User talk:RegentsPark

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Question about WP:RAJ

Someone made a claim that WP:RAJ only applies to British authors like Lepel Henry Griffin, Max Arthur Macauliffe etc. I'm pretty sure I've heard Indian authors like Jadunath Sarkar and Narendra Sinha also come under the term Raj era source-[1] though. Does WP:RAJ apply to everything pertaining to Indian topics, if it was written before 1947? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This is kind of a complicated question. WP:RAJ applies mainly to the many British administrators who wrote "histories" and "caste biographies" based on their own personal experiences rather than using standard methods of historiography. Unfortunately, many Indian writers, both Raj era as well as post-Raj ones, writing on various caste and religion topics end up using Raj era sources and base their work on those sources. In short, I would suggest discounting most Raj era texts regardless of who wrote them and be careful about using obscure or popular texts post-Raj. Sticking to modern academic writers is probably the safest. Context, to quote TB below, matters. RegentsPark (comment) 18:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This comment made it a lot clearer for me, thanks Regents Park and TrangaBellam. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Context matters. Sarkar's methods might have fallen out of favor but he was a meticulous scholar and is still relied upon by other scholars. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I see; would Autar Singh Sandhu, author of this book published in 1935-[2] be allowed as a reliable source on Wikipedia? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @RegentsParkseems like you have solved my 70% doubt but some small ambiguities are there I'll get back to you. Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Obvious sock

Just after you blocked Joshi punekar's sock, they have come up with a new user account Rajeshfadnavis. Would request you to block as per WP:DUCK! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiWednesday (April 10) and City Tech Library LGBTQIA edit-a-thon (April 11)

April 10: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce
Prime Produce You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, as well as an online-based participation option. Among the topics, we'll be covering the newly-released drafts of the Movement Charter for Wikimedia global governance. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. Wednesday, April 10 WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce (RSVP on-wiki). 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Open Hour) 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm (Wiki Salon) (Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan) Also online via Zoom
April 11: City Tech Library LGBTQIA edit-a-thon
New York City College of Technology Additionally, you are invited to City Tech Library LGBTQIA edit-a-thon at the New York City College of Technology Library in Downtown Brooklyn! Join us in person on April 11th to learn about these great new materials at City Tech Library; to learn about editing Wikipedia; and to help increase representation of LGBTQIA individuals and issues online. All are welcome, new and experienced! Interested in attending, but not a CUNY student or faculty? Please get in touch; we'll help you navigate City Tech building security. Email Jen: jennifer.hoyer18 (at) citytech.cuny.edu. Thursday, April 11 City Tech Library LGBTQIA edit-a-thon (RSVP on-wiki). 12:30 pm – 3:30 pm (come by any time!) 4:00 pm – 5:00 pm (reception to celebrate the library's LGBTQIA collection) City Tech Library Multimedia Screening and Meeting Space, 300 Jay Street, Brooklyn NY All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see

This user is back to edit warring immediately after the block expired block expired. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Second block. RegentsPark (comment) 21:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

NPOV Void

Hi @RegentsPark, If the article is clearly violating NPOV rule of wiki what can be done ? Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Best is to explain the reasons why it violates WP:NPOV on the talk page. Then you can either wait for consensus or just boldly make your changes. If you make the changes and are reverted, then try to build consensus or, if that doesn't happen, use dispute resolution. RegentsPark (comment) 21:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@RegentsParkGot it,so finally we have dispute resolution system.Say for example recently I was in discussion in 2 caste pages Daivadnya and gaud saraswat brahmin.Atleast in the first page I am able to add the content based on talk but second is pathetic even after having discussion for single edit I must rely on someone but they never help.Kindly try reducing the protection of this page (gaud saraswat brahmin) from extended editor to our level.If any sock or issue comes definitely we can increase the protection.Kindly look into it as I can feel some editors are not even following NPOV.Thanks Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@RegentsParkOne more thing,one editor is there(not taking his name to respect his dignity) who had maintain his POV for years I have challenged it for NPOV purpose .Now instead of replying wherever he goes calls me sock(not even suspected !).Isn't this void of wiki rule , isn't this demotivating nature/destructive nature?.Until now I had neglected him and didn't took it personally as per wiki article.Just guide me as this is one kind of mental harassment!,how to deal with this kind of people? Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey Rajeshfadnavis, please show the diffs, and don't worry; I am going to warn them! Further action may also be taken! Ekdalian (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@RegentsPark's page is lucky to me .I found many solutions here anyhow the wiki void behavior will be addressed if it is continued by the concerned editor. Rajeshfadnavis (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)