Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:45, 20 March 2020

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Y U NO ADMIN?

You have many fine qualities including patience and a capacity for civil disagreement. I would like to nominate you, if you feel so inclined. Guy (help!) 17:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Guy, you're very kind to offer, but I think it would be a couple days of me getting ripped apart and then I'd cry uncle and withdraw. As entertaining as that might be :-) Levivich 17:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, not so sure, but you're right it can be brutal. Guy (help!) 19:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Many Wikipedians would pay to see Levivich dismembered in gladiatorial combat... But in all seriousness, you could probably make it to admin with a bit more work. You already have wide name recognition, and are engaged in many areas of the project. You have two GAs. Plus a nom by Guy would go a long way. At this particular moment a few things work against you, but those could be fixed. If you got an FA, and fixed your mainspace/wikispace edit ratio, you'd be in good territory. You'd just need a strong nom (i.e. Guy and some other members of the regular squad) to help combat the anti-Fun factions the same faction that would pay to see EEng in that gladiatorial ring too... Seriously, consider it. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ⚓ 20:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

And then get a co-nom by EEng to guarantee that you'll never pass. _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Can someone pinpoint when exactly I became WP’s version of the antichrist? EEng 15:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

03:21, February 20, 2008 Levivich 16:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't it "even though I'm an admin, I'm just commenting here as an everyday average editor" with a pic of Galobtter, swiftly followed by "hands down the worst block I've ever seen and I've seen some whoppers" Ritchie333 17:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You refer to . The image represented Drmies, actually. EEng 19:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, the infamous "10,000lb gorilla in the room" joke that came across as calling another editor an ape. Learning about that incident has taught me to studiously avoid any and all jokes that involve comparing editors to animals. That way, I don't end up looking like a jackass like EEng. Levivich 19:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

See also WP:UNEVOLVED. On a related note, I’m proud to say the if you google “diffusing conflict” our little essay is about the third or fourth result. EEng 19:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We're changing the world, man, one page at a time. Levivich 19:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if "per Bbb23" would be mentioned :D ——SN54129 13:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

In about 20-25 oppose !votes I figure. Might be the first RfA where Bbb sock strikes the nom acceptance ;) Levivich 16:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

On a serious note, yes, it would be bound to come up. Memories here are long for weaknesses, and those that didn't see his original comment may have seen the ill-fated arb case request. But, if you have sound reasons as to why Bbb23—and concomittantly, all those who have reminded you of it since (*has the grace to blush*)—have been very much mistaken in their belief, then in the short term you would immediately win over possible waverers. In the long term, you do realise don't you, that should an RfA where the issue is raised, pass, then those who occasionally point it out would literally never be able to mention it again. An RfA is a tangible demonstration of the community's trust, and, FYI, accusing those proven to possess such trust would henceforth become a WP:PA. The slate would have been not so much swept clean as, Doc Brown might say, erased from history. Think on. ——SN54129 17:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

God damn, SN, I hadn't thought of the "clean slate" aspect and I'm finding that argument pretty attractive. Levivich 18:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Run, damn it!! Not away - to ward!!!! _Talk 📧 00:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the others here. I think the admin corp needs someone like you within its ranks. Sir Joseph 01:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for the encouragement, it's really brightening my day. Based on RFAs and various admin's talk pages I've read, it seems the best part of the entire admin experience is having editors tell you that you should run for RFA, and then it's all steady downhill after that. – Levivich 05:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, the WMF-funded champagne receptions afterwards are pretty nice - didn't you get your invite to mine? We all wondered where you were... GirthSummit _(blether) 16:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, funnest thing, the large gentleman at the door said I wasn't on the guest list. Must have been a clerical error. I saw you inside and tried to get your attention but, pity, you didn't hear me, though I could have sworn we made eye contact two or three times, but it's no big deal, I'm fine. Levivich 19:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I refer the peanut gallery to the ha ha only serious proposal to nom Levivich on 1 April (echoing this) with a "burma shave" statement..... Ritchie333 17:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, but do you have a dinosaur alt? Levivich 17:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Checkuser says ..... Eh-uhh Ritchie333 18:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Then I guess we both have some preparations to attend to. May I suggest User:TyrannosaurusRitchie? Levivich 18:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Do I have to have a sock? Why can't I have a sandal? Ritchie333 18:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie: Jesus says you can wear your sandals, but only one tunic. Levivich 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

All comments on the RfA must be in one of the following formats:

• Burma-shave
• Haiku
• Iambic pentameter
• Limerick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creffpublic (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

All !votes not following this pattern will be struck and result in indefinite blocks. _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You can oppose but not in prose? Levivich 19:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

burma shave and poems / something 'bout cherry blossoms / prose votes not allowed _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Pint for the best final line:

Levivich, one fine February day,

Thought he'd submit a quick RFA,

Both the noms, they wrote well,

so he thought "What the hell?"

GirthSummit _(blether) 23:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest this be constituted in the style seen at User:EEng#Ode_to_ANI. EEng 00:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• If you ever do an FA, ping me, I'd weigh in on the review. Topic doesn't matter, I'll offer whatever perspective I have. (Note to others: that doesn't mean I'll go easy on the review) starship.paint (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

"And on further review did one weigh." InedibleHulk (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I just want everyone here to know that I already called dibs on being a co-nom way before it was cool. I've been waiting a whole year for this! –MJL ‐Talk‐ 17:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been anticipating this Wikimania War Dance since May 2015, though in a twisted roundabout way that only started seven months ago with the stunning revelation that weasels don't have butt cheeks. So you win this round of Put a Finger on the Pulse of a Poll, but if this does build to a battle royal cage ladder match, will you know which strings to pull from the rafters? I nominate myself as the Karl Rovish figure in this sordid debaucle. But on further reflection and projection, I recuse myself from the 2020 Limerick Contest, to concentrate on distancing myself from the skeletons in my own closet. How easy would it be for Levi if I ran concurrently and juxtaposed against his (presumably) lesser "evil", I wonder... InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that you would be an excellent Admin. We have not always seen eye-to-eye, but you are an upstanding person of sound reasoning and common sense and you would be a fine addition to the Admin ranks. GlassBones (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

What do people think about RFA self-noms? Desirable/undesirable? To be encouraged/discouraged? (Asking for a friend.) Levivich (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Bad look fer shure. EEng 18:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Terrible idea since getting a candidate through RFA is on my wikibucket list. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 16:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, used to be fine, now, not so much. Guy (help!) 22:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Trends come and go on RfA but you need to follow the system regularly for years to see them emerging and disappearing. There used to be people who would systematically oppose every self nom. Nowadays, a nom and a co-nom, usually both admins, seems to be the safest bet. The current trend is to oppose every candidate who does not have an FA up his sleeve, and also trending is the habit of dragging up really old spats and making out they are a pattern of aggressive behaviour. The latest is another, not so new, trend to ask irrelevant questions - and a lot of them, and to oppose if the candidate exercises their rights and gives an optional question a legitimate pass. RfA? Go for it. Just my opinions - nothing to get uptight about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Just run, damn it. Enough fannying around!

Oh, and

But his !votes, they went thata way

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you everyone, it's been humbling. I guess I've milked this about as much as I can, and should face the inevitable public butt kicking. Levivich  00:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

As to myself, closure has come. It will never belong (to me). I still wanna fight, prove someone right, lay down and forfeit. Because Levitation is possible (if you're making it, and pushing it, and leading us along!) InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You took too long to run, the coronavirus won, I'm bailing on this confusing plot (but without prejudice; Polish power!) InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, you can't blame me for putting it off, this shit almost killed the last guy! Levivich  21:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you. I'm wishing you good luck, same as I did on the last guy's page. Only he wasn't Polish, and I'm pretty sure a part of you still is, so it came across a bit differently here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry to report no part of me is Polish, not even the kielbasa. ☹️ Levivich  01:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Really? Damn. Sorry! But hey, look on the positively spinning side: at least no part of you is Polish! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Special Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your thoughtfulness, your civility, for being an exemplar of Wikipedian values and for having a funky user page. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow thanks Gog!! Glad you liked my user page. Don't forget the kid gloves when you eventually see me at FAC ;-) Levivich  17:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

No chance. I am already practising: "Call this a FAC? In the old days it wouldn't have been fit to stand for GAN! Take it away and source every second word. Rant, grumble, whinge."

What do you have in the pipeline? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

LOL Gog. "You call that a FAC? That's not fit for a stub template! It's a wonder the server even saved that page!" You know, Smallbones is always soliciting humor columns for the signpost: a parody FAC review by your alter-ego "Gog the Harsh" would be hilarious; you could review some well-known piece of literature like Shakespeare or the Bible or a WMF strategic plan or something.In the pipeline is a collaboration at Talk:Alexandros Schinas#Road to FA (which turned out to be a much longer road than I thought it would be), and, hopefully once Girth recovers from his injuries from his last FAC, St Rufus Church. – Levivich  18:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

That looks interesting. Ping me when it needs reviewing, or if you hit problems. The church looks dry as dust to me, but Girth is a fine chap - you will enjoy collaborating with him. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Since my name was mentioned here, I'll just say that I'd invite Gog (mild or harsh) to write for The Signpost anytime again, like next month. A joke FAC would be fine, maybe for "War and Peace" with the comment that it isn't long enough (and leave out the French quotes). But I only ever beg for a humour column from Levivich, because he's the only person I've ever seen on-Wiki with a sense of humour (Note the column is named "Humour"). I was about to suggest a topic last weekend when I ran into this which would only require cutting down the given material and making it more believable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

e.g.

Writing tone should be neutral. Users are not supposed to address anyone at any moment while writing a professional Misplaced Pages page. The tone needed to be neutral and the content should be impartial so that no one can easily relate with him or here. Misplaced Pages is an online page of any subject where information should be added very correctly. There is absolutely no scope of personal opinions even when you are writing for some brand or product as well. So, make sure that if you are writing a Misplaced Pages page for something, take the trustable and reliable sources only under consideration as a little mistake can turn up into a huge disaster for you as well. Conclusion. These are some of the basics and as well as pro benefit you can get from hiring a trustable and reputable Misplaced Pages page creator. Although, choosing a right wikipedia editor will make sure your page gets accepted in wikipedia without any hassle

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Levivich - just a note to say that I got your ping above, got sidetracked and forgot to come back here. I'd love to take St Rufus to FA if we can - I'm a bit concerned though that it's a bit thin on detail at the moment. One thing a number of reviewers at MMG said was that there wasn't a great deal of detail about her life - I think this might be similar, we might need to get more detail about the history of its construction, and maybe more detailed commentary on the architecture. The first thing to do might be to look for newspaper sources from the time - historic newspapers aren't really my thing though, SusunW did most of the work on that for MMG, do you have much experience in digging them out? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Girth, yeah, I remember seeing more usable content in the old Scottish chronicles but I'm not sure if it's enough. I have experience searching newspaper archives, but only US archives; I've never search Scottish archives and don't even know what archives exist to search. I'd like to finish up the other FA first and then I'll probably do some more research on St Rufus and see how much new content I can dig up; I'll share it with you when I have it and we can decide if it's worth pursuing? Levivich  20:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure - get through the other one first, I'll try to find out more about how to search newspaper archives, and we can get our heads together then to see what we can dig up. Looking forward to it :) GirthSummit _(blether) 20:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Levivich - have you made any progress on the above assignment? Maybe you could straighten out the joke here instead. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Smallbones! Haven't made any progress unfortunately, and thanks to this mini-apocalypse pandemic shutdown we're having I'm going to have a lot less time for WP coming up, also unfortunate (or maybe not). I will say that "'Belgium will try to fix the lack of women on Misplaced Pages?' in The Brussels Times. Did 100 new women's biographies in Brussels sprout?" Is very promising, there is absolutely a brussel sprout pun to be made here. I'll think on it.

You know what you might want to add on that page, though? I find it ironic that the Fast Company article, "How Misplaced Pages’s volunteers became the web’s best weapon against misinformation", which lauds Misplaced Pages for its integrity and accuracy among all the fake news on the internet these days, says ... in January, Maria Elise Turner Lauder, a Canadian teacher, linguist, and philanthropist, became the English edition’s six-millionth entry, but of course, that's not true. That article is not Misplaced Pages's 6 millionth article. We have no idea what Misplaced Pages's 6 milllionth article is. That article was created 23 Jan 2020 18:59, and at the same time, at least 14 other articles were also created, because multiple editors were creating articles in batches, intentionally trying to create "the 6 millionth article". At WT:Six million articles, editors got together and decided to announce that Maria Elise Turner Lauder was the 6 millionth article because it looks good, a lot better than some of the other choices (like Auto-trolling).

What's ironic about this is that, of the 15 articles created at 18:59 that were discussed by editors, 6 were biographies of men and 3 were biographies of women, illustrating our persistent gender gap, yet we chose a good biography of a woman to be the six millionth, because it makes us look good. And then the media repeats that as if it were true, when its not true, and also misleading. It's actually misinformation–fake news, propaganda to improve Wikpiedia's image–created by Misplaced Pages, and repeated by the media in an article congratulating Misplaced Pages for being the web's best weapon against misinformation.

This should be exposed explained, for the sake of our actual integrity. Levivich  16:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Smallbones, not sure on the procedure for changing/discussing the Signpost pages, so I'll just annoy Levivich with side conversations on this talk page. How about rearranging to "Did a Wikithon in Brussels sprout 100 new biographies of women"? creffett (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

RFC

How do I open that RFC thing? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Zarcademan123456 I’d start a discussion (probably on a WikiProject talk page or some other central location) about what the RFC question(s) should be, and then once everyone agrees on that, see WP:RFC for the technical instructions. Good luck! Levivich  02:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Archiving at ANI

Hello, Levivich,

I see you have been active at ANI, archiving closed discussions. I just wanted to remind you that Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours and closed discussions usually stay on the current page for at least 1 or 2 days. Some threads that you archived had not passed the 24 hour threshold. It's important to leave closed discussions on the main page for awhile so that editors who have participated in them can easily see how they were closed.

I'm not going to undo your archiving but, from here on out, please wait at least 24 hours before archiving a closed discussion. Thank you. Liz 23:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Correct me if I am wrong here but all of them were closed for 24 hours minus this one that had no discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

... and that one thread had been closed for 22 hours instead of 24. Levivich  23:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

True, I take it back. I think a block is needed! PackMecEng (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, there goes the RFA chances. Sir Joseph 00:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This is too rigid. Straightforward matters e.g. X asks for a revdel, Y says they've done it, then X thanks them and that's it, are of no educational value and need not be kept around at all. That's an extreme example but there's a whole spectrum and judgment is needed. Like the header says, Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. (COI disclosure: I think I wrote that, years ago.) Finally, many or most discussion do not need, and do not receive, closes. EEng 23:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I agree. I was dragged to AN because I archived threads at ANI before the three day period someone wanted, and one of them was a revdel, as you pointed out. If it serves no purpose, keeping it on the page just makes the page more unwieldy. We need more people with common sense, not less. Sir Joseph 23:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Weird tweets about me

Does anyone know what these weird tweets with links to my edits are about? . Levivich  18:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems to have something to do with the Socialdog tag on them. They appear to be automated tweets to that suspended @tos account. Lucky you! PackMecEng (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Poster's Twitter links to a Misplaced Pages user page, which is in Japanese. If it were on English, I'd put their page up for U5 speedy deletion, as it's a promo page for a project they're doing. Seeing as the edits were now 5 months ago, I don't see much harm in them tho. My AGF version: they wanted to show how to make an edit in a sandbox to a friend and happened on your profile. My not AGF version: they are using Misplaced Pages for promotion and are not here. Or there's something fishier going on, and you should send an email to ArbCom. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Or they're using u for machine learning :P "We gave a computer 10,000 edits by Levivich and then had it respond to a talk page conversation" CaptainEek ⚓ 19:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"... the computer self-destructed shortly after it began processing the edits." Levivich  19:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

On IP signatures

It's interesting your bringing that up because recently my thoughts have strayed in the other direction. Part of the mission, in theory, is to counter systemic bias and prejudice against IP editors by demonstrating that IPs can provide consistent quality good-faith contributions. But once an IP or IP range gains a separate identity this doesn't work as well because then people just ascribe the good work to that particular identity instead of the mass of IP editors as a whole, and the goal of reducing knee-jerk editing directed against IPs in general is not fulfilled. So the best way to reinforce that all edits should stand or fall on their own merits is then to eschew any identity whatsoever. A separate but related problem is egoism. A fixed identity works counter to the goal of eschewing credit for building what is ultimately earth's encyclopedia. Not that you shouldn't be personally proud of your achievements, just that there shouldn't be any need for anyone else to know about them. In theory IP editing is the best way to avoid falling into that trap and creating an identity undermines that advantage. Indeed in theory working in a group from publicly accessible computers should mitigate it even more, however even shared group identities can be problematic especially if you have trouble expanding beyond a core handful.

There is admittedly the problem that IP editing seems to avoid scrutiny. It is a thorny issue, how can you simultaneously deflect credit and absorb blame? I'm not sure myself. I do know that I've apparently goofed big time, but maybe that will at least provide a chance to show that IP editors can be held accountable, even hold themselves accountable, I'll just have to take some time to figure out how.

Maybe this seems hypocritical given the source, I only learned about the new nickname after it was established. I didn't object, but perhaps I should have, as it's too late to do so now. I'm half-tempted to pull out the ethernet cable for a few minutes so the IP resets, but doing so on my own would be too unilateral. It may all be moot anyway per the current rumors this place is done for sooner rather than later. If that happens look for some pop-up anti-vandalism IPs and maybe one world-traveler IP that is very good at AFD (not me). Don't give them any special treatment just act as you would to any other anonymous users.

Anyway I have no problem with you responding to detail all the myriad ways I'm wrong, I'm always willing to hear out opposing viewpoints, thanks. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

If you truly wanted to edit without any identity, you wouldn't have customized your user pages. The truth is, you do want an identity, you just want your identity to be "the editor with no identity". But Man with No Name has already been done. Levivich  17:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

touché, well I'm still reassessing. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious

help out all around

Thank you for quality articles such as Lois Graham, Lion Versus, St Rufus Church,Alexandros Schinas and mxmtoon, for dealing woth articles for deletion, for adjusting your signature, for humour ("for the love of all that is holy help him out") and compassion, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2362 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt!! Levivich  01:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Careful, Levivich, you should throw the precious into a fire and make sure you don't see any Black Speech on it before accepting it... creffett (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

... sure, be very careful accepting the award from the cabal of the outcast ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Numbers

The rule of thumb that sticks in my mind is that 70% of accounts never save their first edit, and 70% of the ones who do never save a second edit. I know that those numbers are old; I don't know if they have changed materially.

Across all wikis (think of enwiki as being approximately half), the number of active editors has been up for 14 months in a row now. However, new editor retention – which is stable overall – is still dropping here. This means that most of the other wikis are growing by getting new editors, and our main source of growth is getting former editors to come back. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Do we track stuff like mw:Editor Trends Study/Results anymore? Levivich  01:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Assuming you meant to link to strategy:Editor Trends Study/Results, the answer is mostly yes. There's been a massive survey of editors (with a very strong response rate for highly active editors like us) most years for almost forever. The details have changed over time, so you can't exactly compare year-over-year results for many years, but the most of the general themes are represented. The WMF has tracked the kind of metrics that can be automated more frequently. Until a couple of years ago, these were presented monthly. Now they seem to be presented quarterly, although they might still be tracked monthly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

More graphs

The thread at my talk page is massive and I wasn't sure writing about this in the middle of all that was the best thing to do. I found out a way to get more recent information about edits across different namespaces on Misplaced Pages, which is something you asked about way back in February. There's this tool called Wikiscan statistics, which can be found at wikiscan.org and is associated with Wikimedia France from what I can tell, that shows this kind of data for pretty much every project I know of. This is the one for the English Misplaced Pages: . Happy to help you find more recent graphs, even if that search was a bit delayed. Clovermoss (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks CM! I've seen Wikiscan before but never really dove into it. I'll check it out! Levivich  02:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Godwin

I think I agree with you on the merits of this DRV, but calling the people who disagree with you "Nazi-esque" and saying they should be jailed and site-banned is not a good look. Not only is it a textbook violation of WP:NPA, but traditionally it means you've lost the argument. I'll leave it to you to figure out how to dial that back. – bradv🍁 17:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Brad I appreciate your note but don't worry about me on this one. Lists of people by disease are morally reprehensible in general, and in particular, publishing a List of people with coronavirus at the beginning of the pandemic is a very bad idea for so many reasons. I had no clue before this AFD that these lists existed, or that they've been kept at AFDs in the past (this delete result is the outlier, and we'll see if it holds up). There are many content disputes on Misplaced Pages that reasonable people can disagree about, but whether we should publish lists of people by disease, or a list of people with the pandemic illness during the pandemic, are not among them. For me, this issue goes way beyond the "rules of Misplaced Pages" or what's "a good look". If this community ultimately decides to keep this list and others like it, I'm gone, because I believe staying would not be a good look. I want nothing to do with a project or a community that thinks this kind of thing is acceptable. For me, it's a litmus test about whether we're applying the powers and principles of top-10-website-that-anyone-can-edit in a moral and ethical way, or not. Others may think I'm over-reacting, and everyone is welcome to their opinion, but this is my unapologetic opinion: We should not use Misplaced Pages to scarlet letter people by medical condition, even if we can find a source for it on the internet. People who try to do this should be prevented from doing so. The very suggestion of publicly categorizing people by medical condition should be vocally and actively opposed, whenever it is made. Eugenics was so last century; let's keep it that way. Levivich  18:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Template:Z33 Natureium (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)