see the connection between voting and citzenship. (both in the way the sentences are structured and in substance)

3rd: A simple declarative statement is always more clear. What we are to do here is summarize, simply and straitforwardly. (the point there is simply that someone wanted to kill him for giving that speech, and that's because voting means citizenship, the details of the speech and Booth belong in other articles.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(drive-by commenter) I agree here that the interest of encyclopedic brevity should be served. Any clarity added by the longer quotation is negated by the strong words used by Booth. The longer version of Booth's words seems to belong in Booth's biography, as it serves to characterize Booth's state of mind in more detail. This article talk page concerns Lincoln. Quisqualis (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment with the above title at Talk:Abraham Lincoln and slavery. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
• The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
• An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news

• A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
• The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
• A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

---

This is very common, normal procedure on other articles, as I'm sure you know. It is the 'standard' in a descriptive rather than prescriptive way. You brought to my attention that this is actually contrary to Wikipedia's standards. Would you recommend generally that, if a person's convicted felon status isn't what makes them notable, that information be excluded from the opening paragraph if it is mentioned in the body of the article? Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and not just that, (every subject has some differences), but Fred Hampton's (like other famous people's) biography is already written-up in formal encyclopedia articles, so there is already good guidance for due encyclopedic presentation for such subjects. (As far as me knowing about so-called "normal" procedure, I just can't agree) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I restored it. So far as I can see, Hampton’s charge was dropped, Duke’s was not. A summary of hos article should include the felony. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke#Legal_difficulties_and_felony_conviction Doug Weller talk 19:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find only three instances of the word "drop" or "dropped" in Fred Hampton's Wikipedia page, none of which reference his felony charges being dropped. Nor do I find any record of it from any reliable source, or any source at all on Google, Bing, or Yahoo Search. I considered that you meant that Hampton was posthumously pardoned, but I can't find any record of this either.

On the contrary, the USA Today article by Rasha Ali from 13 Feb 2021 entitled "Fact-checking 'Judas and the Black Messiah': Was Fred Hampton drugged or arrested for ice cream?" concludes discussion of the matter by stating "The Black Panther Party leader denied Suitt's accusations and claimed he was denied a fair trial. Regardless, Hampton spent some time in prison.". There is no mention of a later dropping of charges or pardon.

However, the matter was appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. They upheld the decision of Cook County, and their affirmation is linked below. Either I've made a major oversight, in which case I welcome a citation, or Hampton was never pardoned, and the charges were never dropped.

I'll be happy to see some links to citations if you have them, since the fact Hampton's charges were dropped, if true, is not even mentioned on his Wikipedia page to date. I won't revert the Fred Hampton page back until we've actually sorted out the question of whether his charges were dropped, whether he was pardoned, or not. Of course, if they weren't dropped, it makes no logical sense to include one individual's felon status in their introductory sentence and not another. This fact should either be stated on both Hampton and Duke's opening sentences (as it's stated on the pages of other individuals), or it should be stated in neither. Given the strongly negative connotations of a felony conviction, I err on the side of neither.

https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/1969/42474-5.html Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I see that Alanscottwalker took it upon himself to re-revert my edit to the Fred Hampton page, even though nobody has challenged anything I said above. The only reason I took matters into my own hands and edited the page was because I interpreted a lack of communication as tacit agreement - since we're all on the same page that Fred Hampton's convicted felon status was never dropped (unless evidence can be presented) we can agree that it is pertinent, even though it's mentioned later in the article.

Another reason I thought this was agreed upon is that David Duke's page, which I picked at random from a sample of pages that include "convicted felon" in the opening sentence, was reverted when I removed the "convicted felon" piece, suggesting that the consensus was that "convicted felon", if the charges have not been dropped or expunged, is pertinent and important information to include in the introductory sentence.

I cannot see any reason whatsoever beyond raw editorial bias why "convicted felon" should be included in *some* opening sentences, while buried in the body of other bios. Either "convicted felon" should be included in the summary of every individual who's been convicted of a felony, or it's not appropriate to do so, and any criminal background should be relegated to the body of the bio, while leaving the introductory sentence to provide a more general overview of *why* this individual is significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia article.

If anything, you could argue that Hampton's felony conviction is *more* significant than Duke's, since Hampton's incident allegedly involved physical violence and Duke's is tax and finance related. But again, I think a clear policy or rule of thumb needs to be developed on this issue, rather than shooting from the hip and letting the specter of editorial bias sneak in.

I propose to remove the statement "convicted felon" from the opening sentence of David Duke's page, as well as every other page in which similar language is used, unless a person's convicted felon status is a major part of what makes them significant public figures (i.e. Jeffrey Epstein). I believe that is the most reasonable policy in regards to announcing an individual's felon status in the first sentence. If anyone wants to chime in, great, otherwise I'll go forward, and hope for an honest engagement rather than snark and misinformation. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Philomathes2357 I see the word felony only once:" In exchange for having his felony charges dropped and receiving a monthly stipend, O'Neal agreed to infiltrate the BPP as a counterintelligence operative.". Doug Weller talk 10:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't create policy, which is what you seem to be trying to do. I've suggested either an RfC on the talk page or try to get this into BLP, but I doubt that will work as it is so specific. Doug Weller talk 10:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[