User talk:Nick/Archive20
|
Administrators' newsletter – February 2020 edit
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
- The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with
wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input
. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
- Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
- When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]
Arbitration
- Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators
that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
- Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!
Administrators' newsletter – March 2020 edit
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
must not
undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather thanshould not
. - A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
Technical news
- Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
- The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.
Arbitration case opened edit
In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.
The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org
For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2020 edit
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.
Technical news
- There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.
Arbitration
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
Miscellaneous
- The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Wikipedia:IRC/Access requests edit
Hey Nick. I hope you and your family are well. I was wondering if you could add me to the IRC en-admins channel. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- @HickoryOughtShirt?4: That's not a problem, but could you file a request at Wikipedia:IRC/Access requests so there's an audit trail (and so I can get cloak details etc). Ping me when it's there and I'll get you added to the access list. Nick (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2020 edit
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
- Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
- A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
- A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.
Technical news
- The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
- Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.
Miscellaneous
- A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thank you ... edit
 |
... for speaking my mind better than I could at WP:Great Dismal Swamp, while I slept. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
today a composer pictured who wrote a triple concerto for violin, harp and double bass, in honour of the composer who died and my brother who plays double bass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Block evasion edit
The "Human Covid-19 Immunoglobulin Injection" guy you blocked is back. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I saw you moved Wash your hands - Taylor drake to User:Taylorrdrakeee/sandbox. The user also created Wash your hands! Taylor drake, which is a redirect to the now non-existent Wash your hands - Taylor drake. I think it should be deleted. Also of note; User:Taylorrdrakeee/sandbox appears to be a copyright violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nevermind. Both are deleted now. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2020 edit
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).
Administrator changes
CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
- The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
Deletion review for Derek Chauvin edit
User:Kebabpizza has asked for a deletion review of Derek Chauvin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 01:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- I requested the full protection you placed on Derek Chauvin to be downgraded from full protection to semi-protection. Geo Swan (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Been burned before, by sock masters edit
I'm highly suspicious of any editor who's been caught in the past for socking. I've known 'Neveselbert' for a few years & was quite peeved to find out he had faked me out with a sock, last year. If he's being honest 'now'? he'll have to earn back that trust. PS: I've no intentions of posting there again, while he's seeking to get his ban lifted. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
PS: Will post there to help him, if it's proven he hasn't socked in the last 6-months, while banned. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Deletion review for Camila Loures edit
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Camila Loures. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Adam9007 (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Inquiry about a block edit
This is an issue at OTRS and at SPI involving an editor you blocked. That editor may have some useful information regarding another SPI. I am not active in SPI so I'm consulting with another admin who is involved with the specific case. We talked through a few options, but the best option appears to be to allow the editor to have talk page access, so they can post the information on the talk page and it can be linked to the SPI. I think that makes a lot of sense, but I'm reaching out to you for two reasons. First, you placed the block, and I'm supposed to consult with you before undoing the block. The second is that while I don't intend to fully undo the block, just allow talk page access, I don't do a lot of blocking, so I'm not quite sure how to do that in one step. My plan is to undo the block and then immediately replace the block but not check the talk page access revoked button. I'm reaching out to you to see if you have any objections to this plan and whether you know how to simply restore talk page access in a single step. The relevant editor is user:Curse of Fenric. It's my intention to revoke the talk page access after the information has been posted, and perhaps give a little time in case some back and forth is needed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- I misread the dates, I thought you were the most recent blocker. Never mind. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick: I was going to say - I didn't remove talk page access, so not really my bit of the block to sanction lifting. I've no objections, however. Nick (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Possible image WP:COPYVIO of File:Bon Poly.jpg edit
Hi, Nick today, while going through Bongaigaon Polytechnic, Bongaigaon I found and suspect that File:Bon Poly.jpg copied from (https://www.facebook.com/Bonpoly.Assam.Official.Page/photos/a.610758276053615/610759236053519). I am certain it to be a copyright violation. I am unable to tag for copyright violation. Please have a look. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 20:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary edit
 | |
| Seven years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2020 edit
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.
Technical news
- Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).
Arbitration
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community. - The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for
all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles
.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
Hi, could you please WP:REVDEL the revisions where the page was moved and where it was moved back? I believe it clearly hits the degrading/insulting level. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
ARC statements edit
Hi Nick. From your last several statements at WP:ARC:
- I disagree entirely with [editor], who is once again demonstrating his staggering incompetence.
- I would urge the committee to accept this case, and to desysop [editor] by motion.
- ... the horseshitfest that is April Fools Day on Wikipedia ... the usual April Fools Day shit ... the fuckwittery ...
- Desysop [editor] by motion.
- Indefinite block [editor], who is sadly devoid of any of the competency needed to be editing, is an entirely disruptive influence and who has little redeeming qualities to make his retention as an editor here remotely sensible.
- [Editor] seems to be causing a tremendous amount of trouble for someone who has retired. Accept, handle by motion, block [editor], job done, with the additional benefit of aiding [editor]'s retirement.
- Ban [editor] by motion, with appeal after six months and then every year thereafter. Their statement (above) sadly demonstrates that they're unsuited to remaining a part of our community here.
This is too much vitriol, and I'd ask you to phrase your comments in a less hostile way. To me, that almost all of your comments for two years have been to call for editors to be banned or blocked or desysoped "by motion" is just weird. You or others may think these are appropriately-phrased comments and that I'm "tone policing", but I think these comments contribute to a hostile, aggressive, "us-vs-them" kind of battleground environment on the case request page. Surely, you can find a way to suggest people should be shown the door without coming across as throw them out on their ass! every time? Thanks, Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Levivich: I'd be interested to hear how you would write a comment with the same purpose as the one I've left today on the SashiRolls request. Nick (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Assuming I understand the purpose correctly (apologies if I don't), that Arbcom should not just deny the request but also convert the community site ban into an Arbcom site ban, and that this should be done by motion without opening a case, and that the grounds for taking this strong step are contained in Sashi's case request statement without having to look at any other evidence, then what I would do is add
because [reasons]
to the end of the statement (#7 above), explaining what it is specifically in the case request statement that justifies "upgrading" the ban without looking at any evidence. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 23:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)- @Levivich: I don't believe changing the ban (from Community to Arbitration Committee) is in anyway an upgrade in any respect. I think it's better for the project if SashiRolls deals with the Arbitration Committee when it comes to appealing, but I'd suggest there's a similar or better prospect of a successful appeal should an editor go through ArbCom. It seems to result in a discussion free from distracting interferences, something that can be useful for the banned user, and for the community. Nick (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Assuming I understand the purpose correctly (apologies if I don't), that Arbcom should not just deny the request but also convert the community site ban into an Arbcom site ban, and that this should be done by motion without opening a case, and that the grounds for taking this strong step are contained in Sashi's case request statement without having to look at any other evidence, then what I would do is add
Page Deletion edit
Hello - I believe my page was inadvertently deleted. I do not use a VPN or anything similar. At your earliest convenience, please advise. Thank you, Ryancoke2020 (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- It was deleted because Wikipedia is not a personal web hosting service. If you intended to submit the content as an article, you should be aware that we discourage editors from writing about themselves and that we have notability requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I've already dealt with this issue previously. I am not writing about myself. I offered to produce government-issued ID or anything you require so as to prove that I am, indeed, who I say I am. I'm not sure what more I can do or offer. I am willing to work with you, but having to repeatedly go over this issue time and time again is, as you might imagine, tiresome. Please advise.
Ryan Ryancoke2020 (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you've encountered this issue before. Can you direct me to the previous discussion or deletion, so I can understand the issue more clearly. Nick (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey Nick ... No need to apologize. I've just worked really diligently on this page and I'm willing to show you any piece of identification that you require or that may assist in resolving this issue. I assure you that I am not attempting to violate standards or rules. I'm assuming this same issue - with which I've dealt - would be logged somewhere on my talk or discussion page? In the end, I wasn't required to provide identification; my page was simply restored within much fuss. But, again, I am willing to do so in order to finally put this to rest. It's exhausting having to continually go over this, though I realize you're simply doing your job. Please let me know what I can do, and I assure you, I will comply.
Kindly,
Ryan Ryancoke2020 (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm looking into the situation and I'm finding a number of accounts and pages in several locations. Can you list all of your accounts and all of the places you've created a page previously. We need to try and work out if we can get everything in one place. Nick (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Nick. Originally, when I first decided to create this page for Tomos Roberts (Tomfoolery), I created an account with the username "Tomfoolery (Tom Roberts)". I thought it would make sense to create a username that would correspond with the article I intended to write. That, however, raised red flags and I was asked to change my username so as to reflect who I was, rather than the name of the person (for which the page was being written). So, at that point, I went with my own name (Ryan or Ryancoke2020 - as my username). For the longest time, everything seemed fine and I was well on my way... But, again, I'm running into the same problem. It would literally take me a matter of a few minutes to take a photo of myself holding up my ID or a picture of my ID (or anything else that you believe would be of use). I am not attempting to deceive you or anyone else. My intentions are genuine and true. I'm just trying to contribute to Wikipedia and I eventually hope to create additional pages and to gain greater knowledge regarding editing information and updating various pages.
Thank your for taking the time to help me solve this issue. I genuinely do appreciate your willingness to help out.
Ryan Ryancoke2020 (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey Nick... Any progress? Please let me know at your earliest convenience.
Ryan Ryancoke2020 (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm still having a thought about how to deal with this. The problem I've got now is that there's a second draft at User:Ryancoke04/sandbox which is currently listed for deletion, together with more drafts - one at Draft:Tomfoolery (Poet) and another at User:Julia Margarita Cruz. I'm inclined to just delete everything and block all four accounts for abusing multiple accounts, promotional activity and disruptive editing. Nick (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nick... The Draft: Tomfoolery (Poet) is not me and neither is the Julia Margarita Cruz. When I first began creating Tom's page, admittedly, I was new and clearly didn't have much experience, but if you look at the progress I've made under Ryancoke2020, you'll notice that I've progressed quite well and quite rapidly. I've put many, many hours into this and I've done my homework (in terms of gathering information). I think if you have a look at the amount of work I've already undertaken, you'll understand why I'm advocating so strongly to have my page reinstated. I also enjoy learning how to do this. Please, kindly, allow me to continue and, if there's a way to keep a close eye on me, I'm fine with that. I assure you that, in the end, despite my goofs, I will produce an impressive Wikipedia page. Also, if you need any ID - so as to prove that I am genuinely Ryan Girard (from Canada) - I will produce whatever you request.
Once again, thank you for your time and consideration.
Ryan Ryancoke2020 (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nick - Just a quick addition... How am I responsible for the actions of others (see Draft: Tomfoolery Poet & Julia Margarita Cruz). I don't know these people and evidently had no clue that they were creating their own pages - though, in both cases, they haven't progressed very far.
I've made a good faith effort to build my page and I've spent countless hours gathering information and including it as part of Wikipedia.
If you'd kindly take the time to look at what I've created so far, I think you'll agree that I'm well on my way and I've made so very good progress towards completing it - though, I intend on devoting many more hours.
I am anxious to continue. Please, at your earliest convenience, let me know how to proceed.
Ryan Ryancoke2020 (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
re TPE edit
Hi Nick. re this post you made. To be clear: WP:TPE is clear. I don't know it you have TPE rights (I'm not interested), but if you trespass TPE you could loose the TPE permission. Through "hostile" arguments or not. -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2020 edit
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
Administrator changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
- Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
- Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
- There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.
MikaelaArsenault edit
Nick, I'm debating what to do here. Your last reminder about her sanctions was very clear that it included the recent deceased and editing the dates and immediate nuances surrounding their deaths. I feel Deaths in 2020 clearly falls under BLP, and she's edited it nearly a dozen times this week. I'm not sure the message is getting through, but I prefer to try to rehabilitate. What are your thoughts on a partial block on mainspace through the end of her sanction? I debated suggesting a partial block on that list only, but I feel that's a waste of time. I've not reviewed her talk page usage to ensure it's within the letter of the sanction at this time. -- ferret (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Ferret: I'm happy to leave this in your capable hands, I know you've been trying to help Mikaela a little bit on Discord, so given you've got that possible communications channel available, I'd say you're best placed to know how to proceed. All I'll say is - Good Luck. Nick (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Nick: I have tried my bit to resolve the issue highlighted by you. Could you please have a look at my sandbox, whenever you have time. Thanks, stay safe. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 03:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
My talk page edit
Hey I just wanted to let you know I'm a little new to wiki and I replied to your message on my talk page, I don't know if wiki informs you of this or not and so I came here to inform you, I also don't know if it's better to have the conversation on your talk page or mine, so I guess I'm just asking for the future is it better to stay on my talk page or should I come on their talk pages as well? Thanks for the help :) -- Toby Mitches (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Toby Mitches, if you ping someone in a reply, they will be informed. Also, if they are watching your talk page after they leave you a message, they will be informed. This is just my personal preference (I do know that a large number of editors also prefer it) but I always reply to a message where it was left. It not only keeps the conversation in one place, but also means that other editors who might be watching can chime in. You can also use a {{talkback}} if the editor doesn't receive pings or doesn't watch the page (I know a few of those as well), but personally I find talkback notices more hassle than they're worth. Primefac (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
- Primefac, thanks for replying, I will continue the chats where they were started and tag people with the ping. Thanks for the help -- Toby Mitches (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020 edit
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
- A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors
must
orshould
use the articles for creation process. - A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.
Administrators' newsletter – October 2020 edit
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
Administrator changes
- Ajpolino • LuK3
Jackmcbarn- Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created
.
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
Technical news
- The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).
Arbitration
- The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
- Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.
Miscellaneous
- The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
- Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.
SEP protection edit
Hi! Would you be able to lift the protection from Template:SEP? It appears to be there because of the template that previously occupied this title (it has since been moved to Template:Cite SEP). It's got just 54 transclusions, so I wouldn't imagine any sort of protection to be needed. Also, I'm wondering if the protection of Template:Cite SEP needs to be as high as it is – it's got 679 transclusions, and while this is certainly above the threshold of 200–250 that would usually entail the expectation of autorconfirmed protection, it's well below the value (typically in the lower thousands) where it would normally be template protected. – Uanfala (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Uanfala: I've reduced the protection on Template:SEP to autoconfirmed. The Template:Cite SEP level of protection is sadly necessary because the template is a target for complicated vandalism (that's what has been oversighted from the page history just before I protected the page). Hope that helps, Nick (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- OK, thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2020 edit
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet
, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
Technical news
- Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
- Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
- Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.
Arbitration
- The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
- The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.
Miscellaneous
- A reminder that
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
(American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
- A reminder that
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message edit
| | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
AE appeal edit
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by RickyBennison, an appeal of a topic ban that you placed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
You might want to check this article out. Apparently trying to circumvent your recent block on creating Werley Nortreus. noq (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
About that: you deleted Werley Nortreus as G4, but the only deletion I found was a speedy (so not G4) from 2013 (so not identical in any case). Can you please point out the AfD that led to this being a G4 (and a saltworthy one at that?). Fram (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Apparently some draft was deleted in 2018 at MfD? But even that one can not have been identical to the now deleted article, which contained a lot of information about 2019 and 2020 as well. At the very least this seemed to deserve a chance at AfD instead of a G4 deletion. This GNews search contains a lot of press releases, but at first sight plenty of independent sources as well. Fram (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Fram: It was all horribly promotional which is why it was a joint G4/G11, the other AfD (for the G4) was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werley Nortreus (Musical Artist). The majority of the content was galleries (the images were all copyright violations, which I've deleted on Commons) with some promotional snippets. If you really want, I can undelete it and let you run it through AfD, but I think at this stage it may be best served by a fresh creation (which I'm not opposed to, and will un-SALT if you want). Let me know what you want to do and I'll get on it. Nick (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- There are dozens of deletions. Let's not waste time digging them all up; it's spam and it's a hoax. Praxidicae (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you both. Usually I'm pretty good at sniffing these out (like [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesiba Mothupi this one] or [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GiftstoIndia24x7 this one], but in this case I fell for it. Fram (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Some of the sources look legit but if you google lines from it, they're just from press releases. It's some young guy who wants to be "king" of Haiti, but in reality, he's a nobody who has enough money to get press releases published in legitimate outlets (like BroadwayWorld) and pass it as if its legitimate journalism. Praxidicae (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you both. Usually I'm pretty good at sniffing these out (like [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesiba Mothupi this one] or [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GiftstoIndia24x7 this one], but in this case I fell for it. Fram (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- There are dozens of deletions. Let's not waste time digging them all up; it's spam and it's a hoax. Praxidicae (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Fram: It was all horribly promotional which is why it was a joint G4/G11, the other AfD (for the G4) was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werley Nortreus (Musical Artist). The majority of the content was galleries (the images were all copyright violations, which I've deleted on Commons) with some promotional snippets. If you really want, I can undelete it and let you run it through AfD, but I think at this stage it may be best served by a fresh creation (which I'm not opposed to, and will un-SALT if you want). Let me know what you want to do and I'll get on it. Nick (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2020 edit
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Administrator changes
- Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.
Technical news
- Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
How do I improve my editing? edit
How do I improve my editing? Is there any advice before making changes? I don't want to be disruptive. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- @4thfile4thrank: I thought you were on a Wikibreak. That's where I'm going to start. It's little things like that which upset and annoy in equal measure, you were subject to some valid criticism and instead of asking the people leaving concerns on your talk page the same question you've just asked me, you disappeared off. I would suggest you spend time editing articles, avoid all the shit that goes on behind the scenes, avoid all of the Wikipedia namespace whenever possible. It's simply not possible to go from 0% to 95% knowledge of the project in a small number of days (and note I say 95% knowledge, none of us, even ancient fossils like me who have been here for more than 15 years know 100% of the project). Just accept than you're going to increase your knowledge by a tiny fraction of a percentage every day you engage with the project, it doesn't get improve faster by adding more edits or ANI threads or CSD nominations. In fact, sometimes there's more knowledge to be gained from reading and not getting involved. The right decision sometimes when reading an ANI thread is to go "fuck that" and find something else to do. Nick (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Nick: I just removed the wikibreak template. How long d you recommend I stick to editing articles and avoid the Wikipedia-related stuff? 4thfile4thrank (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- @4thfile4thrank: how long is a piece of string ? It could be that you're ready to begin small, useful, sensible contributions to Wikipedia-related discussions after a few weeks, it could be months before you're ready. Whatever you do, you need to return gently and slowly, making contributions that are helpful. I would suggest you keep reading ANI threads and other discussions but not commenting, as they develop, and whilst reading, think about what you would say or do, then check back on the closed discussion a day or two later and see what the outcome was and if experienced users have made similar comments or have had similar ideas to what you were thinking. The reality though, is without extensive content contributions, your understanding of many situations won't develop as quickly or fully as you would like, so that really is where you need to focus your efforts in the immediate coming days, weeks and months. Nick (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Nick: I just removed the wikibreak template. How long d you recommend I stick to editing articles and avoid the Wikipedia-related stuff? 4thfile4thrank (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks edit
Thanks for the heads-up. I did not realize I was causing a problem.[3] If I'm "talking out of turn" elsewhere, please let me know. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas edit
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! |
|
Hello Nick, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Recall edit
I received your question on my Talk page. I have taken no position on recall. As for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Patterson, I was, in fact, unaware that Yahoo! News had become infected by paid editing, which I consider to be a scourge. In 2019, it was (according to our Wikipedia article) rated as one of the six most reliable global media outlets. It is quite disappointing to see a reputable source fall into disrepute by accepting paid article placements. Given the paid editing, I noted in the discussion that I would discount that coverage. However, there is other coverage that I believe still supports the "keep" rationale, though I acknowledge that this is a discussion that could be rightly decided either way by a closing administrator. Cbl62 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Cbl62: The problem is the remaining sources you've listed are syndicated local content (and I think two or three of the remaining four sources loop back to Bronx Times). Bronx Times is one of those local sources that you can typically e-mail a story into and it'll be written up by a local journalist, so not strictly paid content, but not independent press and given it almost all loops back to Bronx Times, not really regional or national press coverage, and certainly not independent of the subject. It leaves, just by the skin of its teeth, the TimesUnion article. It is, itself, most likely written with subject involvement given the "courtesy" photo tags - we see those when the subject is involved in writing the content and provides some or all of the content.
- I also note with extreme alarm, your abusive comment towards Praxidicae, which appears to have prompted her to retire. Prax is one of the best editors we have on this project who deals with COI, paid editing, promotional spam, SEO blackhat infiltration and such. If she says the material is problematic, it's problematic. If you could apologise to her and ask her to reconsider her retirement, that would be enormously useful for Wikipedia too. Nick (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I did not intend any of my comments to be "abusive" and am unsure what comment could have been viewed in this light. Indeed, I took care to emphasize that I believed the nomination was made in good faith and raised significant concerns about paid editing. That said, I will absolutely leave a note asking them to reconsider. Thanks for alerting me to this issue. Cbl62 (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)