User talk:Primefac

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 211#Toolforge tool/bot to send email notifications

I noticed this and your post at BOTN. I wouldn't mind working on this. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent! Primefac (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I've written most of the code for this, just waiting on phab:T361367 to be resolved. I'm also going skiing for a week (starting today), so I'll try to get this done around the end of next week. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! Primefac (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of what the emails would look like (my email address is qwerfjklwikipedia@gmail.com, if you want to forward one to me)? Are multiple changes on the same page grouped together? Would you only want emails for edits, or also for log actions, category changes, etc.? — Qwerfjkltalk 13:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Forwarded. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately filtering edits has the same problem as filtering for bots (hopefully will be fixed sometime soon, but who knows). — Qwerfjkltalk 13:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Blargh... thanks for checking though. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be pretty easy to email for every edit made by a bot to a page on your watchlist (I could do a quick & dirty fix of treating editors with "bot" in their username as bots); wolud that be alright? It would send multiple emails if there are multiple bot edits to the same page, and I don't think I can check whether you've viewed the page or not (apparently the watchlist feed doesn't care either way). — Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, on the one hand multiple emails might get annoying, but on the other hand gmail is pretty good at merging them all together. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I've got this working, try toolforge:watchlistemail. From trying it out myself, most of the edits are sigmabot archiving pages, so I could filter those out if you want. Let me know if it works. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Bots archiving is one of the reasons I want this! Will give it a go. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────┘
FWIW I've encrypted the token i.e. so that the data is stored as:

{
    "Qwerfjkl": [
        "Z0FBQUFBQm1IcWxrV1VQamw2TWZHY2xYSVFrSFhiTTYyNHRGUi1MeWlKcVoxTWx2b05Jd0Y0SDlWczVfaEp0NEtJbk01Zl9DRW9UV0lRMWRtN1B6VTdtaXZFMWxQUGxRX2VqWVVlT3UzbzljQ1VodHdvd0ZUTDNjUkE0XzFIZTNYVDBwaWdaUmhvYzI=",
        "qwerfjklwikipedia@gmail.com",
        "2024-04-16 16:52:46"
    ]
}

— Qwerfjkltalk 16:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be working :-) Primefac (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

​ Question: Special:Diff/1219571247 was followed by Special:Diff/1219576277 (both following an edit I had made to the page), but the first edit didn't seem to trigger the email notification (which meant that I missed the second). Glitch or will an email suddenly appear in my inbox two hours from now? Primefac (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Oops. I checked for "bot" in the username but not "Bot". Now fixed. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Just noting BOT is also possible (e.g. BaranBOT). Primefac (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

And boT... (PonoRoboT)! Primefac (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I just did

if not 'bot' in entry['author'].lower():
    continue

so it's case-insensitive. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That works. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

(hopefully) Last tweak/request - instead of &diff=prev could it be &diff=0? That way if there are other edits they'll get lumped in (if not, no worries). Primefac (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the above might not be feasible... when diff=0 the oldid is the last-seen version of the page, not the edit being made, so it shows everything from that last-seen version, whereas your url just does the diff backwards from the newest edit. Primefac (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

AFI navboxes, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 20#AFI templates

Please reverse your close. On March 20 you relisted the discussion to obtain a clearer consensus. This clarity was achieved with three 'Keep' !votes and one 'Delete'. You then, after obtaining the requested clearer consensus, closed as 'Delete'. Please reverse on common sense alone, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are not votes, so counting them does not give a result. I will also note (see #AFI Templates which you participated in) that I re-opened because I had not considered some things (not that I was "waiting for a clearer consensus"). I finally found time to give the matter more consideration, and came to the conclusion I posted. Primefac (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The March 20 relisting specifically says "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus." At that point three more editors appealed to "Keep" and one to "Delete". This one seems an obvious Keep. Or at most No Consensus (and no, "no consensus" does not mean "Delete" as argued in the discussion you linked, the revert to status quo would Keep the page which was last deleted many years ago). This one has been run through hoops and enough reasoning and editors decided it was a good Keep, please reverse your decision and keep the useful navboxes, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It seemed like an obvious keep to you before I relisted and re-opened the discussion (see previous discussion where you miscount the !votes), so you'll have to forgive me if I do not take your opinion as the "obvious" result. Primefac (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I forgive you, and without reading it again your analysis may or may not be correct (which is why I don't close discussions, my thumb would sneak over onto the side of inclusion for interesting things that do no harm to the encyclopedia and impart information to the readers) but let's get back on subject. My concern: in a relisting in order to get a clearer consensus, three more 'Keep' comments and one 'Delete' comment appeared. Then you closed the nom as 'Delete'. If you relisted it to get a clearer consensus, and a 3-1 Keep emerged from editors who by that point had the entire discussion to read as weight for their opinions, who came to it with fresh eyes, this seems like a legitimate point to raise. Would hope this makes sense to you in a moment of reflection and taking the messenger out of the equation, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, it comes down to the quality of opinions presented and not just the quantity. Two of the keep !votes simply agreed with your rationale (and the third repeating the "old TFD" argument), while the delete !vote gave a lengthy explanation of why they felt it should be deleted. In other words, after the relist there was more "new" information on the side of the deletion !votes to consider, with only a numerical weight being added to the keep side of things. Even considering all of the above, it still took me +2k of text to explain my close, which is something I haven't needed to do in probably three years, because of the complexity of the situation. Primefac (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the further explanation. I won't follow up with a review request, although I view keeping such navboxes as beneficial without doing any harm to the encyclopedia. When a group of established editors agree to a Keep because they perceive value in the navbox, then I believe that readers should be given the opportunity to experience the same value. Many good navboxes have fallen to very thin margins. Thanks again for the interesting back-and-forth. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Trying to figure out what is going on

Please see Template talk:WikimediaNoLicensing.

digital_me (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Primefac,

I deleted this page as an orphaned talk page before seeing that you were directed to go to it. Here is the content of the page:

What has gone on here? I’m suddenly receiving an alert that I’m mentioned on a talk page about a template for deletion that I don’t have any recollection of.

Let me be clear: my intention has always been that my contributions are in the public domain.

I can’t see the deleted template so I have no idea even what it said.

I understand that Wikipedia adopted a CC license _after_ I stopped actively editing. Legally this does not matter, I am free to license my contributions as I wish (as long as the license is less restrictive than that which Wikipedia uses). Apparently I’m not supposed to edit the TFD page but otherwise how will I get in contact with the admin who said OK? I don’t even have time to edit anymore, generally.

Also, have y’all heard of the GPL? Seems like a pretty good license to me…

Please hit me back via email

digital_me (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I also directed the editor to come here to talk to you rather than created orphaned talk pages but I can see they already made that attempt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

digital me, please see this discussion for more information about this the now-deleted template; editors determined during the discussion that the template no longer had use and should be deleted as being potentially confusing at best and void at worst. Primefac (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Draft article

Hi Primefac. I would have hoped for a slightly less robotic response from you here. I understand that changes to protected templates need to be proposed and discussed, but that already happened, and why should a single non-policy-based objection block an otherwise straightforward change? Since you have taken responsibility for reverting the change, could you do us a favour and try to move the discussion forward a bit, rather than sitting on the fence? – Joe (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Non-template editors cannot contest a protected change, and since don't really have an opinion on the change itself I felt it best to indicate that. If you had waited more than an hour I had made my change, and that change hadn't been made yesterday, I might be more inclined to cross-post somewhere, but there is ongoing discussion at the template talk page so for the moment I'm going to wait a beat and see how it shakes out. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

If you had waited more than an hour I had made my change, and that change hadn't been made yesterday – I don't understand what this means. – Joe (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I made the edit at 08:40, and you posted here at 09:20 asking that I do more than comment as to why I had reverted. Given that this isn't AN we're talking about, I wouldn't even expect a reply to that discussion for a few hours, let alone be getting a talk page notice forty minutes later about why it's taking so long for someone to get a discussion going. Primefac (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean to ask you to comment immediately, I'm sorry if you got that impression. I don't believe I said anything about how long the discussion is taking; my request for your input is because the person you are reverting on behalf of is just saying "no" and it's difficult to get beyond that. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. As I said, I'll keep an eye on things and if nothing's doing I'll see about having an opinion. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

AfC probationary members

As you deal almost exclusively with approving the AfC participants, can you go through the probationary members and either transfer them to normal members or remove them. Nagol0929 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes? The third option of course is "leave them as probationary members". Primefac (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I didn’t word this correctly, it was just my impression that no one had gone through it in a while. Nagol0929 (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

That is also true. It is not an often-occurring task. Primefac (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Beaconsfield gallery

Hi, I’ve re-uploaded my edit. I riffed off of Chisenhale Gallery which is a very similar space to Beaconsfield. The gallery has been deeply underserved by the previous entry and so this is a larger update. This is non profit space and needs the support. Please do not undo. If you feel it’s excessive explain where instead of just deleting all the new entries. Thanks BeacHal1 (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay a few things, in no particular order:

• I assume you are being paid to edit the page, given your username. Please see WP:PAID and make the mandatory disclosure using {{paid}} or similar.
• The Chisenhale Gallery page has 25 references on it, but it probably could use more and/or removal of some of the unsourced content (see WP:OTHERSTUFF)
• Your edit removed almost a dozen references
• Your edit also added a ton of promotional language such as "unique testbed and primary research vehicle" and "delivered a consistently challenging artistic programme -- see WP:FLOWERY
• Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, it is a page to provide information on a subject in a neutral tone

If the page needs expanding to fill in missing information, that is fine, and I would encourage you to do so, but please make sure any additions are supported by reliable sources and stick to "just the facts" (i.e. no PR jargon). Discussing planned improvements on the article's talk page is also a good way to get feedback on proposed changes to the page. Primefac (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m not being paid by the gallery! The quotes are from the gallery site. The references were outdated and also dead links. That ‘flowery’ language is again taken from their website.

This is a redress from the previous article not a promotional campaign. But I take your point. However, I feel a bit aggrieved by a wholesale take down of everything I wrote up. Why is that okay?

you could always edit from what I’ve entered rather than take it all down again. Why is that okay? BeacHal1 (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes but you’ve done just that. Removed my edit completely with assumptions made about who I am and why I’m making these edits in the first place BeacHal1 (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I’ve edited to take out some of the flowery language! And quotes etc BeacHal1 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

​ My apologies for the assumption about your status with regard to the gallery; I read your username as "Beac" belonging to "Beaconsfield" and "Hal" being your name, i.e. "Hal that works at Beaconsfield" (which is similar to some of our username examples). That and the copy/paste from the gallery's website and you can see why I might have made that assumption.

As to the "wholesale revert" - it is the responsibility of the editor who adds the content -- especially when it's many paragraphs -- to ensure the content is properly sourced. As an editor I should not be required to check every paragraph to make sure there exists proper sourcing for the content you added. When faced with "revert everything or check every single paragraph" I will choose the former every time, and then ask the editor making the addition to provide references. To that end, I highly suggest you read through WP:REFB and move the references from the end of the article into the body of the text as is preferred, otherwise the content may be removed again for being "unsourced".

As a comment on something you said on your talk page, please write everything in your own words. As I said above, we are not here to "promote" the gallery, so copying their own prose is at best unnecessary, usually removable as promotional, and at worst a copyright violation.

Please let me know if I can clarify or explain anything further. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate this longer response. I was beginning to think wiki was more trolling than a place to contribute knowledge. I have only just started and am learning but tbh I now have a good mentor who is taking me through things and told me that I shouldn’t have been flagged as a vandal at any point and things should just have been explained as he has done. It’s fine. I’m now more aware as to how it works and whilst I think that certain levels of gatekeeping are fine it’s worth noting that my intentions on this site are to redress the balance of commercial arts replacing all the non-commercial artspaces and artists which is a constant. All the commercial spaces have in-house marketeers and they use wiki to elevate their status. Anyway, I’m quite pleased because I’ve just had my first page accepted! BeacHal1 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sock check

Primefac, would you run a SOCK check for me? A user with a nine-day-old account has created one rather heavily biased article Bouchet Graduate Honor Society, and had offered a rather biased and over-weighted set of edits to the summary article on Honor society. I adjusted that second article, but looking at the user WikiObjectivity, something appears amiss. His/her offerings were rather advanced for a nine-day-old Wikipedia newbie. Jax MN (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not really enough to go on, sorry. If you can tie it to another editor who is making similar edits that could result in a check, but "this is sus" isn't quite enough for me to feel comfortable checking. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Bot task (presumably simple)

Would you be able to take a quick look at a pending bot task request for me? It's a new task, but it is primarily regular expressions from an existing approved task - just being used for a different template and maintenance category. New task: ButlerBlogBot task 4 to format dates in the {{Infobox film}} template |released= parameter to use the {{Film date}} template. This task uses a number of regular expressions that are already used in ButlerBlogBot task 2, just modified to check only the |released= param and to use {{Film date}} instead of {{Start date}}. Initially, I'm only looking at single dates, not ranges. But I think that could account for around 15k-20k of the existing list. I've already spot checked results in AWB, and it's ready for testing. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll get to it next time I check the BRFA page. Primefac (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If nothing else

they're probably more competent at actually editing a ^&#^@ Wikipedia page than I am. Thanks for cleanup. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Aye, no worries. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Mnkongpc

Mnkongpc who you reverted is clearly not an new editor. Their first edit was to create Template:Updated/sandbox. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably not, though I will note all they did was copy the template into the sandbox (so it's not like they rewrote it entirely). Not sure if there's much to do about it, though, without tying it to a style or editor habit. Primefac (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

R from related word

Hi Primefac, I hope you're well.

I'm curious why your bot is replacing a load of R related templates with {{R from related word}}? As far as I can tell, the whole point of the template being deleted is because it was ambiguous whether it should be R from a related word or R from a related topic. Examples like [1] look like the latter to me. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, bugger. I completely misread the close. There are still ~900 uses of {{r to related}} that haven't been converted, so I'll leave those for manual cleanup. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah OK thanks, no harm done!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to be funny, but should those bot edits be reverted? If the bot has incorrectly resolved the ambiguity for a load of redirects, à la WP:CONTEXTBOT, that seems like a potential problem -- the incorrect uses of the ambiguous rcats that the bot has replaced with {{R from related word}}/{{R to related topic}} will be harder to find and fix than if they still transcluded the deprecated template-redirects. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 21:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

No, most of them will probably be okay; it should be fairly obvious which ones need to be changed so I'll just go through the list and tweak what needs it. Primefac (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Confused

• [2]

I'm confused. The page in question is Wikipedia:Deletion process, not Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. So I would think nacd would be the appropriate usage there? - jc37 22:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, not really sure what I misread, but I misread something in there. I've self-reverted. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

Nyttend

• JohnOwens
• Killiondude
• MelanieN
• Nihonjoe

Bureaucrat changes

Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe

Oversight changes

GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news

• Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Georgina Lara Booth

Hi Primefac, I have just seen the reverting of my edit. Very much open to having a discussion here with you, and I understand your point about some excessive info, but I will add some edits to the article again and we could have any further discussions about it here. Starting with that the subject is not just a "website editor" since she is a journalist / reporter / interviewer / writer / etc. for an international outlet. Thanks in advance and looking forward to any discussion for improvementsJanssenben (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that both I and Drmies are involved, please discuss the matter on the article's talk; it's not just a discussion 'twixt the two of us. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Primefac, I have to say, I have seen a lot of BLP fluff, but this one really takes the cake. Janssenben, please explain on the talk page how "Booth received special permission to establish her foundation from a district court judge due to her young age as a minor under Dutch Law" is verified by the subject's own article on the death of Olivia de Havilland. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Drmies and @Primefac, thanks for your feedback. As was mentioned to me by an editor, it would be great to have a friendly discussion here about how my edits in the article can be expanded and improve my contributions to the subject with both of you and @Primefac to resolve this edit discussion.

I have seen information around the internet on various links over time, which now might have been on some outdated links that may have been removed, I would have to look into that. However, I can see that Drmies has removed literally almost all of the content now in the career section of the subject anyway. I agree with the removal of some of the edits, but at least a sentence can be mentioned about the information that has been removed (point 3).

1) For starters, I think the template message from Primefac on top of the article can now be removed, since the article has been cleaned up by @Drmies who has made the latest edits to remove most information about the subject's journalism career now.

2) From what I have read, it is allowed to expand an article on Wikipedia with good faith - especially about a female subject who has been recognized internationally by outlets and organizations for journalism and other work. Mentioning other work and personal life in someone's background seems to be found in a lot of articles.

I have seen this for example, as a reference, with other female journalists, Diana Award winners, Forbes 30 honourees, etc. that have also mentioned personal life and any other work they have done. Some random examples I have found for reference that contain very specific details about personal lives, other work, etc. and do not even have any refs for confirmation about women in comparable fields (none have template tabs added on their articles either for cleanup):

• Female Journalists:

- Sophia Smith Galer (an almost identical subject that has recently been created with a larger section with very specific examples of her journalistic work) - Katherine Rosman (a lot of very specific private and irrelevant information about family life, namedropping, etc. aside from journalism that do not even have refs and a lot of paragraphs about the kinds of topics she has written about and covers).

• Female Diana Award winners:

- Christy Zakarias (refs about music used are on a personal self-confirmed music profile for her music contributions that can not be even been found online) - Aishwarya Sridhar (various specific anecdotal personal references and films without refs).

I would thus like to potentially expand the article again, but I agree with @Primefac that some information in the journalism section could have been shortened without mentioning too many names, etc. - but again I can see Drmies has removed almost all information in the journalism section now anyway. I would suggest at least expanding the sections that have just been removed about journalism and at least mentioning a line about acting/film work in her background that has also be confirmed, etc. (for example the Royal Society confirmed and referred to the subject as a filmmaker alongside being a journalist and humanitarian).

To sum up: at least a sentence can be mentioned about the kinds of topics the subject covers/has written about and the many high profile interviews conducted as an interviewer (point 3), which can be confirmed and should be allowed to expand, just like in the other articles I have found as reference examples of women in comparable fields.

3) I would like to suggest expanding at least the Journalism section again - as it now just says "Booth leads the Social Good content and publications desk of Mashable (Benelux), writing about social good, sustainability, social entrepreneurship, charities, NGOs and humanitarian work." However, Booth has also written about other content, like Entertainment, Tech and Science and has interviewed a lot of public figures as an interviewer/journalist which seems to be a focus of the subject's work (at least Forbes has mentioned some of the high profile interviews), so a sentence can be added about that the subject interviews a lot of public figures and celebrities, which seem to be a specialty of the subject, without mentioning all of the specific names of the subjects' interviews again as @Primefac has previously discussed, in addition to mentioning that the subject also covers subjects in the field of Entertainment, Tech and Science in the Journalism paragraph of the Career section.

In conclusion: Looking forward to discussing 1) the expansion of the journalism section and 2) removing the template on top of the article now since literally all details about the subject's career have now been removed and cleaned up in the last edits. Thanks. Janssenben (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It was there

but subsequently deleted. I think I had finger trouble. Three identical versions of the same file were updated, two to en:wp, one to Commons. Mea culpa. There is now a correct deletion rationale at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 5#File:Vadim Kravchinsky.jpeg where you may wish to offer an opinion either way. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)