This is an archive of past discussions about User:Xeno. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
Sorry to be dense, but I'm not sure what you mean by "template call". The bot is editing things that I copy paste from other wikipedias. I'm also curious as to why it just started doing that last month when I've had that page for many, many years WQUlrich (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I should clarify; it's only annoying because it tends to edit at the same time I am! WQUlrich (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi WQUlrich, there are certain templates that should be “substituted” so that the template call is replaced with the underlying code. Maybe other wikis don’t substitute them but we do here. If you don’t want those templates substituted, just add “|nosubst=“ at the end of the template code ({{Template|blah=1}} becomes {{Template|blah=1|nosubst=}}). Or just ignore it and let the bot do its thing. –xenotalk 13:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! It would probably be just as easy to remove a bracket here and there, so the bot doesn't recognize them as templates. WQUlrich (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I just came across this page which states that Fram is sitebanned by the WMF office until June. Obviously ARBCOM vacated that ban. I'm assuming this is just outdated information, so I thought I'd bring it to someone's attention, and you came to mind first. I'd fix it myself, but I am -- understandably, I hope -- very cautious about making edits to pages like these. Thanks! –Erakura(talk) 16:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for point that out, Erakura. –xenotalk 13:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Have you had a chance to read my explanation here? And also here?El_C 01:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I had not read those, I will take a look. –xenotalk 02:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:Xeno. Finally it opened access to Wikipedia in Turkey. After this news, I wanted to log into my account. However, I couldn't log in for more than 2 years and I forgot the email address and password. If I find out my e-mail address, I can reset the password. Can you learn that for me? User:Abecesel.
There is no way for me to access the email address that you had on file. Sorry about that. –xenotalk 15:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Since you are a bureaucrat and may need to determine consensus for this administrator, should you have posted support for the candidate? And did any of the rules recently change? Eschoryii (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Eschoryii: while I normally stay on the sidelines so I can perform as an uninvolved bureaucrat, I’ve chosen to support this candidate. There’s 15 other bureaucrats and no prohibition on bureaucrats taking a position on candidacies, in which case they will recuse (not act) as a bureaucrat on the same discussion. –xenotalk 17:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
You commented that there was no community consensus to deprecate portals. There is also no community consensus to use portals. There's just no consensus on anything having to do with portals, other than should not all be immediately deleted. I feel your comment is misleading, but it shouldn't affect results, so I'm not commenting on the Arbcom talk page. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 22:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that there's not a lot of clear guidance for the application of this namespace. –xenotalk 02:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey man, I've been gone way too long to remember what should be done about this kind of situation... city employee copy/pasting stuff from the city website, but not doing it maliciously... could you please check it out for me? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Good to see you again Adolphus79. I can’t remember exactly when you were active but the advice you’ve given so far has been good. Paid editing is permitted now as long as it is properly disclosed and other policies/guidelines are observed (esp. COI, NPOV, and respect for copyright). I see the user has been blocked for the username. –xenotalk 04:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, hopefully they file and unblock, and can become a good editor, we'll see. I had to take a bit of a break in 2010, real life sucks. I tried to at least check my watchlist on occasion, but never had to time to sit down and be truly active until last winter for a little bit, and then this winter I have tried to be a little more active. I think you and I went through admin coaching together back in like 08 or 09, but my RfA failed because I didn't argue enough about guidelines and policies in the Wikipedia talk space... lol - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
A blast from the past indeed! –xenotalk 15:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Xeno,
I'm not sure if I should be posting here or on the Arbitration request page as I am new to the process. But I am willing to take part in a two-way IBAN or a mutual TBAN. I don't stray too far from rallying articles these days, and when I do, I don't stay away for long. It's really the only place I'm likely to encounter Tvx1 (the other being Formula 1 articles, but I am nowhere near as active there as I once was). It was for this reason that I first suggested the mutual TBAN, where we each nominate a topic for the other to be banned from editing.
We are also attempting reconciliation through a third party, Chris.sherlock. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Mclarenfan17 That’s interesting- the mutual topic ban idea, I’ve never heard of it! You can just post in your section the reply. Probably best so the other arbitrators can see it as well. –xenotalk 03:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, I can't claim credit for it—someone else suggested it a few months ago. The idea is that it gives both of us the opportunity to walk away and be confident that a topic which we have a vested interest in won't be threatened by a dispute. Or, to put it more cynically, the dispute can end without either party having to admit to wrongdoing, but with the tacit implication that we're equally responsible. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. –xenotalk 14:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reasoned vote not to desysop BrownHairedGirl. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I hope that BHG finds being without the tools as liberating as I did. –xenotalk 14:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
She just said that loss of the tools was not the worst about the decision, and can't stay under the circumstances. I know the feeling (branded "batleground", forever, it seems), but stubbornly stayed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I also want to add my thanks and your helpful combination of being both reflective but also very interactive; Maxim and yourself show that Bureaucrats make natural Arbs. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
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.
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.
Hello Xeno. Eranrabl's standard offer unblock request has disappeared off AN without much input, so I've no idea what happens next. Personally I would implore Arbcom again to allow him to be unblocked. It's patently obvious to me that Eran is not a sockmaster – he was a highly productive editor and never showed any signs of disruption. The disruptive accounts were clearly linked to each other, but not to his account (from which no disruption was ever identified). I can't understand why no-one has been willing to engage with my points about the behavioural evidence. His responses on talk since blocking have been reasonable and eloquent – not something you'd expect from the usual sockmaster.
The whole charade has been a bit of a farce, especially when the blocking admin claimed there was "pretty damning behavioral evidence" that him and SuperJew were the same person (they weren't). It does make me concerned that people are doubling down on a bad block. I won't gain anything from his unblocking, but IMO it's a serious miscarriage of justice that continues to bug me. If there's any chance for reconsideration – I am happy to be a character reference or be a mentor as part of a unconditional block or whatever. Cheers, Number57 12:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Number 57: I'm not sure why it was so lightly attended. Following that discussion, there was further discussion of Eranrabl's appeal by the Arbitration Committee and it has been granted. I'm sure Eranrabl looks forward to working with you going forward, and appreciate you taking the time to contribute to the community discussion. –xenotalk 13:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Excellent news – thanks! Number57 14:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Did Eranrabl do anything wrong? Yes or no. I want to know if you (anyone) can believe people. Eschoryii (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I haven’t found or been pointed to anything in the contributions of Eranrabl that is considered wrong. –xenotalk 08:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I have been editing five years and I just read for the first time Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It would have been helpful explaining that Wikipedia is not a democracy when I wanted to count votes. Just thought I would remind you when you want to direct editors to the principle of consensus. Maybe it should be added to the welcome to new editors template. Anyway you just get my random edits. I read and like your dedication. Eschoryii (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC) PS. Thanks for the response about Eranrabl.
That’s a good observation, Eschoryii. Certain things that longtime wikipedians take for granted might not be as obvious to those who are newer to the project. I’ll keep this in mind! Happy editing, –xenotalk 18:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Xeno, thanks again for your RfA nomination, but more importantly thanks for your principled opposition in the portals case. I don't envy the arbs, but as a group I think you all summarized the main ideological conflict well: how do we weigh civility with non-violent and non-punitive remedies? It's probably a bellwether for what the community will need to consider in the future, and I would recommend you write up your thoughts in a more cohesive essay; dissents are important after all. I agree with SmokeyJoe on the ArbN talk page: I see that firm civility line from ArbCom as being strongly influenced by WP:FRAM, and the realisation that the WMF considered en.wikipedia to be weak on civility. Maybe RH and BHG got a harsh deal, but this hard response was coming. I think between WP:FRAM and this set of ArbCom cases, the community is realizing that we need something...else...and the issues ArbCom has been dealing with will be kicked back to the community soon enough.
I'm glad to see the discussion about RFC/U taking off; it's one of the more productive discussions I've seen. I skim the RFC/U archives every so often for fun, and I always find it interesting how similar it is to WP:DRN and WP:ARBCOM discussions. ArbCom has hosted RfCs before, right? I vaguely remember a decision at some point where an RfC was to be held on a subpage of WP:ARBCOM and maybe moderated by Arbitrators or clerks. It would be interesting if something like that could succeed RFC/U. I haven't put much more thought than that into the idea, but I thought you might find it interesting. Sorry for the novella, and I hope you're keeping well. — Wug·a·po·des 23:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm still on this idea of a "suspended" remedy in consideration of a commitment to improve. I don't know that it would work in all cases, but some. Is it a half-measure? Does it put an undue burden back on the community to monitor the admin on probation and bring them back to the committee if necessary?
We're to have an RfC on dealing with harassment it's coming soon, I hope.
Interesting idea. I'll mull it over.
And you're welcome! Hope your adminship is going well. –xenotalk 23:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I had seen the idea about "suspended" remedies and the reasoning makes sense. It's a half measure, sure, but that's the point of it, yeah? An option other than all or nothing. I don't think it puts an undue burden back on the community. If the admin were to keep their bit, they'd probably still be under similar scrutiny and taken to task if the behavior recurred anyway. This way it actually encourages early intervention so that editors can have their come-to-jesus meeting before things get out of hand. I'd say don't be afraid to try something new; it's how we got WP:ECP after all.
Adminship has been going well! I've been doing history merges of old cut-and-paste moves to help with the backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge, and that's been a lot of fun. In another age I'd be doing jigsaw puzzles, but instead figuring out how to fit page histories together is becoming my passtime. Plus the Admin noticeboards are a lot more useful when I can do stuff other than participate in drama. — Wug·a·po·des 08:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Sword of Damocles wasn't my favorite song from the movie. To be serious though, if you haven't read that part of Cicero's Disputations (Book 5, parts 62 through 74-ish), you should. I studied Latin for a while, and one of my assignments at one point was actually to translate that passage. I feel like it frequently gets misunderstood despite being an interesting reflection on power, tyranny, and virtue.Cicero ends the parable with the rhetorical question satisne videtur declarasse Dionysius nihil esse ei beatum, cui semper aliqui terror impendeat? which roughly translates to "Doesn't it seem that Dionysius has declared that no one can be happy who always has fear hanging over them?" It's also a great pun, impendeat literally translates to "overhang" (the root is pendeo from which we get the English "pendant") with the sword representing the "terror" Dionysius feels as a result of his own actions, having taken power and oppressed the people of Syracuse for 40 years. The takeaway I always got from the story was that the fruits of tyranny are tempting from the outside, but they don't bring true happiness; for all the visible laurels it comes with, a constant invisible danger hangs over. The sword is not what destroys Damocles and Dionysius, the fear alone does that. Fear led Damocles to abandon his envy, and that same fear led to Dionysius abandoning the throne and living among fugitives. Cicero wraps it up with sequitur ut ea existat ex honestate: "it follows that a happy existence comes from honesty". Vice brought about the fear, but virtue prevents it. This is a long way to say no, I haven't really felt the ever present fear which Damocles felt (yet). That the community trusts my judgment is enough to ward it away. If I were to feel that, I would worry that like Dionysius I was not using my power honestly and with virtue, but in a way that made me justifiably suspicious of treachery. Fear is dangerous in-and-of-itself, and it must be kept at bay. So long as I believe I'm acting in good faith and that others trust in my abilities, having such a fear hanging over me threatens to make me ineffective and unable to serve the community. — Wug·a·po·des 02:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation- no I've not read it (and with your explanation it's perhaps not the correct descriptor of the situation that an admin-on-probation would be in?) so I do appreciate the Wug's notes. –xenotalk 13:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Kudpung, you have long explored ways for the community to effectively curtail undesired behaviour from administrators. In the absence of an RfCU or BARC-like process, arbitration really seems to be the only structured way right now. However it seems that once an administrator is brought before the committee, it is difficult to create effective/acceptable remedies short of removal of user rights. It’s no secret that I would have preferred to retain BHG and RHaworth as administrators, if the behaviours identified could have been self-moderated. How would the committee effectively implement a remedy to allow an administrator to self-moderate themselves and continue as an administrator without throwing the issue back to the community that was unable to handle it initially? And without the administrator feeling paralyzed to act and thus not being able to demonstrate improvement? How long should the committee retain jurisdiction, and should they directly monitor or allow the community to do so? I would appreciate your thoughts on these questions, if you have time. –xenotalk 12:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure that while the jury is still out on my Arbcom case and you as a sitting arb, that it would be appropriate for me to offer an opinion until Arbcom who is district attorney, judge, jury, and executioner, have reached their verdict and pronounced their penalty. I mean this quite politely as you are one of the few people for whom I have extraordinary respect. Nevertheless, I'll try to answer this without offending anybody. I guess the arbcom case against me might be somewhat of a challenge for the Committee as was the case against BrownHairedGirl, and possibly will be used as a test case - indeed I have said to someone in a private exchange within the last 48 hours, that as adminship is no big deal, I don't mind being a lab rat. I lived and worked without the tools for many years before I let myself be persuaded into running for adminship, and even then my RfA was a kind of test case in view of the research I had already begun into adminship and the RfA system. The problem is, as others have suggested, that it is nigh on impossible for a defrocked admin to regain the tools again through a future RfA - the reason being that where only 15 or so arbs decide on the case, 3,000 users who have ever had their wrist slapped or their article deleted are going to come out of the woodwork to oppose. That's assuming we're talking about cases for which there is no common law precedent in contrast to clearly defined cases of flagrant, excessive abuse of the tools and admin privilege (COI, socking, paid editing, constant misuse of deletion and blocking tools, and blatant name calling or harassement).
In the absence of an RfCU or BARC-like process, some admin have stated that they are open to recall. That's a system that might work, but the community prefers to go straight for the jugular rather than calling an admin's bluff to see if he really would resign his tools and/or run a reconfirmation RfA.
Yes, whether guilty or not, some admins do feel paralyzed to act - to the extent that people will call for a desysoping because the defendant exercised their Miranda rights on one hand, and accused of doubling down if they say anything at all - Catch 22! I'm also not sure that all Committee members are able to exercise a lawyer's neutral detachment and not let their decision be clouded by their emotions; we have seen cases where a Committee's mind seems to be made up without taking the time to fully investigate beyond the claims of a mob - many of whom are not even involved but who are there for the Schadenfreude - who demand to see justice done whether the defendant is actually guilty or not, or his/her extent of guilt. It is undeniable that on Wikipedia many like to see someone thrown under a bus. Once an admin has actually done a lot of good in their time on Wikipedia, and then brought to Arbcom by users seeking to settle old scores, the damage is done.
Some might continue to edit, others like me and BHG may call it a day and kiss the project goodbye, especially if they are already at an age when it doesn't really matter any more and may not even be fit enough to go for RfA again years later - I know I wouldn't; who wants to be an admin in their 80s? So to answer your questions, each arbcom case against an admin has to handled as unique, with the only possible solutions being either admonishment or removal of the tools (which in some cases is quite clearly a punishment rather than a prevention). Depending on the outcome of my case therefore, my options are to leave, or to become a Wikignome for years. Both will keep me out of the way of those who are determined to stalk my every edit (as some are already doing now), but where I have been successful at leading some major policy changes to fruition, my raison d'être has already been lost, where others who no longer have their tools (either 'for cause' or handed them in without a cloud) continue to put their technical and social skills to good use.
How long should the committee retain jurisdiction, and should they directly monitor or allow the community to do so? Would a "suspended" remedy in consideration of a commitment to improve actually work? I suppose it depends on the individual. This would require a change not necessarily to policy, but to process: like users are blocked for set periods on an adminstrator's discretion, so the Committee could also quite easily decide to revoke the use of admin tools for a while and see how the editor behaves during that period. The big problem at the moment is again: once desysoped, always desysoped, because there is no right of appeal. Appeal is a feature from which only non-admins benefit, and with the option of the 'standard offer', but for someone established and intelligent with the reputation of hard work and close to 2 million edits, to force them to eat humble pie will get the reaction BrownHairedGirl has chosen.
Some editors who pass RfA melt into the background and either hardly use their tools, or use them in safe areas, while others who are bold enough, venture into the front lines because someone has to do it. Others develop leadership skills which though not necessarily requiring the admin tools, enable them to get good things done. Yes, that Sword of Damocles is no understatement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to provide your thoughts. I will dwell on this. –xenotalk 15:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
In fact Cullen328 makes a similar observation here about temporary suspension of admin rights. I expect others will have suggested something similar too, but so much has been said about recent Committee work that it would take a couple of hours to read through it all. Disciplinary noticeboards have the unfortunate aspect that everyone, involved or not involved, is permitted to have their say and that was also one of the issues with RFC/U. In a traditional court case anyone can watch from the public gallery but they are not allowed to comment, while what we have with ANI and Arbcom however, is the additional drama stirred up by what is loosely (and I mean no PA here) called the peanut gallery. The BARC (obviously my play on the words of 'bark worse than bite') which I proposed with the collaboration of Worm That Turned was designed to avoid such an affray: The group's deliberations should be public and separate from general community discussion. The process should be considered a formal, binding process, driven by the community but not as open a forum as the Administrator's noticeboard, but it would have required the Bureaucrats, as our most trusted users, to slightly extend their sphere of activity. I think the comment by Swarm sums up well the intention of the proposal. Perhaps 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit' was originally intended to mean article content and that slogan is not wholly appropriate for the democratic and sensitive issue of handling user behaviour. In my opinion, on these noticeboards there really is often too much background noise - in an educational setting the students do not decide on the guilt and punishment on an unruly pupil or college undergraduate. The faculty or school board reaches verdicts that require severe measures. I know you opposed, but you gave your reasons. Consensus can change and perhaps now, nearly 5 years later, it's time to revisit BARC or something like it; it ended with an overall majority in favour but on the strength of the arguments it was closed as 'no consensus'. BARC was a based on the outcomes of two previous RfCs that were proofs of concept, and there was this follow up by a user who has since retired. Of the many high-level RfCs I have proposed or participated on, these were some of the more intelligently subscribed, What people failed to understand is that WTT and I launched the BARC RFC more to just test the waters by at least proposing something; many users took it as a defiant attack on their own precepts (mainly that an admin is guilty until proven innocent) and there were nevertheless the traditional detractors who, as usual, tried to turn it into another long-winded side discussion on gender politics, others used it for their regular backdoor snipe at me, some tried to discredit the proposal on the grounds of false claims of incorrect discussion procedure. Both RfC are nevertheless well worth reading again for any one who has the time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Kudpung, briefly: such remedies (temporary de-sysop) used to be employed but not for over 8 years, I think. (It seems a bit punitive, to me. I'm also not sure if the community would still approve of it!)
As far as BARC, community de-sysop, and the like, you'll remember my never-proposed process (or "jury" tweak to BARC). Though perfect typically wins out, perhaps it's time for another conversation about the good. (Not my process. A fresh one, from fresh minds.) –xenotalk 14:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I admit that I had never stumbled on your never-proposed process. Probably because I missed the link in a related proposal. It certainly has its merits but its caveats in the summary raise reasonable concerns. My main concerns - like those in your project - aim for a system that unlike ANI and Arbcomn, disallows the participation of non involved users and/or prevents frivolous claims. As I said above, a traditional court case does not permit the yelling of abuse from the public gallery. Even the life of an acquitted defendant is ruined forever and with no compensation from the state or community - even someone who has been brought into police custody for questioning to be released later without being charged. Wikipedia is not a nice place for anyone accused of disobeying its rules even if they turn out to be completely innocent and perhaps the victim of spite or vengeance. That's why fresh suggestions from the fresh minds of people, especially those who are supportive, might not be a bad idea. But new ideas nowadays are becoming increasing rare, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose - even those fresh minds are going to need a stimulus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Or you’re read so many that you just forgot =) –xenotalk 00:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmm... now that was indeed a very interesting discussion, so much so that like so often, it was unfortunately confined to a user talk page and not more public. My memory may be getting weaker now since I am no longer as chirpy and fit as I was then, but its very interesting to note that I am still saying exactly the same things - almost verbatim - nearly 5 years later. Anyway however, for obvious reasons, I'm now becoming more and more disenchanted and detached from Wikipedia and by the end of this week I may be forgetting all about it forever. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much! The fact that it also saves my blushes, of course, is a complete coincidence :) ——SN54129 14:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
A happy accident =) –xenotalk 14:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
SN, a happy accident to meet you here. I wanted to pass you some Handelien flowers, but debated with myself if that could be seen as canvassing. In this quiet corner: check out Handel: no "bloody" discussion, just a short exchange back in 2014. Could be a model, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Now then Gerda Arendt, now you make me feel small. I agree that if all discussions could be as short and civilised as that, where would be the problem? But, in other cases, when it's treated as a battering ram, you know...? ——SN54129 14:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I have tried to avoid them since 2015, you know ...? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I was scrolling my watch list on mobile and accidentally rolled back your edit on the Kudpung PD page. Just wanted to say: sorry for that mistake! I think I've fixed it now, but just wanted to meet you know it was an accident.:) Thanks, Puddleglum2.0 18:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
No worries- It happens:) Thanks for the note, –xenotalk 22:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I find the complaints lodged against Kudpung to be so weak that they're laughable. I also find your assessment of Kudpung's behavior unreasonable and your decision to remove his mop unmerited. While I have great respect for our admins that remain polite and unflappable in every circumstance, I think that attitude is neither required nor reasonable for all admins. While you may think that you protected this project by punishing Kudpung or preventing personal attacks, your actions today have only played into the hands of a certain clique of editors who took advantage of this opportunity to remove an obstacle to their plans. I can only assume that you've joined the "hasten the day" crowd. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
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.
Why does Wikipedia eat its young? Someday it will turn on you. Eschoryii (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I hope to simply fade into senescence like so many before me. Time will tell. –xenotalk 21:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Your ping wont go through unless there is pure addition of text (no removals or changing existing text) along with a new signature. So this still won't work. GMGtalk 17:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I've given up =) –xenotalk 17:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
If you mess up a ping: 1) remove your message entirely, 2) repost the message in a separate edit with a new signature. GMGtalk 17:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
It looks like the new case review of Jytdog has mountains of evidence lining up against him with little support. I know you must be involved somehow and I do not want any advise or assistance to me to hurt your standing or objectivity as a decision maker. Send me to another editor to help me. I want to add evidence on the notice board but I do not know how to copy forms for the next user. I do not want to offend or let someone else not be able to present evidence if I use the last template. I want three things in evidence: a)Jytdog's User page User:Jytdog which shows his support to the community, b) his talk page User Talk:Jytdog#That's all folks which shows how much he did and the fact that he would be missed by his friends, and c) User:Jytdog/How is an essay by Jytdog on how Wiki works. I would like these three items to help balance Jytdogs vindictive enemies. They are out for blood. I do not know Jytdog. Maybe I should be talking to a guy named DocJames. Anyway I only do things at the last moment. Please help if you can
Eschoryii (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
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.
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.
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
A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
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.
Why was this user bad? Did the community eat another of its young like DocJames?Eschoryii (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Eschoryii: I wouldn't say User:Bbb23 was "bad": they were acting in good faith while operating under a different understanding of the checkuser policy than the committee. The issue was that they chose to express their disagreement by continuing to take disagreeable actions instead of working to have the policy/interpretation changed via discussion first. –xenotalk 14:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems policy trumps all the past years, contributions and benefits to the encyclopedia. All decisions balance various elements and sides by the current decision makers but I would give more precedent to past contributions. Eschoryii (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Only my thoughts, no need to respond. Thanks for your responses to this and my past edits.
The Admin's Barnstar
Barnstar for your Admin work! —Sincerely, Dero 14:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Thread retitled from "Television episode writer categories".
I agree with the move of Category:Films with screenplays by Peter Gould (writer), but just pointing out that Too Big to Fail (film) is a film and should not be in that category. --Gonnym (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Gonnym! I will re-create and put that one back moved that one to Category:Works by Peter Gould. Is there an easier way to speedily split? –xenotalk 16:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I guess either don't rename this and manually move the episodes to a new category, or rename this and then move the film to a new category. --Gonnym (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Gonnym I prefer the latter. What about Category:Films with screenplays by Eriko Shinozaki where there would only be 1 extant entry after renaming. Is it worth having the category anymore? –xenotalk 17:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
That's a good question. I really don't know. Specifically for Eriko Shinozaki, I'm not even sure if that is a valid category. There is no article (or even redirect) for Eriko Shinozaki, and that category has manga articles such as Kurosagi (manga) which are irrelevant and TV series articles like Tokyo Girl (2008 TV series) which don't mention him, and even if it did, it does not mention if he wrote it all, or if he wrote some of the episodes. --Gonnym (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Gonnym: Ah, so if there is no article for the person there need not be a category for their works, in other words? (Thank you for reminding me that manga series are not television.) –xenotalk 17:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC) (looking at Category:Films with screenplays by Ding-yu Xie, is that something that should simply be deleted?)
There is no rule that I know of, but I'm looking at notability. If we don't have an article about a person, assuming that it is because he isn't notable, then why would we need a category for that person? But again, there is no rule that I know of. Maybe @BrownHairedGirl: would know how to handle such a category? --Gonnym (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Gonnym, I agree that if there is no article for the person there need not be a category for their works ... unless they are so clearly notable that there's no question of a biog article on them being deleted. But if all we know about someone is that they got one of three screenwriting credits on some minor TV episode, then no cat. I most often encounter this case with redlinked cats when I am working on Special:WantedCategories, and in those cases it's simple to just remove the redlink. But if such a cat already exists, send it to CFD as WP:NONDEF. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, thanks for the insight. Maybe we can look at some examples Category:Films with screenplays by Noriko Gotô (3 entries), Category:Films with screenplays by Song Jae-jung (6 entries)? It would be better to propose deletion (rather than renaming to reflect they are television shows, not films)? –xenotalk 18:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Xeno: is they have that many credits, they may be notable. So some research needed before a CFD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
←BrownHairedGirl: ok, thanks. I sent the first to CfD anyway as it's a smorgasbord. If you have any thoughts on television films, please let me know below, as that is another large portion of the current effort. –xenotalk 18:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
X201 if you have time, could you check why the petscan link you made for me still includes the results for stuff that was already fixed to Category:Television episodes written by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss (e.g. Winter Is Coming)? –xenotalk 16:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Xeno, petscan has some cacheing of results. It may take an hour or two before the updates show up. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl Hmm, I think in this case it's something else, as these changes were made back in July? –xenotalk 18:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Those will be whatever television someone else fixed since 18 Aug 2019... I'll work on that too. –xenotalk 18:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
And what of television films! Should they remain as Films with screenplays by, Television films written by, etc.? –xenotalk 18:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Xeno: the way I look it is that a TV film is both a film and TV show. So for the works of the great Comrade FooBar (the famous Ruritanian writer of marine biology romantic thriller comedy documentaries), there are two options:
categorise it in both "Films with screenplays by Comrade FooBar" and "Television shows written by Comrade FooBar" or
Create a "TV films with screenplays by Comrade FooBar" as a subcat of both "Films with screenplays by Comrade FooBar" and "Television shows written by Comrade FooBar"
FTR, WP:FILMOGRAPHY puts TV movies under "Television", and TV movies are supposed to use {{Infobox television}}, so I think TV movies belong under 'Television' not 'Film'. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@IJBall, WP:FILMOGRAPHY is about how to organise a list. Unless the list has duplicates, an entry has to appear under one heading or the other (TV or Film, not both) ... but that doesn't apply to categories.
BrownHairedGirl I think #1 probably. What of miniseries with very few episodes? This one has a lot of film cats already on it: The Shining (miniseries). –xenotalk 12:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I am v surprised to see a TV miniseries in any film cats. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree, xeno. At some points these divisions will be unsustaianble. Some of the distinctions already look very thin, e.g. between Hulu and HBO. And what about Normal People? Web series and TV series. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Miniseries is a TV series, same goes for game show, talk show, reality series, anime, etc. Regarding the web series vs TV series question, that can't even be agreed upon in the TV project. As of now, the somewhat working consensus is, if it "looks" and "feels" like a TV series - ~25 minutes - ~60 mins runtime, high quality production value then it's a TV series. If it's a vlog or a "series" on YouTube, it's a web series. Netflix and Hulu as far as I know, always count as TV series in that regard. But again, there is no "official" consensus. The Buddha of Suburbia (TV serial) looks like a normal British miniseries. --Gonnym (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Fuzzy at the margins... I'm going to keep cleaning up TV shows and episodes categorized as Film screenplays but I don't think I'll wade into the miniseries debate. A lot are noted as films... –xenotalk 15:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Forgot to populate it. Thanks for the note. –xenotalk 03:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Fin
BrownHairedGirl/Gonnym/X201: I think that this project is done (pending a few edge discussions) with 5 days to spare left in the year since the error was introduced. I ignored television films, plays, miniseries, and 3 articles. This is the petscan link (modified from X201's), if you are able to re-jig it to find more erroneously categorized TV other than the exclusions mentioned, I will work on it more. Thanks for the help! –xenotalk 13:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Xeno. I see that you've been removing the "Legal issues" heading (or similar) as "lending undue weight" in biography articles. While they sometimes do, as in the case of small sections, they don't always lend undue weight. There are times that a public figure is significantly known for their legal issues. And blending that in with other personal life material without a subsection heading separating it may not be best in those cases. To have a section titled "Personal life", but for it to be three or more paragraphs of legal material? That's misleading and makes it seem that the only personal life material worth reporting about the person is legal issues stuff. Also, headings help aid readers when reading a section that is long. Are you looking to have it so that Wikipedia never uses the "Legal issues" heading or similar?
Please don't ping me if you reply. I'll check back. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Do you want to provide a few examples where you think the header should remain? Putting a heading "Legal issues" for what is often one very small part of someone's life-and doesn't contribute to the understanding of the subject- is what worries me. –xenotalk 12:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I'd nominate Mark Wahlberg as an example. That part of his bio is weighty, and editors agreed it should be its own section rather than part of Early life. Schazjmd(talk) 15:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd Mostly I have not touched large sections like that. Look through these edits and let me know what you think. –xenotalk 16:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I did a spot check, and all the ones I opened were single-sentence "sections", and I agree that one sentence being given its own heading is undue weight (unless there is no relevant section in which it can be sensibly included). I'm ambivalent on the Brandon Browner edit. I think it makes sense to remove the subsection headings under Legal issues, but changing the heading to Arrest and conviction implies a single incident; I would have left that header as Legal issues. Schazjmd(talk) 16:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough - I set that one back to the original heading, with the subheaders removed. –xenotalk 14:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Xeno, given the current length of the "Personal life" section in the Justin Bieber article, the "legal issues" heading shouldn't be removed from there. As for the legal material there in general, see Talk:Justin Bieber/Archive 7#"Legal issues and controversies" section. As seen with that archived discussion, I've been concerned about the amount of legal material that should be covered there.
As for this at the Halle Berry article? That incident got a lot of media attention and affected her public image. If mention of it is added back, it should be given better context, though.
Pinging Tenebrae, who regularly edits BLP articles, for his thoughts on all of this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree that "Arrest and conviction" is misleading in Brandon Browner. Syntactically, that states one arrest and one conviction. But there are multiple legal issues stated in those two paragraphs, and "Legal issues" is a more accurate and appropriate subhead.
The driving accident is pertinent in Halle Berry since she pleaded no contest, indicating a conclusion against her in the case. This isn't an allegation but a proper conviction. While it doesn't warrant its own section, obviously, we'd be whitewashing by pretending this highly public conviction never occurred.
There seems to be a lengthy "Legal issues and controversies" section, properly, in Justin Bieber. I hope my thoughts are of help.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Are there secondary sources that explore how Halle Berre's traffic accident (20 years ago!) contributes to her public perception? Unless someone is notable for their legal issues, I'm afraid I don't see how cataloging every time a notable individual had an interaction with police or the legal system is necessary. (is the fact that Sandra Bullock had to sue her home builder relevant in an encyclopedic treatment of her life?) [as far as the Bieb's, I'm not usually touching large sections like that. Just the coatrack sections.] –xenotalk 15:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll look into the Berry thing and see about re-adding material on that, but with better context (like I stated above). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd be fine with something properly contexualiezed chronologically in the personal life section (1 incident doesn't warrant an entire section). –xenotalk 14:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't give that incident its own section. Although I've watched the article for years now, that a lone sentence two short sentences about the incident had its own section didn't register for me. I should look and see when that heading was added. Usually, when I see such a setup, I will remove that heading per MOS:Paragraphs and because I prefer that a section not consist of one sentence one or two sentences. Even a section that consists of a few sentences is likely to get its heading removed by me. The "Relationships and marriages" heading that was there must have thrown me off. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Flyer22 Frozen: Exactly - I'm glad we're in agreement that a single or two-sentence "Legal issues" section (sometimes called just "Arrest", etc.) isn't generally appropriate for article subjects notable for unrelated reasons. I imagine there's an easier way to identify such sections based on length rather than just clicking randomly here. As for Berry, the section was created in this good faith edit which also looked to be an attempt to remedy undue weight given (at the time, via placement at the beginning of a Personal life section that had been unnecessarily subsectioned). Looking further back, this was set as such in this good faith edit. –xenotalk 12:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks like that detail on the incident should be re-added, but with perhaps one or two different sources, and, as already mentioned, with material on how it affected her public image. The "some in the media complained that her misdemeanor hit and run charge was preferential treatment" piece touches on perception, but doesn't specifically mention "public image." I'm also wondering if it's better covered in her Personal life section or Public image section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
If the argument for inclusion is that it affected her public perception then I think you're on the right track with the public image section. –xenotalk 12:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, didn't you increment/decrement the wrong figures here ? If you moved from accept to decline, you should have changed "5/8" to "4/9", not to "6/7". Fut.Perf.☼ 11:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
(facepalm) editing prior to coffee: guilty as charged. Thanks for the note =) –xenotalk 12:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I was looking at the Warner Bros Interactive page and I noticed it is still part of Home Entertainment. Other pages state that it is part of Warner Bros Entertainment directly while Home Entertainment is moved to WarnerMedia Commercial. Which one is true? WarnerBros.com site states it is still a division of Home Entertainment. Is that an error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galagahunt (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. It looked like nobody cares about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galagahunt (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I saw that Warner Bros Interactive page remains same. But what about other articles (Warner Bros. Entertainment)? They contradict each other now, and they should be fixed too according to Warner Bros. com.
Forgot to mention, press release says Home Entertainment is now part of a new commercial unit. Maybe Warner Bros. com isn't updated yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galagahunt (talk • contribs) 13:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed that User:AndriiDr has not stopped their mass edits of articles that contain the term 'Kiev'. I've warned them to stop and to contribute to the discussion at AN (as well as tagged the last edit prior to the warning, so as to provide a marker for other editors to evaluate if they heeded the warning or not). I know how busy you are, but there is another discussion at AN about the uptick in Ukrainian-related articles being made by sudden visitors from - you guessed it - Ukraine. I think there is a deeper problem brewing here. What would you advise? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Jack Sebastian: AndriiDr appears to have slowed down in both rate and volume and I see there discussions are ongoing at AN, and it has been pointed out that WP:ARBEE should cover this topic area and arbitration enforcement is available should disruption recur. –xenotalk 12:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk! 15:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
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.
By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorizedfor all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
I have very recently accepted an upcoming role with the Foundation to help facilitate the second phase of the meta:Universal Code of Conduct consultations investigating key enforcement questions. To protect the integrity of internal committee deliberations, I am humbly tendering my resignation from the Arbitration Committee.
Strong community governance is paramount to the ongoing health and longevity of our projects. My goal will be to ensure community concerns are clearly communicated and considered by the drafting committee while working to demonstrate that community enforcement mechanisms can adequately handle the additional burdens that may be placed on the Foundation and project volunteers by public policy changes.
I enjoyed working with last year's committee and look forward to serving the community in this more focused role. I hope that you will be willing to share with me any general or specific concerns concerning the Universal Code of Conduct, especially as it relates to enforcement. I will act as a conduit for community ideas, questions, and change requests.
Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks for your ongoing attention to matters of moderation and safety for Wikimedia community administrators. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The coffee and the kind words are much appreciated, and thank you for all your insights that I'm coming across! –xenotalk 00:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Can user:79.67.12.41 please be blocked for triggering the filter. CLCStudent (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi CLCStudent: it looks like they haven't triggered a filter or made a further edit since GW's warning. –xenotalk 02:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
Alicced has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Hello mrXeno, my name is 5corp10n. Im a grade 12 learner who is hoping to get a mentor/tutor at editing, i have very little skills, I way hoping that you can help me unlock my potentie, Because it has always be my dream to be a publisher.
I hope ill hear from you soon
5C0RP10N 0418 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5CORP10N 0418 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
5CORP10N 0418 has eaten your {{subst:cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{subst:cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
!
5CORP10N 0418 thank you for the message and also helping me finish off the cookies Pink Saffron was kind enough to leave me! I would be happy to try and help you as you begin editing on Wikipedia more, though my time is somewhat limited. My first suggestion is to not post too much personal information, and take a look through the links I left on your user page. After that you could ask a user marked as available here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters for more in-depth assistance, or just post messages on my talk page with questions. –xenotalk 17:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Resolved
Hallo there,
my name is Aneglos-Philip Mitsis from Cologne /Germany.
I have a huge problem with an editor/administrator(?).
His Name is laof2017. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iaof2017)
I have added documented information to an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxhela_Peristeri) that her father is of Greek origin and this is also proven with the link to an interview with her:
https: // eurovisionfun. com / en / 2020/12 / anxhela-peristeri-karma-will-remain-in-albanian-for-eurovision-video /
The administrator / editor laof 2017 deleted the change! That was an important information about the singer's biography!! Please help me!
he wrote me that I hade attach proofs in albanian language allthogh I wrote ir in the englisch version of wikipedia!
He attacked also with inappropriate words in german,what you can see in his disskussion site!
I am new here and I thought Wikipedia has nothing with prejudice or hatred.He rejected my amendenment
because I am greek..
I feel desperate,pleas help me..whta can I do..?
my regards A.Ph. Mitsis
--Angelos-Philip M. (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Angelos-Philip M., I understand it can be frustrating to have your changes undone, especially when thought appropriate. Please note that Wikipedia:Bureaucrats have no special role in content or conduct matters, and I don't speak German, certainly no Greek; despite "Xeno" - I am a stranger [pun intended] to this dispute. I think it would be best to comment on content, rather than contributors - and notice Lorik17 disputed the addition of the claim at Talk:Anxhela_Peristeri: this would be the best place to discuss changes to that article. I noticed another administrator, El_C had also taken a look at this subject. If you need further help with editing disputes, I would recommend visiting the WP:Teahouse for further guidance on next steps as my time for response is limited. –xenotalk 17:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
sorry this was just a repeat of my question ,
so I had to delet it,
sorry for causing troubles..
--Angelos-Philip M. (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
No apology needed, I’m glad that this dispute has been resolved. –xenotalk 13:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
[]
I found your exhaustive RFC preparation inspiring but depressing. Nightingale College has a history of paid editors. It is to the point were the editors now want to put the article up for AfD because they don't want any criticism on the page. There is massive WP:Wikilawyering. I have seen these before with other articles. A well established group of editors, with the same POV, make the article completely and totally criticism free.
Any advice on how I can avoid your same plight, having to spend hours and hours and hours proving WP:COI etc. I would deeply appreciate it. IF you can take a second to look at the talk page. I would be most grateful. I deeply believe that paid editors are only worse than people who bully new editors and delete content. Infinitepeace (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Infinitepeace: I will have to take a look in more detail later. Briefly, your post at WT:COI probably belongs at WP:COI/N if you are trying to address a specific article/issue, rather than discuss the guideline in general. MarioGom is also active in this space. –xenotalk 13:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll have a look. There seems to be activity possibly related to a UPE sockfarm I have on my watchlist. Infinitepeace: in the mean time, since you're blocked, I'd suggest that you step back from this, rather than risking making things worse for yourself. Best, MarioGom (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I'm not saying that the users in direct conflict with Infinitepeace are UPE, and I'm not really sure yet there's enough evidence on other activity to take anything to WP:COIN. MarioGom (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
For the record, since this conversation has been quoted elsewhere: I did review the page. Most users involved are established users and certainly have no COI issue. On the other hand, there seems to be issues with ongoing litigation and the reverted content was reverted for a good reason. I won't be further involved in this issue. MarioGom (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
Regardless of the outcome, I'd like to thank you for giving me another opportunity at gaining a new perspective on the situation. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Jacobmcpherson: Perhaps I should have given you a bit more guidance on your block appeal. I don't think right now it's obvious that you're appealing a partial block, and there has not been enough attention. Paid editing on Wikipedia is in a really weird spot, where some editors really don't want it (and act like it's prohibited), some editors begrudgingly tolerate it (but generally won't speak up against the former group), some editors are fairly neutral on the subject (often noting that whether an editor is paid or not is largely irrelevant - it is the content that needs to be examined for encyclopedic merit), some editors welcome it (as long as appropriate deference is given to site purpose by paid editors), and so forth. The actual guideline is that paid editing is allowed while it discourages direct publishing of changes. There are some editors and administrators who take a very strict view of discouraged (that to me, seems more like prohibiting). The issue is that many paid editors don't take the time to genuinely and sincerely adapt their editing to meet the project's core ideals. If you were to do that, you'd have an easier path to integrating into the community. One suggestion might be to start undertaking non-paid edits! Edit on a subject that is completely and entirely neutral to you, without accepting payment for those edits. This will help you demonstrate you know how and are willing to make proper encyclopedic edits, even as you take payment for other activities. –xenotalk 13:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Jacobmcpherson: This is good advice. It is much easier to stay within the constraints when you are familiar with working within them. You will get more slack and friendly help when there is no question of a conflict of interests. When you understand what belongs in the encyclopedia and what does not, it will be easier to make paid contributions which have a chance of sticking, and will be able to advise your clients when they want something inappropriate. (I am one of the people who consider the payment to be irrelevant, and judge the quality of the work, not who does it, or even why they do it.) In this way you could become a valuable contributor, rather than a burden on the community. Cheers, ···Peter Southwood(talk): 07:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks like you're getting paid for all these deletions! Cheers. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I will definitely share this on in real life if I ever meet a Twinkle developer. That is one scary beast to behold! –xenotalk 00:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
One of the things I realized early on when coming to Wikipedia was how important it is for us to continually grow our editor base. If we want to achieve the goal of providing the sum of all human knowledge, we need to be welcoming to all who can help with this challenging task.
Our old adage is important advice for us to follow. What I’ve noticed is that being brusque with newcomers will cause them to leave, counter to our goal. It makes me sad when I see that happening, as providing a welcoming and inclusive environment is necessary to our goals.
Meanwhile, I imagine it can be somewhat frustrating to continually have to give the same advice to newcomer after newcomer, and reminding a new editor to cite reliable sources for the 1000th time can be irritating. Another editor's comment helped me to achieve perspective: even though it might be my thousandth time giving the same advice, that contributor is hearing this advice (or possibly even hearing from another editor) for the very first time. What feeling do I want them to experience when hearing from me? The feeling of being dismissed, excluded, or treated unfairly? Or the feeling of collaborative spirit that embodies our project? Our project ideals hold that we must not be abrasive with new editors, even (or especially) when we’re tired of saying the same things over-and-over.
I imagine it may seem like there is a never-ending deluge of edits requiring improvement from newcomers. This is, of course, true. It is also what makes Wikipedia great. We should always be trying to constructively improve on each other’s work with every edit or comment. Appreciate that there is no deadline, and if you’re feeling tired or frustrated dealing with the same issues over-and-over, to take some time off from that work task! Try focusing on another area of the project and come back later, with a refreshed enthusiasm. Someone else can handle it: it's a collaborative project, after all. –xenotalk
Hey xeno, thanks for the question! There is no version in English for now, feel free to start one:) (we have the notes on the Moodle that seem a good basis) Kvardek du (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
As I recall, when developing Stack Overflow, Jeff Atwood wrote about how online communities need a pipeline to forestall the tedium of responding to newcomers over and over: new community members should gain confidence to be experienced members, answering questions from subsequent newer members, thus allowing those previously filling that role to move on (if they wish) to do other things. isaacl (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC),
I am only doing it in French. I am late actually, the last course was not documented. Nattes à chat (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Was sad after the DST mix up Nattes à chat, have you been able to see the first hour recording? Were you there when this was shown (I think it's an important page vis-à-vis responders). –xenotalk 12:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
We only turn a tiny tiny proportion of trialists into regulars. If we think of every person who creates an account and does an edit or five as a potential regular we are failing badly. If we think of them as Wikipedia readers who might not come across something else they want to fix for years and probably create a new account when they do, then we are doing a great job. One problem is that we don't know what proportion of trialists are people who are looking for a new hobby, and as HJMitchell once said of outreach we are selling a hobby. Where I think we are failing badly with newbies is that our de facto rules are stricter than the published ones that we tell everyone about. So people learn that unsourced edits are no longer welcome, but they don't learn that from the system, they learn it from a harassed volunteer. Probably after they have had an edit rejected. I think that DE has a system that at least prompts newbies for their source. I think we should move in that direction - systems should be setup so that the human side seems to soften the rules rather than harshen them. ϢereSpielChequers 17:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
So I got a little discouraged after the DST mix up but will catch up. I will continue writing in French and then I can translate parts in English. Would be great if we could continue to meet, I can provide BBB online meeting platform Nattes à chat (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Two years??? Why does it feel as if it was 5... –xenotalk 20:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi! It's been a few years since we spoke, but nice to see you are still around and editing!!
I can't believe it was 12 years ago we put up those banners:¬)
I just dropped by to say hi, but was intrigued to see your top message and thought you might be interested in this.
It seems that even when we try to do something to change things, it ends up getting strangled ... that one only lasted 6 months before it was dead!
I only just found out that it was dead after a user asked me about a blank page there.
Very sad, I helped set up all the pages and some of the policy, then had to go away for a while and dropped out of the guides program.
So strange, as it had involvement from several of the WikiFoundation team trying to increase editor retention, I figured that was one project that would stay around for a few years! Chaosdruid (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
They have a process there called "sweeping the wikivoyage:Travellers' pub” (where substantive discussions that occur on the Village pump get archived to the talk page of the relevant place) which I'll probably bring to the idea lab. WhatamIdoing: any thoughts on their process? (Is it unique? Does it scale?) –xenotalk 20:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
“
Experienced users: Please sweep the pub
Keeping the pub clean is a group effort. If we have too many conversations on this page, it gets too noisy and hard to read. If you see an old conversation (i.e. a month dormant) that could be moved to a talk page, please do so, and add "{{swept}}" there, to note that it has been swept in from the pub. Try to place it on the discussion page roughly in chronological order.
A question regarding a destination article should be swept to the article discussion page.
A discussion regarding a policy or the subject of an expedition can be swept to the policy or expedition discussion page.
A simple question asked by a user can be swept to that user's talk page, but consider if the documentation needs a quick update to make it clearer for the next user with the same question.
A pointer to a discussion going on elsewhere, such as a notice of a star nomination or a request to comment on another talk page, can be removed when it is old. Any discussion that occurred in the pub can be swept to where the main discussion took place.
Any discussions that do not fall into any of these categories, and are not of any special importance for posterity, should be archived to Project:Travellers' pub/Archives and removed from here. If you are not sure where to put a discussion, let it be—better to spend your efforts on those that you do know where to place.
I like their process, because it means that discussions are less likely to get "lost". We do some of this ourselves, with our {{Moved discussion to}} templates. However, it is more work, and I think it would be difficult to find a (single) home for many discussions here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Thread retitled from "Move un-protection request for Sleep Deprivation ".
Hi,
I saw in like 2009 you move protected Sleep Deprivation for 6 months. I'm not sure why, but it's still protected. I don't see a reason to move it, but at the same time I don't see why it's still protected and believe pages shouldn't be protected unless it's necessary. Do you think it's appropriate to remove the protection at this time? Ben❯❯❯Talk 04:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
This might be better looked at en masse as "old move protections from prior to the edit filter"; NawlinWiki (who placed the present case and more): thoughts? –xenotalk 12:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
xaosflux: is this a useful demarcation? –xenotalk 16:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any protection in force on Sleep Deprivation at all, I do see Sleep deprivation being move protected and in isolation agree with the requester above that this protection should be removed. As far as the larger issue, I do think that a report of articles with only indefinite admin-move protection, that has been there for a long time (esp over 10 years) would be a good thing to review en masse and likely reduce. — xaosfluxTalk 16:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the query on that - don't suppose you have that in like quarry or somewhere where the protection date could be included too? Basically I'll propose removing any of those with ancient (e.g. 10+ year) protection over at AN unless. — xaosfluxTalk 13:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Cryptic is my expert here: I think the protect log dates can be a little wonky to pull from the db. There might be a better way to pare the list, perhaps exclude things with "BLP" mention on it, etc. –xenotalk 14:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Cryptic, ideally a table of: PAGENAME, EDIT PROTECTION LEVEL, MOVE PROTECTION LEVEL, LAST PROTECTION LOG DATE, LAST PROTECTION LOG REASON, LAST PROTECTING SYSOP, and possible "ISREDIRECT?" for these page would be nice, for the set of pages where (NS:0 && editprotection NOT sysop && moveprotection IS sysop). — xaosfluxTalk 14:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Epic! Thank you. Now the question is: are we comfortable stepping those down all the way (probably not 100%; looking at the list); or should they be moved to the EC level first? –xenotalk 20:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xeno: probably best asked at WP:AN - but FP-->SPP would probably be better than ECP; the abusefilter is a lot better these days. — xaosfluxTalk 10:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
← Discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of indefinitely move-protected articles, log of protection modifications starting from here. (Regarding the first entry: When unchecking the 'Unlock further protect options' when only move-protection is set, the intuitive state would be for the edit-protection to not be increased to match the previous page-move, but to remain as unset.) –xenotalk 15:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Wugapodes: I didn’t really have a well-thought out plan with regards to dividing up and signalling that items were checked. If you want, just grab one of the 500 blocks and copy to your sandbox. I know TheSandDoctor is working backwards through the 1000 set, so any of the year chunks should be fine! –xenotalk 01:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Xeno (or others), do you still have OS? Could you take a look at the removed edits from Ona Zee c. 2016? I'm guessing that it's not related to page moves, but private info like names can be oversighted and if that's the case here I'd probably keep it protected. No way to know on my end. — Wug·a·po·des 08:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Wugapodes: I handed back the eraser, and I’m also having trouble working out what happened there. Erring on the side of caution seems fine, though perhaps the protection should be re-applied with BLP as the reason? –xenotalk 12:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
Arbitration
The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
Ha, that explains it. I’ve been caught out by that, but it’s usually just for a year back, not 6 :p –xenotalk 12:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ched, work-me encourages both of you to tell @JKlein (WMF) about this problem. Maybe we could get a little note at the top of each section that says something like "last comment six years ago"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Block me indefinitely
I'm mentally ill and can't help my actions. I shouldn't take it out on editing the encyclopedia in a disruptive manner. --Heymid (contribs) 22:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Just to touch base, in relation to this post and the relevant SPI, I have blocked Heymid at his request for one month and have provided him with some links to resources that may help him. I'm entirely flexible on the length of the block. Ping me if you have any questions. Risker (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for reaching out and creating space for yourself: that shows incredible strength. –xenotalk 02:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Iranian abadis
Query
Hello, Xeno,
I just came across a curiosity and thought you might have an idea about it. You mass deleted a lot of geography stubs earlier today, I'm assuming through Twinkle's batch delete function. But when I went to do my regular check for broken redirects, as you can see here, there were 81 talk pages of redirects for the articles that you deleted. Just the talk pages. So, there must be a bug with Twinkle that, for some reason, it deleted those thousands of articles, the article talk pages and the redirects but not the redirect talk pages. Hmmmmmm. LizRead!Talk! 03:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, could you please finish what you started at User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess? Section 3 should have been deleted according to Alexis Jazz's deletion plan. Section 4 can also be deleted unless Alexis Jazz wants to work on it (which I do not recommend). Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes this can be done soon. I think Reywas92 also identified another set. I do wonder about these hat notes, whether I got lucky to land on one or there are more that need to be retained. Liz: I’m not sure about the twinkle bug, or maybe was a setting. I will look on my next batch and report the bug if needed. –xenotalk 19:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I see what you're trying to do. I'll try to make a list. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Creating redirects from these hatnotes could be automated, but not without consensus. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I probably wouldn’t create the ones to "villages or similar name", just anything where we took out a legitimate eventual disambig landing. –xenotalk 20:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm still coming back to this. –xenotalk 12:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
So I think I'm done blueing the ones from User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess/hatnotes, let me know if you see any more than might need to be restored. A good way to sort them would be the hat target is not another mass-created article. Thank you for the list! –xenotalk 00:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
←Interested users(4nn1l2—Alexis Jazz—Fram—Hog Farm—Uncle G—Ymblanter) et al. have noted consensus for additional mass deletion: I'm fine to carry them out after I restore the hatnote content I inadvertently deleted in the previous batch, as long as the pages with relevant hatnotes are redirected and removed first (e.g. ANERT), or point me to the list and I will do that content work prior to deleting it (will take time). –xenotalk 12:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Enter {{subst:ABADI}} when you want to create a redirect. Won't work for deleted redirects. For pages with multiple hatnotes I picked the first target. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Done though I'm not sure what to do whether it should be left redlinks (if it's a real village) or removed (if it's a gas station, or farmer's field). In the meantime, I did these edits to fix up the backlink issue identified. Probably 4nn1l2 is best placed to answer. –xenotalk 18:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello Xeno, I have no idea what made this article on a populated and legally recognized place (censusindia.gov.in#35597) deleted so can you please refund per WP:GEOLAND? Thank you, GSS💬 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry GSS seems there was parallel processing of the list I used. Restored! –xenotalk 04:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
That's okay. Thank you so much.:) GSS💬 04:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I think I made a mess of the article history. I'll fix in the morning after coffee. Alexis Jazz did I trip over anyone other than Liz? –xenotalk 04:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The article at Bahua used to be about an Iranian abadi for which there was consensus to delete. I requested WP:CSD G6 so Bahua, Punjab could be moved in its place. It seems you restored the history for both the Iranian abadi and the village in Punjab as well as the history from 2006 which was prodded by Desertsky85451 on 12 October 2006. For historical reference, this was the whole article in 2006: Bahua, according to at least one chinese source, is supposed to have been the eponymous ancestor of the Uar component of the Alchoni. General Bahua was recruited by General Ban Yong (the son of Ban Chao) as part of his mercenaries in a campaign against the Huyan in 126. After the event there were centuries without significant reference to Pahua's army. You'll have to selectively delete the revisions for the abadi:
20:16, 27 April 2021 Liz m 7,738 bytes 0 Liz moved page Bahua, Punjab to Bahua: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Mass deletion of Iranian abadis
07:54, 27 April 2021 Alexis Jazz 1,859 bytes +112 Undid revision 1019894434 by John M Wolfson (talk) There's consensus to mass-delete these Carlossuarez46 stubs, making the village in India the only Bahua. User:Xeno, User:Ymblanter? Tag: Undo
01:13, 26 April 2021 John M Wolfson 1,747 bytes −112 Decline speedy; I see no talkpage or other consensus that the Punjab village is the primary topic Tags: Manual revert Reverted
12:50, 25 April 2021 Alexis Jazz 1,859 bytes +112 Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G6). Tags: Twinkle Reverted
14:16, 8 December 2018 Kevinsam2 m 1,747 bytes +15 →References: clean up, replaced: {{coord missing}} → {{coord missing}} Tag: AWB
14:24, 3 December 2017 JJMC89 bot 1,732 bytes −90 Remove unrecognized coordinate parameters. Use |coordinates={{coord}} instead. See Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes. undo
03:21, 12 February 2017 JarBot m 1,822 bytes +15 Bot:Add Iran's Portal undo
15:06, 6 November 2016 GSS 1,807 bytes +39 WP:HAT undo
23:51, 4 December 2012 Carlossuarez46 1,768 bytes +1,768 create
— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Should be good now! Thank you both. –xenotalk 16:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
abadi (continued)
I did the rest of the 1372 resulting in 3260 deletions including erroneous immediately above. I checked "unlink backlinks" this time, it may be interesting to view and fix these pages: , seeing if any of these links are notability indicators for the deleted article. Let me know if anything needs to be restored. –xenotalk 03:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I see you unlinked some, I left some of these because they were created independent of the existence of the article and/or may refer to another village. Special:Diff/1026117959 for example refers to Padar-Chala in 1524, probably doesn't refer to a Geonet error because Geonet didn't exist in 1524. It may or may not even exist today, but it could be a valid redlink. I have no issues with unlinking everything though. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm The Earwig. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, John McCrea (actor), and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Thanks. It turns out that it's not actually that easy for an admin to unpatrol their own creation. DannyS712: any thoughts on an opt-in feature for admins to have your bot unpatrol their creations? –xenotalk 04:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I am too naive. There haven't been very many admins whose page creations need patrolling, as far as I can recall. In any case, I patrolled it and it's done now. Risker (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
It was kind of an experiment, really. Some admins want to shed autopatrol and they're told "just unpatrol your own creations!" - apparently we can't... But this is probably borne of a misunderstanding of the purpose of autopatrol (person won't create obviously csd-able material) –xenotalk 05:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I suppose if people really want their work patrolled... On the other hand, given how long the queue is most of the time, taking the autopatrol out of the admin package would be a killer for those brave souls who do the work. I'd like to see autopatrol handed out to a lot more editors, to be honest. Risker (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Administrator too, for that matter... Here, I did this in your honour =) –xenotalk 05:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I can see the benefit to occasionally unpatrolling one's own creation (if it's a borderline case, they want a 2O, etc) though I don't think (as implied below) that all creations by an admin should be unpatrolled automatically (though I have seen compelling reasons why AP isn't really necessary for inclusion in the admin toolkit). Primefac (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@Xeno: I think I've said this before, but if not: I'm happy to write the code to unreview pages created by admins, and will file a BRFA, if there is an admin who wants their pages unpatrolled DannyS712 (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I do remember you saying that. At the same time I don’t want to cause work for patrollers. Let me stew on it more. It's not like I create that many articles... –xenotalk 05:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
So, I just came here through looking at Risker's contribs for something else, but... you can un-patrol pages as an admin, I do it all the time for drafts that I've approved etc. Am I just missing something or is having the Curation Toolbar something that isn't standard (genuinely don't remember, had it for ages)?
Okay, I'm wrong, the toolbar doesn't even give me the option of un-patrolling my own page. DannyS712, rather than make an entirely new script, maybe just let the curation toolbar actually allow this action? Primefac (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac: You should already be able to do that via the api for now, see phab:T280890 for requesting that it be available in the curation toolbar - I'll try to see if I can work on it DannyS712 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I was a few pages deep into API documentation until I gave up:) There’s an action for Mw:API:Patrol, but that’s as far as I got. –xenotalk 21:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I submitted my request here. Do I need anything else to do?--Parizad (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, usually you just wait: sometimes the processing time can be long. I took a look at your request and responded. –xenotalk 21:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your answer, but you have answered another request. Thank you.--Parizad (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, your signature doesn’t match your username so I looked at the wrong one. –xenotalk 12:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
Welcome to the second issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.
Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review - Initial meetings of the drafting committee have helped to connect and align key topics on enforcement, while highlighting prior research around existing processes and gaps within our movement. (continue reading)
Targets of Harassment Research - To support the drafting committee, the Wikimedia Foundation has conducted a research project focused on experiences of harassment on Wikimedia projects. (continue reading)
Functionaries’ Consultation - Since June, Functionaries from across the various wikis have been meeting to discuss what the future will look like in a global context with the UCoC. (continue reading)
Roundtable Discussions - The UCoC facilitation team once again, hosted another roundtable discussion, this time for Korean-speaking community members and participants of other ESEAP projects to discuss the enforcement of the UCoC. (continue reading)
Early Adoption of UCoC by Communities - Since its ratification by the Board in February 2021, situations whereby UCoC is being adopted and applied within the Wikimedia community have grown. (continue reading)
New Timeline for the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee - The CRC was originally expected to conclude by July 1. However, with the UCoC now expected to be in development until December, the timeline for the CRC has also changed. (continue reading)
Wikimania - The UCoC team is planning to hold a moderated discussion featuring representatives across the movement during Wikimania 2021. It also plans to have a presence at the conference’s Community Village. (continue reading)
Diff blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff blog. (continue reading)
Thanks for reading - we welcome feedback about this newsletter. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Xeno. Last month you granted me the Page Mover user right for a period of one month, which has recently expired. I have a good understanding of WP:RMPM and understand the tools this user right provides (especially suppressredirect). As there are still many situations I have found when editing where it has been useful, I would like to request for it be regranted. Happily888 (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hope you had an enjoyable three months! That’s been Done. –xenotalk 19:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
Welcome to the third issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.
The Enforcement Draft Guidelines - The Enforcement Draft Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct has just been published on meta in different languages. These guidelines include some definitions of newly introduced terms and recommendations for local enforcement structures. (continue reading)
Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review - Before the enforcement guidelines are finalized, they must be reviewed and discussed by the community. The facilitation team has set up various discussion means throughout this review period. (continue reading)
Conversation Hours & Roundtables - To listen to community opinions and exchange ideas regarding enforcement draft guidelines proposed by the drafting committee, the UCoC facilitation team will be hosting weekly conversation hours. (continue reading)
Wikimania Wrap-up - The facilitation team hosted a Roundtable at Wikimania 2021, featuring some WMF trustees and staff. The session offered some insights on how the Enforcement Draft Guidelines came about, and what next steps are being imagined. (continue reading)
Translation - Because a considerable number of Wikimedians are not English speakers, and that UCoC applies to all members, projects across the wikimedia movement, it’s of a great importance to provide adequate language support throughout this process. (continue reading)
Diff blogs - Check out some interesting publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff blog. (continue reading)
WMF's 2021 Board of Trustees election - Please read the Candidate Presentations and vote! (continue reading)
A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
Technical news
The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
Arbitration
A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=User%3ASandman30s
16:50, 16 July 2013 Xeno talk contribs moved page User:Sandman30s to User:Sandman1142 (Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Sandman30s" to "Sandman1142") (thank)
16:50, 16 July 2013 Xeno talk contribs renamed user Sandman30s (2609 edits) to Sandman1142 (WP:CHU)
I am logged in as Sandman30s
But it says:
User:Sandman1142
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User:Sandman30s)
Issue is I want to login as Sandman1142
But Sandman1142 password is broken and there is no email registered to reset it.
If I set an email on the the Sandman30s account, can you copy that email to the Sandman1142 account?
I enquired in discord and someone said I should mention this:
SuperHamster
Just for others' reference: not actually resolved. Sandman logged in on their old username, which persisted as a global Wikimedia account after being renamed locally on the English Wikipedia per their request. Though I guess that might help in proving their identity...(edited)
Sandman30s: Are you just wanting to have that username, or did you also want the edits attributed to the username you'll edit under? Was there some link made by the Wikipedia account to connect it to the Wiktionary account prior to the rename/SUL finalization? (xaosflux: would this be enough to convince for a sysadmin-assisted password reset? “) –xenotalk 20:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
One of those pages is a redirect to the other, so that it likely that "but it says:" part - nothing special to do with accounts. Neither of these accounts are very prolific or have advanced permissions so I doubt anyone is going to do much with them (or really need to). SUL accounts can not be merged. If I'm reading this correctly what the current ask seems to be is "copy the recovery email from Sandman30s to Sandman1142" - however the former doesn't actually have one now, any rename issues are 8+ years old, and the history is so old that it would be very difficult to attribute these accounts to each other. Sandman1142 has made edits this year, so it is already assumed that someone is in control of that account - that Sandman30s has surfaced after 15 years of no edits isn't convincing to me (as that account could have just had a password guessed) - also the checkuser information is too old to be useful between the accounts. Honestly, though I personally AGF a lot - I think others will be suspicious of anything from Sandman30s due to the 15 year contributions gap - this editor should try to remember their password for Sandman1142 that was active earlier this year or just start a fresh account. — xaosfluxTalk 20:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I have no idea how Sandman1142 has made edits, as I have not been able to login with that account for a long time. I remembered that I had Sandman30s before, and tried to login there, and it worked. So I want to associate an email to Sandman30s. All I'm asking is that email be copied to Sandman1142 so that I can do a password recovery. Sandman1142 is my primary account and I want to make some edits now especially to my favourite snooker and pool pages. Please don't be suspicious lol - even my login page says "User:Sandman1142 (Redirected from User:Sandman30s)" and I can post a screenshot somewhere to prove that. I do not want a new account as my history on wikipedia means something to me personally. Sandman30s (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
If someone called Sandman1142 has made edits earlier this year, it means my account was hacked and I really need to be able to recover it. Xeno did the rename fromSandman30s to Sandman1142 and I'm logged in as the original owner of the account, so this must mean I should own Sandman1142 right. There is just no way that my password is wrong - Chrome remembers it and it doesn't work. Sandman30s (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
"Sandman1142 that was active earlier this year" - I'm really curious now - what edits were made? Please give me a few examples. This COVID era has really turned things into a haze. It's possible the account was working early in the year, or last year, or before COVID, who knows. Sandman30s (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
See Special:Contributions/Sandman1142 - if that account is compromised, it should be globally locked and abandoned (as you should not be associated with edits that someone else is making). — xaosfluxTalk 21:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Wow yes that was me! So it was early 2021 after all. It was all those snooker pages etc. I have been in contact with pool and snooker people and they want me to make some important edits. xaosflux if I associate an email to current login Sandman30s will you help me copy it to Sandman1142? There is absolutely nothing suspicious - it's just the password has broken somehow. I can provide any proof that it's me, whatever it takes. Sandman30s (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
OK I have now set my email address on Sandman30s to (Redacted). Please can you copy that to my Xeno-renamed and current account Sandman1142. I see what the problem is - Chrome is completely confused and saves the wrong passwords?! I even struggled now to login again as Sandman30s because Chrome botched it up. The villain here is Chrome:( Sandman30s (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Bureaucrats/global renamers don't have that ability (to set an email on an account). See if you can look in the passwords sections of your browsers to find the Sandman1142 password. –xenotalk 22:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
OK somehow this has been resolved by logging in as Sandman1142 with the NEW password I associated with Sandman30s. I am so confused and so is Chrome which saves an old password. But I am just thankful this has been auto-resolved somehow. What a mission! Surely there must be easier ways to sort this kind of thing out. Sandman1142 (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sandman1142: OK good to hear you are back on your most recent account and that it wasn't compromised after all. The best way is to ensure that you have a secure password, that you have a working recovery email address, and that your email account is also well secured. — xaosfluxTalk 23:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Welcome to the fourth issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.
Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review Wrap-up - The Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review will come to a close on 17 October 2021, after more than two months of extensive consultations. (continue reading)
Roundtable Discussions and Conversation Hours - Another successful roundtable session happened on September 18, 2021 to discuss the EDGR. One last conversation hour will be happening on October 15th, 2021. (continue reading)
Movement Charter Drafting Committee Elections - The Movement Charter Drafting Committee selection process has kicked off and will be open until October 25, 2021. Contributors to Wikimedia projects can elect their favorite candidates on to the committee. (continue reading)
New Direction for the Newsletter - As we round-up the consultation processes for the Universal Code of Conduct, the facilitation team is currently envisioning new directions for the newsletter. (continue reading)
Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)
Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
More information Bots Newsletter, December 2021 ...
Bots Newsletter, December 2021
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
BRFA activity by month
Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Maintainers disappeared to parts unknown... bots awakening from the slumber of æons... hundreds of thousands of short descriptions... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.
Our last issue was in August 2019, so there's quite a bit of catching up to do. Due to the vast quantity of things that have happened, the next few issues will only cover a few months at a time. This month, we'll go from September 2019 through the end of the year. I won't bore you with further introductions — instead, I'll bore you with a newsletter about bots.
Overall
Between September and December 2019, there were 33 BRFAs. Of these, Y 25 were approved, and 8 were unsuccessful (N2 3 denied, ? 3 withdrawn, and 2 expired).
TParis goes away, UTRSBot goes kaput: Beeblebroxnoted that the bot for maintaining on-wiki records of UTRS appeals stopped working a while ago. TParis, the semi-retired user who had previously run it, said they were "unlikely to return to actively editing Wikipedia", and the bot had been vanquished by trolls submitting bogus UTRS requests on behalf of real blocked users. While OAuth was a potential fix, neither maintainer had time to implement it. TParis offered to access to the UTRS WMFLabs account to any admin identified with the WMF: "I miss you guys a whole lot [...] but I've also moved on with my life. Good luck, let me know how I can help". Ultimately, SQL ended up in charge. Some progress was made, and the bot continued to work another couple months — but as of press time, UTRSBot has not edited since November 2019.
Curb Safe Charmer adopts reFill: TAnthonypointed out that reFill 2's bug reports were going unanswered; creator Zhaofeng Li had retired from Wikipedia, and a maintainer was needed. As of June 2021, Curb Safe Charmer had taken up the mantle, saying: "Not that I have all the skills needed but better me than nobody! 'Maintainer' might be too strong a term though. Volunteers welcome!"
Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
More information Bots Newsletter, January 2022 ...
Bots Newsletter, January 2022
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
BRFA activity by month
Welcome to the ninth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Vicious bot-on-bot edit warring... superseded tasks... policy proposals... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.
After a long hiatus between August 2019 and December 2021, there's quite a bit of ground to cover. Due to the vastness, I decided in December to split the coverage up into a few installments that covered six months each. Some people thought this was a good idea, since covering an entire year in a single issue would make it unmanageably large. Others thought this was stupid, since they were getting talk page messages about crap from almost three years ago. Ultimately, the question of whether each issue covers six months or a year is only relevant for a couple more of them, and then the problem will be behind us forever.
Of course, you can also look on the bright side – we are making progress, and this issue will only be about crap from almost two years ago. Today we will pick up where we left off in December, and go through the first half of 2020.
Overall
In the first half of 2020, there were 71 BRFAs. Of these, Y 59 were approved, and 12 were unsuccessful (with N2 8 denied, ? 2 withdrawn, and 2 expired).
January 2020
Yeah, you're not gonna be able to get away with this anymore.
A new Pywikibot release dropped support for Python 3.4, and it was expected that support for Python 2.7 would be removed in coming updates. Toolforge itself planned to drop Python 2 support in 2022.
On February 1, some concerns were raised about ListeriaBot performing "nonsense" edits. Semi-active operator Magnus Manske (who originally coded the Phase II software|precursor of MediaWiki) was pinged. Meanwhile, the bot was temporarily blocked for several hours until the issue was diagnosed and resolved.
In March, a long discussion was started at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy by Skdb about the troubling trend of bots "expiring" without explanation after their owners became inactive. This can happen for a variety of reasons -- API changes break code, hosting providers' software updates break code, hosting accounts lapse, software changes make bots' edits unnecessary, and policy changes make bots' edits unwanted. The most promising solution seemed to be Toolforge hosting (although it has some problems of its own, like the occasional necessity of refactoring code).
A discussion on the bot noticeboard, "Re-examination of ListeriaBot", was started by Barkeep49, who pointed out repeated operation outside the scope of its BRFA (i.e. editing pages in mainspace, and adding non-free images to others). Some said it was doing good work, and others said it was operating beyond its remit. It was blocked on April 10; the next day it was unblocked, reblocked from article space, reblocked "for specified non-editing actions", unblocked, and indeffed. The next week, several safeguards were implemented in its code by Magnus; the bot was allowed to roam free once more on April 18.
Issues and enquiries are typically expected to be handled on the English Wikipedia. Pages reachable via unified login, like a talk page at Commons or at Italian Wikipedia could also be acceptable [...] External sites like Phabricator or GitHub (which require separate registration or do not allow for IP comments) and email (which can compromise anonymity) can supplement on-wiki communication, but do not replace it.
MajavahBot 3, an impressively meta bot task, was approved this month for maintaining a list of bots running on the English Wikipedia. The page, located at User:MajavahBot/Bot status report, is updated every 24 hours; it contains a list of all accounts with the bot flag, as well as their operator, edit count, last activity date, last edit date, last logged action date, user groups and block status.
In July 2017, Headbomb made a proposal that a section of the Wikipedia:Dashboard be devoted to bots and technical issues. In November 2019, Lua code was written superseding Legobot's tasks on that page, and operator Legoktm was asked to stop them so that the new code could be deployed. After no response to pings, a partial-block of Legobot for the dashboard was proposed. Some months later, on June 16, Headbomb said: "A full block serves nothing. A partial block solves all current issues [...] Just fucking do it. It's been 3 years now." The next day, however, Legoktm disabled the task, and the dashboard was successfully refactored.
On June 7, RexxS blocked Citation bot for disruptive editing, saying it was "still removing links after request to stop". A couple weeks later, a discussion on the bots noticeboard was opened, saying "it is a widely-used and useful bot, but it has one of the longest block logs for any recently-operating bot on Wikipedia". While its last BRFA approval was in 2011, its code and functionality had changed dramatically since then, and AntiCompositeNumber requested that BAG require a new BRFA. Maintainer AManWithNoPlan responded that most blocks were from years ago (when it lacked a proper test suite), and problems since then had mostly been one-off errors (like a June 2019 incident in which a LTA had "weaponized" the bot to harass editors).
David Tornheim opened a discussion about whether bots based on closed-source code should be permitted, and proposed that they not. He cited a recent case in which a maintainer had said "I can only suppose that the code that is available on GitHub is not the actual code that was running on [the bot]". Some disagreed: Naypta said that "I like free software as much as the next person, and I strongly believe that bot operators should make their bot code public, but I don't think it should be that they must do so".
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
Hello! Your submission of Mohawk Island at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Flibirigit (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Flibirigit: Thank you for the comprehensive review! I will take a look at implementing those suggestions. –xenotalk 01:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
On 11 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mohawk Island, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mohawk Island is sometimes underwater? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mohawk Island. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mohawk Island), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
Welcome to the sixth issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News! This revamped newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the Movement Charter, Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Strategy Implementation grants, Board of trustees elections and other relevant MSG topics.
This Newsletter will be distributed quarterly, while the more frequent Updates will also be delivered weekly. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive future issues of this newsletter.
Leadership Development - A Working Group is Forming! - The application to join the Leadership Development Working Group closed on April 10th, 2022, and up to 12 community members will be selected to participate in the working group. (continue reading)
Universal Code of Conduct Ratification Results are out! - The global decision process on the enforcement of the UCoC via SecurePoll was held from 7 to 21 March. Over 2,300 eligible voters from at least 128 different home projects submitted their opinions and comments. (continue reading)
Movement Discussions on Hubs - The Global Conversation event on Regional and Thematic Hubs was held on Saturday, March 12, and was attended by 84 diverse Wikimedians from across the movement. (continue reading)
Movement Strategy Grants Remain Open! - Since the start of the year, six proposals with a total value of about $80,000 USD have been approved. Do you have a movement strategy project idea? Reach out to us! (continue reading)
The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is All Set! - The Committee of fifteen members which was elected in October 2021, has agreed on the essential values and methods for its work, and has started to create the outline of the Movement Charter draft. (continue reading)
Introducing Movement Strategy Weekly - Contribute and Subscribe! - The MSG team have just launched the updates portal, which is connected to the various Movement Strategy pages on Meta-wiki. Subscriber to get up-to-date news about the various ongoing projects. (continue reading)
Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)
Thanks for reading. Xeno (WMF) 02:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello Xeno.
Following a discussion at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, the minimum activity requirements for bureaucrats have been updated to also include the the recently updated minimum editing requirements for administrators (i.e. at least 100 edits every 5 years). This will be enforced beginning in January 2023. Should you no longer wish to volunteer as a bureaucrat you may request removal at SRP and.or let us know at WP:BN.
Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences→ Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
Hi I am busy making changes to U.S._Open_Pool_Championship with official references and the help of an expert, but user 92.3.101.44 keeps rolling them back. How can I protect my changes please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandman1142 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Sandman1142: Sorry for the rather late reply. If you have a disagreement about edits, best to start a talk page post, and invite the user (in an wp:edit summary) to discuss at the talk page when you are restoring a change that another user undid. If a user is editing in bad faith, you can request protection is WP:RFPP (if it's just a single user, you could seek help at WP:AIV). –xenotalk 23:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Xeno! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the 7th issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News! The newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the implementation of Wikimedia's Movement Strategy recommendations, other relevant topics regarding Movement governance, as well as different projects and activities supported by the Movement Strategy and Governance (MSG) team of the Wikimedia Foundation.
The MSG Newsletter is delivered quarterly, while the more frequent Movement Strategy Weekly will be delivered weekly. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive future issues of this newsletter.
Movement sustainability: Wikimedia Foundation's annual sustainability report has been published. (continue reading)
Improving user experience: recent improvements on the desktop interface for Wikimedia projects. (continue reading)
Safety and inclusion: updates on the revision process of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines. (continue reading)
Equity in decisionmaking: reports from Hubs pilots conversations, recent progress from the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, and a new white paper for futures of participation in the Wikimedia movement. (continue reading)
Stakeholders coordination: launch of a helpdesk for Affiliates and volunteer communities working on content partnership. (continue reading)
Leadership development: updates on leadership projects by Wikimedia movement organizers in Brazil and Cape Verde. (continue reading)
Internal knowledge management: launch of a new portal for technical documentation and community resources. (continue reading)
Innovate in free knowledge: high-quality audiovisual resources for scientific experiments and a new toolkit to record oral transcripts. (continue reading)
Evaluate, iterate, and adapt: results from the Equity Landscape project pilot (continue reading)
Other news and updates: a new forum to discuss Movement Strategy implementation, upcoming Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election, a new podcast to discuss Movement Strategy, and change of personnel for the Foundation's Movement Strategy and Governance team. (continue reading)
An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.
Wugapodes(talk·contribs) will serve as their committee liaison. The committee liaison will facilitate communication between the co-moderators and the full committee to ensure the process is carried out efficiently.
The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks the co-moderators for accepting their appointments and assisting the community in holding this discussion.
For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 17:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Belated thanks CAPTAIN RAJU (and a gentle reminder to include a time stamped signature =) –xenotalk 18:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.
A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.
Technical news
The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please emailMadalina Ana.
Arbitration
An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election ends soon, please vote. At least one of the candidates is worthy of support. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikimedia Summit 2022: The Drafting Committee will present three brief drafts of sections from the Movement Charter for discussion at the Wikimedia Summit on 10 September. The drafts will also be posted publicly on Meta.
Movement Charter video: The Committee and the MSG team created a short video (~8 minutes). The video briefly explains what the Movement Charter is, and introduces the Drafting Committee members. This video was streamed during Wikimania.
Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences→ Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
Thanks Acalamari, sorry to have missed the chat - I had taken ill at the time. –xenotalk 23:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Movement Charter Drafting Committee's participation at the Wikimedia Summit: The MCDC members presented initial drafts of the three chapters of the Movement Charter: Preamble, Values and Principles, and Roles and Responsibilities. The three chapters were prioritized to lay the groundwork for the rest of the Charter. MCDC members attended breakout rooms to discuss the progress with all attendees - both online and offline. The drafts received valuable feedback from the affiliates in many sessions. The Committee also launched a survey to gather feedback and suggestions on the Movement Charter development. Report for the Wikimedia Summit can be found here.
Learn about Movement Charter Drafting Committee’s work in September: The Committee released its regular monthly update from September 2022. It includes highlights about the Committee's progress in creating the Movement Charter content, results of the Wikimedia Summit, and an important announcement about membership.
Coming up:
Community consultations. In November the MCDC will be organizing events to hear your thoughts on the first three drafts. There will be onboarding sessions for community members to learn about Movement Charter and ask their questions to the Committee members. Community members will be able to share their thoughts and feedback via open and anonymous surveys, along with Meta pages, MS Forum and email. Details to be communicated by the MSG team.
Conference engagement. MCDC members will be attending the following conferences in October/November:
WikiArabia (28 - 30 October): Anass, Ravan, Reda will facilitate a discussion about the Movement Charter. Additional sessions include a conversation about the roles & responsibilities, and a conversation about hubs. .
WikiIndaba (4 - 6 November): Anasss will present a Movement Charter update.
WikiConNL (19 November): Ciell will present an Movement Charter update.
Movement Charter Ambassadors Package. Individuals and/or groups from various communities will be able to get resources and support to help increase the engagement of community members in the Movement Charter. The details to be shared by the MSG team.
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
MCDC members attended the “Ask Me Anything about Movement Charter” sessions to provide more information about the Movement Charter, its goal, why it matters and how it impacts the communities. Recordings of the presentations in different languages can be found here.
The Movement Charter Ambassadors Program: Movement Charter Ambassadors (MCA) are individuals or groups interested in helping to ensure that their communities are fully engaged in community consultations. MCA are interested in supporting their communities to understand the content of the Movement Charter as well as ensuring that their communities can easily provide feedback. Anyone can become a MCA! Dedicated funds are available to support the MCA and their activities. Are you interested in becoming a Movement Charter Ambassador for your community? Sign up here!
Learn about Movement Charter Drafting Committee’s work in October: The Committee released its regular monthly update from October 2022. It includes highlights about the Committee's progress in drafting the Movement Charter content, its upcoming community consultation and participation at Wikimedia events.
Coming up:
Regional feedback conversations: The MCDC’s community consultations to collect feedback on the first three sections of the Movement Charter will take place between November 20 and December 18, 2022. You are invited to join one of the regional conversations planned for the eight regions (and various languages) of the Movement. Please note that interested people can share their feedback in different ways, including on the Meta talk page, on the Movement Strategy forum, filling out a survey (anonymously) and sending an email to: movementcharterwikimedia.org.
Sign up here to become a Movement Charter Ambassadors from your community and help ensure that your community is aware of the conversations around the Movement Charter!
--13:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC).
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
I think you may have accidentally made a personal edit with your staff account here (given that your previous participation was entirely on your volunteer one). Giraffer(talk·contribs) 22:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Woops. Quite right - good catch. –xenotalk 22:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Learn about Movement Charter Drafting Committee’s work in November: As usual, the Committee released its regular monthly updates from November 2022. This month’s updates include highlights about the external facilitator hiring, next in-person meeting of the Committee and updates about the new drafting groups, among others.
First community consultation period: From mid November to mid December 2022 the Committee members took part in 8 regional feedback sessions. Committee members joined the sessions to provide clarifications and answer to questions that came from different language communities on the Movement Charter.
Recordings of the presentations shared during the regional meetings are available here for those interested.
If you have not shared your feedback on the drafts of the Movement Charter yet, please do so by filling out this anonymous survey, which is open until January 2, 2023 and is available in more than 12 languages.
The Movement Charter Ambassador Program received over 15 proposals. The ambassadors are currently putting their initiatives into action in various local communities. The Movement Charter Ambassadors Program will once again be opened for applications in the second quarter of 2023, in preparation for the next round of Movement Charter consultations. Both individuals and organizations will be able to apply. Those interested in becoming Movement Charter Ambassadors are encouraged to sign-up.
Coming up:
Community Conversations summary:The Movement Strategy and Governance team of the Wikimedia Foundation will prepare and publish the final summary report of the community feedback in January 2023. The report will be shared with the MCDC and the communities on different channels of communication.
Feedback on the Movement Charter: There will be additional ways to engage with the Movement Charter content, including the early feedback on the proposed ratification process and a new set of draft chapters in the second quarter of 2023.
--14:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC).
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}
Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
First Community Consultation: A concise summary of the community consultation on the initial three drafts of the Charter is now available for your review on Meta and on the Diff platform. In addition, you can read about MC Ambassadors are sharing about their experiences:
What’s next after the community feedback period? The Committee is currently reviewing the detailed feedback which consists of 59 pages of comments, in March the Committee will share their response to the comments. The detailed version of the feedback, which the Committee is reviewing, is also available on this Meta page.
MCDC’s Virtual Working Session: The Committee gathered virtually from 3rd to 5th February to work on the drafts of the following new set of chapters of the Movement Charter: Global Council, Hubs, Decision Making, and Roles & Responsibilities. The Committee members worked in their smaller drafting groups first. The full Committee then convened, with representatives of each drafting group presenting the progress made so far, as well as about what type of support is needed for their future sessions.
Learn about Movement Charter Drafting Committee’s work in January: The update includes details of the meetings held by the Committee in the month of January 2023, stakeholder conversations, completed work as well as about the new drafting groups, creating glossary and independent legal review.
Coming up:
Community feedback on the ratification methodology proposal of the future Movement Charter. The feedback was postponed until March 2023. The communities will be able to review the ratification methodology and share their early input on the open questions.
The MCDC will soon announce a “Call for Advisors”. The call will be an invitation for interested individuals with relevant expertise and knowledge to participate in drafting the Charter. Advisors will be considered non-voting members.
Responses to the community consultation feedback by the MCDC. The Committee has been carefully reviewing feedback collected in the consultation from November & December 2022, and will publicly share responses to the feedback by March.
Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
Movement Charter Ambassadors from the Latin America and the Caribbean region share their experiences of organizing community conversations on the Movement Charter. Please read the Diff blog in Brazilian Portuguese and in Spanish languages.
Casual updates: The MCDC publishes regular casual updates after bi-weekly full Committee meetings, as well as after other drafting group and subcommittee meetings. If you are interested, please read casual updates here on Meta and on Movement Strategy Forum.
Ratification methodology consultation: The MCDC is working on a new proposal (not available yet) for a ratification methodology. The proposal will be discussed through a community consultation process, including live meetings to provide feedback.
The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
Learn about Movement Charter Drafting Committee’s work in March: the monthly Committee’s updates include information about the coordination efforts with Wikimedia Germany, update on membership, submission to Wikimania 2023, participation at the Wikimedia Foundations Board of Trustees’ strategic retreat in New York in March 2023.
Inviting advisors and experts: The Committee is preparing to welcome a number of advisors from outside the Committee. All interested Wikimedians were invited to apply earlier (you can still apply here!). Additionally, the Committee is planning and scheduling meetings with individuals with specific sets of expertise in various topics, including stewards, movement committees, Wikimedia Foundation and affiliate staff, and others.
A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Xeno! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
"Appreciation Knucks"
These knucks symbolize my appreciation for the Wiki teamsters, such as yourself, who create pathways to knowledge through their diligent effort working quietly behind the scenes. As a user I am grateful, now more than ever, so I felt prompted to say hello and show my gratitude by saying thank you for setting the example. Moving forward my goal to participate to open-source communities is heartfelt and strong. Even though my current wiki status confuses me I'd love to find a place to fit in wherever and whenever the time is right. Stay blessed, Saint, Stephen Gunning (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
This newsletter combines content from both June and July, due to a delay in sharing out the previous newsletter.
Updates:
New Movement Charter content published: The Committee published new draft chapters on the GlobalCouncil, Hubs and the Glossary. You are invited to share your feedback or ask any questions you may have to the Committee before September 1, 2023 on the following talk pages:
Learn about MCDC’s work in May & June: as usual, the update includes information about the meetings held by the Committee in this month, as well as about the work that was completed and the ongoing work & discussions.
Movement Charter Community Conversation grants are open for individuals or groups who want to organize conversations about the Charter content. Talk to us if you need any support on the MS Forum! Apply for a grant before Jul 30, 2023.
Wikimania 2023: Wikimania 2023: Members of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee are excited to be attending Wikimania Singapore in August, to speak to and hear from you in person (and hybrid) about the four drafts and the Charter in general.
Community consultation: The community consultation on the Global Council, Hubs, and the Glossary drafts is ongoing. We value your input, if you have not already, please take a moment to review the draft chapters and share your thoughts with the MCDC. We’ve posed open questions we would like your opinion on. Feel free to engage in a way that is most comfortable for you and your community. Learn more on our Diff blogs about the Global Council and Hubs.
Launch Party: On July 30 we hosted a Launch Party to share the Global Council and Hubs draft chapters. It was an inspiring event where we had the opportunity to listen to your feedback and address some of your questions. If you missed it, you can catch the recording on YouTube.
Community Conversations: We want to hear from as many people as possible. On July 16, the SWAN meeting opened its doors and offered an opportunity to interact with the MCDC members regarding the new drafts of the charter. Notes are available here. On July 28, a regional conversation with the Francophone community was held. Here comes a short summary here in English and French. Additionally, on August 2 we had a fruitful conversation with the LATAM region.
MCDC’s Work in July: As usual, the update includes information about the meetings held by the Committee in this month, as well as about the work that was completed and the ongoing work & discussions.
Upcoming
Join the MCDC at Wikimania: Whether you’ll be at Wikimania 2023 in person or joining virtually, there are a few events that we would like to invite you to. Please drop by for a casual conversation. We would love to connect to workshop any ideas together. Drop in, get a sweet treat, and share your thoughts with us! Register and see below for an overview of our time together:
Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
Technical news
Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)
Out of curiosity, is this template used any more? It seems primarily that it was for checking cross-wiki renames before SUL. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
[writing into archive] Primefac Probably not. Replied here. Thanks for checking! –xenotalk 17:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
Thank you for all your behind-the-scenes work and comments. It's nice to finally meet some folks from Toronto. I am awarding this barncompass to you. (Barncompass originated in Wikivoyage as a response to Wikipedia's barnstar. Since most people, except us, travelled a long distance for the conference and would have no doubt pulled out a map app at some point, awarding a barncompass is probably as fitting as a barnstar.) OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
[writing into archive] Thanks OhanaUnited (and for your work at the conference), and not afraid to admit I used my map a lot too! –xenotalk 17:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Xeno. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
Hey Xeno:) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 22:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Cool compendium, thanks Clovermoss! –xenotalk 18:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
❄️Happy holidays!❄️
Hi Xeno! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. It was great to meet you in Toronto, and enjoyed your presentations! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk
Hello Xeno, 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 2024. Happy editing, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello Xeno: Enjoy the holiday seasonand winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Xeno, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for helping organize Toronto's Wikipedia Day.:) Clovermoss🍀(talk) 18:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
And to you too Clover! –xenotalk 00:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Real-Life Barnstar
Thank you for helping organize Toronto's Wikipedia Day! Oh, and thank you for unblocking me many years ago! Without you, I would not have maintained my longest editing streak record. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you both, and for attending and making it such a magical event! –xenotalk 00:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
I know you're not very active anymore. But, you must have been doing something right to continue to attract a fan club for so long:) (account blocked). I hope things in life are well for you. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Hammersoft! Hope things are well for you too. I'm less active than I'd like to be, though still thinking about Wikipedia every day for some reason or another =) Thanks for the note! –xenotalk 16:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Xeno, checking in to see if there was any plans for the next Toronto Wikiclub meeting? If not, I'm happy to connect with you or others that are interested to set a date and plan events. Z1720 (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Z1720: I'm not sure if we had finalized a date for that yet! Let me check in with SophieWMCA to see if she knows more (added us here!). –xenotalk 16:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
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
Hello, could I make a request? Could @Xenobot: "subst:" all the instances of {{Scouting WP invite}} in the "User talk:" space? Thanks. --evrik(talk) 20:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
evrik: oh wow, that's a name I haven't heard in a long, long time... I could probably get xenobot started up, though I think you were able to get this done though, based on the usages I see now. Thanks for thinking of me! –xenotalk 17:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Thank you for help organizing yesterday's events and making it a cool experience for everyone to learn about our sister projects. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 11:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Xeno! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
When you get a chance, can you please update the wikitext at User talk:Xeno/Editnotice? It has an obscure technical error that causes it to be listed on this error page: span tags wrapping multi-line content, when div tags should be used. this version of my sandbox contains updated code that has no errors and should not change the display. You should be able to copy and paste from that page. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.