Nomination of Polska (internet celebrity) for deletion at AfD |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) →The Signpost: 16 May 2024: new section Tag: |
||
(294 intermediate revisions by 59 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{User:The Wordsmith/Articles}} |
|||
{{Archive basics |
{{Archive basics |
||
|archive = User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive %(counter)d |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 11 |
||
|headerlevel = 2 |
|headerlevel = 2 |
||
|maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
||
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
||
}}<!-- 14:52 May 19, 2016 (UTC), The Wordsmith added [[Template:Oca]] --> |
}}<!-- 14:52 May 19, 2016 (UTC), The Wordsmith added [[Template:Oca]] --> |
||
<!--<CENTER>{{User:Harej/Forever|text1=[[WP:BRC|<span style="color:#6e98c2">BATHROBES</span>]]|text2=FOREVER|image=Bathrobecabalicon.png}}</CENTER> |
|||
{{User:The Wordsmith/Articles}} |
|||
<CENTER>{{User:Harej/Forever|text1=[[WP:BRC|<span style="color:#6e98c2">BATHROBES</span>]]|text2=FOREVER|image=Bathrobecabalicon.png}}</CENTER> |
|||
[[File:Jimbo Peeking.gif|left]] |
[[File:Jimbo Peeking.gif|left]] |
||
--> |
|||
{|align="right" |
|||
{|align="left" |
|||
|- |
|- |
||
|{{archives}} |
|{{archives}} |
||
Line 16: | Line 18: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
{{User:The Wordsmith/Backlog}} |
|||
{{ |
{{cot|reason=Contentious Topics awareness templates}} |
||
{{Contentious topics/aware|9/11|a-i|aa2|ab|acu|ap|blp|cc|covid|e-e|gc|gg|gmo|ipa|irp|ps|r-i}} |
{{Contentious topics/aware|9/11|a-i|aa2|ab|acu|ap|blp|cc|covid|e-e|gc|gg|gmo|ipa|irp|ps|r-i}} |
||
{{ |
{{cob}} |
||
{{Clear}} |
|||
<!-- =====DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE===== --> |
|||
== SPI == |
|||
You're on a roll. Did you want to single-handedly bring the backlog under 100? 28 more to go and then you can retire. :-) --[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 17:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- =====DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE===== --> |
|||
:Thanks! Every once in a while a good hyperfocus lines up with something that's ''actually productive''. If you'd like to help, could you possibly take care of [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Exposed.factotum|this SPI]]? It's the last Non-CU case from January, and too messy for me to make heads or tails of it (more than most India-related SPIs). <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 17:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::No, thanks, I'll let some clerk earn their keep.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== GENDERID RfC close == |
||
Hey, (hopefully) quick question while the close is still fresh in your mind. I was wondering, if there was a slight majority favouring the proposal, why did it fail to find consensus? I can't figure out from the close if you're implying that the oppose arguments were stronger policy wise, or if there was some other reason. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 04:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Where can I read the top 100 ANI bangers? That sounds fun. [[User:Sennalen|Sennalen]] ([[User talk:Sennalen|talk]]) 15:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Since RfCs are [[WP:NOTAVOTE]], the numbers don't outright determine the outcome though they can be a factor. I prefer to mention the numbers in discussions that attracted a lot of opinions just to have it notated, but it isn't crucial to the consensus-finding process. As far as the strength of the arguments, they were roughly even. Discussions like this are a little non-standard, because proposed alterations to a policy, guideline or MOS aren't always going to be based in existing policy just due to the nature of it. Proposed changes like this need to have a solid, affirmative consensus in order to be successful and overcome the status quo, and I just didn't see it here. I don't like no consensus closes to RfCs, and I can often find at least a partial consensus to pull out of the flames (often opposers will agree on some parts of a proposal), but in this case I didn't see any other option. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 04:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:As far as I know there is no list, and [[WP:BEANS|creating one]] would have no purpose but reopening old wounds. Some of my old personal highlights would be the Climate Change wars, GMO battles and Gamergate nonsense, all of which I helped patrol and clear out disruptive influences. The interpersonal conflicts between established editors got pretty wild as well. Those areas seem pretty quiet now, but then again most of the community thankfully seems calmer than it was in the old Wild West days. |
|||
::No I get that they're not a vote, however it's rare that when an RfC has a numerical majority for either a consensus to be found against the majority, or for there to be no consensus found. I've closed plenty of RfCs and discussions myself so I'm familiar with the process. When [[WP:DETCON|determining the consensus]] we do weigh the contributions based on the relative strengths of their policy based arguments, and that's why I asked if the oppose arguments were stronger. Basically I'm trying to understand the ''why'' of the close, rather than the ''what'' of the close. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 04:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I do have a list of "landmark" Arbcom cases, RFCs etc I need to refer to often that helped shape the policies we have today, some of that is interesting reading. It can be found at [[User:The Wordsmith/Useful Links]]. The mass deletion of unsourced BLPs was an especially ''interesting'' time for the project, its what led to the Arbcom quote at the top of my user talkpage. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 15:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::For the record, the percentage of support was roughly 53-55% depending on how the weak !votes and a couple odd ones were weighted. In most discussions of this type, a simple majority isn't enough unless backed up by arguments that were stronger than the opposers. In this case, they weren't. I didn't see the Support !voters adequately demonstrate that the existing wording was a problem that this proposal would resolve, and it wasn't enough to overcome the Oppose argument that the existing policies and guidelines are enough to handle this issue. Where the arguments are equally strong, there isn't consensus and the status quo remains. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 05:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::aww. (Wasn't actually a serious question.) |
|||
::I have noticed things are slower, but I'm not sure that's a net positive. Fewer adults in the room also. [[User:Sennalen|Sennalen]] ([[User talk:Sennalen|talk]]) 16:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== AE == |
||
Hi The Wordsmith, |
|||
The Wordsmith, I am genuinely confused about your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1141074893 comment]. What does POINTy mean in this context, and do you feel that I've cast aspersions? I appreciate that it is an unproductive thread, but I often find it difficult to be concise when responding to this editor. In that thread, after I stated that they had engaged in tendentious editing, I suspected that they were indirectly accusing me of TE by {{tq|moving goalposts, shifting sourcing requirements or misstating the positions I had taken in discussion}}. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1140980079] And when I asked for clarification they obfuscated. At [[Talk:Gender]] they repeatedly falsely accused me of moving goal posts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender&diff=prev&oldid=1131862247][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender&diff=prev&oldid=1131865966], and the gaslighting accusations were all about claims that I had misstated my positions. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 10:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I was wondering if you'd had a chance to take a second look at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Zilch-nada|this]]. |
|||
:My reading of it was that Newimpartial had previously improperly accused others of gaslighting and psychological abuse, and that you were now doing so to prove a point about how inappropriate it was, rather than you actually believing you were being psychologically abused (which is a serious accusation). I'll admit that my reading could be off because there's been so much noise and so many diffs and accusations thrown around on all sides, but could you clarify if that isn't the case? <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 17:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::There has been a misunderstanding. I really have felt psychologically abused and gaslit. I think the false accusations I've received are more straightforward evidence of abuse, but the more subtle forms I guess I have to speak of in terms of what I've felt because I'm not sure if it can be proven. Just on that ANI page I felt like I was receiving abuse. It's difficult on Wikipedia to be able to talk about how we feel when there isn't clear cut evidence, but that needs to happen in some form. BTW, are you still an administrator? [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 18:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::That's fine then, sincerity doesn't always come across over text. Especially at ANI; there's a good reason it has redirects to it like [[WP:CESSPIT]], [[WP:ALOTOFDRAMA]] and [[WP:AIRINGOFGRIEVANCES]]. I apologize for the misunderstanding and I'll strike my comment, though I would suggest that if you're experiencing a psychological impact from that topic area then it might be a good idea to take a break, or edit something boring for a bit to reset your mental state. Like an article about a rock, or train station or something. You can also reach out if you're having issues and I'll do my best to help. |
|||
:::As for my adminship, I was desysopped at the end of December for inactivity. Since my return I've been taking some time to get reacquainted with the community and work out how policies and processes have changed since I was last active, but I have requested my mop be reinstated. After all these threads, it's clear that this topic area needs some heavy cleanup, and I do have experience with clearing out disruption and BLP issues in controversial areas like this. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 18:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thank you; that's very generous of you. I feel like what's most distressing is the community's inability to recognize editors' behavior beyond the surface. And it feels like there's a culture of silence preventing us from talking about our perceptions. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 02:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks, [[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== And don't forget... == |
|||
:Thanks for the reminder, I got distracted by something shiny. I've taken another look and responded there. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 21:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
... There's also veiled ass Persians and unnecessary ass Persians (scroll down at [[WP:ASSPERSIANS]]). [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 03:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Shiny things are the worst, especially [[tinsel]] ;). Thanks for taking a second look. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:How could I forget? I was considering making up a custom one for that ANI thread, something along the lines of "Ass Persian Territory" with the third being something like [[:File:Achaemenid Empire 500 BCE.jpg]], but the aspect ratio was off and I couldn't be bothered fixing it. Anyway, thanks for helping bring some levity to [[WP:DRAMABOARD]]. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 15:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sorry for coming back to this, but I wonder if you can give some advice: following your second comment, the thread was archived for inactivity. {{u|Seraphimblade}} kindly rescued it from the archive, but it has now received no comment for an additional 5 days, and will probably be auto-archived soon. Aside from adding a "bump" every couple of days to keep it alive (which seems silly), do you have any suggestions for appropriate ways to attract additional attention? (It is not so much that I am invested in ''how'' it turns out at this point, but rather that I would like it to be disposed of one way or another.) Thanks for your time, and sorry for the bother. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm surprised it hasn't gotten ''any'' attention from other admins, but if it doesn't then I'll just take action on my own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 17:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Help.. == |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – March 2023 == |
|||
Hello, currently on the visa policy pages for countries around the world.. an editor is editing using multiple accounts. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (February 2023). |
|||
He is [User:DENOSIO] and his puppets, who have already been blocked several times. |
|||
{{Col-begin}} |
|||
{{Col-2}} |
|||
When looked at their history, he wrote a lot of inaccurate information, which caused friction with other editors. |
|||
First of all, I ask you to block the accounts that appear to be his puppets. |
|||
1. Stars678 |
|||
2. JapanNipponTokyo19 |
|||
3. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:6062:6ccd:6241:a643 |
|||
4. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:287a:c99e:499d:e34e |
|||
5. 203.168.xx |
|||
6. 203.81.xx |
|||
Their speaking style and editing style are similar to the puppets that have already been blocked several times. |
|||
If the above measures are difficult, please set the 'VISA POLICY' pages of all countries in the world (198 countries) to allow only long-term certified users to post. |
|||
At least I think there will be less writing done by DENOSIO's puppets. |
|||
Since I also violated WIKIPEDIA while 'defending' DENOSIO, I am 'prepared' to be punished for it and am posting a message to the administrator. |
|||
Thank you. [[User:Lades2222|Lades2222]] ([[User talk:Lades2222|talk]]) 12:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm familiar with this sockmaster, please file a case at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations]] and it will be looked into as soon as someone is available. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Unblock== |
|||
Hi, I am [[User:Barr Theo|Barr Theo]]. I am currently unlogged because I do not want to break my "insane streak of creations for March", which is also the reason why I did not answer [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]]. (The last time I used an IP address was in 2022 by the way, and this occasion is an exception that I do not want to repeat). |
|||
Regarding these wild accusations of bot usage, I must say that I am very disappointed with your conclusions... No, I do not use "unauthorized bots", I simply create the articles that I have scheduled for the day and then wait for :59 to click on publish, usually at 23:59. Why do I do it? Because I am obsessed with details (grouping individuals by name, such as Luises and Manuels) and with symmetry (I always edit in pairs, and very often two or four pages per day), and also because I am a perhaps slightly stupid and crazy. But one thing that I am not is a criminal and I have never used "unauthorized bots"; in fact, I do not even know how to do that and I am not even sure if there is any kind of bot that can do what I have been doing. |
|||
Perhaps my insane levels of consistency and tiredness lead some of you to believe that I am being aided by machines, or that I am machine myself, but I ain't. I am just a human being, a very relentless and determined one. Sorry, Chaotic Enby, but there are no shortcuts for greatness. |
|||
Now that this miserdustanding has been clarified and now that I have explained by "bot-like activity", I need to be unblocked as soon as possible because my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today (two of which are already done since 21 March, but that I will only publish at :59 of today). |
|||
Kind regards (waiting for 14:59 to upload this).[[Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D]] ([[User talk:2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|talk]]) 14:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Responded on user talkpage, /64 blocked 1 week for block evasion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 16:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi, it's Barr Theo again. I have answered your final question. I did it at 18:59 and you made edits at 19:20s, so I am assuming that you probably just missed the notification. |
|||
::Sorry for block evading again, but you yourself said that you didn't care because I am not actually being evasive. |
|||
::Anyways, I have answered your final question. I cannot stress enough the urgency of this situation. I need to be unblocked today. Do not wait for other admins, just do it yourself. |
|||
::Kind regards. [[Special:Contributions/89.214.148.253|89.214.148.253]] ([[User talk:89.214.148.253|talk]]) 20:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==SPI== |
|||
Hi The Wordsmith! Since you are active on SPIs these days, can you take action on [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpicyBiryani|this case]]? SPI is so much backlogged that these cases are getting no attention. Thanks. [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 01:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Asphonixm== |
|||
Thank you for addressing another [[user:Hi Bree!|sock account]] of Asphonixm. Moving forward, could you kindly review the account [[User talk:Nida Suryani|Nida Suryani]]? I suspect it might be another sock puppet of Asphonixm. This account created the article "[[Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin]]," and its name is derived from one of Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin's daughters, which aligns with the behavioral patterns of this sockmaster, such as [[user:Rita Puspa]]. Once again, thank you. [[User:Ckfasdf|Ckfasdf]] ([[User talk:Ckfasdf|talk]]) 21:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:All the Asphonixm SPIs are now completed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 20:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry to annoy you again.. but he is back. [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asphonixm]]. Thank you. [[User:Ckfasdf|Ckfasdf]] ([[User talk:Ckfasdf|talk]]) 00:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== ''The Signpost'': 29 March 2024 == |
|||
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-03-29}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 5--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-03-29|Single-page]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] * [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script ([[User:JPxG/SPS]]) --></div></div> |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1216007342 --> |
|||
== [[WP:Articles for deletion/Richard Allan (actor)]] == |
|||
Hello, |
|||
You G5-CSDd that page. I seem to remember I had edited the page and added sources, but maybe I am wrong. Anyway would you please oblige me by sending me the text in my userspace/or create a Draft so that I can rework it and try to make it acceptable?. Thanks a lot. -[[User talk:Mushy Yank|<span style="font-family:American Typewriter;color:#00123F">My, oh my! </span>]][[User:Mushy Yank|<span style="color:#F0CCAA;font-family:American Typewriter;font-size:13px;">(Mushy Yank)</span>]] 22:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I've restored the article to [[User:Mushy Yank/Richard Allan (actor)]]. Since you're willing to accept responsibility for it, please make sure all the content is compliant with our policies before moving back to mainspace. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 13:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks a lot. -[[User talk:Mushy Yank|<span style="font-family:American Typewriter;color:#00123F">My, oh my! </span>]][[User:Mushy Yank|<span style="color:#F0CCAA;font-family:American Typewriter;font-size:13px;">(Mushy Yank)</span>]] 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::...and now its back in mainspace, neatly side stepping the AFD which you kindly closed with a G5 speedy nomination on 4 April. <span style="background-color:lightblue">''''' [[User:Velella|Velella]] '''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue"> <sup>''[[User talk:Velella|Velella]] Talk ''</sup> </span> 22:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::That AFD seemed to be heading for a relist or no consensus. A few sources have been added since the AFD was opened, but if you still believe it qualifies for deletion there's no prejudice against re-nominating it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 22:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::... but if it was a G5 then, isn't it still a G5 candidate? Same history, same originator, same sock-puppet? I am not going to argue this at any length - I will bow to your longevity on Wikipedia! Regards <span style="background-color:lightblue">''''' [[User:Velella|Velella]] '''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue"> <sup>''[[User talk:Velella|Velella]] Talk ''</sup> </span> 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Sort of, but there's an exception for allowing edits that are useful to be restored on a case-by-case basis. Aside from the question of whether the new content from {{u|Mushy Yank}} is "substantial" (which would invalidate a G5 rationale), the longstanding practice is that if a contribution by a banned user is useful and an editor in good standing is willing to accept responsibility for it, it can be reinstated at an admin's discretion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 23:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Recent SPI close == |
|||
Hi, |
|||
Thanks for your recent work on the NicolePunch SPI. I wonder if you could help me with a point that has a bearing on one element of that case. |
|||
As mentioned by {{u|Justlettersandnumbers}}, the accounts listed on that SPI seem to be linked in some way to a PR company. |
|||
The Lubham13 account appeared relatively soon after user NicolePunch received the last of their COI warnings for promo edits (NicolePunch was presumably very close to being blocked at that point). Undisclosed promo edits resembling those of NicolePunch continued under the Lubham13 account before that user declared a COI. Then, after Lubham13 failed to install promo material on the Legal & General article through a 24/2/24 edit request (I can’t provide a diff as the edit was revdeled for copyvio), the same material appeared [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ant%C3%B3nio_Sim%C3%B5es_(executive)&diff=prev&oldid=1214347382] on the article of Legal & General's CEO via an edit by an IP address. That IP address appears to be associated with the activity of user NicoleReuthePunch, which is (I am quite sure) a sock of NicolePunch. So, I must say that I’m not convinced that those accounts are really stale (or at least the end user behind those accounts is apparently still active). This IP activity is the most recent edit made by these accounts on the relevant articles, and surely is not stale? |
|||
This chain of events also suggests that the declared COI under the Lubham13 account is not a sign of this user "trying to do things by-the-book" (as you suggested at the SPI). It looks to me more like a failed attempt at doing so before a return to UPE business as usual to get the material into mainspace. |
|||
There has been a long history on the affected articles of edits from a succession of COI accounts, with new accounts being set up after warnings are received, so the recent activity is in accordance with how things have been running here for some time. |
|||
On a related point, the Lubham13 account seems to be a shared account, on the basis of (a) the following quote: ‘Main edits that ''we'' are proposing are […]’ (unfortunately I can’t provide a diff as the edit was revdeled), and (b) the fact that the PR company apparently involved here is based in a town called Lubbenham. |
|||
The shared account issue is a separate issue, but I’d be grateful if you could get back to me on the SPI issue. I accept that not all COI problems are covered by an SPI and that the continuing issue of promo edits on these articles will ultimately have to resolved through other means. However, I'd be grateful for your input on your thoughts regarding the above. |
|||
(Also copying in {{u|dormskirk}} as they have also been active on these articles.) [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 05:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:A few things here. Yes, sockpuppetry and/or UPE is the most likely scenario here. There's almost enough to block the others, but the disclosure put a wrench in that. Since the Lubham13 account was warned and added the paid editing disclosure properly, I'd need to see more UPE by that account after the disclosure to justify a block on that basis. Regarding the IPs, when I refer to them as "stale" I mean that the person using them has probably already gotten a new IP, so blocking the old one would have little effect. I've gone ahead and blocked 81.144.179.'''114''', which wasn't listed in the SPI. I see 81.144.179.'''144''' was listed, so that might have been a typo. It might be stale (it's borderline), but the contributions from it go back long enough that it could be a static IP so I've blocked it 6 months. I've also added a 6 month semi-protection on the three articles that are being targeted, which is usually more effective than playing IP [[Whac-A-Mole]]. If we start to see new accounts gaming autoconfirmed and then popping up with promotional content on that set of articles, that would make a much clearer case for blocking the whole lot including the stale accounts. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 16:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Many thanks for your help here. Yes, I agree 100% with everything that you've said (and the 114 vs 144 was a typo on my part, for which my apologies). Thanks again. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 17:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Jellypeeler == |
|||
[[User talk:Jellypeeler]] has requested the removal of a block you imposed. Since it came at the end of an SPI, I think you're the only one allowed to respond, aside from a community discussion, so I declined it on procedural grounds. Could you review it? [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 10:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think they should be unblocked. In addition to the behviour I noted at the [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TwinTurbo/Archive| SPI]], after Yamla identified their other account, Mr. Riba, I took a look at that account's activity which is mostly on Commons (nothing here) and saw they uploaded a couple images of [[Mahek Bukhari]], an article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=Mahek+Bukhari&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist Jellypeeler created here] (and other Wikis). One was a [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:MahekBukhari_Mugshot.png mugshot], which has since been deleted via [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:MahekBukhari_Mugshot.png this deletion request] so you can't see it now but as I noted in the request, the image had been manipulated to make her look better. The other is [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maybvlogs-4-PLT-shoot.jpg this one] which was uploaded via Flicker on March 3rd and attributed to Cheyanne Reynolds. The [https://flickr.com/photos/200191765@N04/53563439850 Flicker account] was created on March 2nd, a day before the upload, and only has four photos, all of Mahek Bukhari so seems coordinated. It's all very fishy. [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The restriction only applies to blocks marked as Checkuser blocks. I'm just a regular patrolling admin at SPI, so my blocks are subject to review in the usual manner. I think the evidence is strong, but I have no objections to an uninvolved admin handling the unblock request using their own judgement. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 04:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Courtesy ping to {{yo|Yamla}} <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 04:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Let me know if you need anything from me. I have no objection if people want to lift the block here. Of course, it's not my block. I can also look for any further evidence of sockpuppetry, though I expect everything's stale. Also, Nyttend, welcome back! Glad to see you active once again. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 11:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== ''The Signpost'': 25 April 2024 == |
|||
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-04-25}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 6--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-04-25|Single-page]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] * [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script ([[User:JPxG/SPS]]) --></div></div> |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1220541483 --> |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – May 2024 == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (April 2024). |
|||
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special: |
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:Permalink/1220304714#Resysop request (Nyttend)|Nyttend]] |
||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{ |
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
||
|[[Special: |
|[[Special:Permalink/1216602202#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#April 2024|JohnOwens]] |
||
|[[Special: |
|[[Special:Permalink/1216602202#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#April 2024|Killiondude]] |
||
|[[Special:Permalink/1218467362#Handing in my mop|MelanieN]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1218761294#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management closed|Nihonjoe]] |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
[[File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Bureaucrat changes''' |
|||
{{Col-2}} |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:Permalink/1218761294#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management closed|Nihonjoe]] |
|||
</div> |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
||
[[File:Checkuser Logo.svg|20px|alt=]] '''CheckUser changes''' |
[[File:Checkuser Logo.svg|20px|alt=]] '''CheckUser changes''' |
||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:PermanentLink/ |
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1219467786#Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024|Joe Roe]] |
||
[[File:Oversight logo.png|20px|alt=]] ''' |
[[File:Oversight logo.png|20px|alt=]] '''Oversight changes''' |
||
:[[File:Gnome-colors- |
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1219467786#Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024|GeneralNotability]] |
||
{{Col-end}} |
|||
</div> |
|||
</div> |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
||
* Phase I of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review|2024 requests for adminship review]] has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial)|creating a discussion-only period]] (3b) and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 13: Admin elections|administrator elections]] (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA|creating a reminder of civility norms]] (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I|full report]]. |
|||
*Following a [[Special:Permalink/1138889978#RfC: Removing F10. Useless non-media files|request for comment]], [[WP:CSD#F10|F10]] (useless non-media files) has been deprecated. |
|||
*Following a [[Special:Permalink/1140739661#RfC: Should P1 and P2 be repealed as CSDs?|request for comment]], the Portal CSD criteria ([[WP:CSD#P1|P1]] (portal subject to CSD as an article) and [[WP:CSD#P2|P2]] (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated. |
|||
*A [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Make_Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions_a_guideline|request for comment]] is open to discuss making the [[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions|closing instructions]] for the [[WP:RM|requested moves]] process a guideline. |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
||
* Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. [[phab:T280531|T280531]] |
|||
* The results of the [[:m:Community Wishlist Survey 2023|2023 Community Wishlist Survey]] have been [[:m:Community Wishlist Survey 2023/Results|posted]]. |
|||
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
||
* The arbitration case ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management|Conflict of interest management]]'' has been closed. |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing#Request_for_Comment|Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment")]] of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing|Conduct in deletion-related editing case]] has [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing|been rescinded]]. |
|||
* The proposed decision for the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3|Armenia-Azerbaijan 3]] case is expected 7 March 2023. |
|||
* A case related to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust_in_Poland|Holocaust in Poland]] is expected to be opened soon. |
|||
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
||
* This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA. |
|||
* The 2023 appointees for the [[:m:Ombuds commission|Ombuds commission]] are [[m:User:AGK|AGK]], [[m:User:Ameisenigel|Ameisenigel]], [[m:User:Bennylin|Bennylin]], [[m:User:Daniuu|Daniuu]], [[m:User:Emufarmers|Emufarmers]], [[m:User:Faendalimas|Faendalimas]], [[m:User:JJMC89|JJMC89]], [[m:User:MdsShakil|MdsShakil]], [[m:User:Minorax|Minorax]] and [[m:User:Renvoy|Renvoy]] as regular members and [[m:User:Zabe|Zabe]] as advisory members. |
|||
* A [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024|'''New Pages Patrol backlog drive''']] is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the [[Special:NewPagesFeed|new pages feed]]. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024/Participants|'''Sign up here to participate!''']] |
|||
* Following the [[meta:Stewards/Elections 2023|2023 Steward Elections]], the following editors have been appointed as stewards: [[meta:Stewards/Elections 2023/Statements/Mykola7|Mykola7]], [[meta:Stewards/Elections 2023/Statements/Superpes15|Superpes15]], and [[meta:Stewards/Elections 2023/Statements/Xaosflux|Xaosflux]]. |
|||
* Voting for the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)]] election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024#Voting|voting page on Meta-Wiki]] and '''[[m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/396|cast your vote here!]]''' |
|||
* The [[:m:Wikimedia Foundation Legal department/2023 ToU updates|Terms of Use update cycle]] has started, which [[:m:Wikimedia Foundation Legal department/2023 ToU updates/Office hours/Announcement|includes]] a {{tq|[p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing}}. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023. |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
Line 101: | Line 222: | ||
}}}} |
}}}} |
||
<!-- |
<!-- |
||
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) |
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)</small>}} |
||
<!-- Message sent by User: |
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1220239146 --> |
||
== Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C == |
|||
<section begin="announcement-content" /> |
|||
:''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder|You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.]] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-{{urlencode:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder}}&language=&action=page&filter= {{int:please-translate}}]'' |
|||
Dear Wikimedian, |
|||
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. |
|||
== BLP question == |
|||
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|voting page on Meta-wiki]] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. |
|||
<small> Talk page stalkers might want the context at [[User talk:Levivich#1815 unreferenced BLPs]]</small> |
|||
<br> |
|||
I know that when you nominate an article for AfD, it's not a good idea to remove content. I'm a bit concerned about [[Laisa Digitaki]], an article I've prodded, though. This is the first time I've tried to do so (and I'd rather be sure I'm getting the process right instead of going on some sort of mass edit spree where mistakes could cause problems fast) but I'm concerned about just leaving some of the content there due to BLP implications. My question is if [[WP:BLP]] would overrule the faux pas associated with removing content on an article you think is worthy of deletion. I'm inclined to think it would but I don't want to make anyone upset, either. I'm also worried that maybe my first try at BLPPROD isn't actually applicable? A second opinion would be valued. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 14:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter|review the U4C Charter]]. |
|||
:Ouch, I see what you mean. In general, if there's a clear BLP violation it should be removed whether or not the article is being considered for deletion (until there is consensus for its inclusion). The relevant policy is [[WP:BLPDEL]], which takes priority over most other norms. In this case, the article was almost entirely contentious information and had been unsourced for years. I did a spot check of some of the links that used to be in the article, and they all seemed permanently dead with no archive available. The BLP violation was clear enough here that I just went ahead and summarily deleted it per that same policy. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 16:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::So if I see something like that in the future... is there anything I can do as a non-admin other than blpprod? Or should I just bring attention to the article to an admin like what ended up happening here? You're right that the article was essentially full of contentious unsourced information... if I went back in time, should I have practically blanked it because of that? I just want to know what exactly I should've done. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 18:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::The way you handled that was perfect. There were a couple sources in older versions of the article which could normally disqualify it from BLPPROD, but the article creator removed them in 2015 because they were permanently dead with no archive or possibility of recovery. Before doing a BLPPROD it makes sense to check the history and verify that sources weren't removed by vandals, but that's not relevant in this case. And yes, if an unsourced BLP is ''that bad'' but doesn't really qualify for G10, then asking an admin to check it out is fine. I wouldn't normally recommend blanking, but other options include restoring it to an old version that was unsourced but not awful, or reducing it to a stub while the normal deletion process kicks off (and making a note of it on the talk page, AFD, etc). <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 21:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::: So I found another article like the previous one by the same creator at [[Samuela Matakibau]]. The article did contain sources at creation (although it's currently unsourced) so it's a similar situation. I used the regular PROD process this time since it did have sources at one point, even though they're not currently accessible from what I can see. My concern is that the article in pretty much its entirety seems to violate [[WP:BLPCRIME]]. Should I just wait or is this another case of "ask an admin what they think"? [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 21:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I've killed that one as a G10. In this case, the applicable deletion template would be [[Template:Db-negublp]] since there really wasn't any content there that wasn't negative and unsourced. I also left a note for the article creator, asking if he might be able to check his other creations to see if there are other BLP vios to delete. He's created 677 pages in mainspace,[https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Davidcannon/all#0] so it could be quite a mess. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 22:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I considered G10 but I made a mistake with speedy deletion yesterday and was trying to follow {{u|Ritchie333}}'s advice that stuff that's been around a long time likely wouldn't be an uncontroversial deletion. That's why I mostly just wanted a second opinion. As for the creator, he hasn't actively edited in quite awhile, so I'm not sure your talk page message will be seen. He's also an adminstrator. [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Davidcannon] [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 22:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Yep I checked his editing history, which is why I'm not too concerned with discussing deletions with him beforehand. I don't really expect him to join in, but asking him anyway is just good manners. I did see that he's an admin and has been for some time. If it turns out that there's a nightmare of BLP violations in his contribs (or if he uses the tools to reinstate them etc) it might be worth taking it to AN/ANI, but if only a few of his creations from ~2007 are a problem it won't be worth the drama. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 23:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::G10 sounds fine for Samuela Matakibau - all revisions of it had the same unsourced [[WP:BLPCRIME]] violating content. For an example of a controversial G10, consider [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive287#Deletion of Micaela Schäfer]] [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 09:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I checked out that article, and I think that was a good deletion and a good restoration to fix. I don't think it necessarily qualifies as G10 (borderline), but I would have invoked summary deletion per [[WP:BLPDEL]] and then opened the same discussion you did. It seems clear that the subject meets criteria for an article, just not the article that existed at the time. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 15:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. |
|||
== From an old-timer == |
|||
On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> |
|||
Re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Aoidh&diff=prev&oldid=1143139946 this edit]: Yes it did. I hadn't thought of Kurt in ''years''. And I was the one who started the thread to ban him after his similar ArbCom candidacy, where he promised he would vote to dismiss every case brought to it since he thought it was illegitimate, led to four !votes suggesting as much. After which he pretty much left ... [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 02:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
[[m:User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:That was definitely an interesting time, and I recall him being allowed to continue for months because one oppose wasn't such a big deal. I only came back recently and I'm surprised by how much has changed, and how much of a furor these two dumb opposes set off on an RfA with 99% support. Maybe this is why we don't have any more RfAs. Sometimes I do miss the old "Wild West" days. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 15:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list_2&oldid=26721207 --> |
|||
== RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins == |
|||
::I think it's worth mentioning that at the point that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kmweber&oldid=693955951 Kurt quit Wikipedia], he realised how disruptive he'd been and apologised for his conduct. So it sounds to me like a young editor who simply grew up and matured. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 09:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Hi there! Phase I of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review]] has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus: |
|||
== Precious anniversary == |
|||
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Six}} |
|||
--[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 10:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Proposals 2 and 9b''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA|Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 9b: Require links for claims of specific policy violations|Require links for claims of specific policy violations]] |
|||
== Nomination of [[:Polska (internet celebrity)]] for deletion == |
|||
* '''Proposal 3b''' (in trial): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial)|Make the first two days discussion-only]] |
|||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article [[:Polska (internet celebrity)]], to which you have [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Polska_(internet_celebrity) significantly contributed], is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or if it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]]. |
|||
* '''Proposal 13''' (in trial): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 13: Admin elections|Admin elections]] |
|||
* '''Proposal 14''' (implemented): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements|Suffrage requirements]] |
|||
* '''Proposals 16 and 16c''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 16: Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs|Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_I#Proposal_16c%3A_Community_recall_process_based_on_dewiki|Community recall process based on dewiki]] |
|||
* '''Proposal 17''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions|Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions]] |
|||
* '''Proposal 24''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 24: Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process|Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process]] |
|||
* '''Proposal 25''' (implemented): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed|Require nominees to be extended confirmed]] |
|||
See the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review|project page]] for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[user talk:theleekycauldron|talk]]), via [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Theleekycauldron@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Mailing_list&oldid=1218650058 --> |
|||
== ''The Signpost'': 16 May 2024 == |
|||
The discussion will take place at '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polska (internet celebrity)]]''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. |
|||
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-05-16}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 7--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-05-16|Single-page]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] * [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 10:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script ([[User:JPxG/SPS]]) --></div></div> |
|||
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit [[User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier|the configuration page]]. Delivered by ''[[User:SDZeroBot|SDZeroBot]]'' ([[User talk:SDZeroBot|talk]]) 01:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)<!-- User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/template --> |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1223040870 --> |
Revision as of 10:59, 16 May 2024
| |||||||||||||
|
Contentious Topics awareness templates
|
---|
SPI
You're on a roll. Did you want to single-handedly bring the backlog under 100? 28 more to go and then you can retire. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Every once in a while a good hyperfocus lines up with something that's actually productive. If you'd like to help, could you possibly take care of this SPI? It's the last Non-CU case from January, and too messy for me to make heads or tails of it (more than most India-related SPIs). The WordsmithTalk to me 17:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
GENDERID RfC close
Hey, (hopefully) quick question while the close is still fresh in your mind. I was wondering, if there was a slight majority favouring the proposal, why did it fail to find consensus? I can't figure out from the close if you're implying that the oppose arguments were stronger policy wise, or if there was some other reason. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Since RfCs are WP:NOTAVOTE, the numbers don't outright determine the outcome though they can be a factor. I prefer to mention the numbers in discussions that attracted a lot of opinions just to have it notated, but it isn't crucial to the consensus-finding process. As far as the strength of the arguments, they were roughly even. Discussions like this are a little non-standard, because proposed alterations to a policy, guideline or MOS aren't always going to be based in existing policy just due to the nature of it. Proposed changes like this need to have a solid, affirmative consensus in order to be successful and overcome the status quo, and I just didn't see it here. I don't like no consensus closes to RfCs, and I can often find at least a partial consensus to pull out of the flames (often opposers will agree on some parts of a proposal), but in this case I didn't see any other option. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- No I get that they're not a vote, however it's rare that when an RfC has a numerical majority for either a consensus to be found against the majority, or for there to be no consensus found. I've closed plenty of RfCs and discussions myself so I'm familiar with the process. When determining the consensus we do weigh the contributions based on the relative strengths of their policy based arguments, and that's why I asked if the oppose arguments were stronger. Basically I'm trying to understand the why of the close, rather than the what of the close. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, the percentage of support was roughly 53-55% depending on how the weak !votes and a couple odd ones were weighted. In most discussions of this type, a simple majority isn't enough unless backed up by arguments that were stronger than the opposers. In this case, they weren't. I didn't see the Support !voters adequately demonstrate that the existing wording was a problem that this proposal would resolve, and it wasn't enough to overcome the Oppose argument that the existing policies and guidelines are enough to handle this issue. Where the arguments are equally strong, there isn't consensus and the status quo remains. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- No I get that they're not a vote, however it's rare that when an RfC has a numerical majority for either a consensus to be found against the majority, or for there to be no consensus found. I've closed plenty of RfCs and discussions myself so I'm familiar with the process. When determining the consensus we do weigh the contributions based on the relative strengths of their policy based arguments, and that's why I asked if the oppose arguments were stronger. Basically I'm trying to understand the why of the close, rather than the what of the close. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
AE
Hi The Wordsmith,
I was wondering if you'd had a chance to take a second look at this.
Thanks, JBL (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder, I got distracted by something shiny. I've taken another look and responded there. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Shiny things are the worst, especially tinsel ;). Thanks for taking a second look. --JBL (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for coming back to this, but I wonder if you can give some advice: following your second comment, the thread was archived for inactivity. Seraphimblade kindly rescued it from the archive, but it has now received no comment for an additional 5 days, and will probably be auto-archived soon. Aside from adding a "bump" every couple of days to keep it alive (which seems silly), do you have any suggestions for appropriate ways to attract additional attention? (It is not so much that I am invested in how it turns out at this point, but rather that I would like it to be disposed of one way or another.) Thanks for your time, and sorry for the bother. --JBL (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm surprised it hasn't gotten any attention from other admins, but if it doesn't then I'll just take action on my own. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for coming back to this, but I wonder if you can give some advice: following your second comment, the thread was archived for inactivity. Seraphimblade kindly rescued it from the archive, but it has now received no comment for an additional 5 days, and will probably be auto-archived soon. Aside from adding a "bump" every couple of days to keep it alive (which seems silly), do you have any suggestions for appropriate ways to attract additional attention? (It is not so much that I am invested in how it turns out at this point, but rather that I would like it to be disposed of one way or another.) Thanks for your time, and sorry for the bother. --JBL (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Shiny things are the worst, especially tinsel ;). Thanks for taking a second look. --JBL (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Help..
Hello, currently on the visa policy pages for countries around the world.. an editor is editing using multiple accounts.
He is [User:DENOSIO] and his puppets, who have already been blocked several times.
When looked at their history, he wrote a lot of inaccurate information, which caused friction with other editors.
First of all, I ask you to block the accounts that appear to be his puppets.
1. Stars678
2. JapanNipponTokyo19
3. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:6062:6ccd:6241:a643
4. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:287a:c99e:499d:e34e
5. 203.168.xx
6. 203.81.xx
Their speaking style and editing style are similar to the puppets that have already been blocked several times.
If the above measures are difficult, please set the 'VISA POLICY' pages of all countries in the world (198 countries) to allow only long-term certified users to post.
At least I think there will be less writing done by DENOSIO's puppets.
Since I also violated WIKIPEDIA while 'defending' DENOSIO, I am 'prepared' to be punished for it and am posting a message to the administrator.
Thank you. Lades2222 (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with this sockmaster, please file a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and it will be looked into as soon as someone is available. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Unblock
Hi, I am Barr Theo. I am currently unlogged because I do not want to break my "insane streak of creations for March", which is also the reason why I did not answer Chaotic Enby. (The last time I used an IP address was in 2022 by the way, and this occasion is an exception that I do not want to repeat).
Regarding these wild accusations of bot usage, I must say that I am very disappointed with your conclusions... No, I do not use "unauthorized bots", I simply create the articles that I have scheduled for the day and then wait for :59 to click on publish, usually at 23:59. Why do I do it? Because I am obsessed with details (grouping individuals by name, such as Luises and Manuels) and with symmetry (I always edit in pairs, and very often two or four pages per day), and also because I am a perhaps slightly stupid and crazy. But one thing that I am not is a criminal and I have never used "unauthorized bots"; in fact, I do not even know how to do that and I am not even sure if there is any kind of bot that can do what I have been doing.
Perhaps my insane levels of consistency and tiredness lead some of you to believe that I am being aided by machines, or that I am machine myself, but I ain't. I am just a human being, a very relentless and determined one. Sorry, Chaotic Enby, but there are no shortcuts for greatness.
Now that this miserdustanding has been clarified and now that I have explained by "bot-like activity", I need to be unblocked as soon as possible because my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today (two of which are already done since 21 March, but that I will only publish at :59 of today).
Kind regards (waiting for 14:59 to upload this).2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Responded on user talkpage, /64 blocked 1 week for block evasion. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, it's Barr Theo again. I have answered your final question. I did it at 18:59 and you made edits at 19:20s, so I am assuming that you probably just missed the notification.
- Sorry for block evading again, but you yourself said that you didn't care because I am not actually being evasive.
- Anyways, I have answered your final question. I cannot stress enough the urgency of this situation. I need to be unblocked today. Do not wait for other admins, just do it yourself.
- Kind regards. 89.214.148.253 (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
SPI
Hi The Wordsmith! Since you are active on SPIs these days, can you take action on this case? SPI is so much backlogged that these cases are getting no attention. Thanks. Orientls (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Asphonixm
Thank you for addressing another sock account of Asphonixm. Moving forward, could you kindly review the account Nida Suryani? I suspect it might be another sock puppet of Asphonixm. This account created the article "Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin," and its name is derived from one of Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin's daughters, which aligns with the behavioral patterns of this sockmaster, such as user:Rita Puspa. Once again, thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- All the Asphonixm SPIs are now completed. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry to annoy you again.. but he is back. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asphonixm. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 March 2024
- Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year
- Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors
- Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune
- Humour: Letters from the editors
- Comix: Layout issue
Hello, You G5-CSDd that page. I seem to remember I had edited the page and added sources, but maybe I am wrong. Anyway would you please oblige me by sending me the text in my userspace/or create a Draft so that I can rework it and try to make it acceptable?. Thanks a lot. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've restored the article to User:Mushy Yank/Richard Allan (actor). Since you're willing to accept responsibility for it, please make sure all the content is compliant with our policies before moving back to mainspace. The WordsmithTalk to me 13:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...and now its back in mainspace, neatly side stepping the AFD which you kindly closed with a G5 speedy nomination on 4 April. Velella Velella Talk 22:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- That AFD seemed to be heading for a relist or no consensus. A few sources have been added since the AFD was opened, but if you still believe it qualifies for deletion there's no prejudice against re-nominating it. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- ... but if it was a G5 then, isn't it still a G5 candidate? Same history, same originator, same sock-puppet? I am not going to argue this at any length - I will bow to your longevity on Wikipedia! Regards Velella Velella Talk 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sort of, but there's an exception for allowing edits that are useful to be restored on a case-by-case basis. Aside from the question of whether the new content from Mushy Yank is "substantial" (which would invalidate a G5 rationale), the longstanding practice is that if a contribution by a banned user is useful and an editor in good standing is willing to accept responsibility for it, it can be reinstated at an admin's discretion. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- ... but if it was a G5 then, isn't it still a G5 candidate? Same history, same originator, same sock-puppet? I am not going to argue this at any length - I will bow to your longevity on Wikipedia! Regards Velella Velella Talk 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- That AFD seemed to be heading for a relist or no consensus. A few sources have been added since the AFD was opened, but if you still believe it qualifies for deletion there's no prejudice against re-nominating it. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...and now its back in mainspace, neatly side stepping the AFD which you kindly closed with a G5 speedy nomination on 4 April. Velella Velella Talk 22:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Recent SPI close
Hi,
Thanks for your recent work on the NicolePunch SPI. I wonder if you could help me with a point that has a bearing on one element of that case.
As mentioned by Justlettersandnumbers, the accounts listed on that SPI seem to be linked in some way to a PR company.
The Lubham13 account appeared relatively soon after user NicolePunch received the last of their COI warnings for promo edits (NicolePunch was presumably very close to being blocked at that point). Undisclosed promo edits resembling those of NicolePunch continued under the Lubham13 account before that user declared a COI. Then, after Lubham13 failed to install promo material on the Legal & General article through a 24/2/24 edit request (I can’t provide a diff as the edit was revdeled for copyvio), the same material appeared [1] on the article of Legal & General's CEO via an edit by an IP address. That IP address appears to be associated with the activity of user NicoleReuthePunch, which is (I am quite sure) a sock of NicolePunch. So, I must say that I’m not convinced that those accounts are really stale (or at least the end user behind those accounts is apparently still active). This IP activity is the most recent edit made by these accounts on the relevant articles, and surely is not stale?
This chain of events also suggests that the declared COI under the Lubham13 account is not a sign of this user "trying to do things by-the-book" (as you suggested at the SPI). It looks to me more like a failed attempt at doing so before a return to UPE business as usual to get the material into mainspace.
There has been a long history on the affected articles of edits from a succession of COI accounts, with new accounts being set up after warnings are received, so the recent activity is in accordance with how things have been running here for some time.
On a related point, the Lubham13 account seems to be a shared account, on the basis of (a) the following quote: ‘Main edits that we are proposing are […]’ (unfortunately I can’t provide a diff as the edit was revdeled), and (b) the fact that the PR company apparently involved here is based in a town called Lubbenham.
The shared account issue is a separate issue, but I’d be grateful if you could get back to me on the SPI issue. I accept that not all COI problems are covered by an SPI and that the continuing issue of promo edits on these articles will ultimately have to resolved through other means. However, I'd be grateful for your input on your thoughts regarding the above.
(Also copying in dormskirk as they have also been active on these articles.) Axad12 (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- A few things here. Yes, sockpuppetry and/or UPE is the most likely scenario here. There's almost enough to block the others, but the disclosure put a wrench in that. Since the Lubham13 account was warned and added the paid editing disclosure properly, I'd need to see more UPE by that account after the disclosure to justify a block on that basis. Regarding the IPs, when I refer to them as "stale" I mean that the person using them has probably already gotten a new IP, so blocking the old one would have little effect. I've gone ahead and blocked 81.144.179.114, which wasn't listed in the SPI. I see 81.144.179.144 was listed, so that might have been a typo. It might be stale (it's borderline), but the contributions from it go back long enough that it could be a static IP so I've blocked it 6 months. I've also added a 6 month semi-protection on the three articles that are being targeted, which is usually more effective than playing IP Whac-A-Mole. If we start to see new accounts gaming autoconfirmed and then popping up with promotional content on that set of articles, that would make a much clearer case for blocking the whole lot including the stale accounts. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Jellypeeler
User talk:Jellypeeler has requested the removal of a block you imposed. Since it came at the end of an SPI, I think you're the only one allowed to respond, aside from a community discussion, so I declined it on procedural grounds. Could you review it? Nyttend (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think they should be unblocked. In addition to the behviour I noted at the SPI, after Yamla identified their other account, Mr. Riba, I took a look at that account's activity which is mostly on Commons (nothing here) and saw they uploaded a couple images of Mahek Bukhari, an article Jellypeeler created here (and other Wikis). One was a mugshot, which has since been deleted via this deletion request so you can't see it now but as I noted in the request, the image had been manipulated to make her look better. The other is this one which was uploaded via Flicker on March 3rd and attributed to Cheyanne Reynolds. The Flicker account was created on March 2nd, a day before the upload, and only has four photos, all of Mahek Bukhari so seems coordinated. It's all very fishy. S0091 (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The restriction only applies to blocks marked as Checkuser blocks. I'm just a regular patrolling admin at SPI, so my blocks are subject to review in the usual manner. I think the evidence is strong, but I have no objections to an uninvolved admin handling the unblock request using their own judgement. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to @Yamla: The WordsmithTalk to me 04:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Let me know if you need anything from me. I have no objection if people want to lift the block here. Of course, it's not my block. I can also look for any further evidence of sockpuppetry, though I expect everything's stale. Also, Nyttend, welcome back! Glad to see you active once again. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to @Yamla: The WordsmithTalk to me 04:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2024
- In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV
- News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law
- WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)
- Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users
- Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Administrators' newsletter – May 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
- Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.
- Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
- The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.
- This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
- Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
- Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
- Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
- Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
- Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
- Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
- Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
- Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 May 2024
- News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections
- Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators?
- Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24
- Comix: Generations
- Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby