User talk:Femke

This user suffers from Long COVID.

Cute little zebra finch

You recent Talk:Zionism close

A few objective errors:

1. You said B was slightly more popular and described as a compromise option, whereas there were a few objections that D was not neutral, hence I'm finding a consensus for Option B but no editor opposed option D on the grounds of neutrality. As far as I can see, this objection was only raised for option C. In fact, a few people cited option D's neutrality in their !vote . Also, option B's verifiability was challenged while option D's verifiability was not.
2. Per my count, option D has 9 first choices while option B has 8. Option A had 7 first place !votes. The headcounting for the second place !votes, by the way, has the following result: 6 for option B, with options C and D tied at 5.

I think that given that both of your reasons to assess consensus in favor of B seem to be erroneous, your close should be rethought or retracted. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

It took me way too long to make this (spilled some time in the process) but it should answer the two comments you made above

More instances challenging B's verifiability: (the editor who made this comment is now site banned), , . Also, if I may, I'd like to highlight a comment I've made in the discussion . NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

This counting exercise is always quite error-prone. It seems you forgot Bluethricecreamman in your count for B (they !voted twice). Bluethricecreamman, can you clarify if you have a preference for either? I might have missed BTCM for D (counted the same as yesterday upon my recount, but you've got the proof here, so there might be one I'm consistently overlooking). I've counted more second choices B too, but need to log off for the day before double checking. (User:Bluethricecreamman, please confirm). In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 22:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

oops, I did? my bad, apologies.

honestly no preference, thank you for catching. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:56, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

You !voted B>D in your first !vote but D>B in your second. I counted based on your second vote. With it removed entirely, B and D seem to tie both in support in first place and in second. Still meaning that B does not enjoy more support than D when we base ourselves on the headcounting method. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:POLL, I think close should just be that A, D, and B have support without full adjudication of which has more support.

all other options don't have support, and headcounting with a difference of 1 or 2 votes seems unwise. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the close's downweighting of A was appropriate, but I think no consensus between B/D makes sense, even if the closer as a WP:BARTENDER chooses B. This is better than finding a "consensus" one way or the other when it's so close, and allows the discussion to continue forward if people want to. I suspect without A as the stable version, the stakes of this discussion will be lower and so the possibility of compromise moving forward will be wider. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that there is consensus for D and in any case if I were the closer I'd specify that there is consensus against A&C (allowing us to remove the statement from the article). NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Sleep well! NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The second !vote I interpreted differently is from User:Fiveby, where I had F as first option and D as second option. Given some qualms with option D, I interpreted this as F as a first choice. If I retally using a STV system, that would be different yet again; showing that this will have to be decided more on how well arguments are policy-based, if it can be decided based on this discussion.

There were at least two people who argued that D was not neutral: and , even as neither used the word neutral in their argument. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 23:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, not sure if it's too late for this, but I voted for option E, with option D being second. Given that my option E was not really given the time of day, I think my vote should have been counted as a first choice for option D, as it was my first viable choice. Does that make sense? Sorry about the confusion. I should have clarified this earlier when I realized my option E was pointless. Also, my option E was actually option D with another sentence in front of it... Slava570 (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't interpret them as discussing neutrality, and Stephan rostie didn't provide enough information about her source so people can scrutinize her interpretation of it (I couldn't find any relevant scholarly source matching the info he gave. There was one offline self-published book by a John Collins, prof. of "global studies", not history nor sociology.) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

First, I also want to express thanks for the close @Femke. Regarding the objections raised, D was not unopposed. For example, VR explicitly argued that D understates the sources. Paprikaiser likewise said D was too narrow. Aquillion supported B over D, saying B most straightforwardly summarizes the existing sources, while D was only acceptable, if not as clean. So the objection to D was not simply about neutrality, it was also that D reduced the source material to terminology when several editors argued the sources supported a broader characterization.

On overall acceptability, B had broader support. By my count, excluding Bluethricecreamman's clarified no-preference !vote, B was listed as acceptable and the preferred fall-back option by 18 editors, compared with 16 for D. B also had more first-choice support. That supports the close's reading of B as the broader compromise option rather than a mere plurality result.

Also, I did not explicitly mention D in my !vote as I limited myself to the acceptable options, but as I indicated by stating that the sources back A > C > B, I strongly oppose D as it is too narrow and its until the mid-20th century framing is inaccurate. Later Zionists have continued to use colonization language in relation to settlement projects. For example, Israeli cabinet minister Yuval Ne'eman said in 1982 that it was necessary to be working every day and every month to accelerate the Jewish colonization of Judea and Samaria and Gaza.

The claim that option B lacked source support is also inaccurate. The article cites multiple sources stating that early Zionists used colonial and colonizing language. Masalha (2012) says that for decades Zionists themselves used terms such as 'colonisation' to describe their project. Jabotinsky (1923) referred to our colonising aims and wrote that Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Liu (2022) quotes Jabotinsky saying Zionism is a colonizing adventure. Bar-Yosef (2012) quotes Herzl describing his appeal to Rhodes as something colonial. Pessah (2020) says Herzl's Zionism was indeed rooted in his wish to imitate the European colonialism of his period. During the discussion, reliable secondary sources supporting this were also cited (1, 2, 3).

Finally, post-close revisions to !votes should be discounted for purposes of reassessing the close. The closer's task was to evaluate the discussion as it stood at closure, not a revised record created after editors learned the result. If one editor's post-close change is counted, fairness would require pinging every participant and inviting them to reconsider their ranked preferences too, which would effectively reopen the RfC rather than review the close. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't revising my vote, but clarifying my vote. My top choice was D plus an extra sentence. But that was not really an option, so by not counting my vote as a vote for D, we might as well be saying that I didn't vote at all. I admit it was sloppy on my part, though, and I apologize for that. Slava570 (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

My point is about how the close should be reviewed procedurally. The closer has to assess the discussion as it stands at the time of closure. If post-close adjustments are used to recalculate the outcome, then the same opportunity would need to be given to everyone else, as editors would effectively be allowed to re-rank their preferences in light of the close. That is not a close review, it is a retroactive reopening of the RfC. Lf8u2 (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

In terms of procedure, I am taking into account the post-close comment of Bluethricecreamman, as they voted twice, which needed fixing. I've now added a note into the discussion, and should have noticed this before. Upon finishing comparing notes with the above, and also redoing my counting of 'prefers B over D' vs prefers 'D over B' (including third choices, and not mentioned in my original close), I again find the smallest difference in favour of option B:

• 12 people preferred D over B: Wh1pla5h99, TarnishedPath, BobFromBrockley, Kowal, Fiveby, Slava, NorthernWinds, VidanaliK, Boutboul, Samualshraga, Guz, Gjb0z
• 13 people preferred B over D: Cdjp1, Simonm223, M.Bitton, Aquillion, Katzrock, VR, Tashmetu, Ismeiri, إيان, Asdfjirjj, Lf8u2, stephan rostie, Pincrete. This excludes Paprikaiser who did not make this explicit.

I'm open to adding an addendum to talk more about the choice between B and D. I focused in my close more on explaining why there was consensus against A (instead of no consensus with the raw tally so close) and could have expanded more on the arguments in favour and against B and D, as this small difference in preferences is not enough to base a decision on. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm open to adding an addendum to talk more about the choice between B and D As a person who has raised verifiability objections to B, I'd like to have it evaluated in the closure, and I imagine that the other 2+ who've questioned its verifiability would like to see that too (relevant comments for convenience: ). I'd also like to see my comment highlighting the RS saying that examples given for option B are actually matching option D being addressed (this seems important enough to me since it shows that D is how RS interprets the examples and that it considers D to not be understating anything, though as the person who made the comment I may be biased about it). NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Femke's assessment that the corrected count still leaves an edge in favor of B, and I believe B remains the better close given that edge, the strength of the source-based arguments for it and its role as the compromise outcome.

What would be inappropriate is using an addendum to strengthen the case for D by adding comments in support of it without also accounting for the counterarguments raised in the discussion that D was too narrow, did not adequately summarize the sources, and was less faithful to the source material than the broader wording in B. Otherwise the addendum risks becoming a vehicle for relitigating the close in favor of D rather than explaining the B/D assessment neutrally. Lf8u2 (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, the term "colonial" can understood as "colonialism" (which no source supports) while "colonization" has only one meaning and is directly verifiable NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I think its not a sign of good faith from your behalf to have a talk with the closure arbiter @Femke in effort to change his closure judgement through further debating and trying to convince him that your argument is actually stronger and unchallenged without notifying or inviting at least some top engaged or widely cited editors involved in the Rfc from the other side like @Vice regent or @Aquillion to at least have a say or counter your claim. Rather than surprisingly discovering that the closure judgement changed after you had a private talk and debate with the closure arbiter trying to convince him of your argument while most of us having no idea. I wonder if thats even valid in wikipedia policies.

furthermore, your counting (which you also tried to use as an argument to change the arbiter closure) is wrong because it doesnt account for for the rankings of options among editors (e.g A > B > D). Where overall Option B carry more support than Option D when compared. Stephan rostie (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Stephan rostie: this is the correct way to challenge a close. There were people here arguing that the conclusion should not be changed, and that was my first intuition too. I spent another 3 hours reading the arguments and tracing references to prior discussions and the article text and now feel conident that this colose weighs policy arguments best. If you disagree with the new close, you can further challenge the close at WP:AN, where others can weight in. Note that the close was a WP:Bartender close and that you might have success instead in opening a new discussion with a subtle change proposed to D to address the arguments from people opposed to it. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It was WP:Bartender? D was added to the article and Samuelshraga asked me to add the page number to a citation NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Great, yes, that was the intention. In a bartender close, the closer does make a call about the option best supported, even if there is no consensus for any individual choice. I found a consensus against A, and found that D had stronger policy based arguments than B. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh - you mean consensus as in amount of editors supporting something. WP:BARTENDER states A bartender's close in a discussion occurs where there is an initial proposal to take some action, and a discussion in which there is a clear consensus to make a change from the status quo, but not to make the specific change originally proposed. I thought it just means to not decide on B/D but do rule out A (and/or C) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The wording in the first paragraph of that essay can likely be improved, but the example should make this more clear: the closer chooses from the options that are viable. Often this is the compromise option, and that was my thinking in the first close. Upon rereading the full discussion, I appreciated the arguments around sourcing and the textual context more, and came to a different conclusion. There might be a way to find a compromise between D in the direction of B, but I did not want to overstep my role as closer to suggest one. Other sentences in the article might be more urgent to address: There was a suggestion that the sentence directly following the RfC sentence had issues with WP:TSI. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Will any changes to that sentence require a new RfC? Katzrockso (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the rfc mostly ruled against some options. If there is need for more consensus generation, there is room for discussion i feel… though at some point this all does feel like a lot of editor hours spent User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I just want to make sure that if we are to make further changes to that sentence, simple discussion is permitted or if the close is imposing a positive consensus on the sentence that can only be overturned with a new RfC. Katzrockso (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

A new RfC would only be needed if people want to go back to A. In terms of creating a compromise option between B and D, that might be achievable with a normal discussion. The normal discussion can also focus on the wider context of the sentence, as there was a suggestion option D might not fit well in this subsection, and a suggestion that there were WP:text-source integrity issues with the sentence after. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I have no intent on reinstating option A, as I opposed it. I think option D is not a good representation of the sources, so I would support changes to the wording to remedy that. I just wanted to clarify since RfCs often impose positive consensus that must be overturned with a new RfC. Katzrockso (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Morning Femke, as a completely uninvolved onlooker, I'm struggling a bit to see why you changed the close here. Your original close, saying "In terms of choosing between Option B and D, B was slightly more popular and described as a compromise option, whereas there were a few objections that D was not neutral, hence I'm finding a consensus for Option B" seems to be on-point, as a bartender close with a justifiable rationale, whereas the new one doesn't seem to offer much guidance as to why D was chosen. Bar tenders are by definition line calls, and I can see why some editors who favoured B are are frustrated that you've changed the close after being lobbied by a D supporter. I recommend you revert back to the original closure of option B and let editors move on from there and explore further revision if desired. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

In terms of 'lobby', both sides were present to argue their case on my talk page. To not be unduly influenced by either side, I skimmed over these suggestions, did not click on diffs and reassessed the discussion with fresh eyes instead. In my initial close, I did not give too much weight to people arguing that colonial was not supported by the sources, as the word does appear in one source. Before Northernwinds suggested I should reevaluate this because of the double meaning of the word, I had come to this conclusion myself, and knew it would look like I had been lobbied in this direction; Not ideal in terms of people trusting the process. In the end, I noticed a discrepancy in my downweighting of some of the arguments for A (requiring a distinction between call and characterize that is not obvious to readers) and B (requiring a distinction between the two meanings of colonial that is not obvious to readers). While this was more extreme in the case of A, the arguments to look at the article context showed that this a strong argument against B. The article context implied that colonial should be read as 'related to colonialsim' instead of the more likely 'related to colonies' meaning. It's a bit embarrasing to have to change the direction of a close, and I did not do this lightly. I am confident now that this is a better reading of the discussion that in my initial close which focused too much on my analysis of the arguments for and against the status quo. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response and that's absolutely fine then, it sounds like this was a well-thought-through and reasoned change of the close, and obviously an example of the challenge process working as intended. Apologies if my "lobbied" came across as an accusation against either yourself or Northernwinds, that was not my intention and I was assuming good faith all around. I was just concerned that, like the VAR system in football, we should only change a marginal decision if there's a very clear reason to do so, but having read your explanation about the "colonialism" distinction it appears that threshold was met here so it's all good. Thanks for taking this one on. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It's important to note, of course, that my comment here on meanings was not new; it was already stated in the now-closed discussion by Samuelshraga so it's a valid to take it into consideration. Thanks for the clarification on me :) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm somehow still subscribed to this. I agree this was well thought through close and answer to a close challenge as well, and give kudos for doing a close on such a contentious topic area. I will unsubscribe to this now.

(as is obvious, my own judgement wavers on the question to the point where I will accidentally double voted, and where I now slightly disagree with my last vote now lol) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The article context implied that colonial should be read as 'related to colonialsim' instead of the more likely 'related to colonies' meaning was this argument made in the RfC? I don't recall seeing it anywhere, but it's a long RfC. Katzrockso (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, various people indicated or implied that it more likely referred to colonies/colonization: e.g. , and and possibly . In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Bloomberg Philanthropies, content to include

Hello Femke. Pleasure to meet you.

I noticed you are an active participant in Project Climate Change and Project Medicine, two areas of activity of Bloomberg Philanthropies, for which I have declared my COI. Would you mind reviewing an edit request I posted on the Talk page of Bloomberg Philanthropies about Public Health initiatives?

An editor deleted significant details across this article for relevance, promotional language, and poor sourcing. I am working incrementally to reintroduce this information with neutral language and better sourcing, to ensure the article reflects all the giving areas of the Philanthropies.

A different editor prematurely closed my request to reinstate the details; it has been very difficult to get any helpful editor attention.

Would be very grateful for your involvement and input. DLARoss (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @DLARoss: I don't take COI edit requests unfortunately, as I've got enough volunteer work on my plate in other places. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Femke. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

~delta _{{talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢}} 16:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Invitation

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/374 Hello! I noticed that one of your goals for 2026 is to create more articles on prominent women, so I thought you might be interested in participating in the Woman in Red Alphabet run for countries starting with I–L it's going on for the entirety of June, so if you're interested you can still participate! Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Chimpanzee

Hello, chimpanzee has been submitted for peer review. LittleJerry (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Promotion of Endometriosis

Congratulations, Femke! The article you nominated, Endometriosis, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

amazing work!! Dracophyllum 00:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations, Femke! I've been following this one a bit from the sidelines, and I'm very glad to see this excellently-written article get the bronze star. :D —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Well deserved! — Strange Orange | 14:24, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations!

	Featured Barnstar
	Congratulations on bringing Endometriosis to FA status and significantly improving public medical knowledge! ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! That photo makes my day, so lovely. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2026).

Administrator changes

• Chipmunkdavis
• TechnoSquirrel69

• Mlaffs
• SpuriousQ
• Lectonar
• Dennis Brown
• Hog Farm

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• TonyBallioni

• Dbeef
• EdJohnston

Oversight changes

• Giraffer
• TonyBallioni

L235

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the criteria for autoconfirmed and extended confirmed should be modified.
• A request for comment proposes an addendum for the Real name section of the Username policy.

Technical news

• The special page Special:RangeCalculator has been created for any users to use to find an IP range. (phab:T268429)
• The "indefinitely" button in Special:Block for temporary accounts can be replaced with a preferred block duration stated on MediaWiki:ipb-indefinite-expiry-temporary-account. (phab:T427125)

Arbitration

• Following a series of motions, changes to the contentious topics procedure to restructure awareness have been implemented.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The 2026 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
• 10 candidates have been appointed to the U4C.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

RfC Date stamps

Just FYI:

Add a timestamp at the end of the brief statement, using either ~~~~ (four tildes: username, time, and date) or ~~~~~ (five tildes: just the time and date). Signing with your username is optional

… at Wikipedia:RFCBOT Dw31415 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Does signing with 5 tildes make the reply button disappear? 18:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

It does, I wasn't aware. The extra comments should make clear to mobile users to open the next sections, but TIL that you can suppress the reply button like that. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 18:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The 2026 Core Contest Winners!

The winners of the 2026 Core Contest are announced 🎉. A huge turnout that resulted in one of our trickiest deliberation sessions. The judges (Aza24, Femke and Casliber) would like to thank everybody who joined and congratulate the winners!

• First place (and a prize of £120) goes to Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) for his dual efforts on Flatbread and Tortilla! One, formerly an unsourced list-like article, and the other, once a poorly sourced and spotty overview, both now number 250+ citations from an impressively academic source pool. We particularly commend the efforts to globalize content, treat the topics comprehensively and thoughtfully select illustrations. Both articles (one now a GA) are of a uniquely high quality amid the often underserved food topics on Wikipedia. Bravo!
• Second place (and a prize of £100) goes to Phlsph7 (talk · contribs), a Core Contest regular who has once again shown a mastery of big topics, with his dual efforts on Agnosticism and Premise—both now GAs (one, with a review by our first place winner!). With immensely thorough sourcing improvements, alongside carefully nuanced text on these often misunderstood topics, both articles are a pleasure to read.
• Third place (and a prize of £80) goes to MCE89 (talk · contribs), whose improvements to the Heard Island and McDonald Islands article have led to a triumphant FA declaration. The incredible balance of detail between human, geographical and flora-fauna elements is a great achievement, and sets a high standard for future island articles.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list. – Aza24 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Your admin score tool

Hi Femke. Thank you for sharing your tool. I noticed I'm on there. Whilst I'm aware this isn't for the purpose of competition, I feel it could be viewed as such. Such metrics, in my view, are better kept private. That's just my opinion though.

Your tool has an issue with its scoring. @GreenLipstickLesbian is docked 50 points, despite their one block being self-requested. If this is by design, fair enough. Though for a true representation it may be worth investigating? Cheers! 11WB (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't have the technical skills to figure out how to remove self-requested blocks on quarry, but yeah that's a limitation, and you'll see that despite this tool, I've nominated many folks with a block log. Some of the people on there will have a lot of edits, but not have a good understanding of P&Gs. Others will have limited edits, but a lot of insight from perusing old discussions and P&Gs. As someone with experience mostly in dispute resolution and closing before my RfA, I probably would not even have made the minimum threshold there. It's imperfect, and I have not even been able to add edit summary usage. I've considered moving it to toolforge and automatically send an email to common nominators each month with new folks to consider, but didn't have the time to figure out how to get an account with access there. On toolforge, I could combine it with Python, which is more my comfort zone. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't advise unfortunately, as I'm not a coder. This does sound like something a wordfilter or even AI could resolve however. I am uneasy about a ranking system for non-admins based on their contributions though, so this isn't something I would use as a reference point personally. Just as I don't use the admin score on Toolforge. A single numerical value doesn't provide the nuance or context of an editor, it isn't able to provide the bigger picture essentially.

Also going to use this to respond to @Asilvering, who requested clarification on what I meant. I didn't engage further at the RfA as the replies were starting to build up and I had already replied twice. Somebody can have experience, but not the experience yet required for a role. I'll use an aviation analogy: a pilot may be able to fly a Cessna 172, but they would not be able to safely pilot an F-15. I'm very careful with how I word things, I didn't use the word "inexperience", as that means a total lack thereof. I specifically worded it to mean, they are experienced, but not at the level I would expect of such a role. (The activity gaps were the main reason for my opposition regardless). I hope that the WWUS stuff settles down as well... 11WB (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Ping didn't go through. @Asilvering. See above message. 11WB (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't do a lot of coding in SQL, which is what quarry is based on. If I did a SQL query embedded in a python script, I'm sure that I can code something up easily.

One thing that I find interesting is that admins typically vote more in support than the average editor. This might be because we would like the extra hands in the work we do, but it is also because a lot of us realise that the work isn't too difficult. Someone who is welcoming, calm and curious can do a lot of the work. When I'm too tired to properly edit, I do some admin work. Now, there are more complicated bits of admin work of course (closing discussions, working at SPI), which Staraction has the experience in. Learning to decipher what CUs mean with their cryptic messages is not easy. It's telling that Staraction has the endorsement of many active CUs.

If you compare it to my own RfA, there is so much more proven experience. The measurable experience I had was 4 entries in my CSD log, 10-15 PRODs and it seemed like I had joined 10 AfD discussions (I had 50, but didn't show up due to name change). I don't think I'd made a single report to AIV, RFPP, UAA, never ran a bot, never fixed edit notice creation. I don't think I'd even heard of CfD. And I'm doing alright as an admin, doing loads of things I never expected to ever do (this morning, I made it so that referencecheck is shown to more editors for instance). In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm requesting that we cease discussion on the subject of WWUS now, as it serves no benefit to argue over what somebody does or does not mean etc. I unsubscribed from the RfA talk page discussion after replying to you yesterday for the purpose of ending our disagreement on the matter. By replying on a separate discussion, that's been undone and again I'm left having to defend something I've said.

You've today commented on my behaviour and insinuated I've insulted the intelligence of others using less direct language (which isn't true) and yesterday you said I misunderstood the INACTIVITY policy, this has entered territory I'm extremely uncomfortable with. We disagree, can we leave it there? Thanks. 11WB (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure. And if you ever want to talk it out later in a less public place / in a less tense environment, my DMs (and even voice) are always open. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 14:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

That would be much preferable, though I haven't used Discord in a number of months. I appreciate the olive branch. 11WB (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Administrator Elections – RFC Phase

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

The RFC phase of the May 2026 administrator elections has started. There are 20 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/RFC phase.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

GAR process

Hi there! I'd like to help contribute and reduce the GAN backlog. I'm not sure I need mentorship necessarily, but I did have a few general newbie questions on the process.

1. What documentation/tutorials are out there that you would suggest I read through first?
2. Other than the standard documentation out there, any general tips you want to share?
3. For getting my feet wet, would you recommend I hand-pick something from the backlog that's either a subject I have experience in or one that I have interest in?

Thanks in advance! Feel free to drop your comments on my talk page if you prefer! --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello User:GoneIn60.

1. I like the Wikipedia:Good article reviewing guide as a way to guide you through the process. Don't forget to install User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool to make it easier to pass or fail an article, instead of following manual steps
2. When we say spot check, you don't have to check all the sources, or even half or a quarter. Take a small number, and if there are minor problems, take a few more, up to when you have a good picture. Many reviewers spot check too much, making the process less fun / less effective. GAN is supposed to be somewhat lightweight and it usually doesn't take more than 5 checks to find out if there are major problems with sources (or grey zone, which does require more checks)
3. Either is fine. If you have experience in it, it will be easier to figure out whether sources are of good enough quality. If you pick something from an experienced editor, and say it's your first review, they will give you bonus mentoring, but I'm happy to look at reviews too if you want a second opinion. At Wikimania, so likely will be a bit slow to reply. Good luck! In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 23:16, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated! -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Endometriosis

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 17 September 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Femke. Did you request this day for TFA perchance? If so, I wanted to ask what the significance of this day was and if you'd be willing to switch. If there's something that it coincides with or you simply don't want to switch for whatever reason I'll respect your position, but I thought I'd ask.

It's a really long explanation; I'd always intended to ask for this day, but I have a limited number of features and am not used to requesting a TFA day, and but I had this day in mind for Eternal Blue (album), my only solo effort. Its fifth anniversary is approaching and I was hoping to have it on the front for that day. I guess it's been so long since I've had one scheduled, that I forgot the time interval that they're supposed to be set, and by the time I went to go do it we were in October already. I was also on vacation from July 25 until today, so I didn't really get much of a chance to submit an inquiry anyway. I did recently have Bleed American run, but that was picked from the potential TFA sidebar for its 25th anniversary without me having to ask. TL;DR I was rusty on the rules, and if there's anything we can do in 40-odd days between that date and now, I was seeking your blessing before asking any of the TFA people to change anything. Again, feel free to keep it if you're attached to it, I was the one who was late.

Kind regards, mftp dan ^oops 13:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I never requested a specific date for endometriosis, so please be my guest and ask for a switcheroo. Well done on getting that album to FA! In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 15:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

How does one write a good/featured article?

This is quite unhelpful. Are there common problems? What should one try to avoid? Are there essays on this I should read, but aren’t easy to find? How worried should I be about undue weight? How often should I use hard to access sources? What if I use a digital library, where page numbers are different when viewing on, say, a phone and an iPad, and I don’t know what to give as a page number? How thorough should a review pledge be for a GA? I’ve drafted three, from being one sentence to being three paragraphs. How worried should I be about misrepresenting a source?

Although I currently have a specific subject in mind (you can see from my contribs), I’m trying to put these in a way which could help with a wide variety of articles.

Thanks,

_{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

That is indeed quite unhelpful. Given your experience, I would try to get at least 3, but likely more good articles before trying your hand at any features article.

You can find more detail about the expectation of GA articles at Wikipedia:Good article criteria.

The bigges thing to avoid is saying more than the sources you're citing. People will spot check the article, meaning that you need to make sure that each claim is fully supported by the given citation. So you cannot trust previous writers, you have to double check.

Usually, reviewers only notice undue weight when it's obvious. You can use large overview sources to compare. What percentage of space do they take for politics etc? Do something similar.

You can use hard-access sources just fine. Make your reviewers life easy by using online sources too so they can spot check.

Use the page numbers from the version of the book you're using and write down the edition and the format in the citation, so that others can follow. If the format is too unstable, you can use the 'loc' parameter for section headers instead.

I've never done a GA pledge, so I cannot comment. I don't think it needs to be complicated. Do what others do.

Consider submitting your article for peer review first. Like with GAs, reviewing other people's work at PR is essential if you want to get others to review your work. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 15:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Femke. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: TonySt Lynch44
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your relentless effort during this current WWU crisis to help the community make beneficial decisions for all involved and cooperate effectively as we support the WMF staff's organization efforts. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 22:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2026).

Administrator changes

• MCE89
• Staraction

• Danaman5

CheckUser changes

• dbeef

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the 30-day requirement for extended-confirmed status now begins after an account's first edit instead of its registration (T431060).

Technical news

• Inactive editors can now be removed as mentors at Special:CommunityConfiguration/Mentorship automatically.
• The Suggested Edits' Revise Tone feature is now enabled. It encourages editors to identify and revise non-neutral language in articles.

Miscellaneous

• The Unreferenced articles August 2026 backlog drive is underway. Help to add references to 47,000 articles.
• The Articles for creation August 2026 backlog drive is under way. Help to review 4,500+ drafts.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)