Hey Barkeep, I got your note asking for feedback and per the others here I'll skip the questions you asked and just say the things I wanted to say.

My thoughts are almost universally positive. As you know, I've known you for a long time in wikiyears, and there possibly is nobody I'd trust more. The thoughtfulness, good faith, and sheer volume of work you bring to this community is very near unparalleled, and I'm beyond grateful for your presence here, both personally and when thinking about the future of this project.

In struggling to offer some actionable feedback, here's what I do want to mention: We really don't have a lot of barkeeps in this project. By that, I mean that we don't have many folks at all (right now, maybe just you) with the combination of availability, dedication, energy, gregariousness, precision of analytical thought, and ability and willingness to do the work that you bring to the table. I know that all sounds like a compliment, and it is that too, but my point is this: you're in a position to build new structures, institutions, and processes that will hopefully stand the test of time, both at enwiki and globally. To do that, you can't assume there will always be a barkeep49 ready to save the day. By that, I mean that there will be times – years at a time, even – when ArbCom, or the U4C, or whichever other body that comes along has nobody with that combination of qualities, and we need to build structures and institutions that are able to muddle along just fine in that case, even without someone like you. I think this is a hard message to internalize, because it's hard for anyone in particular to view themselves as that unusual (without being a bit of a narcissist, maybe). But my point is that you really should view your presence as an exceptional thing, and that you should not count on the availability of someone like you to serve on the bodies you are designing and getting off the ground, in the long run.

I hope you get what I'm trying to get at. Anyway, as you know, I've been concerned for some time about the long-term sustainability, relevance, utility, and health of the projects and the associated communities, and it is people like you who make me feel optimistic that we can still get through this. No pressure :)

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also say that I think this request for feedback idea is a good one and I think a lot of people would benefit from it. Thinking back on my own wikijourney, the last time I've really heard substantive feedback from a bunch of people was my own RfA, over six years ago now. And I think that both sides of the coin are valuable in different ways: of course actionable feedback for self-improvement is helpful, but hearing the reaffirmations of trust and appreciation can also be very important to both the effectiveness and enjoyment of this work. And there are many ways in which both of those (but perhaps the latter especially) are harder to access the longer one has been around the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kevin. There's a lot to think about here. I'm not even sure where to start on the capacity building you mention (even if I don't 100% subscribe to the way you think I'm unique). My attempt at capacity building had been RfA. But as you know, I've had to put those activities on pause because I couldn't do that with enough remove; what happened around RfA made me reconsider my entire involvement in the project. Ultimately I decided the right answer for me was to step away from RfA while continuing other activities. So yes I agree with your general comment about capacity building (it was something I did at NPP when I was active there). If you come up with anything specific there I would love to hear it because my best answer so far has been to write about those things. But I will also give it more thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks. I think what I was getting at is that we need to build systems and institutions that are resilient to the lack of people like you, at least for a time, which may sometimes mean shifting the expectations we have for volunteer-driven work. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for butting in, but can I ask what you're referring to with what happened around RfA? I would assume you mean WP:RFA2021 in general, but it looks to me, as someone who post-dates that discussion and has the hindsight of WP:RFA2024 having occurred, that it was extremely successful, at least as far as anyone can be successful at trying to get this old ship to change course. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're always welcome here asilvering. No. I'm referring to RFA2024 there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. I guess I assumed it was something further in the past since you've always seemed like such a rock. Glad you're still around. For what it's worth, to this post-RFA2024 addition to the corps, it looks like capacity has indeed been built, even if it felt awful at the time. -- asilvering (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the elections are a huge success. Very happy to see it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: I've found you to be a level-headed admin who's always willing to offer a helping hand. Like PMC, I think you are doing well at being a voice of reason, so you should keep it up. Cliched as this may sound, admin or not, you are a positive presence on Wikipedia.
2. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently: Unfortunately I don't know what feedback to provide in this regard. In my view, you have it pretty much nailed down; if anything, there should be more admins who are like you. I do realize that this would be a tall order, though, like L235 mentions above. Other than that, I suggest jumping back into content creation, even if only occasionally (I see you're already doing that). It'll be fun.
3. (Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep: I don't have any questions.
4. (Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know: I don't have a list of things I wish you'd stop/do differently, at the moment, so I'm not sure how useful my feedback is. Personally I think you are doing a great job, but I do think it's worth soliciting feedback from folks who may have had disagreements with you. Epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks Epic. I appreciate the time and consideration you gave this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   You're welcome. Hopefully my feedback can be helpful even though I don't have any specific suggestions for improvement. Also, for Q3, I should have asked how you're doing, but then I'd be stealing Amory's idea. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: Keep thinking systemically, broadly, and communicating your thoughts. You're quite good at it; putting a name to an issue and conveying it clearly is hugely valuable. I'd basically echo everything Kevin said above here, so all of that as well. Institutional is a word I'd use.
2. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently: Take care of yourself! I can't know this and I think it probably belongs above, but I just want to make sure you're doing all the things we're saying we want you to do but keeping yourself balanced and on an even keel. Also—and I know this is contradictory—ArbCom.
3. Questions I have for Barkeep: How's it going? How're you feeling?
4. Other feedback I want Barkeep to know: You rock!

~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I miss our paths crossing regularly. I hope you're well. Thanks for taking some of your limited time to comment here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok since you and Epic have now both said that you want to know the answer, I suppose I better answer your question. I'm generally feeling quite good about wiki related matters these days. Serving on ArbCom is a privilege I've been lucky to do and I miss some elements of the work, but its work also tends to occupy nearly all the space I have for wiki related matters. So not being on ArbCom has been tremendously freeing and reinvigorating; I'm truly enjoying being a volunteer again on wiki. And helpfully the U4C work has been good so far. The committee members are all great colleagues, we're doing a reasonable job of setting up systems and processes that are going to endure (which was my major reason for running). And having just the little bit of distance in work between what happens with ArbCom and the cases we've gotten has been useful too. Outside of not having as much time for wiki work as I once did, I do feel like I'm operating as my "best self" in the work with the U4C. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

On the Main page today Jean Sibelius on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's Fifth from the opening of Notre-Dame de Paris. We sang in choirs today. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What pretty choral spaces. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Rehearsal was difficult - too many new pieces, too little light - but the singing, with raised vigilance, was good. - What do you think of this edit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen today to the (new) Perplexities after Escher. - Do you expect to see the places of birth and death in an infobox, - that is the simple question. Do you have time to say yes or no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Samuel Barber situation looks resolved. I still find it sad that it happened at all, wasting time of five editors. I understand that you are busy, but in the new year, I want to engage arbitration to get to terms with editors still thinking that edit warring is a method to prevent information that our MoS displaced from the lead, such as places of birth and death, and recently honorific suffix. Where should they go if not in an infobox? - I will see an opera tonight! By the composer with the ongoing RfC!! The trailer (in my story) looks spectacular!!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So one of the great joys of not being on arbcom is I get to decide what I want to spend time on. And at least at the moment that isn't infoboxes. I know it remains on your mind but between the u4c and what already sucks me in I have a full plate of project work (especially relative to the content I've done lately). I am on team "edit warring about them is bad" so I wish good luck with cutting down on that in the new year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the great joys on Wikipedia is that the Barber case has now (overnight) been completed nicely. May it be for a bright future. Enjoy the seasons, and me not bothering you again. On Beethoven's birthday I recall a DYK from 2020 (when his 250th bday was remembered). I fondly remember when Worm That Turned (who had co-written the infoboxes case) installed the community consensus. I thought that possibility of a compromise would end the conflict, DYK? - Right now I'm working on 6 Bach cantata GAs parallel, almost too much of a good thing, but they all turn 300 years, and Christmas in Bach's Leipzig was on 3 days, each with a new cantata. I love creating content! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the community consensus provision has shaped and dulled the conflict even as it hasn't quite eliminated it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen today to Beethoven's 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - I picked a recording with Antônio Meneses, because he was on my sad list this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I come to fix the cellist's name, with a 10-years-old DYK and new pics - look for red birds --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Syrian civil war on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That could change as we tell those with ARBPIA bans they have to appeal to ARBCOM, which I've started doing. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable point though I don't think it changes the overall analysis of my point since the comment I made was presuming a heavier workload. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's only if the admin says the appeal has to be heard by arbcom. I'm not sure how much that will come up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least one admin is saying he's doing it. And perhaps more will given that the most frequent admin in the topic area is becoming an arb. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That sounds like a bummer. That guy was pretty cool. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: I haven't been keeping tabs on exactly what you've been doing lately. I know you were a first-rate new page patroller, and trainer of other people wanting to do that well, so if you're still doing that, great! I believe, from my own limited interactions with the committee, and from what other people have told me, that you were an excellent arbitrator, so I guess it would have benefitted the project if you had kept on doing that, but I'm sure you have your own reasons for stepping back from that and I would never want to put pressure on any contributor to work on an area of the project that they don't want to. Wherever you do it, I hope that you will continue sharing your extensive knowledge and encouraging contributors new and old.
2. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/ things I wish Barkeep would do differently: I can't think of any. There are things you do that I would probably do differently from you if I were doing them, but that's more about the different ways that different people interact with each other. One of the things that keeps this community working is the diversity of our contributors, their different perspectives and ways of doing things are a great strength. So, yeah - even if I occasionally take a different perspective on something from you, I wouldn't want you to stop and seeing things your way.
3. (Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep: when are you going to take that vacation in the UK?
4. (Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know: it seems like a long time ago now, but you should know how much I still appreciate the help you gave me back in 2019 when I was going new page patrol school. Your friendly, patient and thoughtful guidance was excellent. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed your voluntary recall page has a typo on it. It says "immeadiately". My inner OCD cannot leave without pointing this out :) OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For my level of educational attainment I am an atrocious speller and there are some words I can never spell right. That's one of them. Thanks for point this out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that three admins (User:ScottishFinnishRadish, User:Extraordinary Writ and User:Vanamonde93) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Raladic are considering a logged warning for both sides for edit warring, based on a single example supplied by Extraordinary Writ. In the previous AE on this area here Barkeep explicitly said "If people have concerns about anyone other than [the subject] they should file their own AE report" but here we see admins take it upon themselves to widen the scope of "those who may be sanctioned" to include the filer, for an issue separate from anything they wrote in the AE filing statement. And doing so with a single example that if that was all a typical user posted when filing a complaint, would result in a swift dismissal of "Nothing to see here, come back to us when you can offer an strong pattern of problematic behaviour". Once again I get the feeling that the rules about evidence are for other people. If you are going to arbitrarily take it upon yourselves to inspect other users' behaviour, why not also then any others present. What a jeopardy you have created, that being a filer of the complaint escalates hugely the risk of being sanctioned yourself, because those other guys could be 100 times worse than you, but you have to be perfect.

The statement at the last AE: "There was also a rough consensus among uninvolved administrators that there may need to be other AE requests to handle other problems raised during this discussion" was a strong encouragement to the community to file additional reports on problem users. Which is what User:Void if removed did.

About my own AE... The filer basically made shit up and was caught out by the reviewing admins for doing that and yet... there were no consequences. Barkeep's rationale for that was that bad faith misinterpretation was not "limited to Snokalok". Quite bizare for me to read that because there are other bad editors, the filer isn't sanctioned for making claims about me that are patently untrue. So the lesson then was you can come to AE and post any old shit about an editor and hope the admins find some other fault in the subject (tone say).

The lesson from the Raladic AE, if you follow through, would seem to be that if you complain about an obvious activist at AE, you'd better be an absolute saint, or better still, not have any edits in the area to be examined, because if you make any mistakes, you'll get a logged warning back at you. And if one can get a logged warning because an admin finds a single diff, then presumably the next escalation is you get topic banned for one more mistake. (We warned User:X and they didn't heed the warning). I'm not provoking you to go find two or three diffs. But Void is one of the better players in this field, and of all the people at that AE, a long way from being those most in need of logged warnings.

I get it that boomerangs is a thing people do on Wikipedia. And at times it is useful to avoid vexatious filings from editors who are actually the problem vs the subject. But you guys explicilty asked us to make more reports, and it turns out Void was stupid enough to take you up on it.

This area is overrun with activist editors on all sides who use revert regularly and with impunity. That a medical editor trying their best to use WP:MEDRS might let their frustration lead to mistakes is somewhat understandable. Of the editors on both sides of this debate, I think Void if removed and Sideswipe9th are the only two I feel properly grasp that "other opinions exist and are valid, even if I disagree with them" and who understand our policy and guildeline limit and guide what we need to write in article space. Both of them are fully capable of understanding the other side's POV and fairly describing it. Unfortunately Sideswipe9th is no longer editing, and I am quite certain this AE will do the same for Void.

I fail to see why any reasonable editor would either file any more AE requests against activists in this area or even bother to edit in this area at all. I'm not aware of any other medical editors who edit articles in this topic. One or two post the occasional talk page comment. It will be left to the activists (on both sides) who lack any concern for building an encyclopaedia.

Colin°^Talk 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colin: putting something in quotes which is an accurate summary is a problem, but does not mean they (in my mind) basically made shit up. Beyond that I cannot comment on the current report or what that means for the patterns of yours, Void's, and this one until I have had a chance to read it. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made a typo there, and meant to say "inaccurate summary", which is a very generous description. -- Colin°^Talk 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please block for 3 days with talk and email revoked. We'll see what happens after that, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale I had been planning to indefinitely block you tomorrow but have done this request instead. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barkeep49, what's happened here? Why is Crouch banned/blocked? I haven't yet located any discussion or anything related to this...  — Amakuru (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Crouch,_Swale_ban_appeal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing:
   • You know how to disagree without being disagreeable. This is an important skill.
   • You don't seem to judge people by single comments/actions/events. I appreciate that about you.
2. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/things I wish Barkeep would do differently:
   • In an effort to de-mystify U4C, I would like you to consider frequent small contributions to the The Signpost. For example, the dewiktionary dispute could explain things like "Some communities only have a small number of active admins, which makes disputes difficult to settle because there's literally nobody else around. In that case, help is available from the global community by requesting..." or "Not every community has a rule like WP:INVOLVED, but we recommended a resolution that was in line with that principle". Or you might say "2024 report: Only one case was received."
3. (Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep:
   • Does your username represent a past profession or a future ambition?
   • How much wood would a woodchuck chuck?, assuming any rodent would engage in such a behavior?
   • Can You Tell Me How to Get to Sesame Street?
   • Do You Know the Muffin Man?, and were you ever disappointed to learn that the muffins of the song weren't sweet, cupcake-like American muffins?
4. (Optional) Other feedback I want Barkeep to know:
   • When the words high quality are used to describe an noun (e.g., a high-quality source, the high-quality content), it is supposed to be hyphenated. I no longer know what my first (IP-based) edit was, but I suspect that it was fixing punctuation in an article.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @WhatamIdoing. That's an interesting suggestion. I did a fair amount of UCoC blogging (EG drafting, Charter drafting) so doing it on the U4C seems natural. I will have to think about this as I definitely have observations and learnings (for instance there is a "trying the community's patience" block procedure from Turkish Wikipedia which I find fascinating) that enwiki (and perhaps others) would find interesting. Clearly I should have limited it to two optional questions ala RfA but that ship has sailed.

Does your username represent a past profession or a future ambition?

Speaking of RfA I answered this one there. I made it for another place, which no longer exists, and where it made much more sense in context.

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck?, assuming any rodent would engage in such a behavior?

Enough to build a racetrack in Saratoga, New York.

Can You Tell Me How to Get to Sesame Street?

Tune into PBS or have a Max subscription (at least in the US)

Do You Know the Muffin Man?, and were you ever disappointed to learn that the muffins of the song weren't sweet, cupcake-like American muffins?

I was not disappointed. And I can't think of the Muffin Man anymore without either thinking of Shrek or Arrested Development.

Gosh I must drive you nuts because my grammar is so lacking. But I will endeavor next time I use the phrase high quality to actually use high-quality. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) WhatamIdoing, you deserve high praise for this comment in the disccussion mentioned further up: all positive! I woke up thinking about calling your attention to the other discussion as well, but it seems to be resolved, sort of, so never mind. I'll call you if it happens again ;) (always hoping it will not happen again) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am entirely satisfied with your answers, but I point out that "high quality" only gets a hyphen if it is used as an adjective: "the high-quality source" but "I prefer sources that are of a high quality". And, no, it doesn't drive me nuts, because your grammar is actually good, and I'm used to being an outlier where punctuation is concerned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep, I greatly respect you as an editor, and I wanted to respond to your concern regarding not taking the BN route - just not at the higher-profile page. If I hadn't had that spat with the roads people, I think I would have gone through the BN route. That made me think this would be potentially controversial for re-adminship, in a sort of PROD vs AFD analogy. And with the idea that this would be potentially controversial, it didn't sit well with my conscience to take the BN route, when the 'crats wouldn't likely wouldn't know that there was a reason that I was thinking it was possibly controversial. So it just felt, well, sneaky to me. I think a lot of this is from my rural Missouri Southern Baptist farm kid background; it's just a whole different mindset from how most people view the world. Hog Farm _Talk 03:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The crats are the sole people - not even arbs - entrusted to determine if something is under a CLOUD. There is a waiting process so editors can bring up reasons it might be a cloud and the crats can then weigh it. The community has thought this through and come up with a process that minimizes drama and the amount of time asked of it. If Worm hadn't just done this I wouldn't have even said anything. But I've seen how standards creep up at RfA and I want to fight it where I can because it's bad enough already. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my only concern is - it sure feels like the answer to "my conscience isn't quite okay with this" is to do it anyway. Unless we're going make not having an overactive conscience part of the general expectations for adminship, this feels like the only valid option then for someone in my shoes is just to not ask for the bit back. If it's problematic to go through the RFA process again, and the editor has valid ethical heartburn about the BN route, they're really backed into a corner. Hog Farm _Talk 04:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some perspective here is useful. Right now you are seeking the opinion of up to 34,000 people who have a watchlist and are active editors. The BN has about 1400 watchers, of whom about 300 have reviewed that page in the past month. The majority of those watchers are also regular RFA participants. What is the case for you to ask the opinion of thousands of people, when you are eligible to get the same opinions at a single noticeboard that doesn't light up the watchlist of thousands of people? You could make exactly the same disclosure of your concerns at the noticeboard as you have in your RFA, and I think you'd get an accurate read. People who are fine with you don't even have to say anything, whereas they'll feel obligated to click "support" now. Risker (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the 24 waiting period at BN is to deal with potential controversy for re-adminship. That's the correct venue. I really don't think you've considered that watchlist issue. I saw "new request for adminship", clicked through and saw the name Hog Farm, thought "Hmm, could have sworn they were already an admin, and then clicked through again to find out that you are already an admin and are just asking for the tools back. I'm sure there are many other people who are going to be as annoyed as I am. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I've been thinking about your answer quite a bit @Hog Farm. The frame of personal conscience is an interesting one. When a large community should respect or at least tolerate actions of personal conscience if they're disruptive to the community is a complex one (see the varying ways countries, sometimes even the same country, handle conscientious objectors during war). In this particular case I do respect your need to do what is right but have two thoughts. The first is that my objection is about this turning from a random one off of Worm into a pattern of you and Worm into a standard practice; if there had been more time between the two of you I'd likely have made my comment in support similar to what I did there. And the second builds on that: what else did you consider as a means of doing this in a way that would assure you that you were doing the right thing? Because the RfA is turning out the way it has was certainly predictable to me (it's why I made the comment when the RfA was 3-0-0). Did you consider asking a handful of people who you think have a good sense of the pulse of the community and who you feel would give you honest answers (rather than merely flattering you) what their thinking was? Or did you consider some other community way of going about this, perhaps asking at ORCP or even going to what's left of the road's project to ask? In other words, did you consider things to assuage your conscience before settling on RFA as the only way? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really truly did strongly consider going the BN route. As to asking other editors - my go-to would have been SandyGeorgia, but she has been much less active recently. Another would have been Vami IV, who has sadly passed on. I had forgotten than ORCP existed; that would have been a good route to go as a check before then going on to BN if I had remembered it. Going the roads route really felt to me like intentionally kicking a fire ant nest; I also don't know that the views held there are representative of the community at large, especially given my understanding is that most of them left because they found that their views on OR and notability were no longer as mainstream in the community as they once were. If some of the ideas [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Making_voluntary_"reconfirmation"_RFA's_less_controversial|here] were in place, namely having the discussion be more widely visible and it being longer than just 24 hours, I would definitely have gone the BN route. Hog Farm _Talk 21:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment: I assume the third sentence should read "This RfC feels like..."? isaacl (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 15.ai. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. – The Grid (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 15.ai. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregariousMadness (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thing(s) I would like Barkeep to continue doing: You are overall an amazing admin, keep up the good work!
2. Thing(s) I wish would Barkeep would stop/things I wish Barkeep would do differently: As a regular Signpost reader, I agree with Whatamidoing that some Signpost contributions in regards to the U4C would be appreciated.
3. (Optional) Questions I have for Barkeep:
4. (Optional) I consider you to be one of the best admins on the site. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks @QuicoleJR for taking the time to think this through and leave some feedback. I am hoping to do something around blogging about the U4C - more to come there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to post in your talk page regarding this, but would relisting the AfD be a possible outcome? I spent a lot of time digging up those sources, and I don't know if I can rewrite the whole article with the new sources without the previous version of the article. I'm just hoping that my time and effort isn't going to waste because I truly do believe that my argument is solid enough to establish GNG of 15.ai. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting is absolutely a possible outcome. Feel free to suggest it at DRV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had already done that, sorry for the confusion -- what I meant was since you were able to change it from "no consensus" to "delete", would it be possible to change it to "relist" to gain a better consensus on the sources? Or is that an inappropriate question to ask? I apologize in advance if I shouldn't have asked that. I just can't remember what the article used to look like and the logs don't exist.

And also, should I tag the users that I mentioned voted Keep? For example, I wrote "Schützenpanzer changed their vote from Weak Keep to Keep, JarJarInks voted Keep, Aaron Liu expressed his Keep vote (but didn't bold it)" without using the User tag. I don't know if this would be considered canvassing, so I thought I'd ask you before I did anything like that. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 23:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not discussing with you on your talk page before creating the deletion review. I didn't know that it was considered polite to ask and then bring it to DRV, and sadly Liz hadn't responded by the time I had already posted it on DRV. I think it's too late for that now, but I would have asked you to reconsider de-weighting EC's arguments because I feel like I gave a pretty good one. I really, really think that moving it from "no consensus" to "delete" was incorrect, so if there's any alternative that could keep the article intact so I can edit in my drafts, I implore that I be given a chance to do that. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 12:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navigating Wiki procedures can be a challenge. One general tip is to read the full set of instructions (where discussing with a closer was mentioned) and not just the "how to" (which I know is itself intimidating). In this case it does not matter as I could relist but I stand by my re-close of the topic. While I appreciate your passion and the work you did on the article and it certainly had an impact, I think there was a consensus (but not a vote) to delete this article. As discussed, I do think giving you access to the deleted text (if it stays deleted) is appropriate as there might be another place you could use the writing and incorporate your further research. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to think that the new article is a copy of the old 15.ai article, but it isn’t since I spent all of last night writing this one. I’d really appreciate it if you could clarify that for anyone who thinks that. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the suggestions of @WhatamIdoing & @QuicoleJR in my solicitation for feedback, I have now started a U4C blog. You can read it at User:Barkeep49/U4C. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the way someone with your profile has engaged on the HF/WTT RfAs - we might have different views, but you set a standard worthy of emulation. Thank you and regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that feedback. I know on this kind of position I'm part of a wiki minority but I also believe consensus can change and I work to try and change it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]