m Signing comment by BeneEfimero - "" |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) →The Signpost: 16 May 2024: new section Tag: |
||
(221 intermediate revisions by 43 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) |
|||
Hello :) I am referring to your deletion of the article (Wikipedia:Articles to be deleted/Timișoara Award for European Values). I am still quite new to Wikipedia and have definitely learned a lot for my first self-published article, even if some of the criticisms were linguistically very disrespectful, inappropriate and politically motivated. I would now like to make a new attempt at uploading, now that the award has been presented and the international media landscape is sufficient to prove the relevance of the award. I would also like to adjust the way I write to avoid WP:PEACOCKs. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BeneEfimero|BeneEfimero]] ([[User talk:BeneEfimero#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BeneEfimero|contribs]]) 12:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::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) |
|||
== I'm glad it is over. == |
|||
: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) |
|||
I'm referring to your closure comment on [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bob Morley & Arryn Zech]]. You stated that "the allegations of cheating/abuse should not be included" and noted that the policies [[WP:BLPSELFPUB]] and [[WP:BLPPUBLIC]] are relevant, while noting that "all the sources are citing the now-deleted claims published on Zech's social media", and saying that Daily Dot is questionable on its own, and saying the same for Popculture, while noting that The Girlfriend Magazine article is unreliable, as is Distractify and The Daily Planet. I obviously, as you know from the discussion, supported keeping the accusations/allegations, and different views of the sources. |
|||
::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) |
|||
:::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) |
|||
== AE == |
|||
However, like any good Wikipedian, I'll abide by the consensus. I can understand that the "sources should be excluded" and actually think your view that "for matters of sexual orientation and gender identity, we typically allow self-identification through social media or interviews" is good, as it could help verify sexual orientation and gender identity more easily, so that's a positive. All in all, although the discussion didn't end the way I would have preferred, I think something can surely be learned from the discussion by all of those who participated. As for me, I'll probably be more wary of adding anything deemed "controversial" in the future, in hopes of avoiding future discussions. Also, thanks for closing the discussion at [[Talk:Bob Morley]], where I proposed some compromise text, but there was sadly no consensus for it. [[User:Historyday01|Historyday01]] ([[User talk:Historyday01|talk]]) 17:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Hi The Wordsmith, |
|||
:Thanks for remaining civil throughout that discussion. In general the rule for BLPs is that we keep controversial material, especially negative, out of articles until the sourcing is strong enough. In cases where the sourcing is marginal, it is usually better to keep controversial claims (especially based on gossip or self-published claims) out until there is stronger sourcing. Even while the contentious text is being discussed, we need to keep it out until there is consensus to include (a reversal of the way things normally work). It can definitely be confusing at times, but it does seem like you were participating in good faith. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 18:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Sure. I'll definitely keep that mind. I tend to edit biography pages less than other pages, but I still edit them, and create them, from time to time. [[User:Historyday01|Historyday01]] ([[User talk:Historyday01|talk]]) 18:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I was wondering if you'd had a chance to take a second look at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Zilch-nada|this]]. |
|||
Thanks, [[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – November 2023 == |
|||
: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) |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (October 2023). |
|||
::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) |
|||
:::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.. == |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
|||
Hello, currently on the visa policy pages for countries around the world.. an editor is editing using multiple accounts. |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg|20px|alt=added|Added]] [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/0xDeadbeef|0xDeadbeef]] |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1180981757#Resysop request (Tamzin)|Tamzin]] |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1178946582#Remove admin bit please (Dennis Brown)|Dennis Brown]] |
|||
He is [User:DENOSIO] and his puppets, who have already been blocked several times. |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Interface administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Interface administrator changes''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg|20px|alt=added|Added]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1179452714#Interface admin request (Pppery)|Pppery]] |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1182816986#Inactive interface administrators 2023-10-28|Ragesoss]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1182799651#Please_remove_interface_admin_(TheresNoTime)|TheresNoTime]] |
|||
}} |
|||
When looked at their history, he wrote a lot of inaccurate information, which caused friction with other editors. |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
|||
First of all, I ask you to block the accounts that appear to be his puppets. |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
|||
* The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to [[mw:Special:MyLanguage/Community_configuration_2.0|edit MediaWiki configuration directly]]. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A [[phab:T349757|technical RfC is running]] until November 08, where you can provide feedback. |
|||
* There is [[mw:Special:MyLanguage/Extension:Graph/Plans#Roadmap|a proposed plan]] for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal [[mw:Extension_talk:Graph/Plans#c-PPelberg_(WMF)-20231020221600-Update:_20_October|is requested]]. |
|||
1. Stars678 |
|||
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
|||
* Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023|in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections]]. |
|||
* {{noping|Xaosflux}}, {{noping|RoySmith}} and {{noping|Cyberpower678}} have been appointed to the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Electoral Commission|Electoral Commission]] for the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023|2023 Arbitration Committee Elections]]. {{noping|BusterD}} is the reserve commissioner. |
|||
* Following [[Special:PermanentLink/1179537633#Arbitration motion regarding the Prem Rawat case|a motion]], the contentious topic designation of ''Prem Rawat'' has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force. |
|||
* Following [[Special:PermanentLink/1180835750#Arbitration motion regarding Unused Contentious Topics|several motions]], multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the ''Editor conduct in e-cigs articles'', ''Liancourt Rocks'', ''Longevity'', ''Medicine'', ''September 11 conspiracy theories'', and ''Shakespeare authorship question'' cases. |
|||
* Following [[Special:PermanentLink/1180835750#Arbitration motion regarding Unused Contentious Topics|a motion]], remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the ''Macedonia 2'' case have been rescinded. |
|||
* Following [[Special:PermanentLink/1180835750#Arbitration motion regarding Unused Contentious Topics|a motion]], remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the ''The Troubles'' case has been amended. |
|||
* An arbitration case named ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture|Industrial agriculture]]'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November. |
|||
2. JapanNipponTokyo19 |
|||
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
|||
* The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/November 2023 Backlog Drive|'''Articles for Creation backlog drive''']] is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets|the Gadgets settings]]. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/November 2023 Backlog Drive/Participants|'''Sign up here to participate!''']] |
|||
---- |
|||
{{Center|{{Flatlist| |
|||
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]] |
|||
}}}} |
|||
<!-- |
|||
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)</small>}} |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1183901847 --> |
|||
3. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:6062:6ccd:6241:a643 |
|||
== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message == |
|||
4. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:287a:c99e:499d:e34e |
|||
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> |
|||
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div> |
|||
<div class="ivmbox-text"> |
|||
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2023|2023 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. |
|||
5. 203.168.xx |
|||
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. |
|||
6. 203.81.xx |
|||
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|||
Their speaking style and editing style are similar to the puppets that have already been blocked several times. |
|||
</div> |
|||
</div> |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1187131902 --> |
|||
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. |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – December 2023 == |
|||
At least I think there will be less writing done by DENOSIO's puppets. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (November 2023). |
|||
Since I also violated WIKIPEDIA while 'defending' DENOSIO, I am 'prepared' to be punished for it and am posting a message to the administrator. |
|||
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
Thank you. [[User:Lades2222|Lades2222]] ([[User talk:Lades2222|talk]]) 12:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg|20px|alt=added|Added]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] |
|||
|[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JPxG|JPxG]] |
|||
}} |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1184346579#Desysop request (Ajpolino)|Ajpolino]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1183114562#Requesting removal of my tools (Lourdes)|Lourdes]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1182884772#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023#November 2023|Mairi]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1182884772#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023#November 2023|RockMFR]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1182884772#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023#November 2023|Somno]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1182884772#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023#November 2023|WilyD]] |
|||
}} |
|||
:[[File:Pictogram voting rename.png|20px|alt=renamed|Renamed]] {{noping|Beeblebrox}} → {{noping|Just Step Sideways}} |
|||
: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) |
|||
</div> |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
|||
==Unblock== |
|||
[[File:Checkuser Logo.svg|20px|alt=]] '''CheckUser changes''' |
|||
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). |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1187054364#Suspension of Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] |
|||
|[[meta:Special:PermanentLink/25901634#Opabinia regalis@en.wikipedia|Opabinia regalis]] |
|||
}} |
|||
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. |
|||
[[File:Oversight logo.png|20px|alt=]] '''Oversight changes''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1187054364#Suspension of Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] |
|||
|[[meta:Special:PermanentLink/25901634#Opabinia regalis@en.wikipedia|Opabinia regalis]] |
|||
}} |
|||
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. |
|||
</div> |
|||
</div> |
|||
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). |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
|||
* Following a [[Special:Permalink/1183144832#Are admins required to have notifications enabled?|talk page discussion]], the [[WP:ADMINACCT|Administrators' accountability policy]] has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have [[help:Notifications|notifications]] (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page. |
|||
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) |
|||
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
|||
* Following [[Special:PermanentLink/1184642656#Arbitration motion regarding the extended confirmed restriction|a motion]], the [[WP:ECR|Extended Confirmed Restriction]] has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive. |
|||
* The Arbitration Committee has [[Special:PermanentLink/1184772491#Call for Checkusers and Oversighters|announced]] a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year. |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Election timeline|Eligible users]] are invited to '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/806|vote on candidates]]''' for the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] until ''23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC)''. Candidate statements can be seen [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates|here]]. |
|||
: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. |
|||
{{Center|{{Flatlist| |
|||
::Sorry for block evading again, but you yourself said that you didn't care because I am not actually being evasive. |
|||
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
|||
::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. |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
|||
::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) |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]] |
|||
==SPI== |
|||
}}}} |
|||
<!-- |
|||
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)</small>}} |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1188126170 --> |
|||
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) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss American Beauty 1963]] == |
|||
==Asphonixm== |
|||
This was not eligible for soft deletion. Please revert the close of the AFD and relist it. Thanks! - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 14:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
:Per [[WP:NOQUORUM]], {{tq|If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, '''or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past''', the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to [snip] '''soft deleting the article'''}}. My reading of that indicates that even though soft deletion isn't the default for these, it is still eligible for soft deletion at the closing administrator's discretion. If I'm misunderstanding the guideline please point out where I'm wrong and I'll undo my closure. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 17:58, 15 December 2023 (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 Wordsmith, can you restore and relist it for another week? Since it was recently closed, it is better than going through another AfD as probably that is what the nom may be looking to do by [[WP:Requests_for_undeletion#Miss_American_Beauty_1963|requesting undeletion]].<span style="font-family:Segoe Script">[[User:Jay| Jay]]</span><span style="font-size:115%">[[User talk:Jay| 💬]]</span> 04:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not entirely sure why the nominator (who wanted the article deleted) requested undeletion, but per request by you and {{u|UtherSRG}} I've reverted my close, relisted and restored the article for now. I still believe that [[WP:NOQUORUM]] considers my original closure valid, but I'll check the talk page there and potentially open a thread/RfC to clarify the wording there. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 23:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks! What I have seen based on past requests, when there is a soft delete, the nominator wants to get it "hard" deleted, by undeleting and renominating, and we don't have a cooling period before one nomination and the next, for a soft delete.<span style="font-family:Segoe Script">[[User:Jay| Jay]]</span><span style="font-size:115%">[[User talk:Jay| 💬]]</span> 07:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Coming late to this discussion, I just note on an AFD discussion page when articles under discussion have been PROD'd or been to AFD before. I do not know if the closing administrator's discretion can overcome the general prohibition against Soft Deletions under those conditions so I don't have a definitive answer here. But when I am challenged like this, I typically do relist a discussion to garner more opinions to make a closure more decisive. Having closed discussion regularly now at AFD for three years, I've discovered that things are less black and white as they appear to be in policy pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Just for the record, after I requested Wordsmith for relisting, he obliged within 24 hours, and now the AfD is in a position for a possible "hard" delete having received additional delete votes.<span style="font-family:Segoe Script">[[User:Jay| Jay]]</span><span style="font-size:115%">[[User talk:Jay| 💬]]</span> 09:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== ''The Signpost'': 29 March 2024 == |
|||
Notating here that I've started a discussion to clarify this issue at [[WT:DELPRO#Clarifying NOQUORUM Soft Deletes]]. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
<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> |
|||
== Improving "Resisting AI" == |
|||
<!-- 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)]] == |
|||
Hi |
|||
Could you please help me in relation to the piece "Resisting AI" - you kindly note it should be polished, and I am keen to do it but in which way? Now that the secondary sources seems to have passed the threshold, what kind of improvement should be made? Thanks a lot for your help. Andrea Saltelli [[User:Saltean|Saltean]] ([[User talk:Saltean|talk]]) 08:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Hello, |
|||
:The main issue I see is the style/formatting, and sections missing that I'd expect to see in an article on a non-fiction book like information about its development/writing/publication, critical reception, other works that reference it etc. The best way forward is usually to check out Good or Featured Articles on similar topics, and see what coverage they give and how they are formatted. As an example of a random non-fiction book rated GA, there's [[Fifty Years of Freedom]]. [[WP:BOOKS]] also has a style guide that may help you; it can be found at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article]]. <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, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
==[[Talk:United States-Country relations articles]]== |
|||
::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) |
|||
Hello, The Wordsmith, |
|||
:::...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) |
|||
I just deleted this page as an orphaned talk page. Typically when I delete pages, a notice is sent to the page creator, which is you, but Twinkle didn't do that this time. Your edit summary said it was part of a Merge but there was no accompanying article page. Of course, feel free to recreate it if there is an article on its way. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:23, 22 December 2023 (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 == |
|||
:Thanks, Liz. That page was created accidentally by XFDCloser as part of an odd AFD, I must have forgotten to clean up after myself. The page isn't needed for anything so it can stay deleted. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 04:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Hi, |
|||
== [[Rizwan Sajan]] == |
|||
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. |
|||
Thanks for your recent removal of Discission tag, I want to ask about the remained "Undisclosed paid" tag, the user who placed the tag mentioned that "I work for a media agency and it mentioned on my profile". But I want to clarify that's not media agency, that's my own News media company, we run only news websites under that News media private limited company. We don't to any kinda agency work. |
|||
As mentioned by {{u|Justlettersandnumbers}}, the accounts listed on that SPI seem to be linked in some way to a PR company. |
|||
If you are agree with my clarification than kindly remove that tag also. @[[User:The Wordsmith|The Wordsmith]] [[User:IVickyChoudhary|iVickyChoudhary]] ([[User talk:IVickyChoudhary|talk]]) 11:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
:Do you or your media company have any sort of relation with Rizwan Sajan? Why did you choose to write about this person? Many of the sources used seem to have been sponsored, which can give the impression of paid editing. Please read [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:PAID]], and determine if any parts of those policies might apply to you and your Wikipedia editing. If not, then we can possibly remove the tag. I apologize if my questions seem aggressive, that's not my intent. Undisclosed paid editing is an unfortunate problem here, so it does need to be rooted out. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 17:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::No, I or we don't have any relation with him, he's a millionaire-billionaire from UAE. It's almost impossible for people like us to reach or meet them :D I was searching something related to [[Filmfare Awards]] then I come through an article regarding Filmfare Awards middle east. There I come to know about this man then I searched it on wikipedia to know more about him as I usually do to know about someone famous, but I don't found his article here so one day I decided to make article about him. |
|||
::Choosing topics randomly created problems for me in the past also:/ some fellow contributors think as paid editing. I read [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:PAID]], and determined that any of these doesn't applies to me or my work. Don't need to apologize for aggressive questioning, you are doing your work <3 |
|||
::I'll surely disclose if I got paid for any article in future. If you feel right then remove the tag. <3 @[[User:The Wordsmith|The Wordsmith]] [[User:IVickyChoudhary|iVickyChoudhary]] ([[User talk:IVickyChoudhary|talk]]) 10:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::I wanna ask one more thing, what if someone asked my help (the subject of article or any person related to the subject) to make any changes without any payment, do I need to also disclose that ? [[User:IVickyChoudhary|iVickyChoudhary]] ([[User talk:IVickyChoudhary|talk]]) 10:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:The Wordsmith|The Wordsmith]] Any comments on this? [[User:IVickyChoudhary|iVickyChoudhary]] ([[User talk:IVickyChoudhary|talk]]) 20:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Any sort of external relationship could cause a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] even without monetary payment. In general, if a BLP subject has asked for help with their article you want to disclose that. I can't think of any good reasons why someone might want to keep a relationship like that hidden. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 22:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Ok, thanks a lot, I'll surely keep that in mind for future work. |
|||
:::::Anything about the current Tag on [[Rizwan Sajan]] ? @[[User:The Wordsmith|The Wordsmith]] [[User:IVickyChoudhary|iVickyChoudhary]] ([[User talk:IVickyChoudhary|talk]]) 10:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::@[[User:The Wordsmith|The Wordsmith]]... [[User:IVickyChoudhary|iVickyChoudhary]] ([[User talk:IVickyChoudhary|talk]]) 13:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Apologies, I got distracted by other things. I've removed the tag for now. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 16:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::It's ok <3. thanks for you kind words. :) [[User:IVickyChoudhary|iVickyChoudhary]] ([[User talk:IVickyChoudhary|talk]]) 05:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – January 2024 == |
|||
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. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (December 2023). |
|||
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="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> |
||
Line 212: | Line 178: | ||
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
||
:[[File:Gnome-colors- |
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:Permalink/1220304714#Resysop request (Nyttend)|Nyttend]] |
||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1188231933#Sysop bit restored, please|Dennis Brown]] |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
||
|[[Special:Permalink/ |
|[[Special:Permalink/1216602202#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#April 2024|JohnOwens]] |
||
|[[Special:Permalink/ |
|[[Special:Permalink/1216602202#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#April 2024|Killiondude]] |
||
|[[Special:Permalink/ |
|[[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''' |
|||
:[[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> |
||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
<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- |
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1219467786#Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024|Joe Roe]] |
||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|Aoidh]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|HJ Mitchell]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|Sdrqaz]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1190025825#Checkuser candidates appointed (December 2023)|Spicy]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|ToBeFree]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1190025825#Checkuser candidates appointed (December 2023)|Vanamonde93]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|Z1720]] |
|||
}} |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|Maxim]] |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|Enterprisey]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|Izno]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|SilkTork]] |
|||
}} |
|||
[[File:Oversight logo.png|20px|alt=]] ''' |
[[File:Oversight logo.png|20px|alt=]] '''Oversight changes''' |
||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list- |
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1219467786#Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024|GeneralNotability]] |
||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|Aoidh]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|Firefly]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|Sdrqaz]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|ToBeFree]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|Z1720]] |
|||
}} |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|Maxim]] |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|Enterprisey]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|Izno]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192580292#2024 Arbitration Committee|SilkTork]] |
|||
}} |
|||
</div> |
</div> |
||
</div> |
</div> |
||
[[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]]. |
|||
[[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]] |
|||
[[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. |
|||
* Following the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Results|2023 Arbitration Committee elections]], the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: {{Noping|Aoidh}}, {{Noping|Cabayi}}, {{Noping|Firefly}}, {{Noping|HJ Mitchell}}, {{Noping|Maxim}}, {{Noping|Sdrqaz}}, {{Noping|ToBeFree}}, {{Noping|Z1720}}. |
|||
* Following a [[Special:Permalink/1187982425#Arbitration motion regarding Ireland article names - required location of move discussions rescinded|motion]], the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were [[Special:Diff/296047880#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names|enacted in June 2009]]. |
|||
* The arbitration case ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture|Industrial agriculture]]'' has been closed. |
|||
[[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 [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024|'''New Pages Patrol backlog drive''']] is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the [[Special:NewPagesFeed|new pages feed]]. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024/Participants|'''Sign up here to participate!''']] |
|||
* 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!''']] |
|||
* 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!]]''' |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
{{center|{{flatlist| |
{{center|{{flatlist| |
||
Line 274: | 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:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1220239146 --> |
|||
</div> |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:EN-Jungwon@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1192518845 --> |
|||
== Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C == |
|||
== Your note on [[WP:EEML]] == |
|||
<section begin="announcement-content" /> |
|||
I'm replying to you here because threaded discussions are not allowed in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions]]. I hope this is acceptable. I reviewed [[WP:EEML]] and while I agree that summarizing the evidence in a way that doesn't compromise privacy is possible, I wanted to note that this case is quite different: |
|||
:''[[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, |
|||
1. There were no indefinite topic bans or blocks in this case. |
|||
2. The editors were accused of canvassing others and disruptive editing, not for being canvassed, which seems to be a far lesser offense. |
|||
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. |
|||
Given those differences, I think citing this as a precedent is not entirely accurate. Please let me know if I'm missing something. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 18:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
:Several editors were topic banned and site banned in that case, and both topic and site bans have been proposed during the current motions. Additionally, the LTA who allegedly coordinated the meatpuppetry was already banned. Regarding being canvassed, I'd encourage you to look at the Findings of Fact in that case closer. The individual users were noted {{tq|has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed}}. Regardless, this was the first big landmark off-wiki coordination case that I can remember. Even if not all if it is identical, there are enough similarities that it can be looked to as a source of precedent in how related issues are handled. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 19:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Was there a user in that case who was sanctioned only for having "participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed"? |
|||
::I can see the similarities, but it seems that the accused people there were all neck-deep into disruptive editing, edit warring, actively canvassing others, sharing their passwords. And none of them were indefinitely banned or blocked. I think for completeness and fairness to the accused editors in this case, it would be good to mention those difference in your statement. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::To the best of my knowledge, nobody was sanctioned only for participating after being canvassed. It was listed as sanctionable behavior, however and I never said it was the exact same situation. I'm see no need to add to my statement at this time; other editors and Arbs can read the case and determine for themselves how much of it applies. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 21:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Ok, I'll raise that point. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 21:13, 9 January 2024 (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]]. |
|||
== Welsh Tidy Mouse == |
|||
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. |
|||
That actually does seem like it might be a viable topic, when it comes to "famous Internet animals". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 19:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> |
|||
:It might be, but not yet. The coverage I've seen so far all seems like [[WP:DOGBITESMAN]]. If it ends up going viral and being covered elsewhere on a more ongoing basis, there might be something there. Someone is bound to try creating it, so I'm tempted to create an R with possibilities if I can find a good target for it. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 21:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[m:User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== A bathrobe for you! == |
|||
<!-- 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 == |
|||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Bathrobecabalicon.svg|100px]] |
|||
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: |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''A bathrobe for you!''' |
|||
|- |
|||
* '''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]] |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I saw the top of this page and how could I not do this? [[User:Queen of Hearts|<sup><span style="color: darkred">Queen</span></sup>]][[Special:Contribs/Queen of Hearts|<small><span style="color: darkred">of</span></small>]][[User talk:Queen of Hearts|<sub><span style="color: darkred">Hearts</span></sub>]] 19:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''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]] |
|||
|} |
|||
* '''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 == |
|||
<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> |
|||
:Thank you! <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 17:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- 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