Jump to content

User talk:Thryduulf/archive23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chopin Sexuality

[edit]

After thinking about it, I think you took a reasonable approach. What was important was to prevent edit-warring over whether the sub-article should exist. We shall see how the RFC is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

  • The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: January 2021

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.


Arbitration Case Opened

[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 04:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from Bishonen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021). Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • 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.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: February 2021

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Cease WP:BLUDGEONING.

[edit]

Your behavior at TfD right now falls well within attempting to bludgeon the process to death, and you're not going to get anywhere with your current methodology and actions at TfD. Please carefully read WP:BLUDGEONING, and decide for yourself if you are doing so. Your edits currently account for a disproportionate majority of the edits for "COI article-space templates", and I encourage you to back off, you're no longer contributing to the discussion what-so-ever. Arguing with every single delete voter is not going to get you, or anyone else, anywhere in the conversation. As a functionary and member of Wikimedia UK, you should know better than this. You are an official, and as such should know how to behave yourself, and should not need to be reminded by volunteers to keep yourself in check. Thank you. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 23:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have read, and re-read, WP:BLUDGEONING and I am happy that my comments do not violate it - Xeno explains it well in this comment. You will also note that my most recent comment (my only one in over a day) was not "arguing with a delete voter" (or even a person (it's not a vote) advocating keep, I am in favour of deleting the templates) but expressing a view in a valid meta-discussion.
If you believe the templates should not be deleted your time would be better spent actually refuting the arguments made in favour of deletion rather than complaining about being asked to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, to note, I am not here to discuss the merits of keep/delete. I am not even interested in doing so. I solely made this comment to ask you to correct your behavior. As for you claiming otherwise, I will note I reviewed and read through your arguments before writing this warning, and firmly believe you are doing what I stated. There is a limit to how much people want to repeat themselves to explain somethin'. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 00:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on the linked comment: a charge of bludgeoning (a behaviour covered by WP:DE) cannot be simply based on the number or volume of edits, it needs to be judged based on the disruptive character of those comments.
To force someone to restrict themselves to a certain number of edits or kilobytes is a risk to the consensus process (and unfair to chronic copyeditors who submit instead of preview! =).
In such a regime, irrational "votes" can overwhelm the process and disenfranchise participants if individuals can be said to have used up their right of reply and overstayed their welcome by comment volume alone without other evidence of disruption (IDHT, wikilawyering, etc.) being evidenced as well - which I don’t think can be said here.
Also- this is a hobby; concision is hard: I apologize that this comment is long because I did not have time to make it short. –xenotalk 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Casagrandes on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible names for DS/GS

[edit]

Hi Thryduulf, I was very glad to see your suggestion for a more descriptive name for ArbCom-authorized DS and community-authorized GS that doesn't include the word "sanction". This definitely has been on my mind for some time now. What are some alternatives that you would like? So far, I've come up with "special enforcement areas/zones", "topic areas under heightened scrutiny". I want to emphasize the what (this is a topic under scrutiny, tread carefully) more than the process (admins have additional discretion etc., which is less likely to be relevant for most editors who see a DS banner). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: I shared all my best suggestions to date in my comment in the consultation, "topics under heightened scrutiny" isn't great but isn't bad, I don't like "zones". "Supplemental scrutiny topics" or "additional scrutiny topics" get the same across a bit more succinctly. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential BLPTALK violation

[edit]

Hi Thryduulf

Wondered if you could help with a WP:BLPTALK issue? On the talkpage of Northern Independence Party, an accusation of anti-semitism has been made against a living individual by an IP. They were challenged for a source, and the one provided is a Jewish Chronicle article which stated (correctly) that the individual was anti-zionist, but did not accuse him of anti-semitism. I am concerned that this violates BLPTALK and that it is potentially libellous under British law (where I reasonably believe both parties to be resident). Is there any way to delete this edit from the page and the record, and what procedure must be followed? I have also raised this at Swarm's page as I consider it probably urgent, so which ever of you see it first is welcome to advise. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: I've just seen this and don't have time to look into it until probably tomorrow. For future reference, what you need to do in this situation is email the oversight team (see WP:OVERSIGHT), which I'll do on your behalf now. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, wasn't sure what to do. All the best. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021). Administrator changes

removed Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

  • 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)

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Goths on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You like my tool?

[edit]
——Serial 19:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I saw that you expressed interest in my new tool. It is hard for me the judge the nature of this interest from that diff, but if you've been following my talk page, you may have seen the videos I posted showing five ways the tool can be used. Do any of these uses interest you? And if so, would you like to try to tool out? Sam at Megaputer (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in following what happens with your trial, but I don't meet the requirements to be part of it. I haven't seen the videos yet and I'm not in a position to view them right now, but I'll take a look and offer any feedback I have when I can. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And if I don't start picking up volunteers soon, I may have to lower the barrier to entry. We'll see how it goes Sam at Megaputer (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emptying categories

[edit]

What is you're opinion on so called "backdoor" emptying categories in order to get them deleted under C1? I'm asking because I know in the past you have pointed out about pages getting deleted "out of process" being problematic since there's no way for other users to check etc. There was a discussion last year at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 19#Where does it actually say you should not just empty a category you don't like? on this. There did seem to be consensus that if a category gets emptied because the pages didn't belong in the category that's OK and I'd also give an example of Category:Unparished areas in Northamptonshire that I created last year, it seems this year all the unparished areas have been parished (but the OS doesn't show this yet) so that being emptied was probably OK. I'm rather mixed on if it should be allowed or not, one side of me says its acceptable under BRD since if the category was only recently created or its deletion doesn't seem controversial its probably OK as long as the category is small. The other side of me says deleting categories should be discussed at CFD and indeed can be backdoor. I did however recommend that an editor can demand a full CFD if they object to a category being emptied even if newly created. I do feel (as I noted in the discussion) that if people feel emptying categories to get them deleted under C1 is generally inappropriate the best thing would be to repeal C1 and require all empty categories to go through CFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do a lot of work with categories, so I'm not not the best person to ask this question of. However, in general if there are good faith objections to a speedy deletion nomination (for any reason) then speedy deletion must not be used and it should go to the relevant XfD. I haven't looked at the specific examples you've given, but if there are no articles about unparished areas in Northamptonshire because there are no longer any such areas, then I don't see why it would be problematic to delete the category for them. I have no opinion about the general utility of CSD criterion C1, but the general presumption is that it is the responsibility of the person wanting to change the status quo to demonstrate the need for/benefits from change. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: March 2021

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

WP:LISTGAP: avoid inserting blank lines between colon-indented parts of a comment.

[edit]

Hello, I've just read the edit comment you left here about not inserting blank lines between colon-indented comments. Would my reading of the Accessibility#Lists section of the Manual of Style, that an acceptable solution for separating comments is to insert a line with the same number of colons, be correct? Quite a lot of the blank lines you removed were from among other editors' comments and weren't inserted by me, at least consciously. Do you know whether those lines actually appeared as the result of my editing?     ←   ZScarpia   12:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that markup like
::Paragraph 1
::
::Paragraph 2
Is not preferred and I've seen other editors removing the blank lines. Whether that is for screen readers or some other reason I'm not certain. If you want to separate paragraphs like that, then using Paragraph 1<p>Paragraph 2 is better. From memory, I tagged you as you appeared to intentionally insert the blank lines while others were not clearly added intentionally but I've not checked again. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, using the colon technique doesn't work: a blank line doesn't appear in the output. If I'd wanted to insert a blank line to separate out this reply from your comment, what would be acceptable ways of doing it? I'm assuming that just inserting blank lines around comments are no more acceptable than inserting them within. When I clicked on Preview, the Wikipedia parser(?) itself added in a blank spacing line; when I irst added this reply, it followed on directly from your previous comment. I suspect that may be the root cause of the problem: the parser adds space where I don't want it and deletes it from where I do. After performing previews, I usually re-format spacing back to the way I want it, which is why I add blank lines.     ←   ZScarpia   13:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should not be adding blank lines for any reason. If indentation is not enough (although I don't recall ever encountering that) then use <p> or <br> markup. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note that MOS:Accessibility#Lists says: "Do not use line breaks to simulate paragraphs, because they have different semantics." (the spacing line before this reply was again inserted there by the 'parser', not me)     ←   ZScarpia  
The technique described above by Thryduulf at 12:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC) is recommended by RexxS (talk · contribs) and approved by Graham87 (talk · contribs). That's good enough for me. What is not acceptable is leaving lines that are completely blank in the edit window. Semantically, this 
::Paragraph 1
::
::Paragraph 2
makes three items in one list (itself nested in the single item of another list), the second item being empty (and which is filtered out by the MediaWiki servers, so it never reaches your browser), whereas this 
::Paragraph 1

::Paragraph 2
makes (i) one item in one list (itself nested in the single item of another list); (ii) one item in one list (itself nested in the single item of another list) - in this case the two outer lists are separate, and semantically unrelated. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Autism Speaks on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"British King who abdicated" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect British King who abdicated. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#British King who abdicated until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"King killed by a red hot poker" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect King killed by a red hot poker. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#King killed by a red hot poker until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"British King who got his head cut off" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect British King who got his head cut off. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#British King who got his head cut off until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of King killed by a red hot poker

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on King killed by a red hot poker requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"2004 Republican presidential candidates" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2004 Republican presidential candidates. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#2004 Republican presidential candidates until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 05:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"HotH" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect HotH. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#HotH until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at resolving our dispute

[edit]

Hello, Thryduulf. As you know, I am User:NotReallySoroka, and this time I would like to achieve a compromise with you.

Yes, I should indeed have judged a redirect solely by its merit, instead of the intentions behind it. I still stand by my observation that you have made a pointy response to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass, but I should have refrained from committing a WP:POINTY act just to get my point (pun intended) across. I also admit that my mass nominations against your redirects could be seen as targeting you instead of the redirects, although I did nominate a few other redirects that you did not create. For that, I apologise.

As for RfDs on redirects you created, such as "British King who has his head cut off", "British King who abdicated", and such, I will still have the RfD running but I would commit myself to cease any new commenting (I might still refactor myself, but you may roll them back if you see it as too far), and I ask that you stop new comments on my existing points, too, unless it is a refactoring. In a reverted edit I refactored a few statements of mine regarding your redirects, so as to reduce my pointiness. I hope that you may do the same.

If in the future (until a time we both agree) I see one of your redirects, and I see it as pointy, I commit to keep them away from RfD. Instead, I will alert it to you along with my reasoning. Then, you can either consider G7'ing it, RfD it, or fix it, among others. In reciprocality, please notify me should you perceive one of my redirects as pointy and harmful - I will make the action.

I hope that this no-fault, voluntary agreement will be a good middle ground for our compromise, as well as a good start for seeking a consensus (RfC maybe?) about the fate of such redirects. At the end, we both just want Wikipedia to improve. Let's compromise, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 00:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I believe that I have demonstrated my willingness to abide by the above terms, seeing that I have made no new comments at the RfDs.
  2. I have retired and is currently waiting for a self block (User talk:Bishonen#Applying for Release to Elsewhere) Please take a look at my request, grant it (if you do not mind and if you can choose to not recuse over that), and take a note at user page where I talked more about my retirement.
Thank you for your contribution, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been rather busy away from Wikipedia yesterday and today so I've not had chance to look in detail. I'm hoping to get time this evening. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NotReallySoroka: I continue to reject your assertion that my actions were at all POINTY but I accept your apology regarding the apparent targetting (and yes, I was too firm in my assertion in that regard). I do intend to continue refuting what I see as incorrect arguments at the RfD and will not be editing my old comments, but if you do not make any new comments I will not be responding to you. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CSD Query

[edit]

Hello, Thryduulf,

I see you've commented at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion a fair amount so I thought I'd approach you with a question rather than starting up a discussion on the talk page. I'm getting mixed messages about restoring CSD G5s. One editor stated that it is okay to do so if the new editor would "take responsibility" for the edits of the blocked sockpuppet. But today, I went to WP:REFUND where the patrolling admin declined to restore a CSD G5 page that was requested. You've been editing for (wow) 16 years and I wondered where you came down on this topic. Thanks in advance. Liz Read! Talk! 20:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the only reason for deletion was G5 (i.e. it wasn't also a copyvio or something like that) then I see absolutely no reason why a refund would be denied if the requested was explicitly prepared to accept responsibility. After all G5 is a "may" delete not a "must" delete situation, and if a user in good standing believes they are beneficial to the encyclopaedia then we should not delete (or undelete) the content. If the content is simple though (something you can easily recreate without much effort) then it's usually going to be less drama all round just to recreate it.
If a REFUND request has been declined and you still want the content undeleted then you can make a request at DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what happened was yesterday a sockpuppet who was very prolific in the area of Asian pop was identified and all of their pages were tagged CSD G5s. I deleted the ones where they were the sole contributor, untagged the ones where there were multiple contributors, but several editors who also work on content creation in this area objected to the deletions, one after the pages were tagged and today after the articles had been deleted. I've restored stale drafts and contested PRODs before but I hadn't encountered a challenge on a CSD G5 so this was a new one for me. Some editors have extremely strong feelings about obliterating all the work of sockpuppets so I just was looking for a confirmation or explanation, both of which you provided. Thank you, Thryduulf. Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeting redirects

[edit]

Hi Thryduulf. I asked a question at WT:RFD ("Retarget procedure") but didn't really get a response, might be an inactive venue. iirc you're active around redirects so figure I'd ask here. If an RM finds consensus to retarget a redirect, what's the procedure to do that? I'm guessing just changing the target is bad because it would mean all incoming links now go to a page the writer didn't intend to link to. So are there tools/bots to change the incoming links first? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly it sounds odd that an RM would find consensus to usurp a redirect if the links to that redirect were intended for a different topic - was this brought up in the discussion? If it did however, then yes the links should be updated and a hatnote added to the page now at the redirect. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a tool that could mass update the links but I've never used one myself, maybe WP:AWB could do it? If not maybe asking at WP:VPT or WP:BOTREQ will get an answer. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For context the specific redirect I mean is WP:CR as a result of Wikipedia_talk:Closure_requests#Requested_move_22_March_2021 and the section immediately above that one. In the earlier RM editors didn't want to use "Requests for closure" since it lacked a suitable acronym (WP:RFC), so I proposed Wikipedia:Closure requests and hijacking WP:CR and editors seemed to be happy with that. Though, I'm not sure how to technically implement the retargeting of WP:CR. I could probably BRFA a bot to update the incoming links I guess, but I was assuming RMs that might result in the context of existing incoming links changing isn't an uncommon use case (eg when a page is disambiguated) so a tool might already exist for something like this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just realised it's at RfD now (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_21#Wikipedia:CR). I guess this can take a pause for now till there's a consensus there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman equivalent

[edit]

Thank you for actually pulling the trigger on this one, which should have been done two relists ago. I don't like drama or the spotlight - hence why I edit as an IP address - but I was prepared to close the discussion myself as no consensus if there was another useless relist. I'm glad to see that no such thing had to happen. I hope you will be equally bold against equally useless relists in the future, when I don't have a similar stake. Have a nice day. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: April 2021

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nicholas Wade on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DS 2021 Review Update

[edit]

Dear Thryduulf,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

[edit]

Could you please cease personal attacks such as suggesting here that I am deliberately ignoring policy. Discuss the contribution, not the contributor. Andrewa (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting you are ignoring policy when all the evidence points to you ignoring policy is not a personal attack. If you want to me to comment on your arguments then you have to actually present some that are not just repetition of the arguments multiple people have commented on multiple times already. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree obviously. In fact it seems to me to be the other way around. And it's a behavioural problem IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course free to disagree with the evidence but doing so does not change the evidence, nor does it turn a factual statement into a personal attack. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support!

[edit]
Hello, Thryduulf/archive23:

We wanted to THANK YOU for expressing your support in our grant application to develop Web2Cit: Visual Editor for Citoid Web Translators and for volunteering to take part in the project. We have great news to share: our proposal has been approved!

In the following weeks, we will be processing some paperwork and refining our next steps for this project. We aim to give updates so you can follow the development of the project and you can understand when and how you can contribute!

But for now, we wanted to thank you and invite you to celebrate with us!

Both Diegodlh and myself are very thankful for your support. --Scann (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]
Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021

[edit]

Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 02:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid G4

[edit]

Greetings. I believe this deletion is not a valid application of G4; the article needed to go to AfD, or have the deletion declined outright. The version you deleted had 19 references; 15 of those date from after the AfD; it is in no way "sufficiently identical" to the version deleted at AfD. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those references addressed the reasons why it was deleted at the AfD, but I'll restore it and send it to AfD (it might take me a few minutes though). Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: now at AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munawar Faruqui (2nd nomination). Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will attempt to examine the coverage later. I want to note that my count of the sources was mistaken; some of those are retrieval dates, not publication dates; but there are, nonetheless, later sources, so the substance of my point stands, I believe. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • 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.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2021

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Editing news 2021 #2

[edit]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Junior contributors comment completion rate across all participating Wikipedias
When newcomers had the Reply tool and tried to post on a talk page, they were more successful at posting a comment. (Source)

Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.

The key results were:

  • Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
  • The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.

These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.

Looking ahead

The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.

The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.

You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of an article without discussion

[edit]

Hi, I am just writing to you as an uninvolved admin. Something a bit weird has gone on here, it's an article about an Argentine department which theoretically covers the Falklands and all sorts of other excellent penguin habitats currently administered by the UK. The page has been blanked and replaced by a redirect to a subsection of the Province of Tierra del Fuego page which does not include the deleted text.

Am I right in thinking this should not have been done without a deletion discussion? --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or merge I suppose...Boynamedsue (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a bold edit. If you disagree you can revert it like any other edit. I've not got time at the moment to look into the content to see if I agree or disagree with the redirection. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, have reverted. Without getting into the content of this particular article, what are the criteria that mean you have to do an AfD rather than just blanking and redirecting the page to a subsection of another article? Boynamedsue (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the title is a useful search term for content elsewhere then redirect it, if you don't or if you believe there is some reason the history should be deleted, then use prod or AfD. If you think redirection will be controversial, then you should usually discuss it first but it's not mandatory (i.e. it's the same as any other bold edit). Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of <br><!--¶-->

[edit]

Hello Thryduulf, I was intrigued to see your use of <br><!--¶--> in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steam locomotive components – I haven't seen <br> and <!--¶--> used before in this way. Could you let me know how it works and what is the advantage over a simple <br />? Thank you.  :-) DAHall (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The <br> adds line breaks while avoiding WP:LISTGAPs. the comment around the linebreak makes the source easier to read as it gives visual sepraration of paragraphs. It's pretty common in template code. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
–– Thank you for that. Excellent! DAHall (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where do the pilcrows come in? Which edit is this about? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: The edit concerned is this one, the pilcrows are only on this page (my talkpage) and are being used to represent the linebreaks in my original comment. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so not pilcrows, and not <br /> tags but actually newlines. Have you seen User talk:Isaacl/Archive 3#Thank you for two neat methods? One near the start of Floq's post, the other in the second half of the thread. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both methods noted there are new to me. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pentagon UFO videos on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • 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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Delay (audio effect) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 278

[edit]

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 278. I have added some more sources to the article now. Do you think these are enough for it to pass WP:GNG? Thanks again NemesisAT (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: June 2021

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Stephen Baltz

[edit]

The consensus is we don't name the dead or survivors of aviation disasters unless they have a WP article. Here are just some of the many discussions-

Plus see ANI discussions here[1] and here[2]. Most of those discussions took place in the last two years. There is one exception- the cockpit crew of the aircraft(s) involved....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know why you felt the need to leave this message on my talk page rather than in the RfD discussion I presume you're referencing and where you should direct all future comments, but none of what you said makes the slightest difference to my opinion. The place to discuss article content is AfD not RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sweetener" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sweetener. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 26#Sweetener until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UserTwoSix (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • 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)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Online meetup this Saturday

[edit]

Hi, I'm hosting an online meetup this Saturday; meta:Meetup/UK Teams/1. Let me know if you're interested and feel free to spread the word. Cheers, Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 11:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubbish computer: thank you for the invite but I'm not around this weekend and also really don't enjoy video calls (even social ones) which is why I've not been to any of the ones over the past year. Please do ping me when things start happening in person again though. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no worries, and will ping you then. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 08:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost interview

[edit]

Hi Thryduulf, hope that you're well. I was wondering if you'd be able to participate in a Signpost interview in your capacity as a member of WikiProject Redirect? I am enthusiastic about these interviews because they help remind other Wikipedians about the passionate and diverse group of volunteers that edit Wikipedia, and into the many discussions and editors that inhabit our space, nooks and crannies. If you had time to even answer a few questions here (User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject redirects interview draft) I'd be very grateful :). Tom (LT) (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom (LT): Normally I'd say no problem at all, but I really don't have time at the moment and likely wont until the week after next. Please ping me again then if that's not too late for you. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of trying to publish it in the late September signpost, so we certainly have enough time. I'll recontact you in a few weeks. Thanks for volunteering. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ping to Thryduulf now that it's been a few weeks. That went by quickly! Tom (LT) (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom (LT): I'll take a look in the next couple of days. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: July 2021

[edit]


Headlines
  • Albania report: Collaboration with the New Vision Organization in Tirana; Summer of Wikivoyage Campaign 2021
  • Australia report: Representation and erasure: opportunities and risks that Wikipedia presents for First Nations knowledges
  • Brazil report: A wikicontest to celebrate and make visible the state of Bahia
  • India report: Rabimas proofread contest ends on Bengali Wikisource
  • New Zealand report: New Zealand holds its second Wikimedia conference, and a performing arts Wikiproject gathers steam
  • Serbia report: New chances for GLAM success
  • Sweden report: Photos of Childrens theatre
  • UK report: A Thousand Images of Islam, British Library Updates
  • USA report: Smithsonian Wiki Focus: Black Women in Food History; San Diego 73; Black Lunch Table Black artists
  • WMF GLAM report: A conversation about depicts and Structured Data on Commons
  • Calendar: August's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Optical telegraph on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:NBC News on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

afterlife

[edit]

I am in no way making light of the overall situation. But I just thought I should tell you that reading your comments made me think of the Parrot sketch.  : ) - jc37 02:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Like. Thryduulf (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Westworld (TV series) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

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

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rail vehicle AfDs

[edit]

I have also sent British rail Locomotive 02 001 to AfD, and will add British Rail Locomotive 02 004 if it is deprodded as well. Not so sure about British Rail Locomotive 02 003, as I know we have articles about preserved locomotives, though I am unconvinced by this one. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I agree with you about 001 and 004, and I'm also not sure about 003 - probably it's worth a discussion at WT:UKT. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: August 2021

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

3DWA

[edit]

Done. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 20:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a slightly different note, I really regret doing that summary the other month that may have killed Word Before Last. Can you please ignore it and carry on doing 2 at a time? Its annoying I cannot undo it. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 20:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In an attempt to not spend all my wiki time on word association, I'm only playing the exclusively grid-based games so I've not looked at Word Before Last in months, maybe years. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How do you close Patchwork? Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 19:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same way as Ultra. Get a permalink and make a note of it, note the starting and ending words, and record all three in the intro. Then replace the grid with a clean one (I should have put one on the talk page), making any changes to the patches you desire (if you do this, put a clean copy of your design on the talk page). Pick a start word at random. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't you have to make note of all the finishing words in the individual patches? Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 19:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish, but anyone wanting to see that can probably look at the completed grid just as easily. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Yoruba people on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explosive Grid

[edit]

I removed Shock Waves (film) from the two blue squares [3], because it already existed in the main grid. Take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

doh! Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (television) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edge

[edit]

You spelled fourth amendment wrong. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 16:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger. Not much I can do about it now though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just took another look and saw it was a simple typo "amendmenn to" instead of "amendment to" that I've just fixed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin E oil RfD

[edit]

I see that the RfD for Vitamin E oil was closed as delete, but a "page with this name was deleted" notice does not appear for me at the original page. I think this might be particularly useful in this case given that the close left the door open for future scenarios where the redirect could be recreated, so reference to the previous RfD would be informative. Cheers! Mdewman6 (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdewman6: I accidentally suppress-deleted it rather than just deleting it. I unsuppressed it, but it seems that there isn't a deletion log entry to unsuppress (or at least I couldn't find one) so I guess that's why the message wasn't displaying? Anyway, I restored it and deleted it again referencing the RfD so the link is there now. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! Mdewman6 (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remind you of anyone?

[edit]

[CC: Tavix] I've found this user's contributions at RfD largely helpful, even if we've disagreed a few times, but something clicked today: Hungarian IP owned by Digicable. Speaks fluent English. Interested in the UK. Seems at least somewhat familiar with French. Makes lots of repeated edits to their comments. Arguably "deletionist" bent regarding misspellings. Engineering background. Remind either of y'all of anyone? Or am I just seeing ghosts from too much time at SPI? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I'm not seeing the chatty asides or comments about non-English languages or diacritics. Unless Tavix feels otherwise, I'd be inclined to just keep and eye on them for now, especially as their contributions at RfD currently mostly constructive. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a chatty aside at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 27#New York City station (Grand Central Terminal), and comments about non-English languages at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 6#Wanasur. I will say though, he usually gives himself away with incoherent rambles and I'm impressed he has kept that under control if it is in fact him. -- Tavix (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, those comments on the New York redirect are quite reminiscent but the Wanasur comment about Indian languages feels off somehow, but I can't explain why. One thing with him though was that his behaviour always did run in cycles, almost like a manic depressive - at times he'd be calm, rational and helpful while at other times he'd get a bee in his bonnet about something and he'd fill RfD with tangentially relevant (at best) rambles (to be clear I'm not suggesting that as a cause, just using it as an analogy). Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​Well, I'll defer to y'all then. I only know the case from digging through archives. I'll let y'all know if I see anything that tips the balance in the direction you're talking about. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 5 I see a lot of small changes to comments and coming back to make more after some hours, which is another thing that was not uncommon for them, and they described themselves as an Englishman on one discussion (I forget which) - the same nationality as Mr Trew. I'm not ready to call it a duck just yet, and any checkuser info will be long stale, but I'm leaning more towards that way. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody stand back. I know regular expressions.

Was looking at the Wikipedia Library RfD and saw something that made me think, "I bet that's a distinctive quirk": Striking (or in this case humorously pre-striking) part of a comment using <s>single word</s><u>single word</u>, no space in between. Everyone has their own particular way of doing that sort of thing, but omitting a space there is relatively uncommon; and the humorous pre-strike I usually don't see on Wikipedia (more of a Discord/reddit/etc. thing). So I ran a regex search. Of the 11 instances of someone using this pattern:

Well, I think we can safely rule Angus, J947, and Hijiri above suspicion. What we have in total, then, is evidence that only two people regularly use this format at RfD, and that only one of them ever uses it for something other than actually amending a !vote or correcting an error. On its own I don't think this would be enough to block, but this means we now have a geographical/ISP connection (Hungary, Digi Communications; see also Special:Diff/982879450), an area-of-interest connection (RfD), a background connection (engineer from England), a commenting-style connection (frequent edits), and a writing-quirk connection (this). Personally if this came to me at SPI that would be enough for me to recommend a block (although in fairness I wouldn't clerk this case since I'm a bit too close to involved for comfort). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see I'm above suspicion. :) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking in on this, since they're continuing to edit. I'm happy to take this to SPI instead if you're busy. Or to dig for more behavioral similarities if you're not busy but are still on the fence. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to take it to SPI if you want. Chances are it'll be a couple of days at least before I get a chance to dig any deeper unless there is a new smoking gun edit. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my moaning yesterday, on a similar matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: I was looking forward to joining you but then something came up and then something else came up it ended up just not happening. Please ping me when the next in-person meetup happens. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin and Tavix: and at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 15#Deathtoengue we have ranting about Eubot and an admission they've been involved in previous discussions about it, which combined with the decreasing sense of many of their comments has removed all lingering doubts I had. If I didn't feel so involved with them in a couple of discussions, especially Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 12#Department of Administration I'd be blocking myself. Would one of you like to do the honours at SPI so someone uninvolved can do the admin work - It'll take me far longer and I'm not likely to do as good a job as I hardly ever post there. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that seals the deal. This is damning as well. Obvious ducks are obvious, so I have blocked. I will note at SPI for the record. -- Tavix (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SimonTrew. Now time for the clean-up. -- Tavix (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix, thrown in User:Spinach2021 while you're at it. ;) Drmies (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd already listed that one before the case was archived, Doc. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tavix, and thanks for documenting at SPI. Filing that SPI has been on my daily to-do list for the past few days, but kept not getting around to it. Want some help on all the striking, or got it yourself? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've started with the most recent logs at RfD and I am working my way back. Maybe you could start with the RM discussions to prevent potential toe-stepping-on? -- Tavix (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Got a bunch, also G5'd a draft. Think there's a few more left, but I'll get them tomorrow. I also took a look at their mainspace contribs and concluded I didn't see a benefit to reverting them; of course, any user can still do so if they see fit. P.S. Someone might want to revoke TPA over at User talk:85.67.32.244. Do blocked users send pings? If so, they've sent a fair number. (As it happens, every time they've mentioned my username they've missed one of the requirements for a ping to send, so I can't tell.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for all that work. Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could've saved myself some trouble if I'd looked at his contribs more closely. This edit summary from the 1st is all the evidence I really needed (cf. Special:Diff/793409232). But oh well, we got the job done one way or another. :)
It's a shame, though. I think if he and I had been active at RfD at the same time we'd've gotten along. I hope he can work through whatever it is he's gotta work through, rather than keep socking. And if not, I've got a good enough read on him now that I know how to handle the next one at SPI. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have a read through the ANI discussions, especially the one that got him topic banned from RfD. He started out as being a very good (albeit idiosyncratic) contributor at RfD but over time the balance between helpful and unhelpful contributions got worse and worse. It's a real shame as clearly he intends to be benefiting Wikipedia but he needs to learn that Wikipedia is collaborative, the rules do apply to him, and that when we say restrictions are against the individual not the account we do actually mean that. Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've read some of the threads. (I usually do, to know what the priorities are in terms of DENY, BANREVERT, etc.) Ugh. I don't like dealing with "good-faith" sockpuppetry cases; they just depress me. I'd much rather deal with some bigoted vandal or nationalist POV-pusher than someone who thinks they're making the encyclopedia better but isn't. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: September 2021

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Nomination of List of governors of Texas by age for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of governors of Texas by age is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of governors of Texas by age until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

List of governors of California by age has also been included in the nomination with List of governors of Texas by age. OCNative (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • 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.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thryduulf/archive23&oldid=1054594309"