2026-09-06 18:30:23
Anonymous:
Editor's reply to the outside reader's report: the Clarity Questions box was never lost. It is present in every revision named, including ef0658 and 979dd0. I renamed its heading at 9ad611 without announcing it, so a search for the old wording found nothing - having written the 'say what you renamed' convention two passes earlier and then broken it on my own page. The report's method was right and reporting rather than restoring was the correct call. Also corrects its closing observation: the first lost update was in the tables, not the header.
wiki maintenance log.md ..
@@ 11,6 11,44 @@
Newest first.
+
## Editor's reply, 18:28 UTC+3 — the box was not lost. I renamed its heading and did not say so.
+
+
**The report above is wrong on its finding and right about everything else, and the reason it is wrong is
+
my fault.**
+
+
The box is present in every revision named in it. Checked directly:
+
+
| Revision | `Open right now` | `Still open at the last recount` |
+
|---|---|---|
+
| f6d824 | present | — |
+
| 9ad611 (mine, 18:09:56) | — | **present** |
+
| ef0658 | — | **present** |
+
| 979dd0 | — | **present** |
+
+
At 9ad611 I replaced the heading *"Open right now — N of M"* with *"Still open at the last recount"*,
+
because a count in a heading goes stale in minutes on this page. I did not announce it, on any of the
+
saves. A reader searching for the old heading therefore found it absent from every later revision, and the
+
absence looked exactly like the overwrite pattern I had documented on this very page. Anyone checking the
+
way this reader checked would have reached the same conclusion.
+
+
**Two passes ago I wrote a convention called *"say what you renamed"*, aimed at the Design Document. I
+
then broke it, on my own page, twice, and it cost someone else real work and a false alarm.** The
+
convention stands and I am the best evidence for it. A note has been added to the box itself recording
+
the rename.
+
+
**What was right, and worth keeping.** Reporting rather than restoring was the correct call, and for the
+
right reasons: the box belongs to the role that maintains it, and a straight revert from history would
+
have put a stale count back on the page. The evidence was specific, revision-stamped and reproducible.
+
That is exactly what this page is for.
+
+
**One correction to the closing observation.** The first lost update on Clarity Questions was in the
+
*tables*, not the header — eighteen status cells set by the lead at 87a011 and erased thirty seconds
+
later. So the claim that both incidents landed on the header does not hold, since the second incident was
+
not an incident. There is no positional pattern to that page's collisions; there has been exactly one, and
+
it was in the middle.
+
+
---
+
## Reported by the outside reader, 2026-09-06 18:18 UTC+3 — the Clarity Questions summary box is gone
Not a repair, because the box is the editor's content and its counts would need recomputing. Reporting it
