The Wordsmith (talk | contribs) →Relist vs. delete: Reply to Vanilla Wizard Tag: Reply |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) →The Signpost: 16 May 2024: new section Tag: |
||
(198 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{User:The Wordsmith/Articles}} |
|||
{{Archive basics |
{{Archive basics |
||
|archive = User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive %(counter)d |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 11 |
||
|headerlevel = 2 |
|headerlevel = 2 |
||
|maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
||
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
||
}}<!-- 14:52 May 19, 2016 (UTC), The Wordsmith added [[Template:Oca]] --> |
}}<!-- 14:52 May 19, 2016 (UTC), The Wordsmith added [[Template:Oca]] --> |
||
<!--<CENTER>{{User:Harej/Forever|text1=[[WP:BRC|<span style="color:#6e98c2">BATHROBES</span>]]|text2=FOREVER|image=Bathrobecabalicon.png}}</CENTER> |
|||
{{User:The Wordsmith/Articles}} |
|||
<CENTER>{{User:Harej/Forever|text1=[[WP:BRC|<span style="color:#6e98c2">BATHROBES</span>]]|text2=FOREVER|image=Bathrobecabalicon.png}}</CENTER> |
|||
[[File:Jimbo Peeking.gif|left]] |
[[File:Jimbo Peeking.gif|left]] |
||
--> |
|||
{|align="right" |
|||
{|align="left" |
|||
|- |
|- |
||
|{{archives}} |
|{{archives}} |
||
Line 16: | Line 18: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
{{User:The Wordsmith/Backlog}} |
|||
{{ |
{{cot|reason=Contentious Topics awareness templates}} |
||
{{Contentious topics/aware|9/11|a-i|aa2|ab|acu|ap|blp|cc|covid|e-e|gc|gg|gmo|ipa|irp|ps|r-i}} |
{{Contentious topics/aware|9/11|a-i|aa2|ab|acu|ap|blp|cc|covid|e-e|gc|gg|gmo|ipa|irp|ps|r-i}} |
||
{{ |
{{cob}} |
||
{{Clear}} |
|||
<!-- =====DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE===== --> |
|||
== SPI == |
|||
You're on a roll. Did you want to single-handedly bring the backlog under 100? 28 more to go and then you can retire. :-) --[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 17:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- =====DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE===== --> |
|||
:Thanks! Every once in a while a good hyperfocus lines up with something that's ''actually productive''. If you'd like to help, could you possibly take care of [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Exposed.factotum|this SPI]]? It's the last Non-CU case from January, and too messy for me to make heads or tails of it (more than most India-related SPIs). <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 17:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::No, thanks, I'll let some clerk earn their keep.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== GENDERID RfC close == |
|||
Hey, (hopefully) quick question while the close is still fresh in your mind. I was wondering, if there was a slight majority favouring the proposal, why did it fail to find consensus? I can't figure out from the close if you're implying that the oppose arguments were stronger policy wise, or if there was some other reason. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 04:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss American Beauty 1963]] == |
|||
: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) |
|||
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) |
|||
::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 == |
|||
: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) |
|||
::{{u|Liz}} had noted it was not eligible for soft deletion. Liz, do you have some thoughts here? - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 18:01, 15 December 2023 (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) |
|||
Hi The Wordsmith, |
|||
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) |
|||
I was wondering if you'd had a chance to take a second look at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Zilch-nada|this]]. |
|||
== Improving "Resisting AI" == |
|||
Thanks, [[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
: |
: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) |
||
::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.. == |
|||
==[[Talk:United States-Country relations articles]]== |
|||
Hello, The Wordsmith, |
|||
Hello, currently on the visa policy pages for countries around the world.. an editor is editing using multiple accounts. |
|||
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) |
|||
He is [User:DENOSIO] and his puppets, who have already been blocked several times. |
|||
: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) |
|||
When looked at their history, he wrote a lot of inaccurate information, which caused friction with other editors. |
|||
== [[Rizwan Sajan]] == |
|||
First of all, I ask you to block the accounts that appear to be his puppets. |
|||
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. |
|||
1. Stars678 |
|||
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) |
|||
2. JapanNipponTokyo19 |
|||
: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) |
|||
3. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:6062:6ccd:6241:a643 |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – January 2024 == |
|||
4. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:287a:c99e:499d:e34e |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (December 2023). |
|||
5. 203.168.xx |
|||
6. 203.81.xx |
|||
Their speaking style and editing style are similar to the puppets that have already been blocked several times. |
|||
If the above measures are difficult, please set the 'VISA POLICY' pages of all countries in the world (198 countries) to allow only long-term certified users to post. |
|||
At least I think there will be less writing done by DENOSIO's puppets. |
|||
Since I also violated WIKIPEDIA while 'defending' DENOSIO, I am 'prepared' to be punished for it and am posting a message to the administrator. |
|||
Thank you. [[User:Lades2222|Lades2222]] ([[User talk:Lades2222|talk]]) 12:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm familiar with this sockmaster, please file a case at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations]] and it will be looked into as soon as someone is available. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Unblock== |
|||
Hi, I am [[User:Barr Theo|Barr Theo]]. I am currently unlogged because I do not want to break my "insane streak of creations for March", which is also the reason why I did not answer [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]]. (The last time I used an IP address was in 2022 by the way, and this occasion is an exception that I do not want to repeat). |
|||
Regarding these wild accusations of bot usage, I must say that I am very disappointed with your conclusions... No, I do not use "unauthorized bots", I simply create the articles that I have scheduled for the day and then wait for :59 to click on publish, usually at 23:59. Why do I do it? Because I am obsessed with details (grouping individuals by name, such as Luises and Manuels) and with symmetry (I always edit in pairs, and very often two or four pages per day), and also because I am a perhaps slightly stupid and crazy. But one thing that I am not is a criminal and I have never used "unauthorized bots"; in fact, I do not even know how to do that and I am not even sure if there is any kind of bot that can do what I have been doing. |
|||
Perhaps my insane levels of consistency and tiredness lead some of you to believe that I am being aided by machines, or that I am machine myself, but I ain't. I am just a human being, a very relentless and determined one. Sorry, Chaotic Enby, but there are no shortcuts for greatness. |
|||
Now that this miserdustanding has been clarified and now that I have explained by "bot-like activity", I need to be unblocked as soon as possible because my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today (two of which are already done since 21 March, but that I will only publish at :59 of today). |
|||
Kind regards (waiting for 14:59 to upload this).[[Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D]] ([[User talk:2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|talk]]) 14:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Responded on user talkpage, /64 blocked 1 week for block evasion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 16:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi, it's Barr Theo again. I have answered your final question. I did it at 18:59 and you made edits at 19:20s, so I am assuming that you probably just missed the notification. |
|||
::Sorry for block evading again, but you yourself said that you didn't care because I am not actually being evasive. |
|||
::Anyways, I have answered your final question. I cannot stress enough the urgency of this situation. I need to be unblocked today. Do not wait for other admins, just do it yourself. |
|||
::Kind regards. [[Special:Contributions/89.214.148.253|89.214.148.253]] ([[User talk:89.214.148.253|talk]]) 20:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==SPI== |
|||
Hi The Wordsmith! Since you are active on SPIs these days, can you take action on [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpicyBiryani|this case]]? SPI is so much backlogged that these cases are getting no attention. Thanks. [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 01:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Asphonixm== |
|||
Thank you for addressing another [[user:Hi Bree!|sock account]] of Asphonixm. Moving forward, could you kindly review the account [[User talk:Nida Suryani|Nida Suryani]]? I suspect it might be another sock puppet of Asphonixm. This account created the article "[[Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin]]," and its name is derived from one of Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin's daughters, which aligns with the behavioral patterns of this sockmaster, such as [[user:Rita Puspa]]. Once again, thank you. [[User:Ckfasdf|Ckfasdf]] ([[User talk:Ckfasdf|talk]]) 21:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:All the Asphonixm SPIs are now completed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 20:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry to annoy you again.. but he is back. [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asphonixm]]. Thank you. [[User:Ckfasdf|Ckfasdf]] ([[User talk:Ckfasdf|talk]]) 00:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== ''The Signpost'': 29 March 2024 == |
|||
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-03-29}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 5--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-03-29|Single-page]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] * [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script ([[User:JPxG/SPS]]) --></div></div> |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1216007342 --> |
|||
== [[WP:Articles for deletion/Richard Allan (actor)]] == |
|||
Hello, |
|||
You G5-CSDd that page. I seem to remember I had edited the page and added sources, but maybe I am wrong. Anyway would you please oblige me by sending me the text in my userspace/or create a Draft so that I can rework it and try to make it acceptable?. Thanks a lot. -[[User talk:Mushy Yank|<span style="font-family:American Typewriter;color:#00123F">My, oh my! </span>]][[User:Mushy Yank|<span style="color:#F0CCAA;font-family:American Typewriter;font-size:13px;">(Mushy Yank)</span>]] 22:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I've restored the article to [[User:Mushy Yank/Richard Allan (actor)]]. Since you're willing to accept responsibility for it, please make sure all the content is compliant with our policies before moving back to mainspace. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 13:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks a lot. -[[User talk:Mushy Yank|<span style="font-family:American Typewriter;color:#00123F">My, oh my! </span>]][[User:Mushy Yank|<span style="color:#F0CCAA;font-family:American Typewriter;font-size:13px;">(Mushy Yank)</span>]] 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::...and now its back in mainspace, neatly side stepping the AFD which you kindly closed with a G5 speedy nomination on 4 April. <span style="background-color:lightblue">''''' [[User:Velella|Velella]] '''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue"> <sup>''[[User talk:Velella|Velella]] Talk ''</sup> </span> 22:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::That AFD seemed to be heading for a relist or no consensus. A few sources have been added since the AFD was opened, but if you still believe it qualifies for deletion there's no prejudice against re-nominating it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 22:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::... but if it was a G5 then, isn't it still a G5 candidate? Same history, same originator, same sock-puppet? I am not going to argue this at any length - I will bow to your longevity on Wikipedia! Regards <span style="background-color:lightblue">''''' [[User:Velella|Velella]] '''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue"> <sup>''[[User talk:Velella|Velella]] Talk ''</sup> </span> 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Sort of, but there's an exception for allowing edits that are useful to be restored on a case-by-case basis. Aside from the question of whether the new content from {{u|Mushy Yank}} is "substantial" (which would invalidate a G5 rationale), the longstanding practice is that if a contribution by a banned user is useful and an editor in good standing is willing to accept responsibility for it, it can be reinstated at an admin's discretion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 23:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Recent SPI close == |
|||
Hi, |
|||
Thanks for your recent work on the NicolePunch SPI. I wonder if you could help me with a point that has a bearing on one element of that case. |
|||
As mentioned by {{u|Justlettersandnumbers}}, the accounts listed on that SPI seem to be linked in some way to a PR company. |
|||
The Lubham13 account appeared relatively soon after user NicolePunch received the last of their COI warnings for promo edits (NicolePunch was presumably very close to being blocked at that point). Undisclosed promo edits resembling those of NicolePunch continued under the Lubham13 account before that user declared a COI. Then, after Lubham13 failed to install promo material on the Legal & General article through a 24/2/24 edit request (I can’t provide a diff as the edit was revdeled for copyvio), the same material appeared [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ant%C3%B3nio_Sim%C3%B5es_(executive)&diff=prev&oldid=1214347382] on the article of Legal & General's CEO via an edit by an IP address. That IP address appears to be associated with the activity of user NicoleReuthePunch, which is (I am quite sure) a sock of NicolePunch. So, I must say that I’m not convinced that those accounts are really stale (or at least the end user behind those accounts is apparently still active). This IP activity is the most recent edit made by these accounts on the relevant articles, and surely is not stale? |
|||
This chain of events also suggests that the declared COI under the Lubham13 account is not a sign of this user "trying to do things by-the-book" (as you suggested at the SPI). It looks to me more like a failed attempt at doing so before a return to UPE business as usual to get the material into mainspace. |
|||
There has been a long history on the affected articles of edits from a succession of COI accounts, with new accounts being set up after warnings are received, so the recent activity is in accordance with how things have been running here for some time. |
|||
On a related point, the Lubham13 account seems to be a shared account, on the basis of (a) the following quote: ‘Main edits that ''we'' are proposing are […]’ (unfortunately I can’t provide a diff as the edit was revdeled), and (b) the fact that the PR company apparently involved here is based in a town called Lubbenham. |
|||
The shared account issue is a separate issue, but I’d be grateful if you could get back to me on the SPI issue. I accept that not all COI problems are covered by an SPI and that the continuing issue of promo edits on these articles will ultimately have to resolved through other means. However, I'd be grateful for your input on your thoughts regarding the above. |
|||
(Also copying in {{u|dormskirk}} as they have also been active on these articles.) [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 05:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:A few things here. Yes, sockpuppetry and/or UPE is the most likely scenario here. There's almost enough to block the others, but the disclosure put a wrench in that. Since the Lubham13 account was warned and added the paid editing disclosure properly, I'd need to see more UPE by that account after the disclosure to justify a block on that basis. Regarding the IPs, when I refer to them as "stale" I mean that the person using them has probably already gotten a new IP, so blocking the old one would have little effect. I've gone ahead and blocked 81.144.179.'''114''', which wasn't listed in the SPI. I see 81.144.179.'''144''' was listed, so that might have been a typo. It might be stale (it's borderline), but the contributions from it go back long enough that it could be a static IP so I've blocked it 6 months. I've also added a 6 month semi-protection on the three articles that are being targeted, which is usually more effective than playing IP [[Whac-A-Mole]]. If we start to see new accounts gaming autoconfirmed and then popping up with promotional content on that set of articles, that would make a much clearer case for blocking the whole lot including the stale accounts. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 16:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Many thanks for your help here. Yes, I agree 100% with everything that you've said (and the 114 vs 144 was a typo on my part, for which my apologies). Thanks again. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 17:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Jellypeeler == |
|||
[[User talk:Jellypeeler]] has requested the removal of a block you imposed. Since it came at the end of an SPI, I think you're the only one allowed to respond, aside from a community discussion, so I declined it on procedural grounds. Could you review it? [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 10:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think they should be unblocked. In addition to the behviour I noted at the [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TwinTurbo/Archive| SPI]], after Yamla identified their other account, Mr. Riba, I took a look at that account's activity which is mostly on Commons (nothing here) and saw they uploaded a couple images of [[Mahek Bukhari]], an article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=Mahek+Bukhari&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist Jellypeeler created here] (and other Wikis). One was a [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:MahekBukhari_Mugshot.png mugshot], which has since been deleted via [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:MahekBukhari_Mugshot.png this deletion request] so you can't see it now but as I noted in the request, the image had been manipulated to make her look better. The other is [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maybvlogs-4-PLT-shoot.jpg this one] which was uploaded via Flicker on March 3rd and attributed to Cheyanne Reynolds. The [https://flickr.com/photos/200191765@N04/53563439850 Flicker account] was created on March 2nd, a day before the upload, and only has four photos, all of Mahek Bukhari so seems coordinated. It's all very fishy. [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The restriction only applies to blocks marked as Checkuser blocks. I'm just a regular patrolling admin at SPI, so my blocks are subject to review in the usual manner. I think the evidence is strong, but I have no objections to an uninvolved admin handling the unblock request using their own judgement. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 04:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Courtesy ping to {{yo|Yamla}} <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 04:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Let me know if you need anything from me. I have no objection if people want to lift the block here. Of course, it's not my block. I can also look for any further evidence of sockpuppetry, though I expect everything's stale. Also, Nyttend, welcome back! Glad to see you active once again. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 11:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== ''The Signpost'': 25 April 2024 == |
|||
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-04-25}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 6--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-04-25|Single-page]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] * [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script ([[User:JPxG/SPS]]) --></div></div> |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1220541483 --> |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – May 2024 == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (April 2024). |
|||
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> |
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> |
||
Line 82: | 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 144: | 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 --> |
|||
== Your note on [[WP:EEML]] == |
|||
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: |
|||
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. |
|||
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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
== Welsh Tidy Mouse == |
|||
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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
== A bathrobe for you! == |
|||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Bathrobecabalicon.svg|100px]] |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''A bathrobe for you!''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|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) |
|||
|} |
|||
: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) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timișoara Award for European Values]] == |
|||
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--> |
|||
:If you would like to rewrite the article so that it can meet Wikipedia's standards, it is highly recommended that new editors use the [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] process. Additionally, the guide at [[Help:Your first article]] has a lot of great information about the article writing process, as well as things to be cautious about when writing. Good luck with your 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> 16:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Signature == |
|||
== Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C == |
|||
Your signature contains the CSS style properties <syntaxhighlight lang="css" inline>font-family:Courier New;font-size:3</syntaxhighlight>. As I understand the spec, the value for the <syntaxhighlight lang="css" inline>font-size</syntaxhighlight> property shouldn't be dimensionless. In my browser, I believe this is causing an issue I see with the visual diff feature, with your user name displaying at what seems to be a 3-pixel size in diffs. Could you consider modifying this? As the obsolete HTML font size of 3 is equivalent to the base font size, I think it can be omitted as your signature hasn't set any different font sizes previously. Alternatively, you could use the <syntaxhighlight lang="css" inline>medium</syntaxhighlight> value. I appreciate any consideration you may give. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 18:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<section begin="announcement-content" /> |
|||
:My signature is pretty old. If it is causing problems I'm happy to update it, but I don't use that feature so I haven't noticed it. What's the name of the "visual diff" feature/gadget/preference? And if you could screenshot what you're seeing, that would also be helpful. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 19:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:''[[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}}]'' |
|||
::It seems the visual diff feature is now available to everyone (it used to be a beta feature). When viewing a diff, near the top of the page, there is a selector for "Visual" or "Wikitext". You can also link directly to a diff in a specific mode, so for example adding <kbd>&diffmode=visual</kbd> to the end of a diff URL will use visual mode. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Wordsmith&diff=prev&oldid=1198011322&diffmode=visual This link] shows your previous post in visual diff mode. |
|||
::I've been trying to track down the reason why the smaller font size is only appearing in the visual diff and not the displayed text below the diff (or on the talk page), but haven't succeeded yet. Firefox will display the diff with a normal font size; Chrome, Edge, and Opera (all based on the Chromium codebase) show your username with a 3-pixel font size in the diff. Using the web developer tools, both Firefox and Chrome show that the <syntaxhighlight lang="css" inline>font-size:3</syntaxhighlight> property has an invalid value, and thus the rendering engine is ignoring the value, but for some reason with Chrome the computed font size is different in the diff versus the text below. (I did test that by manually editing the page to remove the <kbd>font-size</kbd> property, the user name displayed correctly with a normal font size.) |
|||
::I understand if you are reluctant to alter your signature, given that this problem doesn't affect how your signature appears on the actual page, and doesn't show up on Firefox. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 18:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks, I'll do some experimenting and see how I want to modify my signature. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 18:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Dear Wikimedian, |
|||
== Copyvio == |
|||
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. |
|||
Hey. |
|||
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. |
|||
Re {{diff2|1198070406|this revert}}, are you sure? Footnote a in [[WP:ELNEVER]]#1 states that a URL to a full copy of a copyrighted work, including those in citations, is a copyright violation. The edit I undid, and revision I highlighted in that copyvio-revdel template was to a full copy of [[The Internet of Garbage]], which per its first page is copyrighted. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:35, 22 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]]. |
|||
:Resolved per [[Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)#PDF of Jeong's The Internet of Garbage is not a WP:COPYVIO]]. Sorry for the hassle. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::No problem, I can absolutely see how it looked like a copyvio at first glance. I thought the same thing until I took another look at the URL. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 22:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yeah, from the URL I thought it was maybe something that had been found on a Libgen or Scihub mirror. Glad we were able to resolve it though. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ec}} According to [[The Internet of Garbage]], that version was published by Vox and the link went to Vox's [[content delivery network]]. An e-book publisher publishing an e-book on their own servers is expected behavior. The work might be copyrighted, but linking to an authorized published copy of a work is allowed the same as linking to a newspaper article published on the newspaper's website. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. |
|||
== Deletion of Page == |
|||
On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> |
|||
Hi Dear Administrator, |
|||
[[m:User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Please teach me on how the guidelines were interpreted in deleting the Page Mariya Rusalenko. I am here to learn, and most of debates of page were not properly answered. I have always detailed everything. |
|||
<!-- 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 == |
|||
If the experienced users feel not to explain things, It is very difficult to contribute. Existence [[User:Leesaaisath|Leesaaisath]] 09:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hi there! Phase I of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review]] has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus: |
|||
:The consensus on that discussion was clear that the subject didn't meet [[WP:GNG]] or [[WP:NACADEMIC]]. Some of the sources were sponsored, and others did not give [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]] of Rusalenko. If better sources exist that weren't presented, I might suggest going through the [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] process. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I would like your assistance in the issue I have tired highlight. I think we can make wiki better everyday with diversity. |
|||
::# Not recognizing cultural and various local language sources when we write about individuals from those areas. |
|||
::# Editors who have language barriers make decisions on subject language and related articles. |
|||
::# Short answers without explaining new users and cold form of answers when given some. |
|||
::I have worked in Maldives and later in Belarus/Russia, ( As journalist major), and I have come across these issues in both countries. Many sources that are major accredited sources are disregarded without research by experienced editors and lot of work and research goes to waste. |
|||
::I am here for for over 4 years and keep on trying to develop myself with rules and guidelines. Its like having a fog in the work when aforementioned issues arise. |
|||
::As an administrator, I hope you will assist users like us and provide a road to navigate and learn in a good respected environment. I will again work on the page, hope to have your assistance in that too. Existence [[User:Leesaaisath|Leesaaisath]] 21:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Proposals 2 and 9b''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA|Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 9b: Require links for claims of specific policy violations|Require links for claims of specific policy violations]] |
|||
== Relist vs. delete == |
|||
* '''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 == |
|||
Just my opinion, but I think relisting [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taka N'Gangué]] probably would have been better than closing "delete" on the 1k-2d discussion considering that almost half of the discussion had occurred in the past few hours. Just noting. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<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> |
|||
:I took a second look at the timestamps, and you're right that much of the discussion was very recent. I've reverted my closure and relisted for now. <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> 02:17, 24 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 --> |
|||
::I also think it may have been beneficial to keep [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Binkley (3rd nomination)]] open a bit longer rather than closing "keep". I recognize that the number of !votes was very visibly in favor of the "keep" side, but at least in my view as someone who didn't fall into either the delete camp or the keep camp, the weight of the arguments on both sides was not balanced and there were enough !votes against keep to warrant keeping it open a little longer. Indeed, the "keeps" outnumbered the "not keeps" 2:1, but a not insignificant number of "keeps" relied on impermissible arguments. The last comment on that AfD before closure was an inquiry in which I requested some of the keep !voters articulate how the page is sufficiently notable, as many !votes fell into [[WP:ATA|arguments to avoid]] territory e.g. "other stuff exists" votes or simple assertions of notability without elaboration. Or worse, simply mentioning how many votes the candidate received or pointing to the age of the page as an argument it should be kept. I think giving !voters some time to respond to the inquiry could have given the keep side time to give some more weight to their positions. Or, if nothing else, it would have been appreciated if the closing comment offered a more detailed breakdown that took the strength of the arguments into consideration, rather than simply reading "The result was keep." Thank you. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b>]][[User Talk:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b>]]</b> [[Special:Contribs/Vanilla Wizard|💙]] 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I've given that one a second look as well, and I stand by my close. The numbers weren't a significant factor in my close,<small><sup>(though as long as we're counting, the ratio was closer to 3:1)</sup></small> and several non-keeps were weak as well. Ultimately what it came down to is that the Keep !votes demonstrated [[WP:GNG|significant coverage of the person in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject]], and there was no convincing counter-argument. The only real argument for deletion/redirection was [[WP:BIO1E]]/[[WP:NOTNEWS]], which wasn't a strong policy-based argument. Considering a period spanning from April 2023 to (so far) January 2024 which encompasses coverage of multiple independent events and the subject's role in them as "one event" stretches the policy beyond what was ever intended. I saw a clear consensus to keep, and closed it as such. I won't be reverting this one, but as always [[WP:DRV]] is available if you would like to pursue 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> 02:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC) |
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