User talk:Muboshgu

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
• Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
• Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

Holiday Greetings

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. Always a pleasure to see your work. ―Buster7 ☎

Further protect or fix?

I suppose that Manny Ramirez, Jake Westbrook, 1924 World Series, 1997 World Series, and a few other pages will soon be extended-confirmed (i.e. 30 days, 500 edits) protected. If you think that would be a good thing, I guess you could do it yourself right now or request it, since it will happen soon enough anyway. If you're not so sure, you could take a look at the recent edits and restore whatever you deem to be an improvement, going only by actual content, to which reverters have given no consideration whatsoever. By doing that, you would not only improve the articles, but also likely keep them open to edits by somewhat new users.

I really regret that it has gotten to this point. I figured that people would restore clearly good edits and take a look at others, which has sometimes happened, but a clear mistake has been restored 25 times at Mark Geragos, and flawed versions of other pages also remain in place, some with extended-confirmed protection.

Ironically, this all came about in part because things are not always carefully checked, as the circumstances surrounding the Porter and Jick letter illustrate. This caused me a lot of frustration, especially when something I tried to bring about got screwed up. It was not a point-of-view issue, but rather a mix-up between subtopics and a few other confusing statements. This isn't relevant to the aforementioned articles, even the Porter and Jick one, but understanding this, maybe you won't feel like you "should probably leave the mistakes as they are", as you said after being confronted about this earlier. 220.90.95.129 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This is pretty clearly Belteshazzar. Leijurv (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

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

Administrator changes

Graham Beards

• Deskana
• Mets501
• Staxringold

Bureaucrat changes

• Deskana
• Warofdreams

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

• Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
• The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

• WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Brooke Jenkins controversies

Hi, I see you reverted my edit around the addition of a "Controversies" subtitle. The three paragraph portion of the section (which is already separated from the rest of the "Career" section) addresses legal misconduct, which is already pretty significant in length. As per WP:CRITICISM, I can perhaps alter the subtitle so it specifies that these are legal controversies or legal misconduct specifically if that would be better suited. Otherwise, I'm curious as to why this should not be added. In addition, despite the edit summary, typically reversion should not be used in cases when "edits [...] neither improve nor harm the article." Let me know - thanks! digiulio8 (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023

• Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade

• Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor

• In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say

• News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024

• Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies

• Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth

• Featured content: We didn't start the wiki

• Essay: No queerphobia

• Special report: RetractionBot is back to life!

• Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer

• Comix: The Wikipediholic Family

• Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox

• Concept: Palimpsestuous

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Very frustratingly

Hunter Biden is under an enforced BRD restriction, which I think your most recent revert violated. The letter of that sanction is really giving first-mover advantage to the flood of inexperienced editors responding to the news, but I don't think there's much we can do except raise visibility and pray for ECP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a pain. This article always should have been under ECP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Would recommend either self-reverting or noting in a dummy edit summary that you're sticking with it on BLP grounds. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

BRD restriction would mean it stays out though, and the talk page doesn't say it's on 1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the intention of the BRD restriction, especially given its name, is to prevent bold changes from being restored once reverted, unless there's been discussion. As stated, though, it also prevents reverting editors—like you and I—from redoing those reverts, since they're "an edit that is challenged by reversion". Meanwhile, incoming editors are free to re-do the bold edit once each, since the restriction applies to "the editor who originally made it". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I have a different read on it, being that BRD means the status quo should remain until a new consensus emerges, and the lack of 1RR allows us to do that. I could be wrong, but hopefully ECP and 1RR are added to clarify it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I do think there's a lack of clarity on the restriction. I think my interpretation holds closer to the letter of the restriction, and yours to the spirit. I would love to see ArbCom rework it to be more closely aligned with your version, as I tend to have a lot of status quo bias and would prefer restrictions have the same. I don't feel like ARCA right now... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I resubmitted Hunter's page to RFPP for CTOPS ECP just now, which can hopefully lead to more clarity at least on what to do on this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Neil Goldschmidt

On 15 June 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Neil Goldschmidt, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 03:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If you have time

please take a look at [1]. Vandal that you warned has now started vandalizing my user page. I just now reported them to AIV here. Thanks - Shearonink (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks but nevermind, they've just gotten blocked. Shearonink (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Great – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Brad Dusek

On 16 June 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Brad Dusek, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Willie Mays

On 19 June 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Willie Mays, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Muboshgu, I noticed that my recent edits to the Donald Trump 2024 campaign article were reverted, and I wanted to discuss this further to understand how we can improve the article together. My intention with the edits was to ensure neutrality and balance, as per Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) guidelines. I aimed to remove biased language and provide a more balanced portrayal of policy issues and perspectives, including viewpoints from both supporters and critics. Here are some specific changes I made: Replaced loaded language with more neutral terms. Included both positive and negative perspectives on key campaign issues. Ensured that policy descriptions were presented factually and without bias. I believe these changes contribute to a more comprehensive and unbiased article. Could you please provide feedback on what specific aspects of my edits were problematic, and how I might revise them to better align with Wikipedia’s standards? Thank you for your time and assistance. Best regards, Augustus2714 71.70.226.246 (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

2024 Donald Trump Presidential Campaign Edits

Sorry, subject was left out in the original topic. See above comment - Augustus2714 71.70.226.246 (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Muboshgu, I noticed that my recent edits to the Donald Trump 2024 campaign article were reverted, and I wanted to discuss this further to understand how we can improve the article together. My intention with the edits was to ensure neutrality and balance, as per Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) guidelines. I aimed to remove biased language and provide a more balanced portrayal of policy issues and perspectives, including viewpoints from both supporters and critics. Here are some specific changes I made: Replaced loaded language with more neutral terms. Included both positive and negative perspectives on key campaign issues. Ensured that policy descriptions were presented factually and without bias. I believe these changes contribute to a more comprehensive and unbiased article. Could you please provide feedback on what specific aspects of my edits were problematic, and how I might revise them to better align with Wikipedia’s standards? Thank you for your time and assistance. Best regards, Augustus2714 71.70.226.246 (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I see that you're new. For instance, you shouldn't be editing while logged out. You also should have brought this up on the article's talk page where others can more easily see it and respond, rather than here.

Some of the changes you made were improvements, I think. Taking "vastly" out of Trump has campaigned on vastly expanding the authority of the executive branch, for instance, I think is an improvement. Other parts of your edit removed important nuance and facts in various places. For instance, I think it is a must that we note that Trump's allegations of fraud in the 2020 election are false. We cannot equivocate on things like that.

It is also easier to make changes one at a time, so we can digest them and decide on them one by one. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to discuss this issue with me. I appreciate your understanding of my efforts to improve the article's neutrality.

I understand the importance of community feedback and will take your suggestion to engage more on the talk page into consideration moving forward. I am eager to hear from other editors and administrators to gather diverse perspectives and refine the article accordingly.

Regarding the issue of Trump’s allegations about the 2020 election, I respectfully hold the view that the neutrality policy allows for presenting notable viewpoints without implying endorsement. These allegations remain a continued aspect of public discourse, and it is important to acknowledge their existence while providing factual context.

Could we discuss potential ways to address these concerns together? I am open to finding a compromise that ensures the article meets Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and accuracy.

Thank you once again for your guidance. Augustus2714 (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)