User talk:Thryduulf/archive25

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Administrator changes

ScottishFinnishRadish

Staxringold

Ahoerstemeier (deceased) • Ched

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678

CheckUser changes

GorillaWarfare

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news

The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous

An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment disappearing

In my AnRet compulsion to make sure I didn't somehow remove it along with other important things (by inadvertently editing an old version or something), what looks like happened is you posted your !vote but without signing. @Enos733 made an identical vote immediately below. @Vanamonde93 removed your unsigned identical comment as an apparent copy-paste error/dup. :D Valereee (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's on me, but to be fair it looked very like a copy-paste error...apologies. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It totally did look like a copy-paste error creating a dup. I noticed when the comment disappeared but figured Thryduulf was rethinking. Valereee (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At that explains things. Sorry for the confusion! Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New show nearby articles feature on Kartographer maps

Hello!

You receive this message because you have voted for show nearby or related articles in maps in this year’s Community Wishlist Survey.

I am happy to let you know that soon it will be possible to automatically display nearby articles in a map on Commons and other Wikimedia projects using Kartographer. This feature is one of the improvements to Kartographer the Technical Wishes Team from Wikimedia Germany has been working on. Each Kartographer generated map in full-screen mode is now given a new “Show nearby articles” button at the bottom. It can be used to show and hide up to 50 geographically close articles.

The deployment of this feature is planned for 12 October on a first group of wikis. After the first feedback phase, more wikis will follow. Read more on our project page. Your feedback and comments to our open questions on this feature are very much appreciated on this discussion page. Thank you! -- Timur Vorkul (WMDE) 15:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Thryduulf

Can you close the TNT (TV station) RfD tomorrow or on Monday once the other people who are contributing to the discussion of TNT (TV station) withdraw their votes. Bassie f (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I'm WP:INVOLVED. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother

Hey, not related to the EC protection. But i have a feeling that this is recently cbanned user LaserLegs. Writing style was a red flag, checked geo location and that matched as well from the information they shared previously. Anything to be done about the quacking? Don't really see the point of going to SPI, they won't connect ip's to accounts anyway, right? Any suggestions how to proceed, your opinion on the matter would be nice. Have a good day anyway. 91.96.24.241 (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WaltCip does agree that it is a sock as well. Wrote to me on my talk minutes after my msg here. Just as an fyi. 91.96.24.241 (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For your hard work in the effort to get Robbie Coltrane to RD quality when it appeared doomed to not be included on quality grounds from the start; I award you this barnstar of citations! You recognized how important it was to get Hagrid onto RD owing to the emotional response of people to the beloved actor’s death (even the oppose votes were visibly upset and reluctant about their vote), so you worked hard to make it happen to the glee of the fellow Wikipedians. Well Done! :) DrewieStewie (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Very disappointing. – Sca (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfD for Royal Guardsman/Royal Guardsmen

Since the RfD for Sovereign Protectors was closed, are you planning on starting one for Royal Guardsman? – Scyrme (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather fallen off my radar, but I do intend to doing it if someone doesn't get there first. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems someone has: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 1#Royal Guardsman – Scyrme (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2022 Morbi bridge collapse

On 31 October 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Morbi bridge collapse, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 05:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Administrator changes

- Isabelle Belato
- Whpq

Interface administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Oversight changes

DGG

Guideline and policy news

The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration

Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous

The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Leslie Phillips

On 11 November 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Leslie Phillips, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you ...

... for a constructive comment in the Laurence Olivier RfC, to which I referred in my arbcand questions. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

Administrator changes

Interface administrator changes

TheresNoTime

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news

A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

Miscellaneous

Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Memory loss

I can remember promising.. but I can't remember what. Was it this link https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mujnfycbt6e1vte/AADuBeU6_RcY-CxA4_yv1bvra?dl=0

User:ClemRutter 81.174.224.233 (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed, thank you. I'll grab them today. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to deal with this...

Hey Thryduulf - I'm hoping you can help me with a problem I have. I'd ask my assigned wikimentor (Dr vulpes), but it seems they haven't been very active of late...

I see one user consistently WP:GAMING the system, and I don't see any path toward resolution. In our many interactions, I've realized that reasoning with them doesn't work, so I can't ask them to stop. And on that guideline page, there's no clear cut method for how to deal with this problem; it's mostly information on how to identify gaming.

The more I read of that guideline, the more checks I realized this user was ticking off, and the more concerned I became that there's nothing that can be done to stop this. The behaviors they're exhibiting among the clear examples on that guideline are:

Filibustering the consensus-building process by sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected
Using policies to prove a WP:POINT that they had previously emphatically argued against
Always muddying the waters in disputes (encouraging tangents, not materially addressing topics, etc)
Frequently quotes policy without explaining why it's relevant; on the converse, they often claim "policy is on my side" without linking to any policy
And more... don't want to get too deep here

Is there any way to get someone to stop behaving like this? I've explored the various noticeboards and enforcement methods, but I don't want to jump right to those without building a strong case. Further, I'm not even sure there's an appropriate board for something like this...

Any advice you can give, either as an administrator or as an experienced editor, would be much appreciated. I'm getting pretty disheartened here that this is a problem with no solution. Thank you. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can supply diffs of all the things that you allege the editor is doing, then you have more than a strong enough case to start a discussion at WP:AN/I. As you'll have noticed I'm also not the most active I've ever been at the moment (that damned real life!) so I can't really help you with putting an AN/I post together, and anyway without knowing who the editor in question is I can't advise how strong your case actually is. Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm a week late with this, but thank you for the advice and suggestion! The ANI thread I opened has... not gone well. But I'm trying to work through that. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to help. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics procedure adopted

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

ITN recognition for Adrian Shooter

On 15 December 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Adrian Shooter, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi by Luca Signorelli is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Hello Thryduulf: 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 18:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

From my family to yours: Merry Christmas! TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Thryduulf!

Happy New Year!

Thryduulf,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Administrator changes

Stephen

Interface administrator changes

Nihiltres

CheckUser changes

Moneytrees

Oversighter changes

Guideline and policy news

Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

Arbitration

Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous

Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

closed means closed

Why is it acceptable to close a discussion eight hours into it? nableezy - 23:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Nableezy: I think that you should be directing your question to Kiril Simeonovski (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did that implicitly in my comment on WT:ITN. But that too was archived. nableezy - 02:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was the wrong venue (as is this page). You should have asked explicitly by means of a direct question at User talk:Kiril Simeonovski, a page which I find has never been edited by yourself. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When a discussion has been had multiple times and come to the same conclusion each time, the latest discussion brings nothing new to the table and has already generated exactly the same answers as the last times the discussion will not result in anything other than a waste of time and possible acrimony. It's better for the project to close such discussions before that happens.

If you object to a discussion being closed, you need to discuss that with the person who closed the discussion on their talk page. Continuing if the discussion had not been closed is disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an editor permitted to determine that a discussion will not bring anything new to the table within 8 hours? Why can I not raise the issue in the same forum as the closure? If I open an RFC to add that item to ITN/R, with an RFC tag, will that also be closed out of process? Will that be disruptive of me? nableezy - 04:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are no new arguments to be made. There is a very strong consensus that for items to be added to ITNR they must have had consensus to post for at least two consecutive instances at ITNC (some people want more than that) and (a slightly weaker but still strong) consensus that only the top level of sports events should be posted. The nominated item met neither of those criteria. Yes, reopening or continuing the discussion now, with or without an RfC tag, will be considered disruptive and closure will not be out of process.

Given that despite being on Wikipedia for over a decade you consider an uncivil, sarcastic comment followed by arguing about it with an administrator who was not the one to take the action you disagreed with to be appropriate behaviour, I am not going to engage further with you on this matter. Thryduulf (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for angering the gatekeepers. nableezy - 14:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
A brief guide for administrators may be found at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

I edited your comment without permission yesterday

@Thryduulf, I edited your comment yesterday on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 16#File:Southern Cross Ten.svg to include my actual gender without permission. Next time, only if I say, can I edit your comment with permission? and only if you say, Yes you can edit your comment, I may edit your comments. Just letting you know. From Bas. From Bassie f (his talk page) 01:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Administrator changes

Gimmetrow

CheckUser changes

Oversighter changes

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.

Technical news

The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your arguments at Wikipedia talk:In the news

As a frequenter of ITNR, the bizarre arguments put forward by Andrew toward removing sports, removing certain elections, and generally being unhappy with how consensus works have become quite exhausting (seriously - I fail to see the logical consistency between arguing the Super Bowl has no long-term significance, while trying to get a minimally-detailed story of UFO shootdowns posted to ITN), especially when, with a lack of RfCs/etc, it's effectively just an endless stream of complaints; your responses may have been the most eloquent summary of that I've seen here, and hopefully they do in fact convince him to either take action or stop complaining. The Kip (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Andrew has been doing exactly the same as he is now for literally years so I don't hold out much hope of him stopping any time soon, which is why I mentioned the possibility of a topic ban. Fingers crossed though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Nice to have you working ITN again, you were missed!

Curbon7 (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing news 2023 #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

early photography / cinema bios

Hi,

I see that you list yourself on the Photography wikiproject. Through some work on author pages for enWS for the 1927 DNB, I have come across some authors who seem notable enough for articles through being fellows of the Royal Photographic Society

s:Author:Will Day
s:Author:William Bates Ferguson; and maybe
s:author:Basil Fenwick Howard

I have transcribed obituaries for these, and plugged data into WD. I am caught over at enWS doing stuff so not creating articles, esp. where I have little expertise. If you are not active in the space at the moment, can you tell me where the best spot to suggest these would be. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Administrator changes

The Wordsmith

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.

Technical news

The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

Arbitration

Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

Miscellaneous

The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the T-ban

About this diff here... Are you going to be able to do that by yourself? I'm wondering if that would be considered WP:INVOLVED, or perhaps it's not considered involved because you're acting in a purely administrative capacity and not trying to resolve a content dispute. Or did you plan on reporting it to a noticeboard? ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WaltCip I was planning on going to AN or ANI (haven't decided which) with a proposal that I'd link to from WT:ITN (and Andrew's page, obviously). I don't have time to pull everything together today (which is why I went with a final warning rather than starting it directly) and probably wont tomorrow so if he doesn't stop being disruptive (which would be the best outcome, but none of the dozens of previous requests have worked) don't expect me to start anything before Friday. It doesn't have to wait for me though if someone else thinks it is a big enough issue and has the time to put together a proposal that details the years-long background for those not familiar. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I have a copy or userfied restoration of List of mass shootings in Australia?

Per the other pages of List of mass shootings in the United Kingdom and List of mass shootings in Switzerland which were created by the same sockpuppet, I am not able to find any pertinent issues with those pages and find a list for Australia equally as useful. (The latter of those two pages even survived an AfD, so their work was already vetted by the community.) It seems strange to allow those two articles to stay and not allow for me to request this one on the basis of WP:BMB when the bulk of their work is going to stay regardless. Obviously, in the case of userfication, I will only restore the page to mainspace when G5 no longer applies due to my edits.

Furthermore, according to two other admins, I am allowed to continue asking others if I find one that is willing, where they explicitly said it was not forum shopping. So in the case of a potential ANI for that reason, I can cite two admins that said it was not. There is also nothing that prohibits userfication, even if other editors oppose. (I am also not trying to game the system or am a sock, so no issues there.) Thank you! Why? I Ask (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(For clarification: At the policy page, zzuuzz said: As I said above, there's nothing prohibiting a request for G5'd content. If you find an admin who says no they won't do something, find another admin who will, if you can. There's a lot of stuff I won't do but it doesn't mean it can't be done. I asked right after if this was forum shopping. Kusma said: It is fine, and we even have categories to facilitate finding an admin who might help you with a specific issue: Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination.) I don't appreciate a certain user's comment that I am forum shopping that they now have removed. Clearly, I asked two separate admins if this was allowed. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Enough. I have replied at User talk:Why? I Ask#Bludgeoning at WT:CSD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied back! Clearly you do not want this page restored, for some reason. I just want a copy so I do not have to manually go source-by-source to put in numbers. Clearly, there are no detractors as to whether or not this page topic is notable! Why? I Ask (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the discussions were not ongoing then I would be happy to restore it, indeed I don't understand all the opposition to doing so, but as the discussions are happening I would rather wait until the have concluded before acting. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! Why? I Ask (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV was closed as do not restore, but the closer said it could be restarted again. May I have an emailed copy? Yes, I know not to blanket copy-paste (due to copyright and such), but I would like the sources and having the number counts and dates to double check would be nice. Personally, I disagree with closer on several counts, but felt he did it in a decently fair manner. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this when I next have time, probably this evening (UK time). Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Why? I Ask You've got mail. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Sorry, just saw your edit where you too had written an RfC. Happy for you t0 insert some of your text into my rationale (or I could just paste in the bit about discussion being above. I didn't put that in as other editors coming in probably don't want to wade through reams of stuff outside of the RfC itself). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice. I'm not good at writing things that are concise or focused (possibly why you were quicker!), I'm also not that experienced at starting RfCs. If you want advice then Redrose64 is a better person to ask. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I will leave it as it is then. As I say, I wasn't going to mention the previous discussion because hopefully it will be more succinct in the RfC itself. However, as Redros64 was pinged in here, I'll just include a link in case they want to suggest any improvements, or point out things I did wrong! It's: Talk:List of ports in England and Wales#RFC: Determining page scope. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a discussion on whether to merge the article with the Scotland one and also whether to split Wales off. As such, it's simultaneously a WP:MERGE proposal and a WP:SPLIT proposal, and both of these are outside the purpose of RfC - see WP:RFCNOT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I am a bit lost as to how to proceed in that case. Isn't the fact that it is simultaneously both these things the reason that an RfC is required? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC's are valid for questions of page scope, and the fact that it is simultaneously a merge and a split discussion is the reason I chose an RFC. I don't think changing the RfC now in favour of something else would be a productive use of time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Agreed. And thanks again for your help. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Administrator changes

Aoidh

KillerChihuahua

CheckUser changes

Ferret

Guideline and policy news

A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Technical news

Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

Arbitration

The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals

Regarding the first appeal you mentioned in this edit: I thought I remembered somewhere where Jimbo had written something about how he reviewed the evidence, but the best I can find is User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 145 § Wrap-Up on Block Appeal to Founder. isaacl (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my search should have found that section but evidently I missed it somehow. I've added a note to my comment. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages you argued that redirects are assessed on their own merits but aside from the possibility of breaking links from being there years ago and someone having bothered to create then it is probably sensible to be consistent with the other DAB pages that don't have the "(Disambiguation)" redirects. An example of a redirect that may qualify as significantly different is if say it had been linked/discussed by the press before being moved to the correct title. Per Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments while up to a point we should assess things on individual merits or check if a previous consensus was a poor decision we still should develop some kinds of precedents. If you look at Scotforth/Scotforth (parish) can you work out why the parish has a separate article but all the rest of the Lancashire parishes like Croston that have the same name a settlement are covered in the settlement? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are asking regarding parishes, nor why these parishes are relevant to either me or to a discussion about disambiguation pages from 9 months ago? However I fully stand by the argument, which I have made repeatedly and consistently, that redirects are discussed on their own merits. Especially when it comes to redirects, precedents can have some limited utility, but they always need to be examined to see how relevant they are to the current situation. (Disambiguation) redirects that point to disambiguation pages are, in general, harmless and potentially helpful - there is little benefit if creating them routinely but if one is created then it is safe to infer that it does have use for at least that person. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The argument about other stuff was about if all parishes that share the same name as a settlement should have separate articles or not or if (almost) all shouldn't for consistency. Can you work out why Scotforth (parish) is separate but the rest in Category:Civil parishes in Lancashire are combined with the settlement? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely something that needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis because it will depend on how much there is to encyclopaedically say about the parts of the parish that are not within and/or about things which do not pertain to the named settlement, and possibly other local factors too. I don't have time to investigate your query now, try asking at the wikiproject. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its standard for 4th order divisions that have the same name as a settlement to be covered in 1 article. There are over 10,000 parishes in England a lot of them having the same name as a settlement. If we assessed each individually it would likely lead to very inconsistent outcomes and would unnecessarily complicate things. Instead we have a simple rule that we don't split them with rare exceptions like when the parish doesn't include the settlement of the same name at all which is the answer for Scotforth. Look at Stanhope, County Durham which is the largest parish in England by area which includes a huge amount of rural land and other settlements but we have just 1 article for it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we don't split them with rare exceptions this is assessing them individually to determine how best to cover them. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notification

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021 on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April thanks

Thank you for helping Irma Blank to the Main page! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My story today mentions a piece by Max Reger. In 2016, I had a hard time discussing an infobox for him, but - looking at Mozart - it seems as if the ice around the topic is melting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Administrator changes

Spicy

CheckUser changes

Jimbo Wales

Oversighter changes

Jimbo Wales

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration

The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous

The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The caps kerfuffle

Sorry if I've been too strident in that debate, and I'm clearly irritating you, but I somehow don't seem to be getting across what's irritating to me. In a nutshell: you've said "the issue is the behaviour of Dicklyon and your endorsement and enabling of that behaviour", but there isn't a clear set of diffs showing Dicklyon doing anything wrong. He's using the processes a previous ANI instructed him to use. Me observing this isn't actionable "endorsement and enabling" of rule-breaking behavior, since there is no rule-breaking behavior (except on the part of people, especially Oknavazed, attacking Dicklyon over and over again). This (among previous comments by you in other, similar debates) is why I get the sense you have an axe to grind with regard to MOS:CAPS or maybe MOS in general. It comes across as "I don't like MOS applying to topics I care about – or when other people in topics I don't care about get mad – so some means of censorsing those MOS editors must be found, even though I can't prove any wrongdoing."

So, what am I missing or misapprehending? Help me understand. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've not responded to this yet, but I'm genuinely struggling to think of any way to explain the problem that hasn't been presented multiple times by multiple people already. I'm getting the impression that you are genuinely unable to see what the problem is with the way you and especially Dick are behaving in these discussions. I don't care about (the capitalisation of) ice hockey articles, I don't have a problem with the manual of style or with it applying to topics I do care about. What I do have a problem with is way some people who care about the capitalisation of articles interact with other editors when there is a disagreement about the capitalisation, e.g. whether something is or is not a proper noun. I can't give you a single diff, because individual edits are not the problem, the problem is the long-term pattern of behaviour. The best I can suggest is to review contested RMs about capitalisation and compare those in which Dicklyon is involved with those in which he isn't.

I don't know that this is what will help you understand what you aren't, but that's as much a failure of me to explain as it is of you to comprehend. I'll keep thinking about this, and maybe that will help me come up with some other way to explain things that will help, but it's been a good 12 hours since I saw your message and you deserve some sort of response at least, even if it isn't ideal. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. :-) I have kind of a lengthy response, but my point's not to be argumentative, but observational. One thing I've noticed again and again in these RM discussions (and sometimes at WT:MOS, etc.), is that the over-capitalizing camps use blatant circular reasoning to arrive at "this is a proper name". Condensed down to its core, it goes "We should capitalize this because it's a proper name, and I know it's a proper name because I see it capitalized in the non-independent sources I favor." And they don't agree on what "proper name" means, because there are two wildly conflicting theoretical approaches to this: proper name (philosophy) and proper name (linguistics). (Capitalization fans favor the former, because its definition is far more permissive.)

In the rare spots that MoS mentions proper names at all, it means the linguistic sense, always and only (and usually links directly to it for clarity). This should already indicate why MOSCAPS, from its very opening, is about following capitalizing only when the vast majority of independent source material does so. It's to avoid any "proper name" argument at all. But the over-capitalizers just will not have it. They refuse over and over again to accept the across-all-sources evidence that is put under their noses, and retreat to "is a proper name" assertions based on non-independent sourcing (the WP:Specialized-style fallacy in a nutshell).

They do this so frequently that it necessitates multiple refutations, which is the trap Dicklyon finds himself in: they then accuse him of bludgeoning when what's he's really doing is addressing their go-to tactic of proof by assertion and argument from repetition. "If I say it's a 'proper name' enough times I will WP:WIN." And it's all steeped in topic-specific vats of WP:OWN, as others at the ANI have observed. The argument is that Dicklyon, SMcCandlish, and whoever else drops by in response to site-wide RM or RfC listings, should be kept away as non-members of the club who control the hockey/tennis/whatever category of articles. It's unmistakeably a WP:CONLEVEL problem.

What can Dicklyon do differently? I'm not sure. I guess one tactic could be to wait longer, and address multiple fallacious !votes in a single reply. That runs the risk, of course, of ceding the entire discussion to the fallacies, since incoming commentators have a strong tendency to go along with a simplistic and repetitive pattern of !votes that they already see there (not to mention these discussions tend to be heavily canvassed by whatever wikiproject has its undies in a bunch). In the end, DL has done such an enormous amount of capitalization cleanup (about 99% of it uncontroverted) that there may really be few of these "style fights" left to happen. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Administrator changes

Ingenuity

CheckUser changes

Courcelles

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query at WT:GA

Hi -- not sure if you saw this question? I can see the opposers have reasonable concerns and have been thinking about other wordings, but I don't understand your comments and would like to before I post again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed that question, hopefully my reply answers your question but do feel free to ask for clarification if it doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was helpful; have replied there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AlisonW case request accepted

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/AlisonW. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Bureaucrat changes

MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news

Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

Arbitration

Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden stop

Hi, Þryduulf. I saw your comment "It's always slightly concerning when editors suddenly stop contributing apparently in mid-flow". Yes, of course. Many of us must have thought that, but it's rarely mentioned. Sometimes the editor comes back, sometimes we learn that they are never going to come back, but the most disconcerting ones are those that we never hear of again, so we never know what happened. JBW (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision posted for the AlisonW case

The proposed decision for the AlisonW case has been posted. Statements regarding the proposed decision are welcome at the talk page. Please note that comments must be made in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 arbitration committee election dates

Could you consider implementing this edit request? It sets the start of the nomination period to the second Sunday in November, as specified in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections/ACERFC decisions to date. It also set the deadline of the electoral commission selection to seven days after the end of the evaluation period, which was inexplicably only set to six days in the past two years. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, your edit didn't update the year value for the switch statement, so it hasn't taken effect for the 2023 pages. isaacl (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DanCherek has implemented my edit request, but left your edit with the 2022 year in place. I've asked if he can revert your edit. isaacl (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl I think this has now all been sorted? Thryduulf (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DanCherek has reverted your edit. isaacl (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 arbitration committee election RfC discussions moved to 2023 talk page

I have moved the discussions under Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022 § Topics to review for 2023 to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023. Please feel free to continue discussion on the 2023 talk page! isaacl (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:

For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed

Protection

Hi,

I suppose I have a lot of varied choices as to what to do and how to respond, including possibly nitpicking quite a bit of nonsense in comments at both threads (after-the-fact in one case, of course), as well as linking to past POV pushing and disruptions of certain individuals, and so on, but honestly, I just can't get past 2 things. The first is that I just don't think all of this is worth the community's time, and second, even though it's pretty clear (when one compares the comments in the two discussions) more than a few commenter's are merely dropping drive-by votes, withot actually trying to read any discussion for content or context, it seems to me that what appeared obvious to me while closing (after having read everything (and then some) multiple times), apparently has not been as obvious to some, and though not "required", probably could have used more clarity from me in the close.

So with both of those thoughts in mind, I think the best course of action at this point would be for me to modify implementation of the close.

I could probably (per Nike) "just do it", but, in my opinion at least, I think that's questionable ground with you having protected the page subsequent to the reverting. And we don't need another debate, this being over whether I should or shouldn't have...

So instead, here I am, asking you to lift the protection.

If you'd rather not, no worries. I can just as easily wander away from all of this and let the processes play out. I suppose it doesn't matter that much, but I thought I might as well save some people some time so that they too can go back to other things. Anyway, I leave the choice to you.

I hope that, besides all of this nonsense, that your day is going well for you. - jc37 22:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The protection is preventative and I'm happy that nobody is going to go back to edit warring over things so I'll restore the previous protection level (indefinite semi). I'm just about to go to bed (It's midnight here) so I'll look at the rest of your comments tomorrow and respond then if needed. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you.

Edits're done (and I'll leave a note at AN, as well, so that whomever can decide whether to close that discussion or not). - jc37 23:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SmallCat dispute 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/SmallCat dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 4, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thryduulf, I have a lot of respect for you, and I'm here to offer a gentle critique of your evidence BRFA for BHGbot9, where you've quoted the salient part of the decline statement, introducing it with the neutral was declined with the reasoning. I feel like there's important context in that the decline came from the BAG member with whom BHG had had the most pointed disagreement over the subset of intended target articles where the citations tagged as cleanup were both bare URLs and unsuitable sources (put another way, where the cleanup tags were both technically valid and procedurally pointless), as the next edit in the thread immediately after the BAG member in question received some personalised and arguably inappropriate commentary from BHG. I think positioning this whole decline comment as a neutral close rather than a close by a user in dispute with BHG gives it a different tenor than it carries in context, which I hasten to add you did recommend the Arb team to glean for themselves. I thought an existing thread on your user talk might be the best place to raise these thoughts discreetly. Folly Mox (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I'll have a think about how and where to best add this context as the sentiment seems to have been shared, at least in part, by other BAG members. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Protecting Justin Sane page

Hi - I noticed you added protection for Justin Sane's page, and I really appreciate that! His and Anti-Flag's pages have been getting deluged with vandalism over the past 48 hours or so.

I don't know a lot about page protections, so I wanted to ask about Anti-Flag's page protection. You added an indefinite protection to Sane's page. But the Anti-Flag page only has a 7-day protection, due to expire early on July 27. Because a lot of the vandalism on Anti-Flag's page veers into WP:BLP-violating territory, I was wondering if there could possibly be an indefinite tag placed on their page as well, so things don't just pick up a week from now. (I don't know how to provide proof for this, but I actually know a specific online community where a lot of the IP vandalism is coming from, and I anticipate they'll just keep at it after a week.)

If not, I'm assuming it would be because Sane's page is actually a person's page, while Anti-Flag's is a band page. But I figured there was no harm in asking. Thanks again, and have a nice evening! Afddiary (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Afddiary How long a page gets protected for is largely down to the discretion of the protecting admin. In cases of very contentious BLP issues (and accusations of the nature that are (alleged?) to have been made are rarely not!) I tend to go indefinite until however long it takes to blow over, but others for a finite period of time that can be extended if needs be. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.

In general the best place to ask for page (un)protection is at WP:RFP, but if you have queries about specific action of (un)protecting then the best person to ask is the protecting admin, in this case Isabelle Belato for Anti-Flag. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Hello, Thryduulf,

Is there really a good reason why we can't create a soft redirect at User:Thryduulf/R to other wiki? Four times a day, I see your User page appear on User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects/Userspace as a page that is an error and needs to be fixed. Long ago I learned to ignore it but today, when another cross-wiki link on a User page appeared, I just have to ask, what purpose is served by keeping this mistake in place? Nobody sees it. There was 1 person who visited the page in the last 30 days and it was probably me just now making sure that I spelled the User page title correctly. The only links to this page exist on archived talk pages from editors who were probably asking the same question I'm bringing to you today. The only editors who come across this page are the admins and editors who patrol the broken redirects lists throughout the day who have learned that, for some reason, you want to keep this as is so they ignore it.

You created this page 10 years ago and I think whatever purpose it served since then has been accomplished. Let's make it a proper soft redirect and get it off of the broken redirect list permanently. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just fix the report. The page exists to demonstrate that redirects to other wikis do not work, because periodically someone suggests it as a viable solution for something. Making it a soft redirect would defeat its entire purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

Arbitration

The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admin action review - missing sig

Hi Thryduulf

I hope you're well. Just noting that you didn't put a signature on your close at [1]... It would probably be helpful to add one, so we know who closed it. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I came here to say the same thing. Thanks for your close, and I suppose it was an oversight that you didn't sign it? Bishonen | tålk 15:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the note @Bishonen and @Amakuru, it was indeed an oversight. I shall go and fix it now. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing list styles

Regarding this edit: leaving this comment by Marcocapelle as well as Marcocapelle's following comment as bulleted list items, while changing the prefixes of the comments after them so the prefix character at the level of Marcocapelle's comments is a : instead of a *, results in screen readers making extra list end/start announcements. (See User:Isaacl/On wikitext list markup § Screen readers for a bit more detail.) If you're trying to avoid mixing list styles, then Marcocapelle's comments should be changed into unbulleted list items. Otherwise, the prefixes for each reply should match the prefix of the preceding comment, with an added character at the end for the new nesting level. isaacl (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Isaacl, you may not be aware, but the advice given by WP:LISTGAP (and related shortcuts like WP:COLAS} partially stems from discussion some years ago involving myself, RexxS (talk · contribs) and Thryduulf. There is no record of our deliberations, it occurred whilst the three of us were sat around a table with two or three others, talking about accessibility issues in talk page threads. One of the other people was complaining that indent rules were too complicated to follow correctly, and I came up with two sentences, very much like this: When replying to a post that is indented with either colons, asterisks or hashes, copy all of these symbols from the start of that post, and to the right-hand end of these, add one more symbol of any kind, followed by your reply. Do not leave a blank line above your post. I can't find where we originally added it, but it's been copied to several advice pages, and occasionally modified. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the history. I imagine it was a momentary lapse that resulted in Thryduulf's overlooking this advice in their edit. isaacl (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that ::::*:* was problematic but that ::::::* was not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing from ::::*: to :::::: is the problematic part, since it causes all of the nested lists from the * onward to be closed and then reopened, with no visual effect (other than perhaps adding a negligibly small amount of whitespace). A change from ::::* to :::::, without adding any additional trailing prefix characters, results in a visible difference as the bulleted list is closed and then an unbulleted one is opened. The advice against mixing list styles is to avoid changing the list style used at any specific indent level (thus don't change the prefix string), though some editors do this deliberately, to indicate they are following up on (even if not directly replying to) the comment in the bulleted item, as opposed to starting their own new line of thought.

Preserving the existing prefix characters keeps all the nested list styles the same, thus avoiding closing and re-opening lists. If it helps, the prefix string doesn't specify indent levels with a bullet/number/no bullet specified at the end—it's a description of a set of nested list items. isaacl (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

Hello, Thryduulf,

I was glancing through the AFDs created today and in a number of them you stated you wanted to see a Redirect but didn't specify a target page or you simply said to redirect to "an appropriate article". This makes for a difficult situation for a discussion closer who is not supposed to come up with resolutions on their own but is there to assess the consensus of the participating editors. If you are arguing for a Merge or Redirect, please specify what the target article is or the closure can not happen in the way you are advocating it go. You might think that another editor will supply the information you left out but we have had very low turnout in deletion discussions in August (even lower than normal) so yours might be the only comment that is offered in an AFD. If you don't have a specific article in mind, if you could offer a couple of options or even just a pointer to where you think the discussion should end up, that would be appreciated. Because otherwise, if there is no other participation, I can see these AFDs closing in a different way than the position you are advocating.

Thanks for spending some of your time online assessing articles in AFD, we could use a few more dozen editors like you to pop in regularly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision posted for the SmallCat dispute case

The proposed decision in the SmallCat dispute has been posted. You are invited to review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Yüksek Hızlı Tren?

Hello as I see you are interested in trains might you have time to comment at

Talk:High-speed_rail_in_Turkey#Merge_Yüksek_Hızlı_Tren? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Bradv

Oversighter changes

Bradv

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MoS kerfuffles

Try reading what I have actually written rather than what you think someone with the motivation you ascribe to me would write. Please stop attempting to paint my disagreements as some sort of witch hunt, conspiracy theory, and/or fight-picking and accept that I might actually be here in good faith.

I've tried earnestly to do that for a long time (and I find myself in frequent strong agreement with you on many other P&G-related things, just not when you're on about MoS/AT/RM stuff). And I'm sorry you feel misunderstood. It's hard, because your pattern seems pretty constant, and really does seem like a pattern/habit. There is no assumption of "bad faith" in observing what seems to be long-term, consistent opposition to application of MoS (at RM and elswhere), especially with regard to lower-case but sometimes other things, repeatedly mired in personalization of style disputes (which WP:ARBATC's main point is to avoid the continuance of), especially against Dicklyon and me in particular, kind of as if we're a hive mind.

How on earth can it be suprising to you that I chimed in on Dicklyon's ANI, when I said really clearly that I was following the entire discussion on his talk page? How could it be weird to you that two MoS regulars, who are subject to frequent attacks and other nuisances from the "MoS haters" contingent would a) keep an eye on each other's talk pages, and b) disagree with what we see as bullshitty attempts to pillory our fellows simply for making content comply with guidelines that some people disagree with on a point here and there? I've said it many times and will say it again that MoS is guaranteed to generate piecemeal opposition, because there are pretty much zero editors who agree with every point all at once in this or any other style guide, and everyone who's a native English speaker has an innate sense of mastery of the language and brindles when they encounter publication-specific rules that don't agree with their personally internalized idiom. MoS is not faulty; it's just the nature of style guides. More broadly, it is a truism that any given editor probably does not agree with every single line-item in a given guideline or policy (on any subject), and also that no guideline or policy has agreement from every single editor. This does not make the P&G broken. We have "consensus is not unanimity" for a reason. If people disagree with something in MoS, they should open a discussion about changing it at WT:MOS, not fight, fight, fight, year after year, against MoS being applied as-written.

Anyway, maybe you really don't understand how your approach comes across as fight-picking and smacking of conspiracy-theory treatment, but when you negatively call out editors by name and treat them as if they're the same person or essentially indistinguishable, what reaction do you expect? Maybe it's not clear to you that a pattern that can't be distinguished from generalized opposition to MoS applying to things you care about, genuinely and naturally comes across as, well, generalized opposition to MoS applying to things you care about. If it's not actually your viewpoint and stance, then when does it usually seem to be your viewpoint and stance?

As to faith, I'm quite certain that various people who make a long-term habit out of monkeywrenching MoS as often as possible are acting in good faith. They firmly believe they are righting a wrong, based on either prescriptive grammar notions that got stuck in their heads from elementary school, or "there is only one way to write about [insert topic here]" ideas they've picked up from a sometimes professional, sometimes avocational circle of specialists writing for other specialists instead of for a general audience. And once in a while there's the "common-style" fallacy at work, in which someone mistakenly believes that whatever style is most common (almost always entertainment-news journalism) for a specific topic is how WP has to write about it. These ideas are not bad faith, but they are poor and fallacious ideas, and continual pursuit of them on WP is long-term disruptive. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. You haven't said enough at ANI so you felt the need to dump 700 words on a user talk page? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what you (SMcCandlish) wrote is irrelevant and way off base. I'm not at all surprised you chimed in on the Dickylon discussion, given that pretty much every time they come to admin attention you are there defending and enabling the behaviour that others find problematic. The impression I get is that you so strongly believe in the rightness of the MoS that the goal of enforcing it justifies all the means used to do so. The issue at ANI this time is not even trying to make articles compliant with the MoS (and many of the actual intended changes were correct), but introducing far too many other errors while doing so (the rate of errors is irrelevant, it's the number of errors).

Despite what you keep claiming (and despite my explicitly telling you again and again you're wrong), I do not think the MoS is broken and I don't have any problem with the MoS applying to any particular area of the encyclopaedia. I disagree with the interpretation of the guidelines in some specific cases, which is not the same thing. For example both you and I agree that proper nouns should be capitalised and common nouns lowercased, but we have disagreed over whether specific terms are or are not proper nouns.

As for what I wrote at ANI, someone else proposed a "topic ban from MOS edits". My comment was supporting some sort of topic ban but stating that the scope would need to be worded tighter than that because it's not clear what is and is not a "MOS edit" (topic bans with an unclear scope benefit nobody), and then gave a couple of examples of things that might or might not fall within that scope. It is entirely reasonable to ask whether the subject of the dispute last time Dicklyon was at ANI should be in scope. The answer might be yes or it might be no, but if there is going to be a topic ban the question does need an answer and in order to do that the question must be asked. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And then you proposed an over-reaching T-ban, that would have the umistakable primary result of getting rid of someone who regularly opposes your notions of what are proper names. It's exactly as I predicted, despite all those denials that this is what you were going for. [sigh]. It has utterly nothing to do with "introducing far too many other errors while doing [MoS compliance work]"; that would be solved by simply removing JWB/AWB access. I can't read your mind, and I'm trying to take you at your word on all of this, but at some point your declarations of what your actual intent and ideas are can't stand up to what you're demonstrably doing. There's an alleged Churchill quote about behaviour versus what people say that seems pertinent here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the T-ban proposal I refined from other's suggestion is over-reaching then it won't gain consensus in the same way the disproportionate site ban did not. Given you have very clearly made up your mind that I have various nefarious motives I don't think there is anything I can say to you that will convince you otherwise so I won't even attempt it. Time will show which of our views better matches the consensus of the community. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sat on this for a while to let the ANI drama play out. I don't think you have "nefarious motives"; most people who get "combative" about MoS/AT related things and against MoS regulars do not, but rather are firmly convinced they are doing the right thing for the project and perhaps the world – which doesn't make the results positive. How am I at fault, exactly, for finding it hard (see not just this thread, but the very similar one above from a while back) to shake the perception that you have an axe to grind with regard to capitalization and with editor Dicklyon in particular (and me barely secondarily). You're telling me you don't, and I'm trying to accept that, but can you not see, after all this detailed review over a pretty long time, how I could come to such a perception? For my part, I can accept your perception that I'm "enabling" allegedly bad behavior by Dicklyon; I don't need to claim you are "personally attacking" me to disagree with that perception. I don't think it's a crazy perception, just a very one-sided one, that simply provides further support for my counter-perception of axe-grinding. It's basically a form of bad-faith assumption to me – leaping to the worst possible conclusion instead of a more reasonable one; why I'm got involved in Dicklyons drama I have actually explained to you already at some length. With regard to you, I am not leaping to the worst possible conclusion (which would be that you really do have nefarious motives; I simply don't believe that's actually true at all). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my previous comment. You have apparently made up your mind that I'm not telling the truth, and nothing I can say will apparently convince you otherwise so it would be a waste of time for me to try. If you have a problem with my editing then take me to ANI or wherever, otherwise please just drop the stick. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2023 MTV Video Music Awards on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

re Partial block of Sandi0000

you're not even from Untied States and you blocked from edited? Sandi0000 (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [comment moved from irrelevant section elsewhere on this page][reply]

@Sandi0000: Where I am from is completely irrelevant. I am not involved in your content dispute, and have no desire to be involved, you need to discuss the contested edits with the editors who are contesting them before making them again. I blocked you becuase you continued to make the contested edits despite multiple people calling for you to stop and discuss things at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removal of valid wikilinks by Sandi0000. You must discuss things there and wait for that discussion to reach a consensus before making edits of the type objected to. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May want to check your response

In this edit, you responded to someone talking about "paying for Wikipedia advising" as if they had said "...Wikipedia advertising". If that's what you meant to do, fine, but if it was just a late-night stumble, you may want to correct it -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler thanks for the heads-up, it was an early-morning stumble rather than a late-night stumble but I did indeed misread. I've revised and expanded my comment. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]