User talk:Swarm/Archive 20
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
Administrators' newsletter – January 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.
Technical news
- You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.
Arbitration
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
. The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason). - Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
Sanction Enforcement
Regarding my sanction, I know this sounds ignorant but I fear that I'll forget about it. Of course, forgetfulness is no way to get off scot free, but it's still a problem. I'm going to keep editing where I can, but is it possible to make it impossible for me to edit certain articles? For some articles that are involved in my sanction it is unclear that it involves post 1932 politics, and it's hard to tell. So if it's not possible to do what i'm asking, that being barring me from editing articles within my sanction, that's okay, but if it is, it'd make it easier for me to contribute.
Thanks, JazzClam (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- JazzClam, it seems you still haven't grasped the gravity of this ban. You are not just banned from editing
certain articles
. Please read the link Swarm so helpfully placed in bold on your talk page: The ban is broadly construed. The ban is about the whole area – which means, including edits related to the topic, evenarticleson pages which may not be in any category related to it. Thus, the only way to prevent you from violating the ban would be to block you from all of Wikipedia. - Here's some advice LindsayH gave a friend in a similar situation:
Observe the topic ban religiously, i mean, don't get anywhere near editing anything that anyone ~ even your worst enemy ~ might be able to link to [the topic you are banned from]. You could edit about tropical fish, or John Donne, or the New Zealand Rugby team, or the history of South Pole exploration; i mean, the topics outside the ban are literally limitless!
If you understand the gravity of the ban, but still tend to forget it, I would recommend taking Lindsay up on the term “religiously”, and making a ritual out of it, such as putting a sticky note next to your computer and reading it aloud every time you begin editing Wikipedia. ◅ Sebastian 14:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)- This is correct, JazzClam. Like I said, this isn't a ban from a series of articles, it is a ban from making any edit, or editing any page (not just articles) relating to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed. This means "gray areas" are automatically covered, "debatable violations" are automatically covered, anything remotely related to the subject is automatically covered by it. Even the most innocent edits mentioning anything relating to this topic, even on your own talk page, are covered by the ban. Just to be clear. Shouldn't be something that's easy to forget. I can block you from editing any specific pages that you want me to, however for the most part it will be on you to remember and abide by the ban. I'm sorry you're worried you'll forget about the ban, but there is ultimately an expectation of competence here on your part. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Self-trout. Page, of course, not article. I may need to follow my own advice and put a sticky note next to the computer. ◅ Sebastian 07:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is correct, JazzClam. Like I said, this isn't a ban from a series of articles, it is a ban from making any edit, or editing any page (not just articles) relating to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed. This means "gray areas" are automatically covered, "debatable violations" are automatically covered, anything remotely related to the subject is automatically covered by it. Even the most innocent edits mentioning anything relating to this topic, even on your own talk page, are covered by the ban. Just to be clear. Shouldn't be something that's easy to forget. I can block you from editing any specific pages that you want me to, however for the most part it will be on you to remember and abide by the ban. I'm sorry you're worried you'll forget about the ban, but there is ultimately an expectation of competence here on your part. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy 20th anniversary!
|
Celebration~! |
Wikipedia will only ever turn 20 once! Hope you are doing well and have a prosperous onwiki experience in the future.  –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
|
Remember me?
Hi, it's been a long time. A long time ago you deleted an article that I created, Nahua religion. It was about a modern religion based on the ancient religion of the Aztecs. Well, how do you feel about this? Like my old article, it has only two sources, both of which are extremely biased because they're the religion's teachers teaching the religion online. That was a problem last time. Or is the name nicer, the text more fulfilling and grammatically correct, and the pictures too pretty to delete it?
Do you have any intentions to delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wacape (talk • contribs) 07:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Your article was deleted by a deletion discussion, I did not make the decision to delete it. I am just the uninvolved admin who clicked the delete button. I had no opinion on your article, and I have no opinion on the second article you're linking me. The second article is not even nominated for deletion, so I have no idea why you're asking me if I'm going to delete it. I couldn't delete it even if I wanted to. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to comment on the thread regarding Kemalcan's request. But I didn't want to comment there, lest the editor think it was a comment on their editing in particular. In the past, I've nominated many editors who over the course of my NPP reviews have shown to have a clear grasp of notability and sourcing. However, I have never nominated any editor whose sole contributions have been stubs (or even start) articles based in a single subject. The reason is two-fold. First, until they show a competence outside their single area of interest. Giving them them the autopatrol right gives them a carte blanche in areas they may not be as conversant in. The second is not so esoteric as the first, but is perfectly explained in the user Starzoner. This editor created hundreds, perhaps thousands of stubs, but still, to this very day, might have an issue with some of those stubs. Regardless, I thought I might share some experience in this area. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 01:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Onel5969: I agree with everything you say. Like I said, I've learned this from experience, it's easy to justify granting until you see users immediately deviate from their stubs and create promotional articles or unsourced articles. I'm glad so many people seem to be on the same page about this. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
On 17 November 2018, you posted the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=869334285&diffmode=source which says that the creations of Regstuff are nuked with prejudice. The subject article is one of the titles that you deleted.
I haven't seen the original, and so I don't know whether this is applicable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like the new article is substantially different from the deleted one. Although it raises concerns to see one of those articles recreated, I don't see any other incriminating overlap in that user's history, however Regstuff did try to conceal his COI in between innocuous edits. Worth keeping an eye on for sure. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Adopt an editor request
@Swarm:
- Dear Swarm! Your experience is impressive! 💪 It would be great to advance under your mentorship. Could you please adopt me as an editor? BreakingMuse (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Swarm:
- Dear Swarm, hello again. I'm still looking for adoption and would greatly appreciate it if you would let me know your answer to the request. BreakingMuse (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Adopting a less experienced user?
Hello! I was looking around here and it mentioned that you were open to adopting less experienced users. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but I was told to be proactive so here I am. I'm looking to be adopted by someone more experienced than myself, so will you adopt me? Fawnstream (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, Fawnstream, unfortunately I'm not really active on Wikipedia right now so I can't take on any new adoptees. This is my fault, I have to update my profile. Best of luck finding an adopter, and always remember that the main resource for new users is not adoption, but WP:TEAHOUSE. Feel free to drop by if you have any questions though. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| For your hard work in blocking vandal accounts. This is to let you know that it is much appreciated. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 09:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| For dealing with a particularly tedious wave of vandalism. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC) |
Administrators' newsletter – February 2021
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.
- The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!
Hello! I small question.
Hello! I just created my account and was trying to figure out what to do and I came across the Adopt-a-user page and I saw you there. Are you still taking on new apprentices? I'd love to start giving back but I don't know where to start! I'm a fast learner and will pull my weight. Please let me know. Thank you. WanderingSeer (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Good article drive notice
 | Good Article Nomination Backlog Drive The March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive begins on March 1, and will continue until the end of the month. Please sign up to review articles and help reduce the backlog of nominations! |
-- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
- A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the
delete-redirectuserright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect. - A request for comment asks if sysops may
place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions
? - There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.
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
- By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.
Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions. - The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed
.
- By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.
Urgent!! I need your help!!!
Dear Swarm
My name is Emily, I am an editor of Wikipedia and a graduate student at SFSU. I am contacting you because there is a serious problem with a wiki editor (BUBBAJOE1333456)who has been vandalizing a certain wikipage (LUKE BRUGNARA) for two years. Specifically, BUBBAJOE123456 has rewritten this page in its entirety with slanderous/prejudiced/unbalanced edits against LUKE BRUGNARA while deleting and banning editors that try to restore the page, or re-edit the wikipage to a balanced representation of LUKE BRUGNARA (this wiki page has been nearly unchanged for over five years until BUBBAJOE123456 attacked/vandalized this wikupage on March 1, 2019, and systematically blocking/banning any attempts to correct it).
Obvious SLANDEROUS errors on LUKE BRUGNARA's page include the FALSE STATEMENT in the opening paragraph and heading that LUKE BRUGNATA is imprisoned..This is FALSE, as Brugnsra was released from prison in November 2020 (see BOP.gov inmate locator - Luke brugnara: released Nov. 24,. 2020)....other vandalization includes deleting references to Dr. Carlo Pedtetti affirming Brugnata's DaVinci is by Leonardo daVinci ,(see FORBES Drc 3003; see Wikipedia page on daVinci)...
In summation, my edits from today are very accurate, and cited and balanced..BUBBAJOE123456 deleted all of my edits and restored false/sla detous statements about Luke Brugnata because he is apparently a personal enemy of Brugnara; or simply a problematic person who uses Wikipedia to harm/sla der others..notwithstanding, I request that you restore my CORRECTIONS/EDITS from today and ban BUBBAJOE123456 from Luke Brugnara's page and lock the existing edits from further vandalization..Thank you.
EmilyChen0 (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Emily
- See WP:ANI#Legal threats by EmilyChen0 — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Arbitration Case Opened
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)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Three years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Info about AE statement
Hi Swarm, thanks for your opinion on this matter.[1] I wanted to ask you if you could tell me which point I have listed does not match the accusation. Maybe my inexperience has led me to misinterpret some rules, but at least if I understand what is wrong I know how to behave next time. Thank you.--Mhorg (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I find that the diffs in "not collaborating" and "not accepting consensus" do not substantiate the accusations. I'm not accusing you of a behavioral problem that you need to correct, I think your report was made in good faith. I just don't think those diffs hold up to scrutiny against the accusations. ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK thanks, it's clearer now. About the "not collaborating", I had no intention of using it as a source (I never wrote it, if you read the discussion). The user questioned the existence of the organization itself and asked for a link to the website (from 2007). I gave him the archived website and that was his answer. Why call the official website of that organization "internet garbage"? The CSS is missing and the visualization is ruined... but the contents of the articles are all there. The user didn't care about the site itself, he just wanted to assert that it was "a myth", as he got to write in the discussions. I don't consider this to be fair behavior.
As for wikihounding, do you think I'm taking it to extremes? I fear that this user is checking my edit history daily, following me from article to article, editing these articles - even a few hours after I edited them - coincidentally in the same days of our discussions. Is this enough or must there be more lasting actions (or, I don't know, more aggressive actions) to report a case of wikihounding? Thank you.--Mhorg (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK thanks, it's clearer now. About the "not collaborating", I had no intention of using it as a source (I never wrote it, if you read the discussion). The user questioned the existence of the organization itself and asked for a link to the website (from 2007). I gave him the archived website and that was his answer. Why call the official website of that organization "internet garbage"? The CSS is missing and the visualization is ruined... but the contents of the articles are all there. The user didn't care about the site itself, he just wanted to assert that it was "a myth", as he got to write in the discussions. I don't consider this to be fair behavior.
User Zillennial in the Generation Z article
Hello. The User:Zillennial has a problematic history therefore you blocked the user in October 22, 2020. Kindly check the Generation Z history page please because this user is creating problems once again. He is automatically reverting every single contribution I make to the article. Please help. -- User:Agrso (Talk), 07:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Just came across a discussion, now in your archives
Hi, Swarm - the headline refers to User_talk:Swarm/Archive_18#Blocking for personal attacks. I agree with the opining of both you and Jehochman and was wondering, hoping actually, if any progress has been made or at least attempted relative to either blocking or ANI formatting? I'm of the mind that our current ArbCom is ripe for the asking, and will be the ones to make it happen if presented to them. I will make myself available if there is anything you'd like me to do to help expedite. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 12:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
PERM/FM
Much appreciation for making a determination regarding this. Having such a request remain open for nearly three months is outlandish and it had been grinding my gears a bit. Made a request for its closure about a month ago on AN/RFC and was planning to make a call to arms for extra hands at PERM on AN had it hit 90 days. Glad that I do not have to muster that now. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Swarm
Thanks for finally addressing that request once and for all as it had been left opened for far too long. Once again, thanks Swarm for stepping in & taking a decisive action. I’m grateful for that. Celestina007 (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
No worries  and I do see the point ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC) |
Accusations against living individual on talkpage
Hi,
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? Boynamedsue (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Looking at your edit history, I reckon I have caught you at completely the wrong time! As I think this is probably urgent, I will look for an admin who is in a different timezone.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I must edit in some kind of wikipedia deadzone, I couldn't find any admins on line! I've also left a message at Thryduulf's page. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Re
@Isaidnoway: I can't verify your count by any measure, but after the reality of the content issue was clarified in the discussion, the consensus was 2:1 in support of an unblock. We do not simply vote count in assessing a consensus, like it or not. Even with a pure vote count, a majority of users was in favor of an unblock, in spite of what you said. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I get it, we disagree. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
Administrator changes
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-redirectuserright, 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
- A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.
Potential proxy editing
Hello, I was curious as to how we should respond to this exchange. (machine translation link)
While nothing has occurred as of yet, it sounds as though K is preparing to use N for his edits. Perhaps the latter user, who is in good standing here, should be advised to stay away from any such scheme? — Biruitorul Talk 05:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi. I know I might be pushing this but... Full disclosure - I currently have a topic ban as a result of part of those users complaining against me as well as me being deemed as single-purpose-account. I will not try to argument against it again, but I believe that it's important to be up-front about it.
- Now, I did try to raise this years ago and basically was turned down because of (A) not respecting the format of the complaint and (B) the complaint being too long (which I still have an issue with. I mean OF COURSE it's long, since it's not about one person doing something but several... aaaaanywayyy).
- So now, with all due apologies to you, I am seeking for another audience. Who knows, maybe it's you who will in the end take this a little bit more seriously (especially in light of of this -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#User:KIENGIR). Maybe you and other fellow admins will feel that it might be worthwhile to look into this. A warning upfront: some of those posts require translation... :(
- Anyway, please check this out (will take a couple of minutes to load the data): https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Koertefa&users=Norden1990&users=Borsoka&users=KIENGIR&users=Fakirbakir&startdate=20100101&enddate=20210407&ns=&server=enwiki
- This has been going on and on and on for more than 10 years. Frankly even if only remotely what I allude to is correct, the "damage" those editors have done during this time cannot be overstated. Even if by "enabling" or making use of KIENGIR's tactics (which are nothing new to me... unfortunately it took so long for someone to finally put a stop to it) those guys have done lasting damage. Moreover, they have "benefited" from some king of "Guardian Angel". This user's "interaction" with the group is mostly limited to admin boards of one kind of another. However, going down the rabbit hole, one can clearly see the pattern where TGeorgescu is basically lawyering for the rest of the group (will take even longer than the 1st one to open): https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Koertefa&users=Norden1990&users=Borsoka&users=KIENGIR&users=Fakirbakir&users=Tgeorgescu&startdate=20100101&enddate=20210407&ns=&server=enwiki
- Here is a small compilation of the "collaboration" between those users:
- Norden asks for support on Battle of Hermannstadt (was Sibiu at the time) 1. The same plea is made to Koertefa and Fakirbakir. Borsoka, Fakirbakir, and Koertefa support it 2. None of the editors had previous input into this and all of the "consensus" was built against the rest of the editors involved, even while those editors did bring up quite convincing rational arguments on supporting their position - but this is not about that but rather about a pattern of how those guys get consensus.
- KIENGIR asks for help with an editor "disrupting" the Austrian Empire (and bring reinforcements) 5. And Fakirbakir helps6.
- KIENGIR again asks for help (some weird things going on, read it) 9 and both Fakirbakir and Borsoka support him 10. The supporting editor had no previous input on that page before.
- And here is a small compilation of other issues, ranging from why it's good that they do NOT communicate in English or :
- How communicating in Hungarian on the talk pages presents certain advantages 13.
- Stubes99 (a sock of his) makes and angry jab at Borsoka. At one point Stubes99 makes a personal attack (several actually) on Borsoka, but the one answering is Norden1990 - who by the way reminds Stubes99 how little he had to add to the "project", and that he's more of a liability than an asset. Stubes99 fights back against Norden1990, angrily juxtaposing himself to the new "star" of the year - Borsoka. Stubes99 fights back and... whatever. Please notice though the "ethnic cleansing on sensitive topics" 14.
- How 15 exemplifying the practicality of having consensus.
- A rally call, fight the good fight, for the credible PoV.16.
- And how a discussion about a map exemplifies what PoV the team is working on 17. Fakirbakir calls things as they are (which is not a NPOV...). Transred raises a very good point, but he is dismissed. But they go further... and decide to call that a NPOV basically. And you can read about the team's map-creating business here 18.
- Norden1990's temporary departure, and his goodbye to Fakirbakir, Borsoka, Koertefa (which all respond in kind - Koertefa just above the section, Fakirbakir and Borsoka in the section). Some of the administrators here may also notice a pattern - how the block was "unfair" in the PoV of the "team" 19.
- A (very) lengthy conversation on how they must fight against Slovakian and Romanian editors, on how KIENGIR is admiring Borsoka, Koertefa, Norden and Fakirbakir for doing the "right" thing, about how the administrators cannot understand their fight, about how the Balkan and Eastern European mentality needs to grow up and lots of other exciting stuff. About the mission, in general. Very nice read until Borsoka reminds KIENGIR that maybe this is not the right place for such a conversation (obviously).19.
- At the very least those snippets should indicate that those editors are here on a kind of "crusade". Anyway, there is a LOT to digest and you'll probably not have the time (assuming you won't dismiss this out of hand - for which I personally would understand as this is a very time consuming thing), but hey - I felt obliged to bring it up (again) seeing as KIENIGR was finally uncovered for what he was and that for sure he will be back. Cealicuca (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Cealicuca, thank you for this very thorough and rather disturbing, even explosive report regarding apparent collusion. It sounds as though a wider set of administrators should have a look, but first, while we wait for Swarm to respond, let’s ping @Beyond My Ken: and ask whether any preemptive steps should be taken at this point. — Biruitorul Talk 19:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have dropped a note on Norden1990's talk page reminding them about WP:PROXYING. It's here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- The above allegations are concerning, but frankly at face value these are all established editors in good standing, and it's not unusual for like-minded individuals to collaborate and correspond with each other. Much of the above 'evidence' is ancient history, it's all inactionable. If there is a recent or current example of any of these editors engaging in canvassing and meatpuppetry, then by all means, it should be examined. Likewise, I'm concerned by the communication that has been reported, but beyond BMK's reminder I'm not sure it qualifies as solicitation of proxying. It arguably does, but not objectively. I would post to ANI for more eyes. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have dropped a note on Norden1990's talk page reminding them about WP:PROXYING. It's here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Cealicuca, thank you for this very thorough and rather disturbing, even explosive report regarding apparent collusion. It sounds as though a wider set of administrators should have a look, but first, while we wait for Swarm to respond, let’s ping @Beyond My Ken: and ask whether any preemptive steps should be taken at this point. — Biruitorul Talk 19:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
It would have been appropriate to ping my name if such unfounded allegations were being made. When KIENGIR wrote to my talkpage at hu-wiki, I even did not know that he was blocked from editing in en-wiki. After all, there were no email correspondence between us, of course. If you see my contributions, you can check I am rarely involved in any conflict, in 95% of cases, I edit namespace. I have no time nor energy such silly edit wars. I even do not known who is User:Cealicuca, I don’t remember us meeting before during editing (well of course if you’re not a sock puppet that came up in me based on your style...), and your (Cealicuca) accusations are completely false, misleading and manipulative. You cite cases from ten years ago here, after arbitrary selection. Naturally, I had good relationships some editors to whom I sometimes wish a truly pleasant holiday (horribile dictu, it also happened when I wished Biruitorul a Merry Christmas in 2013...) Anyway, "Cealicuca" mentioned five editors in his above indictment. By now, Koertefa and Fakirbakir are largely inactive editors. Borsoka abandoned the topics of Hungarian history for the most part, while I create articles in mostly biographical articles of Hungarian persons (but there are exceptions). I only got to know the name of KIENGIR two or three years ago. I am convinced that the motivation of Cealicuca (who has only edited the namespace twice in the last three years after a quick check) is to remove the editors who disagree with him. But I repeat, I don’t remember us getting into conflict. I no longer wish to take part in this mud fight, this is my last statement on the subject. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for this. Very kind. Good to see old-fashioned, level heads, such as yourself, still chipping away at the noticeboards. Have a brew, my treat. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in DS Consultation
Hi Swarm. I'm not sure if you're aware of the current community consultation around Discretionary Sanctions but as someone who has participated in DS related activities recently I'd like to invite you to participate. You have the opportunity to participate at whatever level you wish; there are questions that are higher level (theoreticaly) in scope as well as opportunities to give feedback about specific areas of DS. The consultation will run through April 25th and I hope you'll participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| For executing your works here in a near flawless manner. Celestina007 (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC) |
Kant Singh close
Hi Swarm, would you mind expanding on this close? By the numbers it was an even split of keep vs delete or redirect, but there were zero valid policy arguments offered by keep voters (NCRIC is subordinate to GNG, and is by consensus considered a very poor predictor of meeting GNG; most of the time "meets NCRIC" votes are ignored). The sources that were uncovered were nothing beyond passing mentions in match reports (as wjemather mentions), and the vague assurance that sources must exist somewhere in another language offline falls pretty flat when this is a contemporary BLP playing the most-covered sport in his country (and no one actually offered evidence that there generally even is SIGCOV in non-local hardcopy-only newspapers). To me, a redirect would've been the most amenable outcome. JoelleJay (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Same with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftab Ahmed (cricketer, born 1931). I have absolutely no idea how that's a keep, especially considering if anything, it should have been a delete since GNG's clearly not met. SportingFlyer T·C 15:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Consensus is not a vote count. Opinions are weighed relative to their conformity with policies and guidelines. In other words, opinions that are not in line with the wider community consensus do not have the same weight as opinions that are in line with the wider community consensus. It is entirely possible to have a "split vote" consensus or a "minority" consensus. Per NCRIC, a cricket figure is presumed notable if they have appeared as a player in a single cricket match at the highest domestic level, aka "first class". Contrary to what you said, NSPORTS requires satisfaction of sport-specific criteria "or" satisfaction of the GNG. You incorrectly said NSPORTS "requires WP:GNG to be met", which is not true. The policy is specifically either or. The arguments that the articles fail the GNG may be true, but that is irrelevant if they satisfy NCRIC. Those voting delete per GNG did not acknowledge this, thus their votes hold little to no weight. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- NSPORTS explicitly states it does not supersede GNG. This is most clearly stated in its FAQs 1 and 2 and most specifically (because the wording in NSPORT is clearly horrible and confusing) 5:
JoelleJay (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline. - The first sentence of NSPORT also states it is used to predict whether an article will meet GNG, not that it is used to meet WP:N on its own:
This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.
JoelleJay (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)- I understand the angle of your argument, but the wording of the relevant policies is unequivocal, both in NSPORTS and in the main notability policy, that articles must meet the GNG "or" an SNG. Neither says nor implies that articles that meet an SNG must also satisfy the GNG. The policy direction is extremely straightforward. This is nothing new, nor is it an obscure piece of policy. It's the same principle that allows esoterica like schools, geographic features, populated places, and astronomical objects to have an article regardless of a lack of in-depth coverage. That's not to say that an article that satisfies a SNG cannot be deleted, simply that saying it should be deleted because it doesn't meet the GNG when it is already presumed notable by an overarching community consensus is not a valid argument for deletion. As an administrator, I cannot unilaterally reinterpret policy, I must go by the words that have been written and approved by the community. If you think this decision was wrong, I recommend you propose a rewriting of the notability policy. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Neither says nor implies that articles that meet an SNG must also satisfy the GNG.
But NSPORT does say exactly this???
That isn't from an essay or explanatory article, it is directly from the guideline (the FAQs are right there on the page). This has been affirmed in a wide-ranging 2017 RfC (I'll find a link sometime) and in numerous discussions since then. Moreover, with the exception of one other close being taken to DRV, all other sports AfDs in the last 2 weeks that had a similar !vote split and where "keep" !votes were based on "passes [SNG] ± sources must exist" have been closed as delete with the explicit reasoning that GNG is the required criterion, not NSPORT, and as such the keep votes must be disregarded (see Qaiser Iqbal and Arif Saeed, closed by Nosebagbear; Emily Henderson, closed by Fenix; Obaidullah Sarwar, closed by Black Kite; Mohammad Laeeq, closed by Barkeep49; Shahid Ilyas, closed by Dennis Brown; Zulqarnain and John Ford, closed by Randykitty; and (albeit without the stated reasoning) Mushtaq Ahmed, closed by Seraphimblade; see also the redirect closes where !votes were split between that/delete and keep: W.P. Bailey, closed by RandomCanadian; W. Baker, closed by Premeditated Chaos; and compare to the singular (non-unanimous) keep close on cricketers, which was kept due to meeting GNG: Gerald Trump, closed by Aseleste). Please do reconsider! JoelleJay (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.- You're referring to the FAQ, not the text of the policy itself. The FAQ is not a policy, it is no better than an essay. The references provided by the FAQ to support what it says provide no formal community consensus to amend the policy in line with WP:PG. It would seem more likely that the FAQ is taking liberties with policy interpretation, than that the policy wording itself doesn't represent the community's consensus; thus there's not much weight an admin can assign to it. It cannot possibly trump the wording of the policy as it is actually written, which, as I said, is extremely unequivocal. If you think the policy should be changed, then, as I said, by all means, try to propose that the notability policy be rewritten to mandate that the GNG be met in every notability case. I do not think that that would be a particularly popular proposal, but if that's what you think the greater community's intent is and has always been, then by all means, propose that rewriting. Short of that, I'm sorry to say, but I think it's absolutely clear: I interpreted the consensus in line with the overarching community consensus, as it is written and reflected by the literal policy pages. There is quite simply no feasible way that I could have interpreted it otherwise. The community consensus is clear. It's cut-and-dry. It's unequivocal. It would be nothing short of administrator abuse to interpret the consensus in favor of the contrary opinions. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- The FAQs are on the guideline page, right up there with the "in a nutshell". They were added and reaffirmed multiple times by consensus, and any changes would be visible to everyone watching NSPORT -- if they didn't reflect consensus one of the cricket or football project editors would have reverted it immediately. The first sentence of the guideline also states NSPORT is used to evaluate whether a subject is likely to meet the GNG, NOT whether it is notable. This is repeated later in the guideline
In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline.
I don't need to start an RfC to change the guidelines; NSPORT has been understood to be subordinate to GNG for a long time, and this was affirmed in the close of the very well-attended 2017 RfC I mentioned earlier:There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion.
And a supremely relevant comment supplied in that RfC:Closers of AfD discussions for sports figures need to be reminded that if they ignore the context of the sports-specific guidelines, which is clearly laid out in the lead section and the FAQ, they are ignoring the community consensus that formed the guidelines, and the multiple subsequent reaffirmations on the talk page of the guidelines.
JoelleJay (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)- The FAQ is drawn from a separate FAQ page, in an instance where a FAQ about a policy contradicts a policy as it is written, a FAQ cannot not overrule the actual policy itself, unless it provides reference to a formal community consensus to amend a policy in line with WP:PG, and that amendment is reflected by the FAQ but the policy page was never updated. That is not the case here. You cannot say the policy wording is erroneous, and that the FAQ is correct, based on the wording of the FAQ alone. I do not believe the wording of the policy is mistaken. Is it bad? Maybe, but that's irrelevant. Given the massive, ongoing RfC on the talk page, this is not some minor technical wording error (and the numerous past discussions), it's an extremely contentious topic with opinions ranging from opposing any change to deprecating NSPORTS entirely. We will have to see what happens with that discussion. If the wording of the policy is changed, in the way you want it to be changed, then great. I don't care, I have no dog in this fight. You'll be more than welcome to renominate cricket players per GNG to your heart's content and I will continue to weigh opinions according to them being in line with overarching community consensuses. But the policy, now, is what it is, and you simply cannot demand that uninvolved admins preemptively interpret policy in line with proposed changes above what it actually says, or demand that admins treat a FAQ with more weight than the text of a policy as written. You're well aware that the policy is contentious as-is, you've participated in the RfC. You know full well that the current policy does not reflect your vision, and that editors are seeking to change the policy for this exact reason. Same with SportingFlyer above. Like I said, I understand your argument perfectly, and I understand why you think the policy is bad, and should be in line with what the FAQ says. But it's not my job to reinterpret policies, nor to judge whether applicable policies are stupid. It's the community's job to change policies as necessary, and there's an effort to make that happen right now. You've been around for a long time, you understand this. So rather than arguing with me over what a policy objectively says, I would reinvest that effort into promoting your proposed changes in the ongoing RfC. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- The FAQs are on the guideline page, right up there with the "in a nutshell". They were added and reaffirmed multiple times by consensus, and any changes would be visible to everyone watching NSPORT -- if they didn't reflect consensus one of the cricket or football project editors would have reverted it immediately. The first sentence of the guideline also states NSPORT is used to evaluate whether a subject is likely to meet the GNG, NOT whether it is notable. This is repeated later in the guideline
- You're referring to the FAQ, not the text of the policy itself. The FAQ is not a policy, it is no better than an essay. The references provided by the FAQ to support what it says provide no formal community consensus to amend the policy in line with WP:PG. It would seem more likely that the FAQ is taking liberties with policy interpretation, than that the policy wording itself doesn't represent the community's consensus; thus there's not much weight an admin can assign to it. It cannot possibly trump the wording of the policy as it is actually written, which, as I said, is extremely unequivocal. If you think the policy should be changed, then, as I said, by all means, try to propose that the notability policy be rewritten to mandate that the GNG be met in every notability case. I do not think that that would be a particularly popular proposal, but if that's what you think the greater community's intent is and has always been, then by all means, propose that rewriting. Short of that, I'm sorry to say, but I think it's absolutely clear: I interpreted the consensus in line with the overarching community consensus, as it is written and reflected by the literal policy pages. There is quite simply no feasible way that I could have interpreted it otherwise. The community consensus is clear. It's cut-and-dry. It's unequivocal. It would be nothing short of administrator abuse to interpret the consensus in favor of the contrary opinions. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I understand the angle of your argument, but the wording of the relevant policies is unequivocal, both in NSPORTS and in the main notability policy, that articles must meet the GNG "or" an SNG. Neither says nor implies that articles that meet an SNG must also satisfy the GNG. The policy direction is extremely straightforward. This is nothing new, nor is it an obscure piece of policy. It's the same principle that allows esoterica like schools, geographic features, populated places, and astronomical objects to have an article regardless of a lack of in-depth coverage. That's not to say that an article that satisfies a SNG cannot be deleted, simply that saying it should be deleted because it doesn't meet the GNG when it is already presumed notable by an overarching community consensus is not a valid argument for deletion. As an administrator, I cannot unilaterally reinterpret policy, I must go by the words that have been written and approved by the community. If you think this decision was wrong, I recommend you propose a rewriting of the notability policy. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- If the SNG is considered an equivalent alternative to the GNG, why does the first sentence of the guideline say
This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia
? How do you reconcile SNG = notability with the second lead paragraphIf the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article
; the second sectionAll information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Information about living persons must meet the more stringent requirements for those types of articles
; and the third sectionA person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)
? All of these are reiterating that the SNGs presume GNG, that they are rules of thumb for predicting whether a topic will meet GNG and thus merit a standalone article. NSPORT (and all other SNGs outside of NPROF and NGEO) as it is intended and currently interpreted exists so that an article on a sports figure can temporarily be sourced solely to a ref that verifies the figure meets one of the subguideline criteria. These criteria are chosen because a topic meeting them can be presumed to meet the GNG. But if their notability is challenged, editors need to demonstrate that BASIC is met.- Additionally, the big discussion on the talk page is not about changing the guideline to make GNG supersede NSPORT; it's specifically about tightening up NSPORT/particular subguidelines so that they are better predictors of GNG. Almost all participants already acknowledge GNG supersedes SNGs. JoelleJay (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Per WP:NOTE, and WP:SNG, SNGs are an alternative to the GNG. I've already said this. You're starting to argue in circles at this point. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Even if WP:NOTE and WP:SNG were explicitly saying all SNGs (not just NPROF) were an alternative to GNG, the relevant SNG here is very clear that it merely predicts whether a topic will meet GNG "
If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
" WikiProject Cricket members are well aware that NCRIC presumes notability via GNG;their current RfC is explicitly for making their criteria better at predicting GNG (the proposal, which has very strong support from project members, is...to create a list of notable domestic competitions that playing one game in would likely lead to presumed notability (the presumption that the article would pass GNG).
Rugbyfan22 even restates the current accepted guideline here:...playing in one match in what we deem a notable competition doesn't mean someone is notable. It means that we believe that playing in said match will bring enough significant coverage to pass GNG so that an article can be made on the topic. This is and always has been the basis of SNGs for me.
- Finally, are the closers of the dozen or so recent AfDs above, where the primary or only point of contention was NSPORT v GNG, all completely wrong with their reasoning? This is part of Nosebagbear's close of Qaiser Iqbal (4K to 4D):
Meeting an NSPORTS criterion does not remove the need to pass GNG when challenged, as multiple editors pointed out.
This is their close of Arif Saeed (5K to 6D to 1R):The result was delete. This is a fairly standard NCRIC vs GNG dispute. As NSPORTS specifically requires GNG to also be met, and there isn't a clear IAR exemption case made here, and there is a very clear consensus that GNG is not met, deletion is the appropriate outcome.
This was the opening to Dennis Brown's close of Shahid Ilyas:The result was delete. Inclusion requires that WP:GNG is met, which requires WP:SIGCOV (significant coverage) from multiple, reliable sources.
Black Kite's close of Obaidullah Sarwar:The result was delete. As pointed out by a number of editors, passing an SNG is irrelevant if an article doesn't pass GNG.
Randykitty's closes of Zulqarnain (4K to 5D to ~2R) and John Ford (6K to 5D to 1R):The "keep" !votes argue that this person meets NCRIC. However, that is only a guideline designed to be a shortcut to identify persons that are likely notable according to GNG. Once notability is challenged, however, NCRIC is not enough and it has to be established whether or not the subject meets GNG.
And their close of Salman Saeed (9K to 8D):The result was delete. Whether or not the subject passes NCRIC becomes moot when notability is challenged. SNGs serve as shortcuts to determine which subjects are likely to pass GNG, but once challenged, sources have to show that GNG actually is met.
JoelleJay (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Additionally, the big discussion on the talk page is not about changing the guideline to make GNG supersede NSPORT; it's specifically about tightening up NSPORT/particular subguidelines so that they are better predictors of GNG. Almost all participants already acknowledge GNG supersedes SNGs. JoelleJay (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- NSPORTS explicitly states it does not supersede GNG. This is most clearly stated in its FAQs 1 and 2 and most specifically (because the wording in NSPORT is clearly horrible and confusing) 5:
- Consensus is not a vote count. Opinions are weighed relative to their conformity with policies and guidelines. In other words, opinions that are not in line with the wider community consensus do not have the same weight as opinions that are in line with the wider community consensus. It is entirely possible to have a "split vote" consensus or a "minority" consensus. Per NCRIC, a cricket figure is presumed notable if they have appeared as a player in a single cricket match at the highest domestic level, aka "first class". Contrary to what you said, NSPORTS requires satisfaction of sport-specific criteria "or" satisfaction of the GNG. You incorrectly said NSPORTS "requires WP:GNG to be met", which is not true. The policy is specifically either or. The arguments that the articles fail the GNG may be true, but that is irrelevant if they satisfy NCRIC. Those voting delete per GNG did not acknowledge this, thus their votes hold little to no weight. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Ping
Hi, Swarm. User:Ched pinged you asking for your view here, and I'm not sure if you got the ping. It may be that you don't want to get involved, which would of course be fine, or that you're still thinking about what to say, in which case I'm sorry for badgering you. I'm only posting on your talk page to eliminate the possibility that you just didn't know about it.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
- The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.
Technical news
- The user group
oversightwill be renamed tosuppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
- The user group
Arbitration
- The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
Revocking my rights from wikipedia
Hi @Swarm: it's been really long time. I'm just retired from wikipedia and want to quit wikipedia as I don't find this is for any Nepali wikipedians to be on investing there time here on where just groupism matters. As you granted me NPR rights , and additional rollback/pcr right too. I just want you to request to revoke my every rights on wikipedia. I also request you to remove my every photos which I've contributed here in commons wikipedia to be removed. Regards Owlf 📪 20:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
Administrator changes
Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless- Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
- Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.
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
- After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors June 2021 Newsletter
  Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, our first newsletter of 2021, which is a brief update of Guild activities since December 2020. To unsubscribe, follow the link at the bottom of this box. Current events
Election time: Voting in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 16 June and will conclude at the end of the month. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Have your say and show support here. June Blitz: Our June copy-editing blitz is underway and will conclude on 26 June. Drive and blitz reports
January Drive: 28 editors completed 324 copy edits totalling 714,902 words. At the end of the drive, the backlog had reached a record low of 52 articles. (full results) February Blitz: 15 editors completed 48 copy edits totalling 142,788 words. (full results) March Drive: 29 editors completed 215 copy edits totalling 407,736 words. (full results) April Blitz: 12 editors completed 23 copy edits totalling 56,574 words. (full results) May Drive: 29 editors completed 356 copy edits totalling 479,013 words. (full results) Other news
Progress report: as of 26 June, GOCE participants had completed 343 Requests since 1 January. The backlog has fluctuated but remained in control, with a low of 52 tagged articles at the end of January and a high of 620 articles in mid-June. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu and Twofingered Typist, and from member Reidgreg. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC).
Sarah Jeong
Hey, Swarm. I decided to check out the article on Sarah Jeong, and given she left the Times' editorial board in August 2019 and has remained out of the public spotlight since, it seems like the article is far less of a target for vandalism than when you protected it indefinitely in February 2019. Up to you, but I think indefinite semi-protection would be more appropriate at this point, as there doesn't seem to be much if any risk whatsoever of untenable vandalism. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
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
- The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
Reconnecting and a quick question
Hi, @Swarm: I just wanted to reconnect and thank you for adding the "autopatrolled/autoreviewer" permission to my account on 23 September 2018. That change that you took care of for me has made life so much easier from an editing standpoint. So, first, I just wanted to thank you for your support because I've been able to create multiple articles without headaches since then. And second, I need to pick your brain because, unfortunately, I've noticed an odd change in the last several months, and am hoping you can provide some guidance. All of a sudden, out of the blue, I've started seeing the old problem of other editors jumping in to make changes to new articles within just a few hours of my having posted them (while I'm still trying to add infoboxes, more cited content, etc.). It has felt like I've been "new page patrolled" again (which isn't supposed to be happening), but when I double checked my account, it still showed that I have autopatrol rights. But because it has now happened with 6 different articles, I kept hunting for an answer. And I finally just found the potential problem - the New pages feed which confirms that those 6 articles were somehow listed for New Page Patrol. You were such a big help to me when I was first granted autopatrol that I thought I'd reach out to see if you can help me figure out why my articles are suddenly being flagged and how this can be fixed. Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. 47thPennVols (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- @47thPennVols: Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I have checked the logs of your recent creations and I can see that there is no record of people formally "patrolling" them. In other words, the articles are still being displayed as "reviewed" and the software is not prompting/allowing people to review/patrol them. Autoreviewers' articles are still listed on the New pages feed with the option to review them. They're simply marked as "reviewed" by default. Nothing stops New page reviewers from reviewing autopatrolled articles if they so choose. Autopatrolled is meant to save them time by allowing them to skip over the creations of trusted creators, i.e. Autoreviewers. It's important to remember as an Autoreviewer, that this permission is meant to ease the New page patrol backlog, not to "protect" your creations from being reviewed or edited. This permission is not meant to effect your editing at all. You do not own your creations, and they are subject to editing from the community from the very moment you publish them. If you want to craft your articles to perfection before they are subject to editing from the community, you will have to do this in your userspace, and not publish them until you are done working on them. I'm unsure as to why you're suddenly having people edit your articles if you have never experienced that before. But it does appear to be people who are looking at the feed and choosing to review autopatrolled articles. You would have to simply ask them why they're doing that, but there's nothing wrong with it if they see improvements to be made. And you should not view that as a "problem" or a "headache". You should appreciate it. Quality content is the only thing that matters, and having Autopatrolled does not mean everything you create is perfect and cannot be improved upon. ~Swarm~ {sting} 16:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Also, I have to say I'm very concerned about this exchange. You appear to be edit warring with a person simply because you do not want them editing your article. Very concerning and grounds for revocation of Autopatrolled. ~Swarm~ {sting} 16:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
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
- Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.
Miscellaneous
- You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— TheSandDoctor Talk 21:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Happy Birthday
Have a very happy birthday on your special day!
Best wishes, DC | Thank you (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Happy Birthday!
Administrators' newsletter – September 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
- A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
- A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
- A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
Technical news
- The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
Miscellaneous
- The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.
AN/I enforcement
Hi! I wanted to inform that David Tornheim has recently opened a RfC where two editors that shared his position were notified, one of which has already participated with the same vote. This probably barely constitute canvassing, but I thought it was important to bring this to your attention given the history that there is with the matter (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#David Tornheim canvassing RFC with misrepresentation of its question). Best regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
| Guild of Copy Editors September 2021 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2021. Current and upcoming events
September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Drive and Blitz reports
June Blitz: From 20 to 26 June, 6 participating editors claimed 16 copy edits, focusing on requests and articles tagged in March and April. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: Almost 575,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 24 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 15 to 21 August, we copy edited articles tagged in April and May 2021 and requests. 9 participating editors completed 17 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news
June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. New maintenance template added to our project scope: After a short discussion in June, we added {{cleanup tense}} to the list of maintenance templates that adds articles to the Guild's copy editing backlog categories. This change added 198 articles, spread over 97 months of backlog, to our queue. We processed all of those articles except for those from the three or four most recent months during the July backlog elimination drive (Here's a link to a "tense" discussion during the drive). Progress report: As of 18:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 468 requests since 1 January and there were 60 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
- Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
Technical news
- DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.
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.
Boo!
Administrators' newsletter – November 2021
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
- Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.
Arbitration
- GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.
Miscellaneous
- The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.
Question
Hi, just out of curiosity, I noticed you're the blocking admin at User talk:SpongePete2P, so should I have not pinged you at User talk:Pete2024#Alternate account? If not, lemme know. Thanks - wolf 02:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oops, just noticed you haven't been around since the week before (hopefully enjoying a nice vacation). So whenever you get back, you might want to take a look at that, if it hasn't already been dealt with. Thanks - wolf 20:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
|
|
Wishing Swarm a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Bobherry Talk Edits 00:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC) |
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
| | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
| Guild of Copy Editors December 2021 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2021. Current and upcoming events
Election time: Our end-of-year election of coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before "Auld Lang Syne". Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: We have scheduled a week-long copy-editing blitz for 12 to 18 December. Sign up now! Drive and Blitz reports
September Drive: Almost 400,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 27 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. October Blitz: From 17 to 23 October, we copy edited articles tagged in May and June 2021 and requests. 8 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. November Drive: Over 350,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 21 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. Other news
It is with great sadness that we report the death on 19 November of Twofingered Typist, who was active with the Guild almost daily for the past several years. His contributions long exceeded the thresholds for the Guild's highest awards, and he had a hand in innumerable good and featured article promotions as a willing collaborator. Twofingered Typist also served as a Guild coordinator from July 2019 to June 2021. He is sorely missed by the Wikipedia community. Progress report: As of 30 November, GOCE copyeditors have completed 619 requests in 2021 and there were 51 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog stood at 946 articles tagged for copy-editing (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).
Administrator changes
Technical news
- Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
- The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
- The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
re
- re [2]
@Floquenbeam: No I was not being rhetorical. To me, it is simply unthinkable that I would spend my "volunteer time" to police Jimbo in this situation. Like I said, it's the founder of Wikipedia saying he's going to be auctioning off some Wikipedia-related stuff on his Wikipedia talk page. And he's doing so because the WMF wanted him to post the message he sent to them. I could think of no conceivable reason to step in here. This is not a situation where the community needs an administrator to protect the project from Jimbo in the first place. This random, unforseen event is not within the spirit of the policies that are being enforced, which is exactly what IAR and WP:5P5 are getting at. It's not about "IAR because it's convenient", it's just about always honoring the common-sense spirit of the policy, rather than descending into kafkaesque bureaucracy, which is pretty much what you're doing here. I guess you can feel vindicated here? You crossed the line and edit warred over something plenty of people disagree with, but everyone else has the decency not to continue the edit war. That, and a straight-up force-closure of your own ANI discussion about the situation. If you feel that makes it resolved, I am happy for you. You got what you wanted. But that doesn't make what you did needed or worth it in any way. You were trying to right a great wrong here rather than fixing any sort of actual problem. In quite the dramatic fashion. In sum, I am still left without an answer to me very genuine question. Do you really have nothing better to do than to protect the project from a crisis of your own making? (I mean this in the nicest way possible Floquenbeam. I have a lot of respect for you no matter what. But it just feels silly to see a man of your talents out here pushing Jimbo around over something this petty. I really think the community would be better served if you focused your efforts on literally anything else.) ~Swarm~ {sting} 10:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- That's practically the exact same thing you wrote the first time, just cut-and-paste moving the sentences around. Could you do me a favor? If you plan to write the same thing a third time, could you not ping me for that one? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- This level of condescension is beneath you Floquenbeam. What kind of a pissing match do you think this is? I have done nothing but provide a genuine critique of your actions, which you requested, whilst repeatedly reassuring you that I don't intend any disrespect. I am making perfectly legitimate policy arguments, in plain speak, that I expect you to read and comprehend and consider. These are things you already know. I am just reminding you. Don't become hostile just because you're getting criticized. ~Swarm~ {sting} 18:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Swarm!
Hi Swarm! Our paths don't cross as much as I'd like, but I do hope that this message finds you well. It's that time of year again and I thought I would reach out to wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, from my family to yours. Wishing you all the best in 2022!
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello Swarm: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 04:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.TheSandDoctor Talk 05:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
- Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.
Arbitration
- Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.
Miscellaneous
- The functionaries email list (functionaries-en
lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
How we will see unregistered users
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. /Johan (WMF)
18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Notification of VP discussion
A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.
Technical news
- The user group
oversightwill be renamedsuppressin around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections. - The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
- The user group
Arbitration
- Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
- The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
- A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.
Administrators' newsletter – March 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
- A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
- The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
- Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
- The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)
Arbitration
- Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.
Miscellaneous
- The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
- Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
- The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.
Ninja'd
Extended Right
@Swarm: I Know it's earlier that I'm asking for extended rights, frankly say lots of page have extended protected so I can't edit that pages , If you think my edits are constructive then give the right. Thanks :-) Swesdent (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Adoption
Swarm, I am a new user and have been blocked from a particular talk page for bludgeoning (but I don't think I did what is said at WP:BLUDGEON). I have also been accused of tendentious editing. Please adopt me and guide me to make good edits here. Thanks!
- I saw here that you are willing to adopt newcomers.
- I have now been topic banned from articles related to Indian politics also because an admin mistakenly thought I have edited a page other than my own talk page after saying I will not do so until adopted by a Mentor, according to this thread which I feel was done because she (the admin) mistakenly thought I had edited another page after I said I would not until I get adopted.-Y2edit? (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.
Technical news
- Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the
deletelogentryanddeletedhistoryrights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928) - When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
Arbitration
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
- A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
- A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.
Miscellaneous
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.
GOCE April 2022 newsletter
| Guild of Copy Editors April 2022 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the April newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2021. Election results: Jonesey95 retired as lead coordinator. Reidgreg was approved to fill this role after an 18-month absence from the coordinator team, and Baffle gab1978 was chosen as an assistant coordinator following a one-year break. Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu continued on as long-standing assistant coordinators. January Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up, 16 editors claimed 146 copy edits including 45 requests. (details) February Blitz: This one-week effort focused on requests and a theme of Africa and African diaspora history. Of the 12 editors who signed up, 6 editors recorded 21 copy edits, including 4 requests. (details) March Drive: Of the 28 editors who signed up, 18 claimed 116 copy edits including 25 requests. (details) April Blitz: This one-week copy editing event has been scheduled for 17–23 April, sign up now! Progress report: As of 11 April, copy editors have removed approximately 500 articles from the backlog and completed 127 copy-editing requests during 2022. The backlog has been hovering at about 1,100 tagged articles for the past six months. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Your recent close at WP:ANI
Re this, [3], WP:CBAN seems to require the closing admin to notify the subject of the ban - you seem not to have done so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
New administrator activity requirement
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
- Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
- Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
Greetings, Swarm. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
Scardust
Copy/paste from another user's talk page, which doesn't seem interested in helping:
"Hello,
The article "Scardust" has had extensive editing issues in the past. I was dissatisfied with the previous iteration of the article, so I did extensive research and spent about seven hours last night and today fixing up some inaccuracies, cleaning up irrelevant information, properly sourcing claims, and providing a more comprehensive history of the band. At the moment, I believe the article looks fine, but I am afraid that the same users who have caused problems with the article in the past may aggressively change the article again, for the worse.
Would it be possible for you to check the sources, and make sure the article is indeed good and if not, let me know what needs to be changed and I will change it (including sourcing), and to moniter the article so that it remains high quality?
I did message the band themselves who suggested I make the changes I did, and provided me with several sources I cited in the article. I can send you that email exchange if you need.
Thank you in advanced."
This is the current version that is very good: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scardust&oldid=1085375251
(Eyesofagony (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC))
- The other user's talk page, should you be interested. We're also chatting with them on IRC. Primefac (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that was you in the IRC. Sorry if this was a lot of "spam" at once. I am obviously new and didn't really know where to go.
- Thank you for the insight. Eyesofagony (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Eyesofagony: Well your edits don’t need anyone’s approval, they are accepted and assumed to be beneficial by default in the absence of evidence. Per WP:SILENCE, if there is no valid objection to an edit, it is presumed to be supported by the community’s consensus by default. So I don’t feel the need to review your edit here. If what you are asking me is to keep an eye on the article and audit any removals of sourced content, and block whichever party is in the wrong, that is something I can and will gladly do if I can. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the offer of keeping an eye on it, that's essentially what I am asking, yes, and I appreciate the benefit of the doubt; I'm more so concerned about removal of additions I made, and then if I try to discuss it with the user who removed it, then I'll be banned. It appears to have happened twice on that article, hence why I called it "volatile," and why I just wanted a third pair of eyes. Again thank you! Eyesofagony (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Eyesofagony Yes this is a common issue, but rest assured that the reversion or stonewalling of edits without good reason is considered to be a serious offense that is usually handled with immediate blocking. If and when such a problem occurs, you may report it to WP:ANI, where uninvolved users will rule on the matter. Whatever happens, someone somewhere will review the facts if and whenever it becomes necessary. ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is very useful information. Thank you!
- Alright everyone I'm calling it a night. Eyesofagony (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I called it a night last night, and woke up to find this. Goodness me. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, your reaction of "why me?" seemed to indicate you weren't interested... Eyesofagony (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've made other follow up comments around the place. It seems that a satisfactory resolution has been reached though. Good luck to you. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, your reaction of "why me?" seemed to indicate you weren't interested... Eyesofagony (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I called it a night last night, and woke up to find this. Goodness me. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Eyesofagony Yes this is a common issue, but rest assured that the reversion or stonewalling of edits without good reason is considered to be a serious offense that is usually handled with immediate blocking. If and when such a problem occurs, you may report it to WP:ANI, where uninvolved users will rule on the matter. Whatever happens, someone somewhere will review the facts if and whenever it becomes necessary. ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the offer of keeping an eye on it, that's essentially what I am asking, yes, and I appreciate the benefit of the doubt; I'm more so concerned about removal of additions I made, and then if I try to discuss it with the user who removed it, then I'll be banned. It appears to have happened twice on that article, hence why I called it "volatile," and why I just wanted a third pair of eyes. Again thank you! Eyesofagony (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Damn well said
In your reaffirmation of support in that RfA ~TNT (talk • she/her) 10:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.TheSandDoctor Talk 02:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Replied --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
Hello Swarm, you previously blocked this user twice for disruptive editing in Generation Z so I'm wondering if you can help us out in this sockpuppet investigation as he seems to be stepping up the personal attacks despite talk page notifications. Agrso (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
BLP TBAN
Hi, you BLP TBAN'd me (or at least posted the notice), so I can't do this myself, but could you please so something about Pierre DesMarais, unreferenced in more than a decade? BLP PROD is what I'd do, if I were allowed. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Actually Alberto_B._Gutiérrez needs something too. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
- Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.
Technical news
- The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
- A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
- Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Thanks for granting Pending changes reviewer
Hi Swarm. Hope you are keeping fine. Thanks for granting reviewer for Pending changes. Will try my best to see that Wikipedia guidelines for the same are followed. Gardenkur (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Pending Changes Reviewer Request
Hi, you said that I need to be more experienced on Wikipedia. I'm perfectly fine with this! However, can you tell me what counts as "not new anymore" so I don't make another pointless request? 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I’d say wait a minimum of 1-2 more months. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Cedar Fair ANI discussion
I'm somewhat confused by your actions and your hostility to my posts on ANI concerning the Cedar Fair wiki page. My original post was for both threats from another user along with a pattern of behavioral misconduct, which included multiple reverts. An admin posted that he took care of the matter and that should have been the end. You, on the other hand, decided to chime in with content dispute, which clearly does not belong there — a fact to which another admin even reminded you of. You followed again with a statement that content dispute is not something to block over, even though the original complaint was about behavioral issues and had nothing to do with the content. When I tried to steer the discussion back on point, you accused me of goalpost shifting, followed with a warning not to push it. I hope you understand that had you just left the post alone, none of the six lines of discussion that followed would have been needed. What were you trying to accomplish? I posted to ANI hoping to get some resolve, instead I got a lot of unnecessary drama. I thought admins were supposed to resolve issues, not create new ones.—JlACEer (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
hi there
Hi there. are you interested in editing history articles at all? I am a coordinator at WP:HIST. Trying to gauge interest in helping to craft a concerted group approach to facilitating editing of articles that pertain to curent or contemporary history. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
| Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. | |
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, Swarm. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
Possible socking by a user you indeffed
Hey Swarm, I want to bring a peculiar situation to your attention: a couple of days ago, while working on the pending changes backlog as a reviewer, I reviewed and reverted this edit by User:Jacques Monod at Ptolemy, because I felt such a likely-to-be-contested change to a protected page needed talk page consensus. I observed in passing that the user in question had some pretty nuanced understanding of editing and tagging for an account with less than ten edits and that there was a similar angle of POV pushing regarding Greek ethnicity in at least one of the other edits, but it was not enough to trigger any concerns urging a response other than the revert. However, I got back on today and still had the article open, so I decided to check out the talk page to get further context on any previous discussion on the matter, and to understand why the article was protected in the first place.
When I read the talk page, I was struck by the similarities between the arguments advanced by and those that were advanced several years back by a blocked editor, User:Arianewiki1. When I went to their user talk page, I discovered that you had indeffed Ariane as an implementation of a CBAN authorized at ANI. Because Ptolemy was the second to the last article Ariane had worked on before the indef, I decided to look at a number of the other articles that Ariane had been involved with just before said ban. And sure enough, each that I checked has an account with a very small number of edits recently active on the articles and talk pages, at least one of which has a wall-of-text approach to talk page discussion similar to Ariane's (and a propensity for interacting with one of the editors that the community considered IBANning Ariane from interacting with).
Now, none of this adds up to anything likely to be actionable at SPI, so I don't think there is anything to be done at this stage--and indeed, I am not even 100% convinced myself that my suspicions are correct. But I felt I ought to make someone aware of my observations, in case there's suddenly any disruption regarding spaces and/or community members that Ariane was a problem for, before the indef--and as the blocking admin, you seemed as good a candidate as anyone (sorry Mr. Mop!). Per WP:BEANS, I've kept the details as vague as possible here, while still giving you enough info to look into the matter, but I can share some more idiosyncrasies I found in the newer accounts that somewhat contributed to my concerns, if you'd like. Suffice it to say, if you look at recent histories for the articles Ariane was working on before the indef, the suspicious accounts should be obvious. Anyway, hope I'm wrong and nothing needs to come of this, but again, thought someone with real tools ought to be brought into the loop on what I noticed. SnowRise let's rap 08:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.
Technical news
- Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
- The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
Arbitration
- Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
- An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.
Orphaned non-free image File:Dark castle logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Dark castle logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Happy Birthday!
 | Happy birthday! Hi Swarm! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC) |  |
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Sir Joseph (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Fourteen years on Wikipedia!
 | Happy First Edit Day! Hi Swarm! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy 14th anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Chris Troutman (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC) | |
Chris Troutman (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
| | Happy First Edit Day! Hi Swarm! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC) | |
June GOCE newsletter
| Guild of Copy Editors June 2022 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the June 2022 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since April 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Blitz: of the 16 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, 12 completed at least one copy-edit, and between them removed 21 articles from the copy-editing backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 27 editors signed up for our May Backlog Elimination Drive; of these, 20 copy-edited at least one article. 144 articles were copy-edited, and 88 articles from our target months August and September 2021 were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: our June Copy Editing Blitz, starting at 00:01, 19 June and closing at 00:59, 25 June (UTC), will focus on articles tagged for copy edit in September and October 2021, and requests from March, April and May 2022. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 07:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 209 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,404 articles. Election news: Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators continues until 23:50 on 15 June (UTC), after which, voting will commence until 23:59, 30 June (UTC). All Wikipedians in good standing (active and not blocked, banned, or under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).
|
|
|
Technical news
user_global_editcountis a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)
Arbitration
- An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.
Miscellaneous
- The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.