User talk:JzG/Archive 208
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:JzG. 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 205 | Archive 206 | Archive 207 | Archive 208 | Archive 209 | Archive 210 | → | Archive 215 |
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.
J, in this edit of 6.5 years ago, you made among other things this change to an unsourced statement:
- Therapies that purport to use, modify, or manipulate unknown energies are among the most controversial of all complementary and alternative medicines.
to
- Therapies that purport to use, modify, or manipulate unknown energies are thus among the most contentious of all complementary and alternative medicines.
(this is after "There is no physical scientific evidence for the existence of such energy", which might relate to your "thus").
So, a couple of questions. Since this was in the context of an edit stripping unsourced content, why didn't you just take it out? It doesn't seem to be supportable in any of the nearby refs. And why the "thus"? And why is "contentious" better here than "controversial"? And do you believe it? It is more contentious than homeopathy and acupuncture and such? In general, it seems to me that the anti-fringe crowd have crowded out actual info about topics like this in favor of their western POVs and orthodoxy. Can you see a path to making such articles more NPOV? Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Celerra for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celerra until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, JzG,
This page had a broken redirect on it and was an orphaned talk page so I moved it to Talk:Judith Wilyman/PhD controversy. Since you moved around some of the talk page comments on this article in the past, I thought I'd bring it to your attention in case you had a better idea of where it should go. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Unban request
Over a year back, I put myself into some trouble, and one of the things it resulted in was being banned from talking about infoboxes. For the sake of being in 100% good standing with Wikipedia and Wikimedia, may I be unbanned from talking about/mentioning infoboxes? I will follow the guidelines laid out by WP:CIVILITY, I will not start fights in discussions related to IBs (or any other for that matter), heed to ArbCom sanctions, and not mention the editors I have been told not to interact with.
Even though it was a while ago now, I am sorry for what I did. I will not let it happen again.
Thank you for your time. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Guy is inactive on this project at the moment, and wont be able to unblock you. But, I think you were unblocked some time ago. Read your own Talk page Archive that you linked to above again. The last section of that page, and the fact that you could post here supports this! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- He's unblocked, yes, but still indefinitely topic banned from discussing infoboxes. That's what he wants Guy to lift. As Guy is inactive I'll ping User:Floquenbeam who was also involved in the unblock request and see if he has any thoughts. Personally StrangeloveFan I don't think it's a good sign that you just went back to Talk:Stanley Kubrick and started talking about the lead photo, which seems to be gaming the ban to me.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at your link, that's a lot of respected editors involved. I think I'll just slink away, and hope nobody notices. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Pawnkingthree, I didn't really stop to think about how me opening a discussion in the lede of image of Kubrick and then coming here to ask about getting unbanned from IB discussions might look fishy. I'm sorry I came off that way, and I understand how it looks devious. That was and is not my intention. I'd like to be in good standing with Wikipedia, and I know people (or even you) may not support my support for IBs, but I would like to be able to simply say "Support" when the time comes (I should've put that in my first message here. Sorry about that.). If I do so, I will not put myself into any arguments or any one's discussions regarding IBs within the talk page for that matter. Like I said, I know I'm on thin ice when it comes to this kind of topic, and I know there's nothing I can do to change what I did. I'm just asking for a second chance. Again, I'm sorry for what I did last year. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- He's unblocked, yes, but still indefinitely topic banned from discussing infoboxes. That's what he wants Guy to lift. As Guy is inactive I'll ping User:Floquenbeam who was also involved in the unblock request and see if he has any thoughts. Personally StrangeloveFan I don't think it's a good sign that you just went back to Talk:Stanley Kubrick and started talking about the lead photo, which seems to be gaming the ban to me.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- I believe I'm the one who proposed those unblock conditions. In Guy's absence, I'll look later today at StrangeloveFan101's recent contribs and see if I'm comfortable removing the first condition. If so, I'll do it myself. If not, StrangeloveFan101 can still request an unban at AN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Any further comments/actions I make about this will be at User talk:StrangeloveFan101. I suggest people move this discussion to there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Updates removed
I'm new to Wikipedia and am confused by a comment left on my user talk page by you and by the fact an update I made was reversed by you. It was a very severe response to my editing and implied I was a repeat offender. As it stands right now, since my edit was removed, Wikipedia is factually wrong. I know that because I'm the a key player in the subject and founder and CEO of the organization mentioned in the text. I don't like to see wrong information attributed to our organization. It has to be fixed.
Can you explain what references you have and when you were involved with our organization such that you believe the text I corrected did not need fixing? If you won't let me fix it, who can you get to fix it? It is currently a libelous statement. Thank youMay12th (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
indefinite page protection for journal articles
Hello. Back in 2017 you placed indefinite edit restrictions (WP:BLUELOCK) on several journals, including American Journal of Cancer Research, American Journal of Translational Research, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine and e-Century Publishing Corporation, apparently in response to a single suspected sockpuppet account which has been indefinitely blocked since 2017. I don't see a history vandalism in all of the articles, and I note that WP:PPLIST states: Extended confirmed protection "should not be applied as a protection level of first resort." Given that there has been no significant disruption since, and that articles for major journals like Nature, Science, and The Lancet lack any page-protection whatsoever, please review and consider removing such obsolete page protections, and other similar ones with little imminent risk of vandalism, so that they can fully rejoin the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
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.
New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello JzG,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hope all is well
Hello JzG! I hope you are doing well. I just wanted to let you know that I added you to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. If you ever come back, or choose not to have your name on this list, just let me know. Hope you come back, even just to check in, Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans
Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bangalamania (talk) 19:59, 28 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.
In 2018 you adjusted the block settings for Carmaker1 after abuse of Email privileges was discovered. The editor is currently being considered for a topic ban or indef ban at ANI, if you'd like to weigh in on the matter you may do so at the link given. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 backlog drive
| New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
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.
Nomination for deletion of Template:Fake news
Template:Fake news has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)