This is an archive of past discussions with User:ToBeFree. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Just wanted to tell you that was a good suggestion, and I'm taking it. Thank you. (Sorry if this is the wrong place to send a message like this, I'm not up to date on all the wikipedia etiquette) ClearConcise (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi ClearConcise, I'm sorry to see that it had to end with such advice, but I'm very thankful for your message and your agreement. The page is correct, no worries.
Regarding the talk page discussion, you may benefit from knowing about WP:BLUDGEON, which is just an essay but describes a general community unhappiness about people replying to every comment in a discussion. I arguably made the same mistake when discussing the definition of vandalism at AN; it's a very easily happening mistake. As soon as you have presented your arguments, there is no real reason to write a new message for the sole purpose of repeating them. Those who have read your message(s) do know your position, and they're highly unlikely to change theirs just by reading the same arguments again. The best way to find a consensus in such situations is to wait for the opinions of others who have not yet joined the discussion. You shouldn't invite them manually, though, as that would be canvassing. When a discussion is linked from a highly visible noticeboard such as WP:AN, there's practically nothing productive you can do other than waiting.
Please let me know if any questions, especially about policies or guidelines, arise.
Clarification after re-reading my message: I'm not saying you're "bludgeoning" the discussion at the moment; I have written this in advance to make sure that doesn't happen. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Nah, I'm not replying in there at all, I'm done with that discussion. As I said, I'm taking your advice to bow out. It is hard when users get so accusatory and hostile and bludgeon the conversation as you put it, (never heard that one before), but sometimes you just gotta walk away :) Peace. ClearConcise (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
How to Establish MilitaryLand.net as a Trusted Source of Information?
Dear ToBeFree,
I hope this message finds you in good health. I am reaching out to inquire about the process of designating MilitaryLand.net as a reliable and trustworthy source of information. As I frequently refer to the content published on this website, I would greatly appreciate any guidance you can provide on how to establish its credibility.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my request. I look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Page protection for the article on Offensive Guard
Dear ToBeFree,
I am writing to request an increase in page protection for the article on Offensive Guard. It is a project of the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs with the aim to form new assault brigades in the structure of National Guard, National Police and Border Guards. I have attempted to increase the page protection level in accordance with the guidelines set forth in WP:GS/RUSUKR. Despite my efforts, however, my request has been denied.
I believe that the Offensive Guard page meets the criteria for increased protection outlined in WP:GS/RUSUKR. Given the potential for vandalism and misinformation, I strongly urge you to reconsider my request and increase the page protection level.
Hi, here [1], i saw that this article was deleted by you. I found many sources for the same as the subject was a minister under Government of Bihar and elected member of Bihar Legislative Assembly, which makes it enough to qualify for WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. So can i create it once again. Admantine123 (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi Admantine123, thanks for asking. The actual deletion reason can be found in the logs of another page: [2]
That was in 2020. The page creator, GargAvinash, was later unblocked by the community: [3]
There is nothing that would prevent you from creating the page; it was not deleted for notability reasons in the first place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Unnecessary edit war warning
I see that in this edit you wrote "in case someone wonders, the edit summary of ... the user's first edit, seems to have conveniently removed any need for an edit warring warning", following a warning I had posted. In case it's of any interest to you, I actually noticed that edit summary after I had posted the warning, and considered going back and blocking after all. In fact I decided to let it go, and just keep a watch for continuation of edit warring, but I would have blocked immediately if I had noticed the edit summary at first. JBW (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The AbuseFilter condition limit was increased from 1000 to 2000. [4]
Desktop users are now able to subscribe to talk pages by clicking on the Subscribe link in the Tools menu. If you subscribe to a talk page, you receive notifications when new topics are started on that talk page. This is separate from putting the page on your watchlist or subscribing to a single discussion. [6]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 March. It will be on all wikis from 30 March (calendar).
The legacy Mobile Content Service is going away in July 2023. Developers are encouraged to switch to Parsoid or another API before then to ensure service continuity. [8]
You recently posted this[9] notification on user:Golden's talk page, as a result of the AA3 case. Said user is still t-banned as per this[10] post, I quote: "...indefinitely topic banned from conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed."
This diff from 25 March 2023 shows said user removing/reverting the Kurdish transliteration from the Kalbajar District article, a district heavily involved in the ongoing Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. On the same day they removed a similar transliteration from the Lachin District article, another district heavily involved in the ongoing conflict. I'm wondering, does this constitute a violation of their t-ban? - LouisAragon (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi LouisAragon, as you have correctly emphasized above, "broadly construed" means that if there is uncertainty about whether it applies, it usually does.
I think the best approach in such cases would be informing Golden about your concern on their talk page. Their response to your message is then covered by WP:BANEX, and if it's unsatisfactory to you, WP:AE would be an appropriate noticeboard to ask for enforcement.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The system for automatically creating categories for the Babel extension has had several important changes and fixes. One of them allows you to insert templates for automatic category descriptions on creation, allowing you to categorize the new categories. [11][12][13][14][15]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 April. It will be on all wikis from 6 April (calendar).
Some older Web browsers will stop being able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis from this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. If you have an old web browser on your computer you can try to upgrade to a newer version. [16]
The deprecated jquery.hoverIntent module has been removed. This module could be used by gadgets and user scripts, to create an artificial delay in how JavaScript responds to a hover event. Gadgets and user scripts should now use jQuery hover() or on() instead. Examples can be found in the migration guide. [17]
Some of the links in Special:SpecialPages will be re-arranged. There will be a clearer separation between links that relate to all users, and links related to your own user account. [18]
You will be able to hide the Reply button in archived discussion pages with a new __ARCHIVEDTALK__ magic word. There will also be a new .mw-archivedtalk CSS class for hiding the Reply button in individual sections on a page. [19][20][21]
Future changes
The Vega software that creates data visualizations in pages, such as graphs, will be upgraded to the newest version in the future. Graphs that still use the very old version 1.5 syntax may stop working properly. Most existing uses have been found and updated, but you can help to check, and to update any local documentation. Examples of how to find and fix these graphs are available.
I think some of those are mine. Not intentionally breaking anything. Only noticed the issue because I accidentally clicked into the history. I know the evidence submission I just made had some of these; I'll check it now. It's the UTC part that needs to go? if I am right about that, no need to answer. If that submission is why I am on that list, my mistake, sorry. A lot of cut and paste was involved in putting that into date order, enough to make me resolve to find and/or write a script if I ever need to do that again Elinruby (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
i saw my name somewhere. If I haven't recently annoyed you I probably misread something I guess. I'll look eventually but I am not worried about it if you arent Elinruby (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
What prompted the protection? We've had a few content disputes over the last couple of years but nothing that got out of hand. The regular WP:CHESS editors like myself, User:Quale, User:Bruce leverett and User:Ihardlythinkso all monitor this page as a core chess article and regularly revert bad edits or vandalism. I just don't understand why it needs protection now. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
This led to a sudden increase in disruptive editing and a page protection request that seemed reasonable enough to action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey, TBF, I see you EC protected this, but the current edit warring is all EC editors. What do you think of full protect for a couple days? I'm asking because it would of course override the long-term EC protection. Valereee (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Valereee, thanks for asking. I have no objections to any level of protection if my long-term semi-protection is restored by the protecting administrator afterwards. I have partially blocked Kcmastrpc for two weeks as they seem to have caused most of the disruption, though, and we may want to see if that's already sufficient. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi
This page was eventually moved to draft space following article creation by a non qualified user. Now it has been moved from draft space back to mainspace by another unqualified user here. Its not that I object to the article creation itself, I would just prefer it were done by a qualified editor. Selfstudier (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Selfstudier, thank you very much for the notification. Courtesy ping Xaosflux. We should have protected the draft.
Hi Bri, thank you very much for the notification. I have now semi-protected the page for the duration of the block, re-blocked the block-evading address and reverted the block-evading edit.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
There was a problem with all types of CentralNotice banners still being shown to logged-in users even if they had turned off specific banner types. This has now been fixed. [24]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 April. It will be on all wikis from 13 April (calendar).
Starting on Wednesday, a new set of Wikipedias will get "Add a link" (Moroccan Arabic Wikipedia, Danish Wikipedia, Dinka Wikipedia, Lower Sorbian Wikipedia, Ewe Wikipedia, Greek Wikipedia, Emiliano-Romagnolo Wikipedia, Esperanto Wikipedia, Estonian Wikipedia, Basque Wikipedia, Extremaduran Wikipedia, Tumbuka Wikipedia, Fulah Wikipedia, Finnish Wikipedia, Võro Wikipedia, Fijian Wikipedia, Faroese Wikipedia, Arpitan Wikipedia, Northern Frisian Wikipedia, Friulian Wikipedia, Irish Wikipedia, Guianan Creole Wikipedia, Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia, Galician Wikipedia, Gilaki Wikipedia, Guarani Wikipedia, Goan Konkani Wikipedia, Gothic Wikipedia, Gujarati Wikipedia, Manx Wikipedia). This is part of the progressive deployment of this tool to more Wikipedias. The communities can configure how this feature works locally. [25][26]
Since Im new here, but not new because I was back editing to 2021 and I had an account. And revert people edits if they're Vandalism but, idk how to log in. 24.184.246.211 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi 24.184.246.211, I'm unsure how to help without knowing the account name, but I understand that you might not want to publish this information next to your IP address.
Please note that if your account is blocked as you indicate in Special:Diff/1148671805 on your user talk page, you may be block evading and thus qualify for being blocked again. If this is the case, you are required to appeal the block and wait for it to be removed from the account before continuing to edit. The account's talk page should contain instructions about this process. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
And I forgot my password so I have read Guide to appealing blocks to understand and use my ip as a backup incase and use it for unillegitimate reasons 24.184.246.211 (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
24.184.246.211, as you are evading a checkuser account block, I'll re-block your IP address for now. This doesn't mean that I oppose an unblock; I'm only ensuring that a proper unblock request is filed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, this appears to be a genuine WikiEdu project; see [27] for details and [28] for verification. Citations seem to have been provided by other participants shortly after the content was added.
If issues with the edits remain or problems arise, do feel free to treat problematic biographical edits exactly as you would otherwise do too: Challenge by removal, invite to a talk page discussion, enforce WP:BLPRESTORE if necessary. When live articles about living people are chosen as a sandbox for training students, part of the training should be receiving the usual feedback for mistakes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
And that's wrong as the (normal, unmodified) rollback tool is prohibited for this use-case. You have applied for a tool saying that you would (unintentionally) misuse it. Of course I have declined that. That others misuse rollback is hopefully not a serious argument against granting it when misuse is pre-announced in the permission request.
I think the best approach would be actively using the reviewer permission and reverting vandalism, and of course enforcing the verifiability policy (but then with explanative edit summaries), for a month or two, and then to re-apply with a statement that clarifies that, contrary to the time of your previous request, you are now familiar with the rollback guideline, know when (and when not) to use the tool, and have gained more experience by actively editing for two or three times the duration you had before.
Still getting my head around these changes. I see people doing all sorts of odd things. But shouldn't the editor be told that they should read the talk page as there may be restrictions, eg 1R? Doug Wellertalk16:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Doug Weller, heh, thank you and no worries. And we both mixed up "ab" and "ap" there, I see.
Regarding page-specific restrictions, these do not apply and have never applied if they're not announced in an edit notice that appears when editing the article itself.[old], [new] There is no need to check talk pages for page-specific restrictions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
The new Vector design does, or did, have some scrolling issues. Perhaps it's that. Most of it magically gets fixed over time due to others complaining... :)
Ouh. I thought it was the other way around. Your original message was about Abortion, with an edit summary about American Politics. I'll fix my fix. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Take a look at their talk page and their unblock appeals. Btw, just looked at how VE displays notices, very useful. But I don't particularly like VE. Doug Wellertalk07:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
At Wikimedia Commons, some thumbnails have not been getting replaced correctly after a new version of the image is uploaded. This should be fixed later this week. [32][33]
For the last few weeks, some external tools had inconsistent problems with logging-in with OAuth. This has now been fixed. [34]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 April. It will be on all wikis from 20 April (calendar).
Hi. There is something that I don't quite understand: the semi-protection that you applied to the article was supposed to last until august 2024, but for some reason, following a full protection that lasted 48 hours, the article is now unprotected and back to the usual IP disruption. Was this supposed to happen? Best, M.Bitton (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi M.Bitton, thank you very much for the notification. This does automatically happen because protections can't be stacked, only replaced. It is very unlikely to have been intentional, though, and I have restored the semi-protection now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Would I still be able to edit the Alain Prost article to complete the Good Article nomination I had made before the case started? This article is not really related to Armenia at all, aside from the subject's ancestry, and I don't think I'll need to specifically edit the one line mentioning that. Whether this counts as an Armenian article or not, I hope that an exemption can be made to implement any changes the reviewer suggests just to complete the GA process. Dallavid (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Dallavid, this seems rather theoretical at the moment. If changes are requested that are actually about the subject's ancestry, please ask again pointing to the request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
A question/request
User Gitz6666 made several comments that are irrelevant to the case, a distortion/mistranslation (e.g. I never said "shithole full of zombies") and offensive, i.e. this and this. He speculates about racists/racism, which has nothing to do with anything I said, about my "mental state" and "feelings". Would it be possible to remove these comments please? Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
OK, good. Just to be clear, I do think that Gitz6666 rudely distorted/misinterpreted my opinion/text as I explained [35], but let his claims remain on the page because he insists. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:OWN
Hi @ToBeFree: I understand I’m still on a one revert restriction so I’m stepping back from this but it would still seem @Scientelensia: hasn’t learned their lesson and is continuing with ownership behaviour on (Fabinho (footballer, born 1993)).
im only coming to you as you dealt with this previously and I have no desire to continue reverting. Cheers. RossButsy (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Dear Ross Butsy,
I have made the edits you requested and have researched why YouTube videos are unacceptable sources. However, I would urge you to select the content which you delete. I accepted your comments on this matter and have rectified the article. However, you deleted other content which necessitated the reverts so I could deal with what was wrong immediately. As I told you, “I have undone the revert for convenience as it saves me having to add everything else back, but as RossBusty has asked I have removed the “hoover debacle” video quotation as this is not an entirely reliable source owing to its mobile visual image status. For the addition of quote boxes, please refer to other articles where this has been successfully used, such asLionel Messi. If Butsy has any other removals to make, they should detail it on the talk page. Butsy please seewp:OWN.” I assure you and @ToBeFree that all my edits were constructive and I have added a lot more relevant info. I believe my reverts are justified as you removed many recent updates, not the specific content which displeased you (please see wp:OWN). I would also like to remind you that when you detailed your problems with the official club video as a source, I removed it as can be seen in the edit history. I encourage you to take potential ideas for reverting content to the talk page or detail your reasoning in the edit summary. I also do not believe that adding new content or undoing deletions of vast sections of content with on reason provided for the deletion of all of this text really constitutes “ownership behaviour”; in fact, I would suggest that you consider whether you yourself are exhibiting such behaviour, such as your multiple deletions and reversion for little valid reason recently on the Andrew Tate article after your ban.
I would urge you to resist from attempting to seek ‘vengeance’ on me for any mistakes you may have made or any ill-feeling you bear towards me since I commented on what I believed to be your unnecessary deletions. I do hope we can move forwards from this matter as I believe we are both attempting to improve articles for the better. Finally, I would recommend that you cease to use inflammatory or rude language, especially when it is not necessary, on others’ talk pages, such as calling a question over editing a “debacle” as if it was my fault even though this was not content which had been added by me (please see wp:TPG). To involve ToBeFree in such an inconsequential problem and to bother them with a somewhat biased message is not something I consider to be helpful or beneficial. Scientelensia (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the best approach in such situations is to disengage for a while. If a specific article, or a list of articles, repeatedly leads to conflict between two users, the affected pages would almost always benefit from independent contributions. It is unlikely that a severe issue that is immediately apparent to you will never be noticed by anyone else, so give others time to notice it too, and to deal with it without interference.
So if a third editor appears and removes statements that have been removed by you before, or restores statements that had been restored by you before, then you can treat this as a valuable third opinion. This is only true if said editor is experienced with Wikipedia's policies and not just a drive-by typo corrector without an account, or a vandal, of course.
Scientelensia's behavior may well (continue to) be problematic, but of all 45,427,243 accounts on Wikipedia, yours is perhaps the least ideal one for reporting it, due to your involvement. If Scientelensia is truly a disruptive editor, someone else will sooner or later complain loudly enough in the right places. Not you, please.
Thank you for your involvement and I am sorry that you have had to deal with this. Though I distance myself from the allegation of being problematic as I believe my edits to have been useful and justified, I accept your solution which is a very good idea.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Due to security issues with the Graph extension, graphs have been disabled in all Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Foundation teams are working to respond to these vulnerabilities. [37]
For a few days, it was not possible to save some kinds of edits on the mobile version of a wiki. This has been fixed. [38][39][40]
Changes later this week
All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on April 26. This is planned for 14:00 UTC. [41]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 April. It will be on all wikis from 27 April (calendar).
Hi Deepfriedokra, thank you very much for asking! All of these seem reasonable to me, although a week of semi-protection may be a bit optimistic. Erring on the side of caution, though, isn't something I can really criticize.
Would you mind me replacing the full protection by a long-duration ECP under WP:BLPCT in the next days, possibly even tomorrow, but absolutely before it expires? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
No and thank you. I did not want to give unfair advantage to ECP'd in a content dispute, but I suspect there's more to it than that. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
That's a perfectly fine decision, at least for the first hours. I think downgrading to ECP tomorrow may allow the such-enforced discussions to lead to helpful results. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi CNMall41, heh, thank you very much for the kind feedback for the custom message. Only the second section is templated, from {{uw-coi}}. There are also {{welcome-coi}} and {{uw-username-coi}} for similar (but slightly different) situations.
My custom message was written in the context of an article rejection in the face of IDHT behavior, though (courtesy ping Matt the Mech), and reusing the wording in response to less argumentative behavior could be unduly harsh. Like all text on Wikipedia, with WP:CWW in mind, it would be perfectly fine to create a template or simply copy when needed from it, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
You archived this too early. lol. Thanks for the notice. I saved them locally. I think I would only need the first one about 1 in 100 reviews and that is after the person has previously been told there was no improvement. Thansk again. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
IP evading block
Good day, I'm reporting a vandal who evaded a previous block by changing his IP code which was 151.30.243.31 and was blocked by you, currently it's 151.30.34.219 and is being used for the same kind of vandalisms, I think that you may be able to do something about it.151.82.213.149 (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I have applied a rollback request two days ago but no progress has been made yet. Even if the request is rejected due to any reason, I won't mind. But keeping like this is not good. Kindly please see the request and take necessary action (if required).
Hi NFRAPC, welcome to Wikipedia. Two days is a third of the time you've been on Wikipedia so far! Please take your time; there is no such need to rush things. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The Video2commons tool has been updated. This fixed several bugs related to YouTube uploads. [46]
The Special:Preferences page has been redesigned on mobile web. The new design makes it easier to browse the different categories and settings at low screen widths. You can also now access the page via a link in the Settings menu in the mobile web sidebar. [47]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 May. It will be on all wikis from 4 May (calendar).
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.
Seems we have a pair of IPs from the same general area intent on keeping the rabbi's controversial views out of the article. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, 76.119.253.82. I think you did most of the work in this case. Please let me know if you find more of these copyright-violating accounts. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to let you know that I have been suggesting for some time now that the 47th Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine) and 47th Assault Brigade (Ukraine) should be merged. However, as of yet, nothing has been done to move this proposal forward.
I would appreciate it if you could provide me with an update on the status of this proposal and any steps that are being taken to consider its implementation.
Hi Uwdwadafsainainawinfi, thank you very much for asking, and for proposing the merge. As far as I can see, there is no opposition to your proposal, Mzajac has explicitly voiced support for it at Talk:47th Assault Brigade (Ukraine), and multiple months have passed. If someone objects to you doing this, they can still complain afterwards: Please be bold and go ahead! You can do so as follows:
Thank you for your prompt response and detailed instructions on how to proceed with the proposed merge. I appreciate your support and encouragement to be bold.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Last week, Community Tech released the first update for providing better diffs, the #1 request in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey. This update adds legends and tooltips to inline diffs so that users unfamiliar with the blue and yellow highlights can better understand the type of edits made.
When you close an image that is displayed via MediaViewer, it will now return to the wiki page instead of going back in your browser history. This feature request was voted #65 in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey. [49]
The SyntaxHighlight extension now supports wikitext as a selected language. Old alternatives that were used to highlight wikitext, such as html5, moin, and html+handlebars, can now be replaced. [50]
Graph Extension update: Foundation developers have completed upgrading the visualization software to Vega5. Existing community graphs based on Vega2 are no longer compatible. Communities need to update local graphs and templates, and shared lua modules like de:Modul:Graph. The Vega Porting guide provides the most comprehensive detail on migration from Vega2 and here is an example migration. Vega5 has currently just been enabled on mediawiki.org to provide a test environment for communities. [52]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 May. It will be on all wikis from 11 May (calendar).
Until now, all new OAuth apps went through manual review. Starting this week, apps using identification-only or basic authorizations will not require review. [53]
There will be an A/B test on 10 Wikipedias where the Vector 2022 skin is the default skin. Half of logged-in desktop users will see an interface where the different parts of the page are more clearly separated. You can read more. [55][56]
jquery.tipsy will be removed from the MediaWiki core. This will affect some user scripts. Many lines with .tipsy( can be commented out. OO.ui.PopupWidget can be used to keep things working like they are now. You can read more and read about how to find broken scripts. [57]
Hi, as the edit warring at McAleer seems to be over and the editor has started talking (at least on their own talk page, where I'm engaging with them), do you think we could have the article protection lifted now please? I've checked the source used for the disputed content, and it looks like it's not RS and I'd like to tag it as such - I've started a discussion about it on the article talk page. (I'm watching the page too, and I'll come back if there's any further disruption). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Boing! said Zebedee, thanks for having a closer look at the article, discussing and asking for this. I have now unprotected the page.
That said, looking at Talk:McAleer, I currently remain... skeptical... regarding Queenmedb99's willingness to find a consensus before restoring changes others have already reverted multiple times. We'll see if a partial block turns out to be necessary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Good day, I'd like to report again the same vandal I reported last month, this time his IP code has become 31.190.112.97 and he's using it for similar vandalisms.151.82.233.57 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I reverted the second time because the user was clearly trolling by asking why I reverted their vandalism. I just thought it better to revert and ignore it. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Blocking these two ranges should stop that vandal for awhile... WHOIS only lists the /16 for each of them but those seem too wide for a block, so I think these two will suffice...73.67.145.30 (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi 73.67.145.30, thank you very much. I was about to say that the /16 range reported at WP:AIV was perhaps a bit excessively dimensioned. /21 and /22 seem to cover all the contributions for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
Citations that are automatically generated based on ISBN are currently broken. This affects citations made with the VisualEditor Automatic tab, and the use of the citoid API in gadgets and user scripts. Work is ongoing to restore this feature. [58]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 May. It will be on all wikis from 18 May (calendar).
Starting on Wednesday, a new set of Wikipedias will get "Add a link" (Gorontalo Wikipedia, Hausa Wikipedia, Hakka Chinese Wikipedia, Hawaiian Wikipedia, Fiji Hindi Wikipedia, Croatian Wikipedia, Upper Sorbian Wikipedia, Haitian Creole Wikipedia, Interlingua Wikipedia, Interlingue Wikipedia, Igbo Wikipedia, Iloko Wikipedia, Ingush Wikipedia, Ido Wikipedia, Icelandic Wikipedia, Inuktitut Wikipedia, Jamaican Patois Wikipedia, Javanese Wikipedia). This is part of the progressive deployment of this tool to more Wikipedias. The communities can configure how this feature works locally. [59]
Gadget and userscript developers should replace jquery.cookie with mediawiki.cookie. The jquery.cookie library will be removed in ~1 month, and staff developers will run a script to replace any remaining uses at that time. [60]
Hi Skywatcher68, if the editing continues from an autoconfirmed account, I wouldn't mind seeing that account and blocking it directly... or am I overlooking something? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Virtually all of the problematic edits came from one range, identified by WHOIS as being 122.171.20.0/22; a few related ranges have been involved and one unrelated IP participated in the original nonsense back in January. I'm suggesting a partial block for the ranges involved and possibly the other IP if they come back when protection expires. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Hm. With account creation disabled, that may be too large of a range to collectively block from creating accounts. Without, the block has no effect unless it affects logged-in editing by autoconfirmed users too, which I'd then prefer to see and block rather than preventing them from disclosing their sock identity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Apparently this article was the subject of proposed deletion back in July and there was a decision to keep. Now we have an IP insisting that the cleanup template is no longer needed, even though at least one issue (WP:PRIMARY) clearly has not been addressed. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, a "decision to keep" in response to a proposed deletion is just one single user's opinion, and even that opinion doesn't have to be strongly for keeping the article. Kvng, if I understand their edit summary ([61]) correctly, merely wanted to make sure that there is a proper deletion discussion.
If there is an actual lack of notability, AfDis the place to go, and forcing a {{Notability}} tag into the article is highly unlikely to help. Similarly, if issues caused by a conflict of interest actually remain after over ten years, they can surely be voiced precisely, and independently of the person who created the article.
I have thus re-removed the {{Notability}} and {{COI}} tags and removed the {{multiple issues}} shell that creates an unnecessary wall of text. Also, I have now welcomed 90.243.3.234(talk·contribs·WHOIS) and warned them about the policy against edit warring.
As there have been no other edits since September 2022, page protection would be hard to justify, and the user had not been warned about edit warring, so a block would be similarly hard to justify.
That's right. I don't have a strong opinion about whether this should be deleted but I expected there would be non-trivial discussion about it if sent to WP:AFD so WP:PROD was not the right path. ~Kvng (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I stand by my decision to prod it; the fact that the article isn't deleted if even one editor thinks it can be salvaged is how that process is intended to work, and it did. This community has determined that if no editor disagrees with the suggestion to delete, the article in question gets deleted. Did it not work that way? ~TPW13:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for asking. Oh my. I had looked at the article edits first and provided the usual templated advice, then noticed their talk page messages and now actually wrote personalized advice. I was about to endorse ScottishFinnishRadish's partial block, but seeing the entire list of contributions made me place a full 2-week block on top. Tough, tough. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Some thoughts on protection
Hi, To. (I feel I have known you long enough to call you by your first name.) I see you have semiprotected Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Piermark. You probably noticed that I had previously protected it and then unprotected it. The reason for that is that I found that at least one sockpuppet had edited on other pages, apart from that page and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Piermark, and in that situation it is often better to leave the usual target pages unprotected and watch them, since that way we can spot the vandal as soon as they act again, whereas if they can't edit the usual pages then they may just go ahead and vandalise other pages, which we can't watch, as we don't know which pages they may attack next. However, as my protecting first and then changing my mind and backtracking may suggest, I am far from sure which is best, so I have no quarrel with you over coming to a different decision than I did, but I just thought you might like to know. (Incidentally, I would have protected indefinitely, as it is difficult to imagine any situation in which an unconfirmed editor would have a legitimate reason for editing a sockpuppet category article, but there isn't really a lot of difference between indef and a year in this context.) JBW (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi – James? Oh, I hope I don't forget this. In 99% of the cases, I copy a username into {{u}}; on other users' talk pages, I even type {{u|{{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}}} regularly. So if it's "JBW" in a future message, please don't see it as a sign of distancing; it likely won't be.
I was about to ask you, then just went ahead with the protection as there had been further disruption since your decision. I did previously deny protecting at least one article for the same reasons that led to your unprotection, so I generally agree with your arguments.
In this specific case, my thoughts were as follows:
If I don't protect, there will be further sock trolling on that page.
If I protect, there may be further disruption on other pages, perhaps in articles, but the person seems to seek more than just attention: They seek attribution. Oh how unsatisfactory it would be if a Huggle patroller or ClueBot NG just threw their attempt into the recycle bin like any other vandalism.
And then I protected for a year. Why a year and not indefinitely? Because this way, I avoid spending time on the inevitable and somehow justified unprotection request that is made by a random editor twenty years later.
Ah, if only I had the luxury of thinking I might still be around to deal with unprotection requests in 20 years... As for "James", it's so long since I gave up that pseudonym that it quite startles me now on the odd occasions when someone comes up with it, as you have. My real first name is not a heavily guarded secret: there are numerous editors that I have met at Wikipedia meetups who know it, and there are two ex-admins who have been privy to my full name and address at one time or another, but JBW will do fine. However, if you ever do feel like alerting me while using a pseudo-first-name, you could use {{yo|JBW|label=J}}, which isn't really all that much more typing than {{u|JBW}}. (Well, it's a 100% increase in the number of characters to type, which in one way you could regard as a lot, I suppose.) JBW (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
PS: If the troll is happy and thinks they have reached a goal when seeing the page protection, I'm not unhappy either. Let them have their feeling of having reached a goal; it often comes with a tendency not to continue as the need for investing further work is gone. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, TBF. Someone called Reprogram needs help understanding what constitutes a reliable source and how to properly reference a source in the body of an article. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, the edit warring warning on their talk page seems to have helped: They're now discussing, and no revert happened since then. If the edit warring resumes, though, please file a report at WP:ANEW. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, not clear why you removed the content in the Ravioli's talk page. However I have already talked to the user, check his sockpuppet's user talk page User talk:Juan.Alvarez6. He keeps providing sources which do not prove what he states. But admin blocked me for edit warring indefinitely. Ok, bad behaviour, i take my responsability, it is correct to be blocked. But how about the sockpuppet behaviour? shouldn't we mean to delete information which are not supported by valid sources or anything is changed in wikipedia? Also, you ignored other comments on User talk:Xiaomichel by another user which was even more detailed than me. Frukko (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
if you suspect sockpuppetry, please create an investigation at WP:SPI. Regarding my removal, I'd say the edit summary of Special:Diff/1155925973 is already an adequate explanation and provides possible next steps. The dispute resolution policy contains further advice.
I agree that Stephen Hui's message on the same page is similarly focused on user conduct and not ideal to make on an article talk page.
I do not judge if the information should be removed from the article; I only try to make sure that there is no edit warring.
Can you help me? I'm really trying to have something I feel is inaccurate off of my own Wiki page and there seems to be this insane bunch of people determined to prevent me from doing that. I'm not adding anything insulting or controversial, I'm simply trying to omit language that mentions religion, which is inaccurate. Marble Argument (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Marble Argument, if I understand correctly, you are not actually questioning the factual accuracy of the content you have removed in Special:Diff/1156004221, except for the category (which I have removed for now). A mere dislike is insufficient as an argument, and you do not "own" the page.
So please correct me if I am wrong, by telling me exactly which sentence in the article is currently objectively, factually incorrect. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
"He is linked to Judaism through his father and is related to Leon Klinghoffer, the Jewish man in a wheelchair who was murdered during the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking.!6] His mother, though, is from Irish Catholic background."
This is what I have issue with. What is "linked to Judaism" and why is it on this page? Who decides when religion is included in a Wiki page? This is not a page for my parents. Perhaps they don't want this information on Wikipedia. Either way, as I originally said, if every person on Wikipedia had the religious affiliation of their parents listed, I guess I'd let it slide, but because some random person with their own agenda decided to include it, I think it should be omitted. I will prove to you that I am me any way you would like me to. Thank you. Marble Argument (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, I don't KNOW if there is a link to Leon Klinghoffer, if it is it's very distant and that is speculative. If I said there was a link in an interview, I surely followed it up with something that mentioned that it's possible that it's not true. Marble Argument (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Marble Argument, I don't need identity proof as your identity doesn't make a (positive) difference in this discussion. Multiple editors have attempted to explain this: If your identity has any effect, it's that you have a conflict of interest and are generally discouraged from editing the article directly. You can instead open Talk:Josh Klinghoffer and click "request corrections or suggest content" in the orange information box I have now added to the top of the page.
As you have good-faith concerns about the neutrality of the article, specifically the weighting of its content, the onus to obtain a consensus for including the disputed material is on those who would like to include it. I'll remove the disputed sentence for this reason for now.
If a discussion is created at Talk:Josh Klinghoffer about the content, you'd be welcome to join it. If a consensus is found for including the material, it can be re-included, so your arguments may make an important difference to prevent this from happening.
Also, while we're at it. Could you just go ahead and remove 'The Black Keys' from the Formerly of section? I played one song with them, one time (in 2003). Marble Argument (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
During the case, especially the evidence phases, I was way less active than I had hoped to be. I felt like having built a train, walking next to it until it suddenly started doing what it was built for, overtaking me at hundreds of miles per hour and leaving me a bit baffled behind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
An improved impact module will be available at Wikipedias. The impact module is a feature available to newcomers at their personal homepage. It will show their number of edits, how many readers their edited pages have, how many thanks they have received and similar things. It is also accessible by accessing Special:Impact. [63]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 May. It will be on all wikis from 25 May (calendar).
I always edit and add things according to reliable sources. I have done more than 950 edits and i am a extended confirmed user. I always follow the rules. Sometimes things go wrong because of some other people. I think i am a sensible user and editor here. Please unblock me i am appealing to you first. Thankyou. Rahil1610 (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
all articles related to the Russo Ukrainian war extended protected
I have several problems related to this article : The first of them is : there is an extended protection . Second: the article about the invasion itself is not updated. please remove the protection . And why is the article about the invasion not updated ? Kiriuxa2002 (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Citations can once again be added automatically from ISBNs, thanks to Zotero's ISBN searches. The current data sources are the Library of Congress (United States), the Bibliothèque nationale de France (French National Library), and K10plus ISBN (German repository). Additional data source searches can be proposed to Zotero. The ISBN labels in the VisualEditor Automatic tab will reappear later this week. [65]
For a few days earlier this month, the "Add interlanguage link" item in the Tools menu did not work properly. This has now been fixed. [67]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 31 May. It will be on all wikis from 1 June (calendar).
VisualEditor will be switched to a new backend on small and medium wikis this week. Large wikis will follow in the coming weeks. This is part of the effort to move Parsoid into MediaWiki core. The change should have no noticeable effect on users, but if you experience any slow loading or other strangeness when using VisualEditor, please report it on the phabricator ticket linked here. [68]
Hello, thanks for your reply on my talk page. It seems I just don't understand the rules. Some people say you shouldn't be called a sockpuppet without a WP:SPI I think and then I read this Bishonentalkcontribs m 15,211 bytes 0 Changed protection settings for "Adam Leitman Bailey": Persistent sockpuppetry: the semiprotection isn't working very well against some obvious sock puppetry. ([Edit=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite))
I do want to drop the matter but as you are the only person that has been kind then I thought I'd show you in the hope you could clarify things.
I understand your concern and agree that Bishonen's protection reason does seem to imply that you are a sockpuppet. The last blocked sockpuppet to have edited the page was blocked 4 months ago, so it would be hard to see this as anything else than a sockpuppetry accusation against you.
That said, concerns about violations of the policy against sockpuppetry, specifically its section about "meatpuppetry", can reasonably be voiced if a new user starts doing things sockpuppets have done before.
I thus, even if the accusation is completely incorrect, uncivil and upsetting, recommend to disengage from this situation as there is currently nothing you, me or other users could do to change it. You have chosen to make a potentially controversial contribution and have received a rather direct form of negative feedback; it clearly won't be taken back and it will have to be accepted as is.
I have provided further advice on your talk page (permanent link) in response to your other message.
My protection reason for Adam Leitman Bailey was not meant to imply I was calling Bijou1995 a sock. If I thought I had good reason to do that, I would have done it openly rather than by implication. While the last clear sock edit to the article was indeed several months ago, I was viewing that in relation to how sparsely the article is edited altogether. Three different sockpuppets can be seen in the first fifty edits, while the article was indeed semiprotected, and that's what I was thinking of. Bishonen | tålk21:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC).
Thank you so much for clearing things up like a gentleman, I shall check out my talk page.
all edits are done after mentioning in the Talk Page. There is no consensus in the respective article's talk page that it was edit warring. All sentences are provided with the respective valid academic citations. Reconsider the decision on blocking me. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi അദ്വൈതൻ, discussing on the talk page does not entitle you to repeatedly revert others' contributions. You are, however, welcome to continue discussing, and the block doesn't prevent you from doing so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
So far other's contribution haven't been repeatedly reverted or deleted by me. It's in fact the contribution did by me got reverted and deleted by citing edit warring. The contribution on already existing sentences by citing valid source material. If you please, you can check. Are contributions with valid proper citations supposed to be removed, just because one doesn't agree with? Then what's the point of citations? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
അദ്വൈതൻ, you have reverted others' contributions in the following edits, each automatically marked as "Manual revert" by the software:
I call that "repeatedly". You don't have to agree.
I do not judge the content; I look at behavior. This one is edit warring. Each edit that undoes another editor's contribution is a revert. You have made at least 10 reverts. Simple.
Here's a permanent link to the latest 50 entries of the article's history as of today: [79]
There are surely cases where an edit warring block placed by me is debatable, open to interpretation, a subjective decision. This one here isn't. I personally will not accept further appeals about this block. You can request an unblock using the instructions provided in my block notification on your talk page, and another administrator will have a look and provide a second opinion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
From points 1 to 8 reverting done till April have already took action against me and blocked me from all Wikipedia articles for one month period. Then why mention it again? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Because it proves a general behavioral issue that justifies a longer block duration. I don't like indefinite partial blocks because appealing them is an unjust nightmare, but 3 months seem pretty justified. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Each block issued on an editor should have been after considering the activities separately, that is, if a block was issued for breaking 3 rivert rule, and that activity of breaking 3 rivert rule shouldn't be taken for consideration for issuing another new block. Or is there any wikipedia policy to consider that too of which I am not aware of? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
While most of the page is about bans and not blocks, here's a good quote from the banning policy (WP:RECIDIVISM):
"Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions."
I have not mentioned the three revert rule anywhere. All I am concerned about is edit warring, which is not limited to making more than three reverts within 24 hours.
I will revert further messages in this discussion. If you disagree with the decision, feel free to request an unblock and someone will provide a third opinion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
User:അദ്വൈതൻ - I have reversed my closure of the DRN case. You are still expected to notify the other editors in their user talk pages. I will instruct the editors, including you, to be civil and concise, and will note that your arguments are not concise. Your arguments have not been helping your case. I have reversed my closure, and you may notify the other editors that you are requesting moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi ChrisWx, thank you very much for the notification, and for reverting the first of the disruptive edits on their talk page. While it's clear that the unblock requests would have been declined, removing a call for attention from other administrators is rather pointless at best. Please keep these if they appear. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Looks good to me, thanks for starting the discussion. Your proposal is now listed at WP:RM#C and announced at the top of the article. I'll invite Loafiewa to the discussion, as the original dispute had primarily been between you two. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the new tittle I proposed, should parenthesis be used or quotation marks instead? I was thinking VSS "Vintorez" and AS "Val" will be a more fitting tittle? Since in the Russian Wikipedia they use quotation marks instead of parenthesis? What do you think? Guns & Glory (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you help and step in on this? Loafiewa is stubborn enough to admit his wrong and refuse to acknowledge the 'common name' known is western media is inaccurate, misleading and incorrect. These rifles are made during the Soviet Union. My main point is to correct the spread of misinformation. I've given links to the talk page. Feel free to look at them. The common name, which is written as "VSS Vintorez" and "AS Val" have been popularised by video games then later adopted by American publishers that does not know much about the rifles. Russian based articles, and the OFFICIAL English website of the manufacturer and a promotional video they've made also backs my claim. Guns & Glory (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Guns & Glory, if I see correctly, you have not cited any policy or guideline in the discussion yet. Doing so would probably be a good thing to start with. I don't judge, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I fail to understand how VSS (Vintorez) and AS (Val) fails the COMMONNAME policy? I understand that the first dispute where I omitted the Vintorez and Val from the tittle fails the Common Name Policy. By putting the parenthesis, which separates the two names used individually to refer to the same rifles respectively would then support WP:PRICISE? Or did I get that wrong? Guns & Glory (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Guns & Glory, if I understand your comment correctly, your decision-making process regarding "reliability" in Wikipedia's terms would benefit from having read the "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources" section of the policy against original research. After having read this section, you may like to have a look at WP:RSP as well, which contains a huge colored table with examples and explanations for each one. The table row labeled "Wikipedia (The Signpost)" there could be helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
This argument about which name should be used started when I moved the page from 'AS Val and Vintorez' to 'VSS and AS'. Note that I was the one who moved the page from the former tittle (VSS Vintorez and AS Val) given after the merge of the AS Val and VSS Vintorez. I placed the AS Val first because I was following the alphabetical order guideline. Then when I was digging through reliable sources (also used by the Russian Wikipedia article of these two rifles). I realised that the VSS was produced first and the AS is simply a derivative of the VSS. That's why I want to put the VSS before the AS. Now regarding the new tittle that I moved it to which was 'VSS and AS'. After it was reverted, I understand that it does go against "COMMON Name" guidelines. So I decided to put a parenthesis on them. To give distinction between those names.
The above link is a reliable secondary source. The Val is under quotation marks. One of the most reliable English based source when it comes to Russian firearms puts the Val under quotation marks. Now the author of this website was interviewed by Forgotten Weapons during the interview he mentioned that the Val and Vintorez name were "names given to these rifles to confuse FBI, other agencies".
Here's the link to the interview in case you want to watch it.
This source is an updated version Jane's Infantry Weapons that Loafiewa mentioned. On this revised version they simply use the "VSS and AS" names.
Now these are the sources that Loafiewa gave during the past dispute when I moved the page to "VSS and AS". Note that these sources are not used on the article.
Jane's Infantry Weapons uses the name "AS silent assault rifle/VS silent sniper rifle"
Modern Snipers by Osprey Publishing uses the name VSS Vintorez (p. 229)
Jane's Infantry Weapons has been revised multiple times. Loafiewa did not provide a link so I would assume he was referring to this; https://archive.org/details/janesgunsrecogni0000hogg_m9y8/page/314/mode/2up?view=theater Which was published in 2005. On page 314, the name used on the tittle is "AS silent sniper rifle" Which is incorrect because the AS is not a sniper rifle. Now this could be a typo or it could also be referring to the VSS which is mentioned.
He did not provide a link for Modern Snipers
The National Interest is the only reliable source that he gave. Although this source is not currently used in the article. I'll assume that they got the name "AS Val" from Wikipedia.
Recoil's article is about a "homemade American VSS Vintorez". How can that be considered a reliable source? It's not even the actual VSS that the article is talking about?
Hello, ToBeFree,
I see you blocked LuGusDeclanBibaElodieBarnaby. They started out of the gate with reverting vandalism using tools and tagging pages for deletion using proper codes and even making a nomination at AFD after basically being active for a day. I know they are a returning editor but without CU goggles, I have no idea what sockmaster they might be. But hopefully this block will cause them to slow down because they had gone from 0 - 100 mph as a page patroller with apparently very limited experience. LizRead!Talk!06:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Liz, thanks for sharing the sockpuppetry concern which I agree with. The only reason I haven't addressed that at all yet is that they did add a statement to their user page which seemed... uh, credible enough for now. We'll see what their future editing brings; I'm afraid 72 hours won't suffice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
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.
I see an arb saying If there are other recent (i.e. post-2020) issues that merit a look, then I could be convinced otherwise., so I give him something else that merits a look, and you remove my edit as off-topic. wbm1058 (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
A lack of evidence, both regarding the username source (possibly available somewhere) and the alleged act of lying (generally hard to prove). If there is non-public evidence about this, submitting it privately seems preferable to making a public accusation with hidden evidence.
A lack of relevance, even with the quoted sentence from Primefac in mind:
2011 is clearly not "post-2020".
Unless the film character's name was "Scotty Wong" and Scottywong had converted this to "Snotty Wong" (not the case), there is not even a remote indication of this being an inappropriate way to choose a username.
Speculations about a possibly intentionally misstated source of a username go noticeably into a direction the outing section of the policy against harassment tries to push against.
The message seems to miss the point of the case; it makes an accusation of alleged misconduct that wouldn't be actual misconduct even if proven. If a user chooses to lie about the source of their username, that's perfectly fine (and, to summarize the actual idea that led to the whole case request, none of other users' business).
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The RealMe extension allows you to mark URLs on your user page as verified for Mastodon and similar software.
Previously, clicking on someone else's link to Recent Changes with filters applied within the URL could unintentionally change your preference for "Group results by page". This has now been fixed. [81]
Problems
For a few days last week, some tools and bots returned outdated information due to database replication problems, and may have been down entirely while it was being fixed. These issues have now been fixed. [82]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 June. It will be on all wikis from 8 June (calendar).
Bots will no longer be prevented from making edits because of URLs that match the spam blacklist. [83]
Hi, TBF. Seems to me that some of the legal issues section is appropriate for the article. The facts that there was a lawsuit and it got thrown out, for example. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, if we assume that Salander2000's concern is a good-faith one, the best (and possibly the only policy-compliant) way to restore the material is to seek a consensus for doing so on the talk page of the article. This may well result in a consensus, but that consensus would probably be required.
As the removal is a direct revert of an IP edit made shortly before, I suspect we'll see an edit war instead soon, and the only version I can reasonably protect is the one without the material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Marriage in Ancient Rome
You will recall that about a week ago, you partially blocked a user from Marriage in ancient Rome for edit-warring. I first closed a DRN request, and then you said that your objective had been to encourage rather than discourage discussion. I reopened the case, and reminded the user in question to notify the other editors on their talk pages. The filing editor never did notify the other editors. The DRN case has now been archived by the archival bot because it had no activity for 48 hours after the expiration date, and I hadn't extended the expiration date. So maybe that editor doesn't care that much about discussion, or, maybe, doesn't understand the advice to contact the other editors. They can always resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
A recent restore of many previously removed and discredited edits by user Chrma626 have now been picked up by MartinPict and these new edits have ineligible sources (auction results), sources that do not confirm the assertions made in the Wiki page, incorrect information (Pierre Laval, for example, was not ever nor alleged to be a Nazi) and these recent changes reflects a negative bias toward and imbalance of tone on the page with an overemphasis on World War II -related allegations without adequate sources. To followup on your earlier actions on the Baccarat Talk page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baccarat_(company) ) there is evidence of citing user-generated content, original research based on primary sources, combining sources into something neither said, and an apparent lack of relevance. 104.234.53.123 (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi 104.234.53.123, it's been a while! I'll have a look later, but I'm not sure if I'd re-join the dispute today. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey! How are you? I am the user of Pep Guardi who recently reported some misbehaviours caused by a user on Baruch Spinoza article. I am quite new on here then I am still learning some things. So just few minutes ago I discovered that I could revert the page to the stable version prior to that edit warring caused by the blocked user and this wouldn’t mean any edit warring given that “Reverting edits of banned or blocked users is not edit warring”, so my “ignorance” on this rule made me take a while to take that action hahah. However, I found really intriguing when I did the reversion that there was an edit made by a new user (Boerboel Yzer) which is the very same that was done by the blocked user (Awater01). I checked it and he/she is a new user that created an account like 2 hours ago and has 8 reversions out of a total of 11 edits… something quite weird for a new user and reproduce the vary same behaviour of the blocked user (Awater01). I was trying to find how to report it so that someone can check if it is sockpuppetry. Could you help me to report it? I mean you were very kind with me giving me advices of things I should avoid during arguments on Wikipedia, so I would very happy if you could help with this as well (and I hope I am not doing anything wrong haha) Thanks :)
Ps: the suspicious “coincidence”: the “new” editor deleted the word “and”, something that was always there and the only one who made a point in deleting it was the now blocked editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baruch_Spinoza&diff=prev&oldid=1158882459PepGuardi (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
PepGuardi, that exception is relatively surely meant for edits by users who had been blocked or banned at the time of the ban, and this restriction is described in various places such as WP:3RRNO, WP:BE, WP:BANREVERT, WP:ROLLBACKUSE, WP:G5 et cetera. The sentence you have found is the only one I am aware of that doesn't make this clear, so no worries. One might even argue that you are right and it applies to all blocked users. I've been wondering about that specific sentence for years.
Hey thank you once again for the patience and explanation, I am quite new on here so I get a bit reluctant sometimes on how to handle some situations on Wikipedia, situations like that yesterday that was a bit distressful (I guess how many like that you guys have to handle every day). As for the possible sockpuppetry I have just reported it as you told me to do ( and I hope I have done it correctly haha I put it on the end of page). Many thanks ;) PepGuardi (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
PepGuardi, almost done correctly. Please click "Show" next to "How to open an investigation:" at WP:SPI, then enter "Awater01" in the box and click "Submit". A page with further instructions will open. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I will do that now, but look at what happened on the page now please, another user created this morning goes to the page with the very same behaviour, same edits… I am starting to get a bit concerned, if it is really the same person, he/she won’t stop, we don’t know how many users he can creat… what could we do? Perhaps a page protection? But even so I guess he will keep replicating same behaviour in other pages… PepGuardi (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
PepGuardi, a late update on this. Please don't join the discussion there, but you may like to have a look at User talk:G. Trimalchio. Hopefully with a feeling of relief, now that there is such a clear confirmation of what you had suspected. If this continues, please let me know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I was reading all that argument. OMG it’s mad to think that she/he put himself in that situation just to call “Dutch” some who in fact was just a Jew refugee among many others refugees at that time. But you know once a rejected person becomes a worldwide famous thinker everybody try to claim his nationality. Today I spend some hours reading many arguments that happened on that article, and I realised that it is not the first time the same problem happens on that article, there was a time someone was trying to call him Spanish hahaha… that is what I mean when I told him he was mixing his Dutch patriotism with facts. And as you can see the stable version, which you reverted the article to, is perfect to prevent those edit warring from happening again because it doesn’t claim any nationality. And that was a kind of happy middle to all editors with different views, so the page was without any edit warring for months. That is why I found really suspicious when I saw 3 editors doing the same claims in the same day, it was calm and ok for everybody for months. However, do you really think he will stop? I don’t know, it seems he is kind of obsessed with that. What do you think about a sort of page protection like for new users? (Even though it wouldn’t be hard for him to find someone to make same edits, what is kind of crazy because it ignores a consensus that avoided edit warring for months)… apologies for the long response, but I as you can see I get a bit shocked, and I have a feeling that suddenly after some days or weeks we will see the same edits again ( if you catch my drift hahaha ) PepGuardi (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
First of all: Hi SamX and thank you very much for the notification.
RossButsy's semi-retirement notice was replaced by "I'm out" and there are hopefully currently enough eyes on this situation. They have received a WP:ARBGS alert too.
Regarding the article itself, I guess we can agree that there are some significantly more disruptive diffs than RossButsy's from the last weeks, notably Glennlayne's and Oscillates's. I'll risk waking up the latter to further disruption by notifying them about the contentious topics procedures in this area. If they respond by making further similar edits, I'd rather see and block for them right now rather than randomly stumbling upon them after months.
I have extended-confirmed the page for a year now as even – possibly... – good-faith contributions from newcomers failed to do anything than decreasing the article's quality.
Please keep me updated about this in case you see something on these pages or from these users earlier than I do.
I’m not going anywhere near that article or any other similar article for the record. Yeah my comments on the talk page may have been a tad on the mean side but my edits were sourced and made in the aim of adding to the page. Real life matters mean I’ll be gone from editing for the foreseeable future and when and if I return I’m still not going back to those pages. RossButsy (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi again, TBF. Looks like there's a bit of confusion here; one editor claiming to be a relative of the subject continually removes sourced content regarding the subject's Romani heritage. Apparently the editor believes the content claims that the subject is Romani rather than Greek with Romani heritage. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree, I'm not quite sure about the appropriate noticeboard for this, so if you've got time, you might want to take a quick look at User talk:Hamaredha#applying for: one user revealing their conflict of interest regarding Ali Ahmadzadeh (quite obvious anyway looking at their xwiki contributions [84][85]), the other one asking to be paid for writing the article... Johannnes89 (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Johannnes89, possibly WP:COIN or even WP:ANI – but I think I've dealt with this for now. I have closed the linked discussion, warned Hamaredha about this having been inappropriate (WP:UPNOT and WP:COI § Solicitations by paid editors come to mind), and asked them to properly disclose any paid contributions made so far.
S-M-T-AA's fawiki block appears to be sockpuppetry-related (disruptive logged-out editing?), but I guess that was limited to fawiki. I'd else need to see evidence of it having happened here as well.
I have informed S-M-T-AA about the conflict of interest guideline, recommended that they do not do business with Hamaredha, and copied their disclosure to the article's talk page. I have additionally added a {{COI}} tag at the top of the article itself. As the page has already been reviewed, the only way to deal with neutrality issues is to improve the article (speedy deletion or draftification generally can't be used at this point).
Hi Guns & Glory, I think at this point, you're looking for a third opinion. The discussion between you and Loafiewa is running in circles. You can either wait for a third opinion to appear in the move discussion, or perhaps request one at WP:3O – an unusual thing to do during a move discussion, but probably helpful in this specific case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Tech News: 2023-24
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The Search Preview panel has been deployed on four Wikipedias (Catalan, Dutch, Hungarian and Norwegian). The panel will show an image related to the article (if existing), the top sections of the article, related images (coming from MediaSearch on Commons), and eventually the sister projects associated with the article. [91]
The RealMe extension now allows administrators to verify URLs for any page, for Mastodon and similar software. [92]
The default project license has been officially upgraded to CC BY-SA 4.0. The software interface messages have been updated. Communities should feel free to start updating any mentions of the old CC BY-SA 3.0 licensing within policies and related documentation pages. [93]
Problems
For three days last month, some Wikipedia pages edited with VisualEditor or DiscussionTools had an unintended __TOC__ (or its localized form) added during an edit. There is a listing of affected pages sorted by wiki, that may still need to be fixed. [94]
Currently, the "Sort this page by default as" feature in VisualEditor is broken. Existing {{DEFAULTSORT:...}} keywords incorrectly appear as missing templates in VisualEditor. Developers are exploring how to fix this. In the meantime, those wishing to edit the default sortkey of a page are advised to switch to source editing. [95]
Last week, an update to the delete form may have broken some gadgets or user scripts. If you need to manipulate (empty) the reason field, replace #wpReason with #wpReason > input. See an example fix. [96]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 June. It will be on all wikis from 15 June (calendar).
VisualEditor will be switched to a new backend on English Wikipedia on Monday, and all other large wikis on Thursday. The change should have no noticeable effect on users, but if you experience any slow loading or other strangeness when using VisualEditor, please report it on the phabricator ticket linked here. [97]
Future changes
From 5 June to 17 July, the Foundation's Security team is holding a consultation with contributors regarding a draft policy to govern the use of third-party resources in volunteer-developed gadgets and scripts. Feedback and suggestions are warmly welcome at Third-party resources policy on meta-wiki.
"Reliable" in Wikipedia just means "conforming to a desired narrative." You have made this clear on many occasions, Hob Gadling. Unfortunately casual readers erroneously assume that "reliable" has some sort of connection with accuracy and truth, which of course it doesn't.[98]
Scientific sources routinely lie. Scientific papers are routinely retracted. See here[99]
Please clarify what it actually means to "do science."[100]
You could literally shut down Wikipedia if you don't like sources with "unverifiable statements." Don't ever quote most of the MSM.[101]
Hi Shibbolethink, the IP address seems to be highly static, looking at similar edit summaries going back to January 2023, with apparently zero false positives / other users. It may thus be reasonable to just treat this address like an account that was created in January 2023. With this in mind, I'd like to see at least one warning mentioning the possibility of a block before placing one, and would even suggest starting an ANI discussion (proposing a one-year block) in case the issues persist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Fair point, they should at least be given the chance to figure out what Wikipedia is all about. I'll place a warning and see if it has any effect, and go to ANI if it does not! Thanks TBF — Shibbolethink(♔♕)04:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey Tobi! A couple of days ago, I had a dream that we both are eating Dosa while our bikes are being repaired. Not in Deutschland but somewhere in India. Just wanted to share with you! — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey DaxServer, that's cool! I do have a bike, but it's one of these that cost less than 300 € new and are unsuitable for anything but city travel. Using it in hilly Wuppertal with its altitude differences of up to 200 metres is already a pain.
I have no problem at all with the unblock. I would ask that you keep an eye on him for a while. Thanks for the very fair way you handled this situation. Sundayclose (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Sundayclose, thank you very much for the kind feedback! I may not be able to provide a helpful level of oversight in this matter, but I'll probably have a look from time to time. I was afraid either the block or the unblock might have been bad decisions, so seeing your message is really valuable to me. I hope Kesc4399 doesn't absolutely completely disagree so I can sleep well with both decisions made now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
RfPP archiving
Thanks for filling in for the absent bot. I took the liberty of moving the entries from May to June, having first consulted my calendar. Regards, Favonian (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if you already know about it or are interested in such activism, but there's a demo this morning in the city against the PAG. Reading thru https://www.nopagby.de/ about the PAG is rather concerning but I'm not surprised of the Kontrolle asserted by the Polizei Bayern. Heard of it in several forms from several people. Some photos: Category:NoPAG protest in Munich 2023 — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi DaxServer, thanks – I'm far from Munich and don't participate in political activism (other than publishing as much as I can under free licenses, which some may view as a political thing to do). I found the photos interesting to look at though. A quick overview of people spending time in ways I couldn't really imagine to do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I have to ask a dumb question, to be certain: If editor A makes 4 edits adding a paragraph each to an article, and editor B comes along and hits Undo for each one - 4 reverts in say an hour, did editor B violate 3RR (assuming not obvious spam, vandalism, etc.)? Scenario 2: Same actions by editor A another day, another article. If editor C comes along, and makes one manual edit that removes all 4 additions of editor A, did editor C violate 3RR? It seems you would say No for editor C, but Yes for editor B, and this is a huge loophole. -- Yae4 (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Yae4, edit warring isn't defined by the three-revert rule. There is no "loophole" about this because the evaluation happens manually and is unrestricted by 3RR.
Scenario 1: No, assuming these reverts are consecutive edits without others in between. Possibly, if there are edits between each of them. Yes, if there are edits between each of them and these displayed a clear objection to each of the reverts.
Scenario 2: No, clearly not.
I don't see an issue with this, but a noticeable amount of people (not just you) focus way too strongly on "three reverts per 24 hours", up to misinterpreting it as "three reverts per 24 hours are not edit warring". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Tech News: 2023-25
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Flame graphs are now available in WikimediaDebug. [102][103]
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
There is now a toolbar search popup in the visual editor. You can trigger it by typing \ or pressing ctrl + shift + p. It can help you quickly access most tools in the editor. [104][105]
I think my version seems to be right as well. I am not aware of any definite announcement yet, just hope disruption won't extend any further. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Question
I recently got a message on my talk page about the restrictions non-extended confirmed users have when it comes to the Russo-Ukrainian war articles, I am Extended Confirm by request, and wonder if that still counts with the Russo-Ukrainian war articles like the one I created that was recently deleted. RowanJ LP2 (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Ouuuuh damn. Sorry. I have overlooked this, Tamzin probably too. Keeping in mind that the war is a contentious topic and that your article was criticized for its lack of neutrality by Simonm223, the page will probably be restored. Please carefully listen to Simonm223's concerns. Non-neutral/non-verifiable contributions to this area can quickly lead to a topic ban, and there may not be a warning except this one here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I'd missed that too. Well, RowanJ LP2, I apologize for the misunderstanding, and I will restore, but please do read WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. I'd suggest moving the article to draftspace for a bit so you can work on those issues; otherwise it's at substantial risk of being nominated for deletion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)15:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I see RowanJ LP2 is in great company and totally not running into trouble.
RowanJ LP2, the best advice I can give you at the moment is to stop editing about the Russo-Ukrainian War because continuing in the way you did so far is almost certain to result in a ban or block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thank you – I'll keep the 2020 account unblocked as there's no proof in this direction and I could else get anyone's old account blocked by mimicking them. However, the 2023 account is clearly disruption-only and either for trolling or continuing the 2020 disruption. Thus I have blocked it now. If the 2020 account is later revived for further similar edits, please let me know and I'll block that one too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Baccarat - Factual errors and questionable neutrality
Hi! I'm confused about the protection policy. Per WP:PREEMPTIVE, Applying page protection as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed if applied solely for these reasons. Per WP:ECP, Four topic areas are under Arbitration Committee "extended confirmed restrictions" as a general sanction, in which only extended confirmed users may edit affected content; one is under a similar community general sanction. Should pages be extended-confirmed protected if the page is related to Russo-Ukrainian War (WP:GS/RUSUKR) and only extended-confirmed editors have edited this page so far? The person who loves reading (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi LordKulgur, thanks for the quick notification and especially the link to the latest still-blocked IP address. I do normally prefer SPI, yeah – it distributes the workload and allows others to help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi again, TBF. Two IPs have been claiming the subject has divorced Mr. Pond but have yet to provide a reliable source. The most recent edit summary contains a BLP violation against Mr. Pond, which should be deleted. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thanks for the notification! Verifying even the name of the article subject is tough for this article. With MOS:LASTNAME and the summary in mind, Special:Diff/1161447758 was indeed pretty disruptive. This seems to be a longer-term issue; I have semi-protected the article for three months and blocked the IP address from editing for two weeks. The latter seems necessary because they started replacing the name in existing talk page comments too.
I find it pretty interesting that Special:Diff/1144264497 and Special:Diff/1144268824 come from the same IPv6 address (the same device, not just the same internet connection). The first diff refers to the article subject as "She", the second diff as "I". My personal intepretation is dishonesty, claiming to be whoever might have the most power to push the change through. Doesn't work as someone else? Well, then I'm suddenly the article subject. Doesn't work either? Okay, I'm not the article subject anymore. Let's make a severe accusation against a living person instead, perhaps that's more persuasive.
And the answer is "no", that doesn't work. If they had removed outdated paragraphs, we could be discussing this. All I can do is [106]; not even the infobox has outdated claims about a current spouse.
Assuming that this isn't a trolling attempt and someone genuinely concerned is overreacting here, there seem to be two ways out of the dilemma, and not many else:
Cruel reality: Becoming notable under a certain name may result in the perpetual existence of a Wikipedia article under that name, even if the name later changes. There are guidelines in place to make this as less likely to happen as possible, but here we have a case where it does happen. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah, sorry Skywatcher68, I should have addressed that. I currently assume both are the same person, someone making these edits and then complaining about them having been reverted for political reasons. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for creating that investigation, 10mmsocket, and for notifying me about it. What you describe as the "nail in the coffin" there is really as clear as I could ask for. I didn't expect this when I saw both editing the page, but this was a surprisingly simple decision. The copyright question was harder. Thanks again! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks from me too, not least for the thoughtful and reassuring edit summary. I'm familiar with the fact that there's no copyright in data, nor even in tables of it, but I'd never thought about the combination of data and boilerplate text. I see "we intend to get the user removed from Wikipedia!"[107] – I think they mean me but I haven't figured out how they'll do it yet. :) NebY (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Heh I'm not a lawyer though. I wouldn't have complained about someone performing the deletion either. Thanks for the kind feedback! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Tech News: 2023-26
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Action API modules and Special:LinkSearch will now add a trailing / to all prop=extlinks responses for bare domains. This is part of the work to remove duplication in the externallinks database table. [108]
Problems
Last week, search was broken on Commons and Wikidata for 23 hours. [109][110]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 27 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 28 June. It will be on all wikis from 29 June (calendar).
The Minerva skin now applies more predefined styles to the .mbox-text CSS class. This enables support for mbox templates that use divs instead of tables. Please make sure that the new styles won't affect other templates in your wiki. [111][112]
Gadgets will now load on both desktop and mobile by default. Previously, gadgets loaded only on desktop by default. Changing this default using the |targets= parameter is also deprecated and should not be used. You should make gadgets work on mobile or disable them based on the skin (with the |skins= parameter in MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition) rather than whether the user uses the mobile or the desktop website. Popular gadgets that create errors on mobile will be disabled by developers on the Minerva skin as a temporary solution. [113]
All namespace tabs now have the same browser access key by default. Previously, custom and extension-defined namespaces would have to have their access keys set manually on-wiki, but that is no longer necessary. [114]
Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification. I have semi-protected the page for a while and stopped the alleged conflict of interest editing without making it a part of the block reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ToBeFree, thanks for reverting vandalism! I wonder if you are interested in our ongoing study for anti-vandal patrollers. The study aims to evaluate AI models that power recent change filters, Huggle, SWViewer, and many other anti-vandal tools. Your feedback can be really helpful! If you're interested, please check out our recruitment page for more information. Thank you for your consideration! Tzusheng (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi again, TBF. Looks like we have a POV-pusher trying to arrange this list into a non-standard format. I briefly looked at other Indian surnames and did not see any arranged according to heritage. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, the IP and the registered editor now have a talk page with a 3rr notice. Pretty clear that they're the same person trying to circumvent 3rr. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Skywatcher68, thanks – you haven't described your actual concern anywhere else than on my talk page and in edit summaries yet, though. I find it unlikely that they're trying to circumvent a rule they aren't aware of. It's more likely that they created an account to avoid being reverted for not having one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for protecting the French conquest of Algeria and rev-deleting the disruptive material. The editor in question is an obvious sock of "Norprobr" (see the list of socks that they created last week). After the recent block of "Gautretlion" and "Giuliottis", they created yet another sock (Radichsper) to target one of the usual articles.
Hi M.Bitton, thank you very much for the details behind this case – sounds like a case for an edit filter by now. Would you mind requesting one by sending an e-mail to wikipedia-en-editfilterslists.wikimedia.org with any additional information that can help to automatically identify the socks? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks again for dealing with the disruption. You're right, playing whack-a-mole with them is not sustainable. I will collect as much relevant info as I can and request an edit filer. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree, As a new page patroller and an experienced AFC reviewer, I kindly request that you move this page B4blaze to the Draft space and allow me to expand and improve upon its content using reliable sources. Additionally, if possible, could remove the name protection for this page? Padavalam🌂 ► 18:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi LordKulgur, thank you very much for creating the SPI and for providing the two quick comparison links. I have blocked 50.226.42.131 for three months and protected the article for a year now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The title of a case is normally the oldest account name of the sockpuppeteer. For example, if someone has edited as 203.0.113.0, "ExampleUser" and 203.0.113.1, then the case title would be "ExampleUser". I assume that there was no registered account yet? Then I'd suggest using the first IP address they have ever been blocked as. Perhaps ideally an IPv4 address because these are shorter. I'm not an SPI expert though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
From this week all gadgets automatically load on mobile and desktop sites. If you see any problems with gadgets on your wikis, please adjust the gadget options in your gadget definitions file. [120]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 July. It will be on all wikis from 6 July (calendar).
Hey how are you? Awater01 attacked again Baruch Spinoza page this time with the user 2600:100C:A211:73E1:A08C:466D:DF88:F3BB (same behavior, same edition, user joined in July 1st and few edits afterwards…) PepGuardi (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree. I'm not asking for any administrative action at this point. I just wanted to keep you updated. Kesc4399 has resumed edit warring by removing this content for the fourth time, without consensus, which I have challenged. The content is properly sourced. If you cull through his walls of text you'll see that his only reason for removal is that he personally doesn't believe it happened. In the past he has asked for a source that King's family made the statement, but it is in the source which is cited before his removal of the content. I added a second source, even though that's not necessary. Hopefully this is the end of Kesc4399 edit warring. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Skywatcher68, enforcing WP:BLPRESTORE (and sometimes WP:ONUS) is fine, but should be described as such, explicitly, in the edit summary. Special:Diff/1163586038's summary is relatively clear about your concern ("previously removed as"). Special:Diff/1163588209's edit summary looks as if you had checked this, though. I'm disappointed to see that this isn't the case. So the concern was strong enough for reverting twice, and then magically disappears when challenged on the talk page. I have fully-protected a high-profile page in response to a non-existent concern. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
My apologies. I should not have become so involved but when I saw that the interested parties had yet to return to the Talk page to discuss the matter, I thought I was doing the right thing. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the notification about both. The organization interestingly has its own /29 IP address range; thanks for tagging it. The user and the range are now blocked from editing Wikipedia.
I have removed the obvious copyright issue and deleted the revisions, but whether the "Controversy" section is helpful isn't my decision. I have neither verified nor restored the content, but you would probably be able to do so without interference now.
I've been helping maintain the Sound of Freedom article, which has been subjected to near-constant edit warring lately. One especially debated-over topic is, as you put it, "a (sub)section dedicated to connections to QAnon", which now has its own sub-section on the Talk Page. Does it seem like a consensus has been reached yet there, and if so, what should be done with the section? I'd like to reach a solid decision one way or the other, just to prevent any further edit warring. Thanks. --Neateditor123 (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Neateditor123, thanks for asking! First of all, I should clarify that I am fine with either state of the article. I hope my reliability question in the RfC hasn't made an impression of this not being the case. To ensure the highest level of neutrality, I won't be the person evaluating the consensus though. This usually happens after 30 days, and the result is binding: If a consensus for (or against) inclusion is found through such an RfC, those ignoring it are usually quickly reverted and sanctioned.
As far as I can see, the discussion has just begun though, and there's no obvious consensus for either view justifying quick action yet.
Hi again. I stopped by recent changes during a moment of boredom and came across this messy edit war; one participant has been blocked as a sock and another blocked on suspicion of that sock editing while logged out. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
This time as Jordinesi and Reidinfors (targetting the articles whose protection has expired as well as new ones, such as Battle of Sig).
The email that I sent to the edit filter team is yet to be reviewed for approval (because it's not from a list member). Is there any way I could expedite the process? Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi M.Bitton, thank you very much for the notification. If I see correctly, all the new socks are blocked.
Your e-mail has likely been approved already; there is no automatic notification for this to my knowledge. A response regarding the actual content of your message might of course follow, but will then take some time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. Yes, all socks are blocked. Unfortunately, the ER auto-reply email that I received wasn't very clear. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what's going on here but, so far, two IPs and one recently registered editor have been trying to add what appears to be nothing more than lists of students who made the schools' honor rolls. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Interesting – the page had even already been protected by Ymblanter in response to the same issue before. I have now blocked the two most recent promotion-only accounts and semi-protected the page for a year. Please let me know if it continues after or through the protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Tech News: 2023-28
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Section-level Image Suggestions feature has been deployed on seven Wikipedias (Portuguese, Russian, Indonesian, Catalan, Hungarian, Finnish and Norwegian Bokmål). The feature recommends images for articles on contributors' watchlists that are a good match for individual sections of those articles.
Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool for administrators to help fight spam. It provides a clearer interface for blocking plain domains (and their subdomains), is more easily searchable, and is faster for the software to process for each edit on the wiki. It does not support regex (for complex cases), nor URL path-matching, nor the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, but otherwise it replaces most of the functionalities of the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. There is a Python script to help migrate all simple domains into this tool, and more feature details, within the tool's documentation. It is available at all wikis except for Meta-wiki, Commons, and Wikidata. [122]
The WikiEditor extension was updated. It includes some of the most frequently used features of wikitext editing. In the past, many of its messages could only be translated by administrators, but now all regular translators on translatewiki can translate them. Please check the state of WikiEditor localization into your language, and if the "Completion" for your language shows anything less than 100%, please complete the translation. See a more detailed explanation.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 July. It will be on all wikis from 13 July (calendar).
The default protocol of Special:LinkSearch and API counterparts has changed from http to both http and https. [123]
Special:LinkSearch and its API counterparts will now search for all of the URL provided in the query. It used to be only the first 60 characters. This feature was requested fifteen years ago. [124]
Future changes
There is an experiment with a ChatGPT plugin. This is to show users where the information is coming from when they read information from Wikipedia. It has been tested by Wikimedia Foundation staff and other Wikimedians. Soon all ChatGPT plugin users can use the Wikipedia plugin. This is the same plugin which was mentioned in Tech News 2023/20. [125]
There is an ongoing discussion on a proposed Third-party resources policy. The proposal will impact the use of third-party resources in gadgets and userscripts. Based on the ideas received so far, policy includes some of the risks related to user scripts and gadgets loading third-party resources, some best practices and exemption requirements such as code transparency and inspectability. Your feedback and suggestions are warmly welcome until July 17, 2023 on on the policy talk page.
Hello ToBeFree! I hope you're doing well. I was wondering if I am able to edit the article Fyappiy about a very niche Ingushetian ethnic group? The reason I'm asking is after editing the article, I noticed that in two map citations they mention "Armenia" and "Azerbaijan" in their reference title. Otherwise, neither the countries or anything related to them is in the Fyappiy article's content. The references are:
"Karte von dem Kaukasischen Isthmus und von Armenien / Entworfem und gezeichnet nach eigenem Houzontal - Aufnahmen und mit Benutzung der vorhandenen Materialen von Professor Dr. Karl Koch ; H. Mahlmann sc"
"Karte der Kaukasus-Länder und der angränzenden türkischen und persischen Provinzen Armenien, Kurdistan und Azerbeidjan : im Maasstabe von 1 :1,500000 / bearbeitet und gezeichnet von Dr. Heinrich Kiepert"
Hi Olympian, thanks for asking! My usual response to ban scope questions is "When in doubt, it's encompassed by the ban", which to me is just another way of phrasing "broadly construed". This edge case here, though, is not something I can easily answer even with this broadness in mind. I'll forward the question to the committee; the response will appear in this section. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
They're continuing to hop around so I'm taking the active ranges to AIV. IF any of the other ranges resume editing, I'll report them there as well. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 July. It will be on all wikis from 20 July (calendar).
MediaWiki system messages will now look for available local fallbacks, instead of always using the default fallback defined by software. This means wikis no longer need to override each language on the fallback chain separately. For example, English Wikipedia doesn't have to create en-ca and en-gb subpages with a transclusion of the base pages anymore. This makes it easier to maintain local overrides. [126]
The action=growthsetmentorstatus API will be deprecated with the new MediaWiki version. Bots or scripts calling that API should use the action=growthmanagementorlist API now. [127]
Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification. I won't judge the content much, nor dig into this much deeper, but I have semi-protected the article to prevent the clearly disruptive editing from continuing. You can now invite the editor to a discussion on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my tone the other day. I was getting frustrated at being led in circles and then I was given your name and told to come to you, and from what I'm understanding now something else was going on. MJL asked me to "please try not to let your recent experiences color your judgement of ToBeFree too much. He tries his best, but we're all a little stretched thin" so I'm going to go with that. Can we be ok? Saikyoryu (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Saikyoryu, I'm sorry. I was pretty stressed that day and should probably just have copied your request to WP:RFPP/E. After the sockpuppetry, incivility and general disruption at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film), I am pretty grateful for the semi-protection and wouldn't want to erode it by proxying for everyone who asks. I did implement one edit request when an unregistered editor provided a list of sources that had never been discussed yet, but that's rather an exception than the norm, and it wasn't in response to a request directly made to me.
I was thus not too happy about being irrelevantly mentioned in that Help Desk discussion, saw no obligation to do anything in this matter and finally lost interest in helping you when the little I did do resulted in Special:Diff/1165867334. No worries, though. I removed it from my talk page and moved on.
Hi HMSLavender and Untamed1910, thank you for the notification. These are rather absurd threats I'd interpret as a self-request for talk page access revocation, mostly. I have now granted that request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Heh, I now see M.Bitton actually does, has provided these at Talk:John Bird, Baron Bird already and there's now a discussion. If you are concerned that BLP violations are pushed through a small talk page discussion, WP:BLPN could help to invite other experienced contributors, or an RfC could help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
(And, I've had a quick look again, CodeTalker is an experienced recent changes patroller who usually does a highly commendable job at enforcing verifiability, so it's clear they have simply overlooked this specific source's quality. It is not entirely wrong that, if there had been a quote in the New York Times and the Guardian, getting it removed through discussion for purely verifiability-related reasons could practically require a counter-source. That's mostly a question of common sense then and not a strict policy requirement, as far as I know. In that case, WP:ONUS/WP:DUE become more relevant and mere verifiability becomes a secondary discussion topic.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the notification. I don't understand why Skywatcher68 is bringing up the NPOV policy when the whole discussion was about verifiability. I had no intention of continuing that discussion (I left to them to decide), but now that I have been dragged back to it, I think the best way forward is to simply hand it over to the community. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to this discussion. It's true I was unaware of the original source's unreliability, and I apologize for not taking more care. But normally I expect that if an editor asserts that a source has misquoted the subject, they would need to provide some evidence of that fact. Otherwise anyone could remove any quote by just asserting "misquote!". I don't have any particular interest in this topic and after @User:M.Bitton found other sources, I assumed the matter was resolved. Since @Skywatcher68 still believes otherwise, I agree an RFC should be the next step. CodeTalker (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey - I think it's admirable that you're still trying to figure out what the problem was there. Maybe I was wrong to try and help out, I seem to have made things worse rather than better. GirthSummit (blether)19:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
It's really too bad that they can't control their temperament. They learned editing skills at a Wikipedia camp, got called a sockpuppet for that fact, made reasonable comments at MJL's talk page a few days ago and I think they were kind of baited by more experienced editors who were suspicious of them. That doesn't excuse the terrible behavior on their own talk page but what a rough introduction for a new editor. I understand why their talk page access was removed. But it shows that it's not a bad move to protect the talk pages of contentious articles or new editors can easily get themselves into trouble. Unfortunately, those are often the articles that newbies are most attracted to. LizRead!Talk!21:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Liz, thank you very much for that context; I wasn't aware of the Wikipedia camp background. I agree with everything you wrote above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 July. It will be on all wikis from 27 July (calendar).
In'indian army equipment 'page i added 122mm D-30 howitzer in artillery section with proper citations but someone blindly undoing all changes he is repeating my two citations where it is mentioned the d-30 guns 'being phased out' or get's obsolete.But there is no mention of complete retirement of these guns even source given by someone mentioned there are 520-550 guns are in service and in future it would be retired or phased out but he is still not only blindly undoing change again and again also giving threat to me.I am giving some articles to you,read it and make conclusion.(all or some 122mm D-30 is in service of india or all guns are retired)
Hi Dl ff, I'm unsure how I am involved in this. If you are concerned about a user's conduct, message them on their talk page and create a report at WP:ANI (with diff links proving disruption) if that doesn't work. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
i am requesting you to go on 'indian army equipment ' page and see latest comment(about d-30 gun) on talk page. Dl ff (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I acknowledge that. Had I appreciated up front how many of the edits were going to be vandalism, I have gone straight to AIV without wasting my time doing UWs.
No worries, JMF. You should have seen my face when noticing that none of these notices was followed by a single new disruptive edit though. As the probability of helpful contributions suddenly happening during the 72 hours is close enough to zero, I'll keep up the block. Perhaps it helps Arnallioo to notice that others complained about their contributions. If this continues after the block, please let me know. I may be too optimistic there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I see this often at AIV as well, serial warnings stacked with no intermittent edits from the editor being reported. I always think I should check CVUA or elsewhere to ensure recent change patrollers are advised against such warning methods, but I always get caught up in something else and it never gets done (or, more accurately, I procrastinate per usual).-- Ponyobons mots22:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Dr.Pinsky, that's surely an unusual kind of "talk page access" revocation for a blocked user, but you're right: A partial block was too optimistic, and the latest misuse happened on a talk page. Thanks for the notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, I usually don't perform rangeblocks, at least not of this size, on a personal talk page request; please request this at ANI instead. Do feel free to notify me about such a thread and I'll have a look too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
A random question
Maybe the answer to my question is hidden somewhere on Wikipedia, so I apologize if I'm being lazy. Are admins able to view the edit histories of deleted pages? I would expect it to be so, but I want to be sure. Aintabli (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I have noticed one editor who apparently added non-existent/fabricated sources according to my own and another editor's findings. Recently, I have noticed a repeat of the same pattern. The first instances of this was in an article that got deleted, so in case I reach out to the editor, who doesn't appear to be active, or any relevant platform here, I wanted to be sure that the evidence is accessible to the admins. Aintabli (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Synchronizer tool is now available to keep Lua modules synced across Wikimedia wikis, along with updated documentation to develop global Lua modules and templates.
The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. For example, you can hide edits that were made using an automated tool. [130][131]
The Wikipedia ChatGPT plugin experiment can now be used by ChatGPT users who can use plugins. You can participate in a video call if you want to talk about this experiment or similar work. [132]
Problems
It was not possible to generate a PDF for pages with non-Latin characters in the title, for the last two weeks. This has now been fixed. [133]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 1 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 2 August. It will be on all wikis from 3 August (calendar).
Starting on Tuesday, a new set of Wikipedias will get "Add a link" (Georgian Wikipedia, Kara-Kalpak Wikipedia, Kabyle Wikipedia, Kabardian Wikipedia, Kabiyè Wikipedia, Kikuyu Wikipedia, Kazakh Wikipedia, Khmer Wikipedia, Kannada Wikipedia, Kashmiri Wikipedia, Colognian Wikipedia, Kurdish Wikipedia, Cornish Wikipedia). This is part of the progressive deployment of this tool to more Wikipedias. The communities can configure how this feature works locally. [134]
Hi The Herald, you're welcome, thanks for the notification – I did have a quick look at these and agree, but I didn't block that address because it's rather unlikely to be still in use. The file used back then was deleted as a copyright violation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that ToBeFree (talk·contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding his successful traineeship.
The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Mobile Web editors can now edit a whole page at once. To use this feature, turn on "⧼Mobile-frontend-mobile-option-amc⧽" in your settings and use the "Edit full page" button in the "More" menu. [135]
Brother,the flag of India, which is changed by you with darker colours is wrong.kindly re-upload the flag image which was there previously. You can check my correctness on official website of government of India.
Thank you 171.61.122.28 (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the advice. I don't think ANI will help, as it's a one-off personal attack by the IP (though their trying to argue about the antisemitic nature of the article is a bright red flag). I hatted the tangent and I'm hoping they get bored & wander off. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite18:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi HandThatFeeds, thanks for the feedback. I agree that we're looking at a bright red flag when someone argues, ignoring sources, about whether something antisemitic is really antisemitic. I personally would have preferred a specific source being cited in the discussion, but I understand that reducing the evidence to one source opens up new venues for trolling, such as nitpicking about the wording of that source. I'm not sure about collapsing the discussion, but it may help, and at least it's something that could be enforced if undone, rather than replied to on-page. It is probably one of the fastest ways to convert an article content discussion into a meta discussion about Wikipedia's guidelines, if that is what you intended... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, this person is clearly just sealioning, so if they insist on undoing the HAT, we can shift to the problem of their behavior. Honestly, the article itself is full of cites about RS calling the concept antisemitic, so I expect they were just going to keep saying every source wasn't good enough to satisfy them. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite18:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, ToBeFree/A. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 19:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hey @ToBeFree,
This user you blocked just a few minutes ago is abusing the unblock request and keeps saying go play geometry dash. Could I request the user's talk page to be revoked? 🛧Layah50♪🛪 (話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 03:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Layah50, please don't remove unblock requests. They attract administrators' attention, so there is no point in removing them and then notifying a specific administrator. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Content translation system is no longer using Youdao's machine translation service. The service was in place for several years, but due to no usage, and availability of alternatives, it was deprecated to reduce maintenance overheads. Other services which cover the same languages are still available. [136]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 August. It will be on all wikis from 17 August (calendar).
Starting on Wednesday, a new set of Wikipedias will get "Add a link" (Latin Wikipedia, Ladino Wikipedia, Luxembourgish Wikipedia, Lak Wikipedia, Lezghian Wikipedia, Lingua Franca Nova Wikipedia, Ganda Wikipedia, Limburgish Wikipedia, Ligurian Wikipedia, Lombard Wikipedia, Lingala Wikipedia, Latgalian Wikipedia, Latvian Wikipedia, Maithili Wikipedia, Basa Banyumasan Wikipedia, Moksha Wikipedia, Malagasy Wikipedia, Armenian Wikipedia, Kyrgyz Wikipedia). This is part of the progressive deployment of this tool to more Wikipedias. The communities can configure how this feature works locally. [137]
Aknip, too, should ideally have used the article's talk page for a discussion about the article's content, and could then have invited the IP editor to it. At the moment, I see two editors reverting each other without proper discussion, and no reason to prefer either side. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The IP started this almost exactly one month ago and has a penchant for saying "f[uc]k the past" in edit summaries there. I'm not sure any discussion would be fruitful. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Updating article content with an edit summary of "f[uc]k the past" is not ideal but neither a personal attack nor necessarily an indication that an editor is generally unwilling to discuss – they started by providing an... explanatory... edit summary after all. I have informed them about the issue now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Maybe this would be a good case for RfC? The metric used in the IP's source is obviously different from the one used by the list they keep removing. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Skywatcher68, I think an RfC is useful if a discussion on the article's talk page starts running in circles. I personally agree with your view that 110.145.11.12 is unlikely to engage in such a discussion unless the page is protected, but I can't protect the page if there is no discussion to enforce. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I guess the Henley Passport Index used by the IP's source is more reliable than Passe/Port, the previous source. Those people have no Wikipedia article and I can't seem to find who they are. I think I'll rebuild the list with the current Henley Index, properly referenced, when I have time. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Ah, interesting, there are at least two competing ones then. Sounds like a good reason to explain this in article prose without preferring either in form of a table. I don't know... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I've started a talk page discussion and solicited opinions from all those who made positive contributions to the article over the past six weeks or so. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry if this is taking your time, but even after you warned AzorzaI they continue to revert on Battle of Kosovo in a WP:OWN fashion. AzorzaI has been reverting every day there since August 3, against 7 editors. After you warned them, they made 2 other reverts, suggesting they are not willing to stop. I am not familiar with filing reports on noticeboards, so can you please help? Uniacademic (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
As AzorzaI has repeatedly justified their edit warring by pointing towards an essay that recommends against edit warring, I have blocked them for two weeks now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 August. It will be on all wikis from 24 August (calendar).
Is Good Russians eligible for deletion? It was created and written by a non-extended confirmed editor. Most of the other edits is just edit warring between non-extended confirmed editors. But probably it needs page protection at the very least. Mellk (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the notification! As the page hasn't been substantially edited by users not violating the restriction, I have deleted the page with WP:G5 in mind. It also had been deleted through a deletion discussion before, but I didn't check if WP:G4 applies too. Thanks for informing Kazkarka about the restriction; I have now also notified Svito3, Civilizatorr and Оркрист about it.
Hi, thanks for responding. In future cases, should I just request speedy deletion using G5? Also thanks for notifying the others. Mellk (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
While WP:GS/RUSUKR doesn't explicitly refer to that criterion, and while pages may qualify for deletion or protection independently of WP:G5's strict wording, yeah, the following should work:
But don’t be surprised if an admin declines that. First, RUSUKR deletion is purely optional, and the set of admins that patrol CSD and those that deal with GS/AE issues don’t have lots of overlap. Courcelles (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I hope that G5-reviewing administrators are generally interested in removing topic ban violations, which WP:GS/RUSUKR restriction violations practically are. At least I hope they won't actively decline a request for doing something that is likely to be done by a different onlooker.
Also, we're debating with Super Dromaeosaurus about whether the red link to this article should be kept in Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine to encourage article recreation. In my opinion, it's not worth it, since the term is encountered mostly (or even only) in online op-ed sources, so WP:N is not met (and the article should have been deleted even if it didn't violate WP:G5 because it was based solely on op-ed non-RS). --HPfan4 (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
While I can take any amount of stick from vandals, I see no real point in justifying my actions to admins, let alone arguing with them. But don't worry; the bottom line is that I'll make your life easier by staying well away from the Sandbox, thereby saving you the hassle of considering whether or not to block me, partially or otherwise, in the future.
That said, as I have a few moments to spare right now, here's my rationale for what you consider my reprehensible behaviour:
While your high level of AGF does you credit, I think it's safe to say that the IP will cherish your welcome and the rebuke you gave me. But surely there comes a moment when an IP has demonstrated, beyond any reasonable doubt, that s/he is not here to build an encyclopedia? Even without resorting to downright, blatant vandalism.
Obviously, that's a decision you admins have to take on a case-by-case basis, but isn't that what AIV is for? For notifying busy admins of things going on that they may not otherwise be aware of?
If removing the very template that clearly states "Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading) ... Feel free to try your editing skills below" is so apparently harmless as to warrant you rebuking me, why bother having that template there in the first place? I assume it's there to help all the other users who visit the Sanbox between bot clearing sessions you speak so highly of. What's more, while I have no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of IPs that use the Sandbox do so more or less correctly, what to do with those who remove the template, not just once or twice, but systematically? And then insist on doing so after receiving warnings. Are they really here to build an encyclopedia? What's the tipping point?
Where is the benefit in edit warring with someone testing article creation in a sandbox? If your concern was the missing header and you felt an urgent need to add it before a bot does, why didn't you just add the header?
And which part of [148] is supposed to contain helpful information about the unnecessary reverts? Have you intentionally skipped {{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-delete2}} and {{uw-tdel1}} as all three recommend using the sandbox for these edits?
Hi again, ToBeFree. Thank you for your reply. As I commented above, I have no interest in giving you further cause to block me (for edit warring?) and shall now proceed to remove the Sandboxes from my Watchlist. Once bitten, twice shy. But in answer to your specific questions:
Regarding your first point, are you seriously accusing me of edit warring when I restored the deleted header (the one that goes "Please leave this line alone....")? This was my first intervention with your IP (restoring the header, as I always do, as that is what I understand to be the priority and, yes, as I commented above, what I consider "an urgent need...").
Which brings me to your second point. With your "Have you intentionally skipped {{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-delete2}} and {{uw-tdel1}} as all three recommend using the sandbox for these edits?", maybe I'm reading it wrong, are you seriously accusing me of that? I did intentionally skip levels 1 & 2, but for the reason I explained above, not for what you claim here.
First of all, the first uw only refers to "content", with no mention of templates. That uw and the second option both recommend using the sandbox... thereby inviting the IP to continue deleting headers, which s/he was already doing, and, as I pointed out above, has continued doing after you removed my warnings and added your welcome.
Yes, you have edit warred ([149], [150], [151]). The linked diff does not just add a missing header either.
I wasn't being too serious about the skipping of the earlier levels; my point is that we usually ask users to do exactly what you have repeatedly undone – except for removing the header, which is something I probably did for perceived convenience too a few times. It's not highly problematic, doesn't need urgent fixing and especially doesn't require a full revert when present in a larger edit.
Regarding ducks and quacking, I assume you're (perhaps rather unusually) using these terms to describe obvious vandalism rather than obvious sockpuppetry here. You may be right about this being a strange form of vandalism, but this type of vandalism only seems to work if you participate. Is it that hard to ignore someone not being 100% correct in editing a sandbox page? Even if there is malice behind the harmless actions? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
So those three diffs constitute edit warring on my part? This is not simply a case of "editors who disagree about the content of a page". This is about restoring necessary maintenance headers that have been repeatedly deleted by that IP, not only on those three occasions, but on several dozens of times (at least). I was not restoring my "preferred version" ("An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable." WP:EW)... I was restoring Wikipedia's preferred version.
Between bot visits, which can sometimes, for reasons which elude me, be several hours apart, bona fide users who go to the sandbox to learn how to edit will be met with, apart from the habitual cases of downright vandalism, as in racist/sexist comments, something like this, with no instructions on how to go about editing, no links to the tutorial or to the Teahouse. Or with this, an edit by one of several IPs that show a similar, if not exactly the same, modus operandi and content. But if you consider them harmless, so be it. I had no problem quitting smoking, so leaving the sandbox to others to deal with won't be at all hard. Plenty of other ways I can be useful around here. See you around. --Technopat (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Clarification
Regarding this I didn't think about this until you pointed it out but the issue is that they're not extended confirmed, which per [[152]] they need to be, right? I looked at the age of their account but didn't register the number of edits when I was looking. Would it be best to just apply ECP to the article itself to sidestep any continuing issue? - Aoidh (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Just letting you know about some conflict I came across while patrolling recent changes. Some editors want to use Garfunkel's memoir as evidence of him being bisexual; however, the referenced page doesn't mention sexual attraction in the literal sense and there are no other sources. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification. I have semi-protected the page for a year now; the statement is currently not present as the last edit has removed it. There should probably be a talk page discussion about this; I'm surprised there hasn't been one since the publication of the book in 2017. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Harassment on my user talk
My user talk is being harassed and it's annoying me
He is trying to get my rollback revoked
He's a ip
I made a mistake and he's knitt picking
I warned him because he won't stop
So I framed the ip's talk on my user page and that's unacceptable according to him
He removed sourced content on tee •Cyberwolf•22:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the notification. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on the perspective), there was no harassment involved. All I see is a new rollbacker accidentally having misused rollback for a good-faith edit and then failing to acknowledge the mistake civilly in more ways than I'd have imagined to be possible, including ridiculing the other user on your userpage.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
As part of the changes for the better diff handling of paragraph splits, improved detection of splits is being rolled out. Over the last two weeks, we deployed this support to group0 and group1 wikis. This week it will be deployed to group2 wikis. [153]
All Special:Contributions pages now show the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. [154]
Wikisource users can now use the prpbengalicurrency label to denote Bengali currency characters as page numbers inside the <pagelist> tag. [155]
Two preferences have been relocated. The preference "Enable the visual editor" is now shown on the "Editing" tab at all wikis. Previously it was shown on the "Beta features" tab at some wikis. The preference "Use the wikitext mode inside the visual editor, instead of a different wikitext editor" is now also shown on the "Editing" tab at all wikis, instead of the "Beta features" tab. [156][157]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 August. It will be on all wikis from 31 August (calendar).
All right-to-left language wikis, plus Korean, Armenian, Ukrainian, Russian, and Bulgarian Wikipedias, will have a link in the sidebar that provides a short URL of that page, using the Wikimedia URL Shortener. This feature will come to more wikis in future weeks. [158]
Future changes
The removal of the DoubleWiki extension is being discussed. This extension currently allows Wikisource users to view articles from multiple language versions side by side when the <=> symbol next to a specific language edition is selected. Comments on this are welcomed at the phabricator task.
A proposal has been made to merge the second hidden-categories list (which appears below the wikitext editing form) with the main list of categories (which is further down the page). More information is available on Phabricator; feedback is welcome!
79.50.172.35, perhaps you could provide more convincing arguments than "Please" there. Another user is saying the source doesn't exist; you haven't replied to this yet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
What argument should I use instead of please? "Hey idiots" is better?
The source exist, you have to click on it. Should I point out the source that talk of the French origin is an ECONOMY paper and that it doesn't show any existing source? If that's all that suffice 79.50.172.35 (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
79.50.172.35, your approach to discussions doesn't make them noticeably inviting. You could start by not creating a new section for every message at Talk:Veal Milanese and providing convincing arguments beyond "Please", "Add it" and "Hey idiots". I don't judge and I won't write arguments for you. If you would like to include something and others don't, the onus to obtain a consensus, the requirement for convincing others, is on you. The dispute resolution policy and the essay WP:DISCFAIL provide additional advice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I showed my arguments,nobody answered. Not "anybody put the source", anybody didn't show up to discuss why putting it or not. Including you 79.50.172.35 (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
This article has a long history of unsourced, promotional additions and quite a bit of activity along those lines today. Is this person even notable enough to have her own article? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, please consider switching to the new Move To Draft script. It is fork of the script that you are using, but has some bug fixes, important warnings, and some feature enhancements. Happy editing! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
For security reasons, I don't import non-administrators' JavaScript if avoidable, as doing so provides administrator access to the script's creator. I hope draftification becomes a MediaWiki gadget or extension one day.
Would it be possible to revert back to a version of the article from 11:36, 25 August 2023 before user EmilePersaud started to add all the additional unsourced content? There was no consensus for it and some of the text that's in there now is rather dubious and not backed up by any of the references. E-960 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi E-960, done – I'm currently wondering whether the two accounts you have reverted are run by the same person. If you have more evidence than me about this, you could do me a huge favor by providing it here or at WP:SPI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
My suspicion rests with the fact that the second account picked up right where the first one left off, also both accounts exhibited the same pattern of pasting-in random reference source citations as a way to give the impression that an added statement had validity; like here [159] where the second account added the controversially titled sub-section "Current Goral Activism" and included a link to a webpage, which contained no real text and only carried links to other sub-pages about Goral traditions, legends, music, food, etc. in other words nothings about "activism" (a word that carries a very specific connotation with it). However, this is just my hunch, I have had no other interaction with these two accounts except in this article. --E-960 (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that's indeed strange and what made me raise one or two eyebrows. I'll wait to see how both edit in the next months; the page is extended-confirmed protected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
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.
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.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
EditInSequence, a feature that allows users to edit pages faster on Wikisource has been moved to a Beta Feature based on community feedback. To enable it, you can navigate to the beta features tab in Preferences. [160]
There is a new option for Administrators when they are changing the usergroups for a user, to add the user’s user page to their watchlist. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. [162]
The LoginNotify extension was not sending notifications since January. It has now been fixed, so going forward, you may see notifications for failed login attempts, and successful login attempts from a new device. [164]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 September. It will be on all wikis from 7 September (calendar).
Starting on Wednesday, a new set of Wikipedias will get "Add a link" (Eastern Mari Wikipedia, Maori Wikipedia, Minangkabau Wikipedia, Macedonian Wikipedia, Malayalam Wikipedia, Mongolian Wikipedia, Marathi Wikipedia, Western Mari Wikipedia, Malay Wikipedia, Maltese Wikipedia, Mirandese Wikipedia, Erzya Wikipedia, Mazanderani Wikipedia, Nāhuatl Wikipedia, Neapolitan Wikipedia, Low German Wikipedia, Low Saxon Wikipedia, Nepali Wikipedia, Newari Wikipedia, Norwegian Nynorsk Wikipedia, Novial Wikipedia, N'Ko Wikipedia, Nouormand Wikipedia, Northern Sotho Wikipedia, Navajo Wikipedia, Nyanja Wikipedia, Occitan Wikipedia, Livvi-Karelian Wikipedia, Oromo Wikipedia, Oriya Wikipedia, Ossetic Wikipedia, Punjabi Wikipedia, Pangasinan Wikipedia, Pampanga Wikipedia, Papiamento Wikipedia, Picard Wikipedia, Pennsylvania German Wikipedia, Palatine German Wikipedia, Norfuk / Pitkern Wikipedia, Piedmontese Wikipedia, Western Punjabi Wikipedia, Pontic Wikipedia, Pashto Wikipedia). This is part of the progressive deployment of this tool to more Wikipedias. The communities can configure how this feature works locally. [165][166]
Hi. You blocked this new editor. Looking at their edits, I think these may have been misguided, good faith efforts based on the “suggested edits” feature. My mobile web browser has tagged them as #suggested edits.
This would not be the first time #suggested edits has steered new people wrong.
Hi A. B., there are some edits you can't see anymore that led to the block decision. I should perhaps have noted this in the block log. I can provide three public links that may illustrate the issue, though: [167], [168], [169]. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
That's kind – I've just noticed one of the three links is inaccessible, but there's nothing in it the others don't already show. No big secret, just spam.
Thanks for your messages though! I agree that in most cases, as these suggested edits are just new editors' first steps, there is rarely a need for a block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification! I have semi-protected the page for a year for now. Comparing Special:Diff/1171598499 to Special:Diff/1174798469, I agree that these seem to be related. The smallest IP address range encompassing the edit warring of the last 24 hours is 2600:1017:B100::/42, which is currently partially blocked. Perhaps Ponyo has thoughts about this. In simpler cases, I'd just place a 2-week sitewide edit warring block on the /64. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Ah, the original block was made by Ohnoitsjamie and then modified by JBW and Ponyo. The amount of expectable collateral damage caused by a sitewide rangeblock would be immense. Semi-protection is sufficient. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd added the block without reviewing the edits from the user. I subsequently read the whole article out of curiousity, and removed a section that I felt was clearly WP:SYNTH, as it didn't mention the page subject. Afterwords, I realized that I'd essentially removed the same section the IP had been removing. I've removed the IP from the partial block on the grounds that I agree with their edit (though I supposed they could be short-term blocked for edit-warring). OhNoitsJamieTalk23:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ohnoitsjamie, that's fair enough – the article has a history of disruption including an earlier protection attempt, so semi-protection seems fine to me. Adding a semi-protected page to an anon-only partial block would have been mostly symbolic even with the slightly longer block duration anyway. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Tech News: 2023-37
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
ORES, the revision evaluation service, is now using a new open-source infrastructure on all wikis except for English Wikipedia and Wikidata. These two will follow this week. If you notice any unusual results from the Recent Changes filters that are related to ORES (for example, "Contribution quality predictions" and "User intent predictions"), please report them. [170]
When you are logged in on one Wikimedia wiki and visit a different Wikimedia wiki, the system tries to log you in there automatically. This has been unreliable for a long time. You can now visit the login page to make the system try extra hard. If you feel that made logging in better or worse than it used to be, your feedback is appreciated. [171]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 September. It will be on all wikis from 14 September (calendar).
As part of the changes for the Better diff handling of paragraph splits wishlist proposal, the inline switch widget in diff pages is being rolled out this week to all wikis. The inline switch will allow viewers to toggle between a unified inline or two-column diff wikitext format. [172]
Future changes
All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on 20 September. This is planned at 14:00 UTC. More information will be published in Tech News and will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [173]
The Enterprise API is launching a new feature called "breaking news". Currently in BETA, this attempts to identify likely "newsworthy" topics as they are currently being written about in any Wikipedia. Your help is requested to improve the accuracy of its detection model, especially on smaller language editions, by recommending templates or identifiable editing patterns. See more information at the documentation page on MediaWiki or the FAQ on Meta.
I didn't ignore you source in fact you are ignoring the point that your source listing Ash and Goh as double protagonist. In case if you didn't read my comment then let me tell you again, you source says Original goods such as the double main characters of the TV anime "Pokémon" - Satoshi & Go, Pikachu, Hibunny, etc. are now available at Village Vanguard! and From the latest work of the popular anime "Pokémon", the double main characters "Satoshi", "Go", "Koharu", "Pikachu", "Hibunny", and "Wanpachi" are now original goods of Village Vanguard.Ajeeb Prani (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Can you both disengage from this conflict, please, and edit different articles for a while? I'd suggest requesting a third opinion if there hadn't been one yet, and I'd suggest creating an RfC if the matter was of any noticeable importance. Neither is the case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Then why won't you accept my latest source that literally says she is a main character? If you want the conversation to stop, that seems to be the most reasonable action to take considering you have not provided any sources of your own. Master106 (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to say it for the one last time your source says the double main characters "Satoshi", "Go", "Koharu", "Pikachu", "Hibunny", and "Wanpachi, double main characters means the show has only two main characters, Ash and Goh. If Chloe was really a main character then the article would have listed them as "triple main characters". Ajeeb Prani (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sorry to bother you again. He comes back from time to time to remove content about an event in King's childhood that he has edit warred out of the article several times. His latest attempt is here. That's the fifth time. As always, it's not because of lack of sources, it's because he personally doesn't believe it's true. And as he often does, he leaves a deceptive edit summary ("fixed typo"), which is interesting because he rants about it in all of his other edit summaries for edits that have nothing to do with that content. I suppose he thinks he can make a sneak attack and no one will notice. You gave him every break imaginable, and I was OK with that. The only thing that got his attention in the past was a block, and I really feel that another block, even a brief one, is in order. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I understand the idea behind Special:Diff/1174894224, but I don't think it's a helpful message to send – not to an experienced editor you disagree with about content removal. If you could replace that by a custom, friendly message not assuming bad faith ("attempt", "deceptive", "sneak attack"), that could already make a huge difference for finding a resolution in the end.
The revision history of the article about Stephen King is fortunately not full of recent reverts. Time for an RfC, as discussions between you two have come to a standstill and in this specific case I don't believe either of you would accept a random third opinion as an authority over this matter. Would you mind starting one as you are the more experienced Wikipedian and may be more likely to find a neutral question for it?
I don't think a block would do any good here. If you have created an RfC and people suddenly edit war during it, of course we can try full protection, but I don't see that (coming) yet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
(Just in case you're wondering: I'm not saying Kesc4399 is acting in good or bad faith, I'm just saying that even if bad faith played a role in the syntax-broken edit summary of Special:Diff/1174828322, addressing faith in a content discussion won't help and WP:TPG's "no meta" recommendation is useful.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I respect your judgment. I guess my question is, if Kesc4399 repeatedly removes the same well-sourced content without consensus, are there no options except reverting it? If I start an RfC on the content, it will be met with his walls and walls of repetitive text. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Sundayclose, without an RfC, your restoration is similarly without proper consensus, and WP:ONUS even works against you in this regard. It thus seems to be time to settle this through am RfC.
Walls of repetitive text tend to be less convincing to uninvolved RfC participants than short succinct lists of arguments. Use the other party's wordiness to your advantage instead of worrying about it. You won't be arguing with Kesc4399 personally; you'll be appealing to the larger community. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, I explained my reason for removing the content: it's damaging the credibility of Wikipedia.
As the current edition of the page notes, King makes no mention at all of the alleged incident in his memoir, On Writing. It seems like the kind of thing one would mention, particularly if it "psychologically inspired some of hiss darker works." Nor are there any direct quotes from family members that mention the incident. Nor has King himself mentioned it in any recent interviews. When asked about his childhood in a recent interview with Terry Gross, King says "I've been queried a lot about where I get my ideas or how I got interested in this stuff. And at some point, a lot of interviewers just turn into Dr. Freud and put me on the couch and say, what was your childhood like? And I say various things, and I confabulate a little bit and kind of dance around the question as best as I can, but bottom line - my childhood was pretty ordinary, except from a very early age, I wanted to be scared. I just did." Nor does Gross ask him about it, probably because she has a good bullshit detector. In a separate interview with Gilbert Cruz in Time, King recalls that "I would be asked, 'What happened in your childhood that makes you want to write those terrible things?' I couldn't think of any real answer to that."
But actually, he had. In the introduction to Night Shift, he provides an eloquent explanation of the appeal of horror. He also explains what happened in his childhood to spark his interest in horror, namely his discovery of Poe and Lovecraft and B movies and EC Comics. He says that most of us, whether we admit it or not, have some interest in horror. He makes no mention of the alleged incident.
Sundayclose had previously informed me that it doesn't matter what King remembers, it matters what his family said. Ah, but the story doesn't come from King's family members, it comes from King himself, in 1981, where he offered it as an explanation of why he writes horror. But, as we established, King told Terry Gross that he used to confabulate when asked that question. On the talk page, I asked if anyone had any direct quotes from family members that mentioned the incident, or any recent interviews where King mentioned it. No one did. I've asked Sundayclose several times if they know of any interviews since, say, 2000 where King mentions it, or indeed anywhere that he mentions it other than once in 1981. No dice.
So, given that there are no direct quotes from King's family members that mention the incident, given that King makes no mention of the incident in his memoir or in recent interviews, and given that King now admits that he used to "confabulate and dance around the issue" of what happened in his childhood to make him write horror, the anecdote does not belong in the biography section, where it is currently damaging the credibility of the article and of Wikipedia. Kevin Charles Schoonover (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi ⵣⵉⵔⵉ ⴰⵎⵖⵏⴰⵙ, sure; you may like to experiment with the syntax in your sandbox first. If you copy code from other templates, make sure to use an edit summary like "copied from Template:Example" (see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for details about this requirement).
And do you know about the Babel system? Try placing {{#babel:zgh-n|en-2}} or {{#babel:zgh-n|en-3}} on your user page, for example, and see what happens. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The above user was justifiably blocked earlier today. Almost all of their edits at their own talkpage were deleted. However, a simplified Chinese term was left behind. That term can be translated as an offensive one (similar to their English language edits, which were reverted in articles) and should be removed, too.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An editor pinged three editors on a talk page suggesting to them that the article should be merged. None of those pinged editors had made edits to the article before. I noticed that this editor only pinged those that supported their requested move on Republic of Crimea back in June (all three of them and in order!). They did not ever ping anyone who opposed their requested move. This editor also left a comment on one of the pinged editor's talk page after they began making the suggested edits, telling them to remove propaganda from other particular articles (they linked the articles in a follow up comment here). When I reverted one of the edits on the article they told the editor to remove propaganda from, they start a talk page discussion pinging other editors who did not edit the article before, which I can only assume is to influence the outcome of this discussion. I left a message on their talk page saying that this was canvassing but they simply removed this saying "No canvassing". Do you think this is something sanctionable/warrants a warning, or is it better to wait? Thanks. Mellk (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Mellk, it's certainly something that should be discussed... at least here for a moment.
Umm, Mellk, what am I looking at when opening Talk:2014 Crimean parliamentary election (permanent link)? Seems to be a wall of behavioral discussion unsuitable for an article's talk page, about the same topic, from a few days ago? If this has already been discussed and you are still concerned, please take the matter to WP:ANI. I assumed I was looking at something previously undiscussed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I have only discussed the issue of canvassing on Talk:2014 Crimean parliamentary election, since they removed my comment on their talk page without responding and I did not want to start a new topic on their talk page due to the assumption that they would just remove the comment again and did not want me to post there. But yes, I probably should have stopped responding there altogether when it was clear it was not going to go anywhere. There they insisted that this was an appropriate notification and that there was consensus for their changes following the notifications. Mellk (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Mellk, please distinguish between behavior and content. On the behavioral side, once your talk page message was removed with an edit summary discouraging further messaging, the options for responding to (further) behavioral concerns were practically reduced to:
Creating a noticeboard report (at WP:AE, WP:ANI, perhaps WP:ANEW if applicable), or
ignoring the issue.
Notably absent: Behavioral discussion on an article talk page.
I have pingged them not because of the RM but because of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notificationEditors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). I have pinged @Mzajac: and @Rsk6400:, both are regulars contributors about Ukraine. In Crimea talk page, Melk have committed personal attacks against me and against the two users and refused to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Also he is doing what seeems to be a pro-Putin POV pushing. Panam2014 (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I have deleted message in June 2023 because Mellk were very agressive against me (see Talk:Republic of Crimea). It is time for him to stop agressive messages and calling others "propagandists" Panam2014 (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Panam2014, thank you very much for the reply and the explanation. I personally am out; this needs to be discussed at WP:ANI if there are further concerns. Please don't hold such discussions on article talk pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the correct venue would be ANI, though those accusations including that I called anyone a propagandist are blatantly false. In the RM they referred to me as an "opponent" and this was the only such attack by anyone, so their comment is just hypocritical. Mellk (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Panam2014, just because you wrote it on my talk page, would you mind clarifying here where Mellk has called others propagandists, of if that hasn't happened, strike through (<s>text</s>) the statement? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
No, Panam2014, that's incorrect. An editor can be partisan without making any propaganda. Again, please show where Mellk has called others propagandists, or strike through your incorrect statement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I can concede that the term propagandist is ambiguous. It has several meanings and a propagandist is not necessarily paid. However, “partisan use” contravenes “considering good faith” and is not proven. Panam2014 (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Describing someone as a "partisan editor" does not necessarily imply any assumption of faith. For example, an editor can be partisan and highly disruptive, yet still be editing in best faith to improve the encyclopedia in a way they perceive to be perfectly "neutral". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
If for Crimea it is normal for him to be on the page since he canceled the modifications, for the September elections I have difficulty seeing how he can find my modifications when he did not participate in the discussion. So he is tracking me especially since the sources treat the 4 elections together as the 4 referendum in 2022. I am free to ask the opinion of usual contributors on Ukraine. Panam2014 (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Describing someone as a "partisan editor" does not necessarily imply any assumption of faith. For example, an editor can be partisan and highly disruptive, yet still be editing in best faith to improve the encyclopedia in a way they perceive to be perfectly "neutral". I assume you mean that Mellk's message assumed bad faith of you, not these editors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Describing someone as a "partisan editor" does not necessarily imply any assumption of faith. For example, an editor can be partisan and highly disruptive, yet still be editing in best faith to improve the encyclopedia in a way they perceive to be perfectly "neutral".
I'm not sure how often I need to repeat this, but I can write it a fourth time if desired. Regarding a lack of proof, true! There's none. It didn't happen on my talk page and can be discussed at WP:ANI. I'm currently only concerned about inaccurate statements made about others on my talk page. Speaking of those, would you please stop casting aspersions, provide a diff in which Mellk has described others as "propagandists" or finally strike-through the inaccurate statement above? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
ToBeFree, really sorry for making this discussion on your page even longer. Mellk, you called me a "partisan editor". I don't accuse you of bad faith, but I think you should either drop your "canvassing" case (which is built on the assumption that Panam2014 pinged such editors) or produce diffs that show me as such (in the sense of "a strong supporter of a party, cause [other than WP's core policies], or person" or "prejudiced in favour of a particular cause"; quotes from ODE). Rsk6400 (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Rsk6400, as that didn't happen here in this talk page section, I personally see no need to resolve it here rarher than in the surely-soon-coming ANI discussion. All I had been hoping for is a correction of, or proof for, the following disputed statement made above:
It is time for him to stop agressive messages and calling others "propagandists"
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you
Right after that 4RR report, I had just started to write out the evidence for an SPI (I've had both thier x-tools stats open in browsers for a day or so now). Thankfully you have saved me the trouble. Thanks for good admin'ing. - wolf17:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh, damn, that's actually a shortcut and another name for it. I guess because the fourth revert crosses the line, it's... a rule about the fourth revert. I can't argue with that. It just seemed wrong because "0RR", "1RR" and "3RR" exist and that logic doesn't work for "4RR". Well well.
Regarding the sockpuppetry, it wasn't the article editing overlap that made me raise my eyebrows initially... I guess we noticed the same thing. No worries, happy to have provided a shortcut. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Tech News: 2023-38
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
MediaWiki now has a stable interface policy for frontend code that more clearly defines how we deprecate MediaWiki code and wiki-based code (e.g. gadgets and user scripts). Thank you to everyone who contributed to the content and discussions. [181][182]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 September. It will be on all wikis from 21 September (calendar).
@ToBeFreeI trust you're doing great. I kindly request your help to review and approve this page. An editor is abusing his rights, which is why I wanted another editor to help review.
You did not! Don't worry. I was just wondering why you had messaged me specifically, and SmokeyJoe, for example. Did my username appear somewhere? It's not a problem, I'm just curious. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I have also had a look at the exchange between you and Jamiebuba. You have replied to their concern, but you do not seem to have clearly stated whether WP:PAID applies to your editing or not. Please clearly say to Jamiebuba on your talk page: Do you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia? Please provide this information at User_talk:George_Nyiam#Qing_Madi_moved_to_draftspace before continuing to edit.
After doing so, from what I can see, you have two options:
Submitting your draft for review, or
insisting in having a deletion discussion with the larger community.
If you want to take the first option, click "Submit the draft for review!" (blue button) on your drafts and save the page.
If you want to take the second option, you must not have a conflict of interest about the topic. If you have no conflict of interest, the second option means ignoring the advice given to you and moving the page to the main article space. I don't recommend doing so, but it would be dishonest of me to say this option didn't exist. It currently does.
I think this user that you just blocked and and I reported wants their block reviewed but they can't figure out how. I told them to put the template on their talk page but they might want an admin for it. Regards, Seawolf35 (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Seawolf35, thank you, this is kind of you. I have had a look and will wait for them to actually follow the instructions already provided to them, though. We can neither write their unblock request nor read basic instructions on behalf of them. If they try to use the template and fail doing so correctly, that's a situation in which I have often fixed the syntax and would do so again. We haven't reached that minimum degree of demonstrating understanding, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
McKamey Manor
Hey, I was looking at the McKamey Mannor page after watching Reckless Ben'sseries and Danny Berk's video about it. I was going to add some information to the controversies section about their investigation in to the haunted house when I saw that it had been attempted in the past and reverted, and that the page is now locked. I wanted to ask why this was done as their videos on the subject are well made and clearly show the scam that is taking place, on two ocasions they attempt the haunted house only to be refused entry after failing to essentially breathe underwater. There are many claims that McKamey makes about his attraction that are clearly impossible, such as the 2 mile long zip line, and I think that a source that clearly details the deception taking place here could be of great benefit to those considering attempting the haunted house as it could deter them from sustaining very serious injuries over a scam. I have never edited a page before so I may be out of line, and if I am I apologize, I just feel that if this information was not factual that in the two months his videos have been up McKamey would have any sort of rebuttal clearly proving this haunted house is real. Thank you so much for your time. PhantomRexx (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi PhantomRexx, welcome to Wikipedia! I understand your concern; 82.11.214.196 had similar concerns but voiced them in a less civil way.
Your message links to self-published YouTube videos. Self-published sources lack editorial oversight, but such oversight is required for a source to be reliable. Adding content that lacks a reliable source would be a violation of Wikipedia's verifiability requirements, so while I understand your position, I find myself confirmed in protecting the page against such additions.
If you are aware of actually reliable sources (examples and counter-examples can be found in the huge colored table at WP:RSP with explanations), you would be very welcome to click here to submit an edit request providing them.
Hello, was it your intention to restore unsourced material in Satrapy of Armenia after the IP block? Four editors have supported removing the unsourced material and I think there is a consensus to rollback to [185]. Thanks, // Timothy :: talk22:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi TimothyBlue, sorry! That was not my intention; thanks for asking. I have restored the last revision not created by 47.232.208.73 now; please edit further if I have overlooked more. I just didn't want to protect the main edit warrior's revision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Looks like this has been going on for a couple of weeks, some IP POV-pushers using WP:SYNTH arguments to paint the subject as some ultra-right wing stooge. You should take a look when get a chance. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification. I have semi-protected the article for 3 months for now as this seems to have started relatively recently. If it continues, please let me know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I have protected some of the affected users' talk pages. The decision was simple for Brettchenweber's and Rmcharb's talk pages, harder for RoBri's and impossible for yours so far: If someone is active on enwiki, their user talk page may be needed for good-faith messages from unregistered and newly registered users.
Hi Hammersoft, thank you very much both for the idea and for asking. I'll implement your request in about 8 hours if noone has complained on IRC about my announcement to do so until then.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Vector 2022 skin will now remember the pinned/unpinned status for the Table of Contents for all logged-out users. [187]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 September. It will be on all wikis from 28 September (calendar).
Gadget definitions will have a new "namespaces" option. The option takes a list of namespace IDs. Gadgets that use this option will only load on pages in the given namespaces.
Future changes
New variables will be added to AbuseFilter: global_account_groups and global_account_editcount. They are available only when an account is being created. You can use them to prevent blocking automatic creation of accounts when users with many edits elsewhere visit your wiki for the first time. [188][189]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Wikipedia mobile apps teams. During the meeting, we will discuss the current features and future roadmap. The meeting will be on 27 October at 17:00 (UTC). See details and how to join.
I see that you have recently blocked Enciso_Systems, for Promotional username, promotional edits. All their edits have been reverted.[190] The first part of the reasoning is clear. The username is promotional, which may be a valid reason to block. However, I don't see any promotional editing. In fact, many (all?) of their contributions consist of adding JWST images to astronomy articles, which seems reasonable and unrelated to the business of the same name. A few of the edits had syntax issues, but that could be fixed. Was the mass reversal really necessary? Renerpho (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I had not seen that. I see you agree the images in principle are useful. Things like [192] explain the promotional editing part; the question of whether the mass reversal was necessary remains. Renerpho (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
No worries; yes, I do agree. Regarding the linked website, just for the record, at the moment every page of that site displays a link to Enciso Systems' website in its footer. Regarding mass reverts, I may be mixing things up, but I don't remember having made one against Enciso Systems' contributions. If I read my contribution list correctly, I have undone exactly one edit ([193]) and restored the image without the unnecessary link directly afterwards ([194]). We probably think alike about this; you may be looking for ThaddeusSholto's talk page ([195][196][197][198] etc). Or actually, we can invite ThaddeusSholto here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Ha! The reverts weren't yours; my apologies. If ThaddeusSholto has input, I'd like to hear it. Maybe we can work on turning those Enciso Systems edits into something useful. Renerpho (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I removed the edits because the username matched the website they were adding en mass. The website has a footer which says "Website developed and operated by Enciso Systems" and they would take a brief time out after a warning from me and then continue. The actions seemed pretty promotional and attempting to evade notice. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
@ThaddeusSholto: Would you be willing to help with adding the images again (without the promotional part)? I've started, see list below, but it would be nice if I don't have to do it alone. Renerpho (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Here's a list of the articles that appear to be affected. I have marked those that have been restored already as "done". Feel free to edit this comment to keep track of whatever you may do.
I am struggling with this one. Maybe a cropped version of the image, centered on the object, could be uploaded and used in the infobox? Renerpho (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
This article's placement of images appears quite messy already.*cough* good article *cough* I hesitate to make it worse by adding another one. I considered creating a gallery instead, but can't get it to work. Renerpho (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi 220.236.126.177, thank you very much for the notification – I hadn't received a ping, interestingly. Special:Diff/1178213404 seems fine to me, but I guess that's why a talk page notification of the reported user is always required.
I won't review the report but would be happy about someone completely uninvolved doing so, and have now said so there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Well it was to inform you that you had already resolved the ban on my account and it should not be overruled especially immediately in the immediate aftermath. It's just ridiculous. 220.236.126.177 (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
To my understanding, everything that happened before the unblock has been resolved. (It was a block, not a ban, in case you're interested in the Wikipedia-specific distinction between the two words. As block evasion is prohibited, the distinction rarely means anything.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The new report is leaning on, again, edit warring without giving reasons in edit summaries. Which is a lie as I've been providing edit summaries. This new dispute has to be dismissed. 220.236.126.177 (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
There is a new user preference for "Always enable safe mode". This setting will make pages load without including any on-wiki JavaScript or on-wiki stylesheet pages. It can be useful for debugging broken JavaScript gadgets. [199]
Gadget definitions now have a new "contentModels" option. The option takes a list of page content models, like wikitext or css. Gadgets that use this option will only load on pages with the given content models.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 3 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 4 October. It will be on all wikis from 5 October (calendar).
Future changes
The Vector 2022 skin will no longer use the custom styles and scripts of Vector legacy (2010). The change will be made later this year or in early 2024. See how to adjust the CSS and JS pages on your wiki. [200]
Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions
Hello ToBeFree,
I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages.
The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.
If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.
If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.
Thank you very much for the kind invitation! I have now signed up for this, but I wonder if the tool has any way to detect if I'm actually the user I claim to be. For example, if I understand correctly, it would be trivial for anyone to submit data in my name to your survey servers.
Additionally, as the browser extension (understandably, reasonably, technically) requires access to the content of pages I look at, I can't run it on an account that has access to deleted revisions. This would already be an issue if the extension worked locally, but the extension is additionally designed to send things I see and type to your servers. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
This is a reasonable concern, and it's totally understandable if you decide that the nature of your specific Wikipedia work means that you have to decline participation in the study. We designed the tool around the more common paradigm of editors who purely do public editing, but we also understand that there are a handful of editors who have to work with more sensitive information, in which case we'd recommend against using the tool with those accounts (as you've alluded to already).
Thanks for the interest, and this is a good question! By design, ConvoWizard purposely does not have any access whatsoever to Wikipedia account information, which in some ways is a double edged sword. As you've noted, it means that we can't force participants to sign in and prove their identity. Conversely though, it also means that even if a bad actor were to sign up under someone else's username, they wouldn't actually be able to use to the tool to do anything under that account's name (i.e., they would still only be able to make edits under their own username, since having ConvoWizard doesn't affect their Wikipedia login in any way). Ultimately we only collect usernames in the survey for record-keeping purposes.
If all conversations looked like this, study and tool would be wonderfully unneeded. Thank you for the quick replies and feel free to use all of my comments for research purposes – they're public and freely licensed. I'm also happy to see that there is research on this topic and hope as many people as possible contribute to your study. Because of the privacy concerns and as it would be too inconvenient for me to properly technically separate public commenting from private viewing, I can't meaningfully participate the way I've been invited to. It is an honor to have been invited, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I know, Cyberwolf434344, and I don't want to condone or downplay their behavior in any way. It doesn't justify you responding with "Boi i will smack you" though. Perhaps it helps to think for a moment about what you actually wrote there – did you intend to threaten physical violence? Unlikely. Are you sure the other person is male? Probably not. Even if male, would it be appropriate to address them as "boi"? Nah. There's so much wrong with these five words that I hope we can agree they shouldn't have been written. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
(Today I learned Boi (slang) has far more potential meanings than just being an intentional misspelling of "boy", but I'm relatively certain you just meant "boy" and had no idea either.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah, well, "guys" is now neutral – I had seen this in IRC chatrooms before and now found a Washington Post article titled "‘Guys’ isn’t a gendered word anymore. It’s fine to use with everyone." I'm not an expert, but I'd avoid using "boi" or "bro" with the same expectation of neutrality at the moment. It doesn't matter much, anyway: Addressing other editors as "boi" or "bro" is probably far too colloquial.
Perhaps it helps to imagine that Wikipedia is a workplace where you interact with colleagues, all working for the same employer. In an office job to create an encyclopedia, not in a car repair shop.
If someone seriously misbehaves and attacks you in that setting, you'll need to make sure that someone in a position to expel the attacker becomes aware of the issue. Fighting back in the same way would ruin your own position. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
Technical news
Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)
Hey, just letting you know about the IP with an apparent conflict of interest who has been replacing sourced content with unsourced content. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thanks for dealing with the situation – but as long as the IP's talk pages are red links and there has been no edit warring, it's far too early for notifying an administrator. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response! Sorry if I made a bit of a mess of things in the process (I also inadvertently opened an SPI that I tried to shutdown); I've been having odd lag times today and I thought the SPI had been eaten (also wasn't sure whether SPI or EW was the way to go). DonIago (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
No problem. Ah, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/178.66.158.208. Both are fine, but reports at the edit-warring noticeboard are usually answered earlier. Also, if there is clear edit warring by someone who may be a sockpuppet, reporting the clear case is preferable. I think you did the right thing when you created an edit-warring report that explained why it's probably block evasion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
The earlier edit said "she" is a social scientist, that's why i got confused when publishing the article, and assumed the subject was female, i am sorry about the mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.8.27 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I have added it on the talk page, i thought the subject was female, it was my mistake, sorry, i should have looked that up, but previous edits stated "she" is best known as a collaborating reporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.8.27 (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Tech News: 2023-41
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
One new wiki has been created: a Wikipedia in Fon (w:fon:) [201]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 10 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 11 October. It will be on all wikis from 12 October (calendar).
Starting on Wednesday, a new set of Wikipedias will get "Add a link" (Swahili Wikipedia, Walloon Wikipedia, Waray Wikipedia, Wolof Wikipedia, Kalmyk Wikipedia, Xhosa Wikipedia, Mingrelian Wikipedia, Yiddish Wikipedia, Yoruba Wikipedia, Zhuang Wikipedia, Zeelandic Wikipedia, Min Nan Wikipedia, Zulu Wikipedia). This is part of the progressive deployment of this tool to more Wikipedias. The communities can configure how this feature works locally. [202]
At some wikis, newcomers are suggested images from Commons to add to articles without any images. Starting on Tuesday, newcomers at these wikis will be able to add images to unillustrated article sections. The specific wikis are listed under "Images recommendations" at the Growth team deployment table. You can learn more about this feature.[203]
In the mobile web skin (Minerva) the CSS ID #page-actions will be replaced with #p-views. This change is to make it consistent with other skins and to improve support for gadgets and extensions in the mobile skin. A few gadgets may need to be updated; there are details and search-links in the task.
Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification. As far as I can see, the content isn't supported by the provided source, so I have removed it for now. I have additionally reminded those who (re-)added it about verifiability and WP:BLPRESTORE.
DesertHabitat and Samalley, perhaps the IP too, behaviorally appear to be the same person. I have informed them about the policy against sockpuppetry, but the former account seems to have been abandoned for the latter, so perhaps the user simply wasn't aware of Wikipedia's account renaming procedures. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Logical dates
Re: [204]
Ha, apologies. When I get rushed and the four tildes don't work, I tend to slip back in to our local hot mess of dates/units/measures - will pay attention there. Sam Kuru(talk)19:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi FDW777, thank you very much for asking. This indeed seems to be strangely limited to two pages and a /22 IP address range (/23 if we exclude one edit from 205.164.158.66; /19 if we include Special:Diff/1058889944 by 205.164.130.175 from 2021). I think a one-year partial block on 205.164.156.0/22 will prevent this from continuing for now. Please let me know if the editing suddenly moves to other pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
It's an honor for me to receive your request – I assume I wasn't chosen randomly. For whichever reasons that led to this choice, I hope you may be open to the following response: Please don't request this, you're unlikely to do yourself a favor with it. You state on your userpage that you may be interested in becoming an administrator one day, and this may be a very good idea, but adminship is less likely to be granted to someone who requires a block to pause editing for a while, especially if there are good reasons for pausing and you are aware of them yet still need the block.
Hello, I would like to talk to you about whether I broke the community rules or not because I warned you that He's dangerous because he's an IP. He can find out where he is. And he still came up that I threatened him. I feel uncomfortable Because of the truth He also threatened me first that I would reveal personal information. And also intimidates me. อย่ามาตบะ (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi อย่ามาตบะ, thank you for your message. I'm not sure if I understand it correctly. Being "dangerous" means being a danger to others. For example, cats are dangerous to mice. Mice are not dangerous to cats. Mice are endangered by cats.
Don't want to be the photo police or an edit warrier
Hi there. I see you are active at WP:AN/3. Would you have a moment to look at this editor? They added several images to the Commons, and have been adding them to various Wikipedia articles. But some of the photos are really low quality. There has been discussion on their talk page, and wild edit wars at Durham, North Carolina and Cary, North Carolina. I'd start a central discussion on one of the articles, but there are several articles. I don't want to be the photo police, but Cary, North Carolina, is a good article, and a lot of work went in to making it a nice experience for readers. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Magnolia677! Thank you for asking. I see the issue with trying to find one specific discussion page to even start discussing this. I also see issues with File:Downtown_Durham_at_night_2.png's quality, such as the highly visible image noise that even comes with large red/green/blue patches in the upper right of the image.
DiscoA340 surely has a point but should ideally have created a talk page discussion explaining this issue instead of just reverting three times. It's not that hard to describe the image's issues, so requiring Bigfoot allgame to address these issues in a discussion would surely have been beneficial.
Bigfoot allgame, on the other hand, is either trolling in [205], or completely failing to get the point they had been informed about over a year ago. If this continues, I'm afraid a block from editing will be the only remaining solution, and I might place such a block the next time I see the user edit warring a photo back into an article it had been removed from multiple times before.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Unified login system's edge login should now be fixed for some browsers (Chrome, Edge, Opera). This means that if you visit a new sister project wiki, you should be logged in automatically without the need to click "Log in" or reload the page. Feedback on whether it's working for you is welcome. [206]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 October. It will be on all wikis from 19 October (calendar).
Future changes
In 3 weeks, in the Vector 2022 skin, code related to addPortletLink and #p-namespaces that was deprecated one year ago will be removed. If you notice tools that should appear next to the "Discussion" tab are then missing, please tell the gadget's maintainers to see instructions in the Phabricator task.
Hey, I ran across something else that could use your attention. There appears to be someone with a COI issue removing referenced content here. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
"Dealing with" is a big word. It's not a good article, and I actually agree that it should be pruned--but not in that way. Drmies (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
I'm not putting her in the section like I did before. I was removing the inappropriate message Ajeeb wrote on the page that shouldn't be there with those edits. There was no decision to have that there and there was no established consensus when Ajeeb wrote that, so it simply should not be there. Master106 (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
There is a new Language and internationalization newsletter, written quarterly. It contains updates on new feature development, improvements in various language-related technical projects, and related support work.
Source map support has been enabled on all wikis. When you open the debugger in your browser's developer tools, you should be able to see the unminified JavaScript source code. [210]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 24 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 25 October. It will be on all wikis from 26 October (calendar).
Thank you for the alert to the arb motions, now closed without motion. - User talk:Gerda Arendt#Music keeps track of "my" music and memories, and just today I have a juxtaposition of music performed by the two church choirs in town, one I sang in and one where I listened, to music about love, evening and night. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
That tune can be sung forever ;) - Much of the music I heard yesterday was new to me. - To stay with the original topic: all composers linked have an infobox ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
It's heading towards accessibility. It's depressing to see - example Feydeau - how much debate is caused over what, eight or so extra lines that may help some readers. And that is just one example, and it's not just the waste of time, but - worse - the damaged relations among editors. - Today, my story is about a place that inspired me, musings if you have time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah, another horrible infobox discussion ([211]). Last comment: 19 hours ago. Okay... I see why the motion for removing the contentious topic designation failed.
As I said in the discussion of the motion: imagine the infobox for Feydeau, added by a new user (who probably had no idea of any old stories), had not been reverted. If the two people who still revert would stop doing that we had peace. I talked to this one on my talk, and to the other on her talk. In both cases, someone else would have to tell them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think an initial revert in response to a disputed change is the actual issue with the linked discussion; the discussion would probably not have looked much different if there had been pure discussion instead of reverting. I actually didn't even check if there was a revert; all I commented on was the discussion on the talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Imagine the infobox had not been reverted, and the offended person - not even a principal author of that article, just his friend - would have told the newcomer: look, my friend and I prefer a plain image in the upper right corner. I think that discussion would have been different. - DYK that composer Clara Schumann has an infobox without dispute since 2012? And this Romanian woman composer, today's topic, for a few day? - It gets "contentious" only when you touch the few articles of the few editors who don't like them. How is a newcomer supposed to know that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Regarding the block, apparently the account is similar to Norprobr. As a result, it is still under sockpuppet investigation. Sorry about this but I forgot to add additional info on the WP:AIV. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Removing content that is perceived to be biased or unverifiable, especially about living people, is neither "vandalism" (1) nor "censorship" (2) in the way performed by authoritarian governments. Creating a new article with the intent of neutrally describing a subject is also not "vandalism" (3). Vandalism on Wikipedia means doing intentional damage to the encyclopedia. It is highly unlikely that Gobonobo or Piertosiri had bad intentions when redirecting the article.
That said, disputes about whether an article should exist or not are usually held at WP:Articles for deletion, not by edit warring. If people already agree that an article should exist and the current one is not neutral, then replacing it by a redirect instead of fixing the issues can only be a temporary measure. Creating a second article about the same topic can also only be a temporary measure.
In such situations, having one central discussion about the issue is important, and starting an RfC to collect as many uninvolved experienced opinions as possible would be a good idea.
As multiple articles exist that attempt to cover the same topic, the talk page of any of them is unsuitable to hold the central discussion. Please continue at Talk:Javier_Milei#POVFORK_of_political_positions.
Thanks! I don't know their intentions, and I'm sure they are acting in good faith, but are you sure these actions are not considered vandalism? They are deleting content of an article, and redirecting the article to a POVFORK they prefer without discussion or consensus? I don't see how that contributes towards improving the encyclopedia, nor how it could be allowed.
Hi there, guess who's back to take up your time again. Special:Contributions/2601:243:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 looks like a shared IP range as it has a mix of good edits like typo fixes, misguided things like copypastes, and your typical silly vandalism and test edits. Mainly it just needs more eyes on it. The admin noticeboards don't seem like the appropriate place to put this, and not sure about the Pump either so hey I figured you could be volunteered to see what you thought would be the best course of action here! I just stumbled upon a random bit of scribbling from it on an article, and smartly thought to go look up the overall range seeing as it's IPv6. Cheers and hope your day/night is going well! 47.155.41.104 (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi 47.155.41.104, your description sounds as if you had opened a list of all contributions from unregistered users and new accounts. You can probably increase the range size up to /0 without seeing a significant change in quality. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I recently filed an AE Request relating to GWA88, who you blocked along with myself in early July. It seems that this filing has been interpreted as a retaliatory action for your prior block.
I'm not sure if this is because I received a second block this month and there may be some mix-up over the two blocks, making it seem like I immediately filed the AE request on GWA88, after a block resulting from a GWA88's filing had expired. Given that 4 months has passed with no action from myself, I don't think this interpretation is reasonable.
Hi Carter00000, thank you very much for the notification. While I'm very likely to just let the AE administrators already handling the request do so without interference, I'll have a closer look later. I have to admit I'm not too happy to see another dispute between you and GWA88 appearing on a noticeboard; have you considered avoiding that user and just accepting that you have different approaches to achieve similar goals? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Tech News: 2023-44
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Structured Content team, as part of its project of improving UploadWizard on Commons, made some UX improvements to the upload step of choosing own vs not own work (T347590), as well as to the licensing step for own work (T347756).
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 31 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 November. It will be on all wikis from 2 November (calendar).
Listings on category pages are sorted on each wiki for that language using a library. For a brief period on 2 November, changes to categories will not be sorted correctly for many languages. This is because the developers are upgrading to a new version of the library. They will then use a script to fix the existing categories. This will take a few hours or a few days depending on how big the wiki is. You can read more. [214][215]
Starting November 1, the impact module (Special:Impact) will be upgraded by the Growth team. The new impact module shows newcomers more data regarding their impact on the wiki. It was tested by a few wikis during the last few months. [216]
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
@ToBeFree: why is tu quoque argumentation not helpful there? When it comes to procedural fairness, tu quoque arguments seem exactly on point: if one party individually notifies certain editors of a conflict, that seems very relevant as to whether other parties can do the same thing, and/or whether other editors should be notified. Why remove the diffs of such notifications, which seem like key aspects of the question being asked?
More generally, I don't get why you'd treat diffs as being only for the evidence page? Leaving the diffs, and answering the question, seems like a much more fair thing to do, than removing the diffs and deciding what kinds of arguments parties can and cannot make when asking a procedural question.
Also, only removing diffs posted by one party as inappropriate evidence, while not removing diffs/links posted by others, seems one-sided. Levivich (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Levivich, I see the general idea. Special:Diff/1178907113 and Special:Diff/1178907740 are not notifications of the same type, though. I'm not sure if this is clear, perhaps I'm stating the obvious – but Leyo had neither asked a question nor provided diffs of notifications about the currently running case.
The effect of the removed message, more specifically the bracketed part (the rest is fine with me) seems to be discrediting KoAwithout providing a relevant counterargument in the way you describe. It furthermore seems to be very similar in nature to [217] and [218], comments that led to the block that led to the case. This type of "I'll disregard the central point and write something that makes the person above me look untrustworthy and their words irrelevant", whether intentional or not, is disruptive.
I also haven't classified anything as "inappropriate evidence" by asking the user to provide it in the correct venue.
Evidence in arbitration cases is not presented in form of a discussion between parties throwing accusations at each other.
Noticeboard got cleared out before I could reply, but I wanted to say thanks for the patient and helpful explanation. Still figuring out some of the Wikipedia mechanics, and I appreciate the gentle pointers in the right direction!— Moriwen (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Moriwen, thank you very much for the kind feedback. No problem. The discussion and the other report were both removed because the users have been blocked, so reporting them was clearly the right thing to do. My concern was about the place only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
At that arbitration case an editor, who I won't immediately name here but they are not an Involved Party, has in my opinion engaged in battleground behavior that includes bad-faith assumptions and aspersions. I can certainly provide multiple diff, but prior to doing that, could you tell me if there is a formal, within-case mechanism (perhaps in addition to notifying the clerks on their Talk pages) for reporting those concerns? Alternatively, do you suggest that I simply remain silent and let the arbitration committee consider, or not consider, such posts as they see fit?
Thanks for your help. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi JoJo Anthrax, thank you very much for asking, and for intending to voice these concerns. I think the best public place would be the main talk page of the case, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture. Alternatively, the clerks' mailing list at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org (which is also read by arbitrators) is described at WP:AC/C as being intended for "reports regarding behaviour of other editors on arbitration pages", so perhaps that's exactly what you are looking for. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Tech News: 2023-45
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
In the Vector 2022 skin, the default font-size of a number of navigational elements (tagline, tools menu, navigational links, and more) has been increased slightly to match the font size used in page content. [219]
Problems
Last week, there was a problem displaying some recent edits on a few wikis, for 1-6 hours. The edits were saved but not immediately shown. This was due to a database problem. [220]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 November. It will be on all wikis from 9 November (calendar).
The Growth team will reassign newcomers from former mentors to the currently active mentors. They have also changed the notification language to be more user-friendly. [221][222]
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
For some of the headers like "Comments by parties", you've got a semi-colon at the beginning, and also bold font. You might want to remove the bold font where that's happening. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it's sort of like bold-and-fat. Not a big deal, but I also just noticed inconsistencies between "Comment" (singular) and "Comments" (plural), and the plural is probably correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I've pared it down a bit; I'd agree that it's borderline WP:BLPGOSSIP, and would've removed the whole bit were it not for the sourcing and the SNL skit. Still, I would not fight for it's inclusion if there was any sort of consensus to remove it entirely. OhNoitsJamieTalk00:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Visual styling of nested lists
I wrote a style sheet that may be of interest to you—it adds style formatting to nested lists. A vertical bar is added on the left, and two background colours alternate with each additional level. See User:Isaacl/style/discussion-threads for more details and a mockup. It makes it easy to see when someone changes the hierarchy of nested levels, as the vertical bar will be interrupted. I also have an accompanying script that adds a menu item to the tools menu to temporarily disable the styling. I find it very helpful when fixing up discussion threads. isaacl (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, isaacl – I might use this as a base for a very tiny line on the left side, or similar minimal formatting. Changing the background from none (or white on my screen) would probably make me unhappy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Sure, the style rule starting at line 31 defines the left line. The border-image property is used to give the border two colours, the rightmost one being white, in order to give a bit of space for bulleted list items. The border is a bit awkwardly placed for that situation, but I didn't want to make larger style changes such as adding padding. You can look at the mockup and decide how unhappy a second background colour would make you (you could make it even paler). isaacl (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey Illusion Flame, sending barnstars for joining the elections is a cool idea. Encouraging volunteers independently of the final election result is a nice gesture; thank you very much for the kind message and your coordination! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Last week, users who previously visited Meta-Wiki or Wikimedia Commons and then became logged out on those wikis could not log in again. The problem is now resolved. [228]
Last week, some pop-up dialogs and menus were shown with the wrong font size. The problem is now resolved. [229]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 November. It will be on all wikis from 16 November (calendar).
Future changes
Reference Previews are coming to many wikis as a default feature. They are popups for references, similar to the PagePreviews feature. You can opt out of seeing them. If you are using the gadgets Reference Tooltips or Navigation Popups, you won’t see Reference Previews. Deployment is planned for November 22, 2023.
Canary (also known as heartbeat) events will be produced into Wikimedia event streams from December 11. Streams users are advised to filter out these events, by discarding all events where meta.domain == "canary". Updates to Pywikibot or wikimedia-streams will discard these events by default. [230]
IPv6 with apparent COI issues going back to March of last year has recently been removing certain personal details, claiming "confidentiality". These details are sourced to Vanity Fair, IndieWire, and the University of California. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification. As far as I can see, there's no discussion about this on the article's talk page yet; perhaps you could create one? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
If you follow the page history to March & June of last year, you'll see that the same range has been responsible for making NPOV edits; that tells me the IP has a conflict of interest. In this latest round of edits, they also claimed to be correcting "inaccuracies". Ideally, they would be the one starting a discussion on the article's talk page regarding what is so inaccurate about the sourced content. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Hello, @ⵣⵉⵔⵉ ⴰⵎⵖⵏⴰⵙ. Instead, if you intend to leave Wikipedia, you can simply stop editing and abandon your account. However, if you intend to not ever return to Wikipedia and for any reason would like to make your contributions harder to find and to remove your association with your edits, see Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. Also check out the associated section #What vanishing is not, for a list of what courtesy vanishing is not used for. That said, if you plan on leaving Wikipedia, thanks for your contributions, and I wish you luck in your future! TailsWx20:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
And it would be verging on the Kafkaesque: but in that situation I might demand my appeal to be ''reblocked'' for the next ~16 days be filed at AN. Talk about bizarre. And I never even noticed that it was a fait accomplii already! *bigger facepalm* ——Serial20:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Responding to your question about Fair pie-cutting -- I'm trying to classify all the unclassified articles. This one is clearly not math. Could be classed as Game theory, but this seems pretty cut-n-dried economic theory to me. I mean, textbook economics, even, stuff you'd get in college. Note that game theory can be considered to be a sub-branch of both math and economics, while economics is a branch of sociology. There might be other sociology projects that might be interested in this topic. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi 67.198.37.16,
A pie is usually modeled as the 1-dimensional interval [0,2π] (or [0,1]), in which the two endpoints are identified.
If the valuations of the partners are absolutely continuous with respect to each other, then there exists a WPR division which is also weighted-envy-free (WEF) and Pareto efficient (PE), and the ratio between the values of the partners is exactly w1/w2.[reference omitted] Proof. For every angle t, let be the angle in which the ratio The function is a continuous function of t that achieves a maximum for some . Cut the pie with radial cuts at and , giving the piece to partner #1 and the complement to partner #2. The partition is WEF because the value of each partner is exactly his due share. It is PE because the share of partner #1 is maximized, so it is not possible to give more to partner #2 without harming partner #1.
Just because it uses mathematical notation does not make it "math". Math is used in everything from computer graphics, to physics, to ecology, weather forecasting, statistics, game theory, neuroscience, architecture, mechanical engineering and, yes, economics. Just because there's an equation in it does not make it "math". In this case, the article appears to be about how human beings make determinations of fairness, which is a topic in sociology. Whenever sociology uses a lot of math, and talks about fairness, its usually called "economics". A bit further down in the article, you'll note talk about two players playing a game. This makes it into "game theory". Modern economics uses a lot of game theory, because this is a good way of understanding how a large collection of human beings sort things out. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense – the topic does seem more mathematical and abstract than some of the examples to me, but I acknowledge that the mere presence of formulae doesn't make something a primarily mathematical topic. The optimization of fair pie-cutting, with algorithms such as the one described in [231] and summarized for a broader audience in [232], seemed pretty mathematical and abstract to me, and rather unrelated to what I've usually seen about game theory: Two people compete and take turns to optimize their own outcome. Now that I write it, after the fair pie-cutting, that does happen... by selecting the largest piece. That's the entire game algorithm and it happens after the article topic. Mh. Economics? I'm sure you see my problem, but I'm not sure if you'll be able to solve it. I undid my revert on the talk page and again acknowledge that I lack the competence to assess this properly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I want to appeal my suspended account but I don’t remember the password
Hi, I only created this account to speak with administrator. I want to appeal my suspended account but I don’t remember the password of it. What can I do? How can I appeal? Korem637 (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. When you open the blocked account's user talk page (like User talk:Korem637, but with the blocked user's name instead of yours), you'll probably see the reason for the block, and instructions for requesting an unblock.
Please follow these instructions by using {{unblock}} on your talk page, not the talk page of the blocked account. In your unblock request, please explain the situation and clarify which account this is about.
To ensure that you can use your current account only to follow these instructions, I'll block it too. You can still open the originally blocked account's talk page, read the instructions there, and follow them on your own talk page. You just won't be able to edit any other page, as doing so would be block evasion.
Hi Kautilya3, I'm not sure if asking on an individual administrator's talk page can help in this situation; I'd say it is unlikely to. If there are persistent behavioral issues, they might best be discussed at WP:ANI or WP:AE with diff links as evidence of problematic behavior, without having another content discussion there. I'd avoid focusing on the wording of WP:BRD or any other non-policy when doing so, as this makes it easy for the others to respond with "it's just an essay" without even being wrong about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Tech News: 2023-47
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week. [235][236]
Starting on Wednesday, a new set of Wikipedias will get "Add a link" (Quechua Wikipedia, Romansh Wikipedia, Romani Wikipedia, Rundi Wikipedia, Aromanian Wikipedia, Tarandíne Wikipedia, Rusyn Wikipedia, Kinyarwanda Wikipedia, Sanskrit Wikipedia, Sakha Wikipedia, Santali Wikipedia, Sardinian Wikipedia, Sicilian Wikipedia, Scots Wikipedia, Sindhi Wikipedia, Northern Sami Wikipedia, Sango Wikipedia, Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, Sinhala Wikipedia, Slovak Wikipedia, Slovenian Wikipedia, Samoan Wikipedia, Somali Wikipedia, Albanian Wikipedia, Serbian Wikipedia, Sranan Tongo Wikipedia, Swati Wikipedia, Southern Sotho Wikipedia, Saterland Frisian Wikipedia, Sundanese Wikipedia, Silesian Wikipedia, Tamil Wikipedia, Tulu Wikipedia, Telugu Wikipedia, Tetum Wikipedia, Tajik Wikipedia, Thai Wikipedia, Turkmen Wikipedia, Tagalog Wikipedia, Tswana Wikipedia, Tongan Wikipedia, Tok Pisin Wikipedia, Turkish Wikipedia, Tsonga Wikipedia, Tatar Wikipedia, Twi Wikipedia, Tahitian Wikipedia, Tuvinian Wikipedia, Udmurt Wikipedia, Uyghur Wikipedia, Uzbek Wikipedia, Venda Wikipedia, Venetian Wikipedia, Veps Wikipedia, West Flemish Wikipedia, Volapük Wikipedia). This is part of the progressive deployment of this tool to more Wikipedias. The communities can configure how this feature works locally. [237][238][239]
The Vector 2022 skin will have some minor visual changes to drop-down menus, column widths, and more. These changes were added to four Wikipedias last week. If no issues are found, these changes will proceed to all wikis this week. These changes will make it possible to add new menus for readability and dark mode. Learn more. [240]
Skywatcher68, Special:Diff/1186210959 is a bit of an oversimplification as article subjects are not strictly prohibited from editing articles about themselves, and we even encourage them to do so in case they notice obvious factual errors (WP:FAQ/Article subjects).
While I won't get involved, please strongly consider using the article's talk page instead of treating these edits as vandalism. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if that is the article subject making edits; the same content has been removed by at least three different registered editors over the years. The last one started that talk page discussion in 2020. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Let's assume all of these edits have been made by the same person, and that person is connected to the article subject ~ financially, through marriage, or perhaps by it being themselves.
Skywatcher68, my life in this situation is easy – I can just say "when in doubt, don't restore". Or perhaps, "if in doubt afterwards, consider self-reverting". This is still valid.
I'll avoid making a decision; I'm not in a position to make a strict decision there anyway, You do have an opinion though, I'd say: The content should stay because someone with a conflict of interest wants to have it removed. If that's really the only argument, please do self-revert. If there are actual arguments beyond this, writing them on the article's talk page would be a good step. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't even know why they asked me. All I did initially was post a welcome message on their user talk, noting that their first edit as a registered user appeared to be a test. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Ah, well, I think your message – the only one they've received at least on this account's talk page so far – including the invitation to ask questions on your talk page may have led to that happening. And it's not a bad thing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Someone is currently edit warring at the page to which I linked above. Their comments on the talk page were removed once by one editor, then repeatedly reverted by the editor who posted it. I have rolled them back multiple times but haven't had time to post a warning because the user keeps restoring the problematic comments. The editor in question threatened to report me when I threatened to report them. Would you look that situation over and take any necessary action? Since I am directly involved, I don't want to take this any further myself. Sorry to bother you on Thanksgiving weekend, but I could use your help. Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 06:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Jgstokes, thanks for asking. I disagree about a lack of time to post a warning – or a lack of time to report the user at WP:AIV or WP:ANI, looking at their /64 contribution list(explanation), perhaps after a single clear warning attempt. When Favre1fan93's removal was reverted, the probability of this disruption stopping without administrative intervention was already at zero. As the revision contained nothing requiring immediate removal (and then perhaps revision deletion or oversighting), there was no need to keep rollbacking while waiting for an actual solution. A revert or two, okay, but twelve... nah. WP:3RR does exist and it wouldn't be incorrect to argue that no exemption applied. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I'll keep it in mind. If something like that happens again, I'll be sure to let you know right away. Thanks again. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 07:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
It looks like another anonymous user restored the comment in question. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same individual using another IP address to evade the block you applied. Just wanted to let you know. I'm not going to take any action on this, since I want to make sure that everything is above board from hereon out. Thanks again. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 07:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Gerda Arendt – I like the piano melody! It reminds me of classical melodies that played as intermissions in Peanuts videos when I was a child; I was fascinated by the abstract visualization shown during these scenes. I tried to find an example on YouTube, but I couldn't find any. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, that's interesting. I had two more stories about pianists since (just check the following days), - plenty of yt! - Thank you for a reply to my cand question. I may discuss it after tomorrow's concert when we will sing the Mozart and listen to Pärt's urgent call for peace played by the strings, - I'm not in the mood before ;) - I mentioned Pärt for a reason, could have been Beethoven as well, in other words: I believe it's time for a fresh look, as we were told 10 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your reply: "the conflict", you say, and I suggest to look at what is the conflict. It's not infoboxes, because - as everybody reading Wikipedia can easily tell - infoboxes are almost everywhere, - they are contentious only in a small corner of subjects, in articles by a small group of editors. I met the dispute in 2012, for Samuel Barber (where I opposed for redundancy, but understood within a day that the redundancy serves readers with different needs). Brian Boulton added a compromise to Chopin as a RfC result in 2015. I thought that would settle it, dreamer that I am ;) (Longer answer to Z1720, in case of interest) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Good day, I'm reporting again a vandal who evaded previous blocks, his IP code now is 151.48.176.41 and he's using it for the same kind of vandalisms as a few months ago. 151.82.63.18 (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi 151.82.63.18, could you provide one example for an IP address or account that is currently blocked and has clearly been used by the same person? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm providing a few examples, even if no block is currently still active (this vandal either changes IP while the previous is blocked or just waits for the active block to expire): 151.30.243.31, 151.30.34.219, 151.30.235.39, 151.48.146.82, 151.48.150.174, 151.48.146.146. 151.82.63.18 (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.82.106.132 (talk)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 November. It will be on all wikis from 30 November (calendar). There is no new MediaWiki version next week. [243][244]
MediaWiki's JavaScript system will now allow async/await syntax in gadgets and user scripts. Gadget authors should remember that users' browsers may not support it, so it should be used appropriately. [245]
The deployment of "Add a link" announced last week was postponed. It will resume this week.
You're welcome, sometimes it's the small things that count. The moving of my 1st comment I didn't notice, you were right to ping me so I could acknowledge the error. Not many users would of thought to do that. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to follow-up on the move request submitted in October. I haven't been active on Wikipedia for a while. Here I've included some reliable sources for your consideration. Kindly review them and please move this article into a draft space. Also you can check malayalam wikipedia [[246]]
As you probably know, and as described in (over)simplified form at WP:42, the general notability guideline (and similar text at WP:ORGCRIT) generally requires "significant coverage in (multiple) reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If such coverage does not exist, creating an article is usually pointless, even if your writing is perfect and beautiful images are added.
The second page linked in your list is, or strongly relies on, an announcement from the company. It thus also likely lacks the required independence.
The PDF document is a primary source; the sources you're looking for should be secondary sources (see WP:PSTS for an explanation, and WP:GNG regarding the need for secondary sources).
The article from Manorama Online doesn't seem to describe B4blaze in detail, and at least Google Chrome's translation sounds pretty promotional.
The last article in the list doesn't seem to be about the topic you'd like to write about.
If these are the best sources available about the subject, please find a different one to write about.
Heh! You're really trying to convince me of either the necessity of infoboxes in every article, or that a community-wide consensus for adding them exists already, or that no sanctions are needed in this area, but this isn't happening at the moment, sorry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Wrong on three accounts, sorry. I only want to see if a candidate will (be able to) look at diffs. I asked you all the same questions. A pocket guide to Arbitration told me that arbitrators don't look at details but when I read that it was too late, after the case. I had learned already that an arb had voted to ban a user, quoting the diff analysed here, and none of his colleagues questioned it, which told me that none had looked at it (or also misunderstood), which ruined my trust in arbitration. - More after the election ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Tech News: 2023-49
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The spacing between paragraphs on Vector 2022 has been changed from 7px to 14px to match the size of the text. This will make it easier to distinguish paragraphs from sentences. [247]
The "Sort this page by default as" feature in VisualEditor is working again. You no longer need to switch to source editing to edit {{DEFAULTSORT:...}} keywords. [248]
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week. [249][250]
Registration & Scholarship applications are now open for the Wikimedia Hackathon 2024 that will take place from 3–5 May in Tallinn, Estonia. Scholarship applications are open until 5 January 2024.
Hey, just letting you know about the COI edits here. The most recent one specified that they're editing on behalf of the subject; the others removing content presumably have been as well. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I am having another issue similar to the one I last reported. On the page noted above, someone keeps adding unsourced information. I've asked them repeatedly to provide a source or leave the page alone, but they aren't listening. Would you be able to look this over and take any action on this since I am directly involved? Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I have also requested page protection, which hasn't been granted and may not help in this case. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 18:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh my, Jgstokes, this is (just) a musical. Not something to have an urgent edit war about. Something that can be calmly discussed and where not having your preferred revision at the top of the history isn't a problem.
I won't get involved there because if this really needs administrative intervention, that won't be one-sided, so I can either answer your request for help by blocking you or keeping my hands away entirely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. For the record, I couldn't care less if my preferred revision is at the top of the page or not. My chief concern is that information is being added that directly contradicts cited sources. That's something I hope any Wikipedian would care about, even if it is "just a musical". My apologies for bothering you unnecessarily. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 19:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Here's my problem: Several revisions back, I provided a source specifically proving that the analysis that the user in question was attempting to add was incorrect. In response, they are reverting with the explanation that "this is correct" without citing a source to counter the one I mentioned. The crux of my issue is that they will not discuss this on the talk page as repeatedly invited to do so, and their personal interpretation of events does not match the source I cited several revisions ago. I should perhaps have led with that information when reaching out to you. Maybe my repeated reverts are no less in violation than this editor's repeated insertion of the incorrect information, but "this information is correct" has never been an acceptable rationale on Wikipedia before. The situation got out of hand, which is why I asked for your potential intervention. Perhaps I didn't handle this as best I could on my end, but I have yet to see any evidence that my reverts to information that is backed by a reliable source are uncalled for. Just wanted to make that clear. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
With my latest revert of the unsourced information, I indicated that the user in question either needed to cite a source to verify the information they were trying to add, or they needed to leave the page alone. That seems to have resolved this issue. I will be sure to put the source I used relating to this matter up on that page for verification lest there be any doubt about this in the future. Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
And apparently, since I last checked on that situation, the account in question was discovered to be that of a sockpuppet. The user has consequently been blocked, and I have restored the status quo as supported by the already-cited source. Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 06:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
In fairness, though, I didn't know it was a block evasion at the time, so your warning was appropriate and called for. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 20:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Also fair enough. I have started numerous times to post a message on the editor's page, but the last several times I have done so, I've remembered previous times when editors disrupting page content have removed such messages, which has made it more difficult for me to go that route. Again, sorry for troubling you. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 19:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Okay. If this situation continues, I will be sure to leave a message on their talk page. I'm at a weird phase in my life where I doubt myself a lot, and maybe the self-doubt plays into why I was having a hard time leaving a message on the user's page about this. If I can't resolve this myself through the edit summary, I will pursue further action on the talk page of the article and on the talk page of the user in question. Thanks, and again, my apologies for bothering you unnecessarily. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Jgstokes, seeking advice was a fine decision and not unnecessary. Perhaps Muboshgu even saw this discussion here and noticed the sockpuppetry that way – whatever. Regarding self-doubt, if I understand your edit summaries and reverting correctly, you were absolutely sure that you were correct about this. In that case, creating a talk page section and messaging the other user is a very good way of resolving the conflict, and the worst thing that could happen is a dismissive, unfriendly response from the other user – benefiting you in the end. If you are the reasonable person trying to resolve a content dispute through discussion and the other user refuses to discuss, you have practically already... well, won, although this shouldn't be about winning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
@ToBeFree, since my last comment here, the problematic edits I mentioned have been remade repeatedly by a series of IP addresses. There is never more than one revert per IP address, making a warning impractical. But given the nature of these edits, I believe these IP addresses are the same editor at it again, and that these edits are a block evasion. It appears from this page that my previous request for page protection went nowhere. Given that this is still a problem, and that multiple IP addresses are involved in this block evasion, what would be the best way to handle this? Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 07:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
There appears to be a similar black evasion situation on this page, where multiple IP addresses are being used to circumvent Wikipedia policies against edit warring. Just wanted to note that as well. Thanks again. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 07:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Jgstokes, reverting block evasion is fine and requesting page protection to stop it is also a good idea. If a page protection request was declined after clear block evasion, there might not have been enough recent disruption to justify protection, but in general, the approach is fine and there's not much else you can do (other than creating a report at WP:SPI, or in really really clear cases WP:AIV). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
Hi! I just ran into this. First of all, do you remember how you ran into it? Had someone asked you to help out with it? I am investigating something (not related to you, outside of this one diff).
Secondly, did I miss something? How does arbcom figure into usage of this one tag? I am interested to hear your thoughts in more detail, because I remember seeing you in the ballot this year. Best, Usedtobecool☎️19:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
My edit summary is a bit silly, or perhaps ironic, or whatever that could be called: Of course the Arbitration Committee won't re-add an {{undisclosed paid}} tag to the top of an article; it doesn't make content decisions. If anything, ArbCom would ban the article creator based on private evidence and inform the community about the ban. What I was trying to say is: Sending evidence to ArbCom isn't an activity that, by itself, suddenly justifies the re-addition of a maintenance tag.
The actual concern is one of these two:
"Undisclosed payments led to the creation of this wonderful and perfect article." ← Okay, we don't need to add any tag; doing so would not help the encyclopedia.
"Undisclosed payments led to issues such as a lack of neutrality." ← Okay, use {{npov}} or whichever template addresses the actual issue.
When there is a dispute about the inclusion of an {{undisclosed paid}} template, the easiest way to resolve it seems to be pointing this out. That's what I did.
Makes sense to me. Also helps with my investigation. Who knows how long it would have taken me to find that ANI thread by myself! Thanks! Usedtobecool☎️02:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I would have said you earned my vote, but 1. I already voted and 2. if I told you I voted for you, you probably would have to recuse in all cases involving me for all time (which hopefully would be zero times, but still). So, I'll just say good luck. Good luck! Usedtobecool☎️03:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
On Wikimedia Commons, there are some minor user-interface improvements for the "choosing own vs not own work" step in the UploadWizard. This is part of the Structured Content team's project of improving UploadWizard on Commons. [252][253]
Problems
There was a problem showing the Newcomer homepage feature with the "impact module" and their page-view graphs, for a few days in early December. This has now been fixed. [254][255]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 December. It will be on all wikis from 14 December (calendar). [256][257]
Future changes
The 2023 Developer Satisfaction Survey is seeking the opinions of the Wikimedia developer community. Please take the survey if you have any role in developing software for the Wikimedia ecosystem. The survey is open until 5 January 2024, and has an associated privacy statement.
Hi Jtbobwaysf, it's in the information box at the very top of the page which contains the following text:
This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.
As it answers both your initial question and this one here, I thought pointing to it might be a good idea.
Ah, yes I do see that text box with the orange boarder now. It was actually what a bit scared me thinking I might now be allowed to join in the discussion as I wasnt an arbiter so that was the reason that I asked if I could comment. Thank you, the emoji is cool too Is there is page with many emojis? I might use them in the future. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
No worries. Regarding emoji lists, I have one at User:ToBeFree/s.css, and I copy new ones from commons:Emoji/Table when I need them. Feel free to copy my s.css page and add any you like. If you're using Windows, you can also add actual Emoji instead of images by holding the Windows key and pressing "." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I saw that you blocked a editor for edit-warring [258] before and hoped you would help mediate in a similar dispute related to the editor.
I removed an edit today [259] that involved a copy-paste of a Russian foreign ministry statement, which was essentially propaganda, so I believed was unsuitable for inclusion. However, this editor who added the content later restored it [260] and acknowledged its propaganda-like nature, but dismissed the concern. To contact the editor directly, I started a exchange [261] on the editor's user page. Instead of discussing the issues with me, the editor attempted to dismiss me by saying that I was not allowed to edit the topic.
I was made aware recently that I could not edit anything on Israel/Palestine, but Russia seems to be unrelated to that. Even if editing is not allowed in certain cases, I would expect that, as part of the editing discussion process, editors should remain open to communication and not simply dismiss new editors. I'm really not sure what to do here, as the discussion seems unlikely to be productive now.
I would really appreciate some help as I'm quite new here. I've also had a difficult week on Wikipedia, so would hope to avoid any further drama. Marwanaircalm (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Marwanaircalm, discussing is usually the right approach. In this unusual case here, I recommend editing about different topics to gain the required amount of editing experience first. The Task Center and the community portal contain ideas for helpful contributions unrelated to the Russo-Ukrainian war or the Arab-Israeli conflict. Once you meet the requirements,(see your talk page) you can continue discussing with the user, and they won't be able to dismiss your concerns this way anymore.
Please note that simply making a huge number of pointless contributions to reach this goal, just in case it seems tempting, may lead to manual removal of the extended-confirmed permission by any administrator.
Thanks for the advice and assistance. I've read the policies you've linked me to and understand that it is policy that certain topics should not be edited by new users. I am eager to contribute more before editing those topics again. I will make sure that the edits are constructive, as you have suggested. Marwanaircalm (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Marwanaircalm, and please let me know if any questions arise. The whole point of editing elsewhere first is to gain experience, so if you encounter a situation where you're unsure how to react, please ask – it may just be a single time before you reach 500 edits, but even that single question would be worth it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for this. It appears that they are engaging in wider problematic edits. There must be a pattern here as all of these edits appear to be related to Olympiakos. Needless to mention that the description "cleaning the article", apart from being very deceiving, it aims at removing cited text that has been widely been covered globally. After five (5) personal attacks [1][2][3][4][5], I think it's getting out of hand. Dynasty Power (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Unbelievable
I just saw you blocked him User talk:SportsGreece as my puppet!!! I have no words. You know what I'm starting to believe? ; So I think you are playing his game just fine Dynasty Power. It's sad for a manager. I think you don't deserve the position. Thank you for making fun of me. Finally, it goes without saying that I have nothing to do with him and you can check that. Montigliani (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
@Montigliani ToBeFree did not block SportsGreece, another admin who is also a checkuser blocked that account. Also, there are no managers here nor any hierarchy. Only editors, with some having more tools than others and/or more experience. S0091 (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello Montigliani, I didn't, although it was me who asked a checkuser to have a look at [262], primarily because there seemed to be logged-out editing by registered, blocked users that can't be publicly confirmed without publishing their IP addresses.
I don't intend to make you feel disappointed or even betrayed, and I'm sorry for my contribution to your current opinion of everyone involved.
The reason your block is limited to the article namespace is that I had hoped for you to create a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI. My actions seem to be hard to understand, but I also have significant trouble understanding why you don't simply do so. You're highly eager to get a sockpuppet blocked and their contributions undone, I showed you the path to that goal and you've invested a significant amount of time and work into doing everything except following that path. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Montigliani, again, the amount of time and work you have invested so far into not following the advice to open WP:SPI and click "show" next to "How to open an investigation:" is amazing. Thank you for creating any report though; I can now actually help by copying this to the right place. One moment, please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will try to do what you ask. I've only been a user for 4 months and I'm having a lot of trouble with the technical stuff. Montigliani (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Okay, no worries. I'll happily answer questions and help with the technical part; my main concern was that technical trouble didn't seem to be the only reason at Special:Permalink/1190405924#December_2023. I may have misinterpreted this, though.
To create the likely-needed diff links of evidence, you can open the contributions list of the accounts and IP addresses by opening Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NikolaosFanaris and clicking the "contribs" links. In the contributions list, you can click "diff" next to an edit. At the top of your internet browser, in the address bar, you will then see a link (https://en.wikipedia.org/...) to the diff you're currently looking at. You can copy this link to the investigation page if you'd like to use it as evidence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I added a new item where you showed me, but I put it in the wrong place and another admin corrected me. However, if you look at the contributions of all the users I denounce, they all blame Evangelos Marinakis and Olympiakos. Always with the same pattern of contributions. Sorry to bore you. Unfortunately I don't have your capabilities to do something on my own. However, I am sure about this user, who with other accounts on the Greek wikipedia has shown the worst behavior. Montigliani (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Montigliani, could you provide, ideally at the investigation page by replying to your 21:02 message there, a few examples of all the accounts doing this? For example, if NikolaosFanaris and Dynasty Power wrote the same things, could you link to these things please? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much . Your help and advice taught me a lot and you were the best teacher. I apologize for tiring you so much. With your permission, I need to remind you that puppet edits must be undone according to wiki policy. The article Super League Greece remains closed and I can't do it myself, so I ask you to either open it or do it yourself. Montigliani (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Montigliani, thank you for the kind feedback and no worries. I've thought about it for a while and think I understand what led you to other pages before using WP:SPI. If I understand correctly, it was a mixture of technical hurdles and a lack of trust, part of which I inadvertently contributed to. Unless one side of the conflict is proven (or really obvious) to be a sockpuppet, I treat them as equal; you were right in your reverts and your accusations, but I couldn't just act on them without evidence. I hope that's okay, in hindsight.
Regarding the sockpuppet's contributions, these can be undone; they explicitly do not have to be undone (see WP:BE: This does not mean that edits must be reverted). I sometimes let others decide whether something should be undone after I block a sockpuppet or witness such a block. This is the case here; you are welcome to revert them of course (and already have done so, thanks).
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Tech News
The next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 8 January 2024 because of the holidays.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 December. It will be on all wikis from 21 December (calendar). There is no new MediaWiki version next week. [263][264]
Starting December 18, it won't be possible to activate Structured Discussions on a user's own talk page using the Beta feature. The Beta feature option remains available for users who want to deactivate Structured Discussions. This is part of Structured Discussions' deprecation work. [265]
There will be full support for redirects in the Module namespace. The "Move Page" feature will leave an appropriate redirect behind, and such redirects will be appropriately recognized by the software (e.g. hidden from Special:UnconnectedPages). There will also be support for manual redirects. [266]
Future changes
The MediaWiki JavaScript documentation is moving to a new format. During the move, you can read the old docs using version 1.41. Feedback about the new site is welcome on the project talk page.
The Wishathon is a new initiative that encourages collaboration across the Wikimedia community to develop solutions for wishes collected through the Community Wishlist Survey. The first community Wishathon will take place from 15–17 March. If you are interested in a project proposal as a user, developer, designer, or product lead, you can register for the event and read more.
Hello ToBeFree, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing,
–Davey2010Talk18:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. You are always a friendly username to come across. Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk
Solstice Celebration for ToBeFree, 2023, DALL·E 3.
This is the most beautiful, personalized postcard I have ever received, Sdkb, and I can't thank you enough for it. I went through the gallery of images for a while, chose one and created a derivative, smilingly and in awe. This one here is for you!
Hello ToBeFree, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey Jerium! It's been a while and I still need to get used to the new username! Thank you very much and have Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year 2024 too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
Happy Holidays and a Prosperous 2024!
Hello ToBeFree, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, QuickQuokka[talk • contribs]18:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 (☁＝☁＝✈) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Midori No Sora, that's cool! Is "どうもありがとうございます" correct? I sadly know only one Japanese character, No (kana), as it appears in many titles and has a very distinct shape. I hope the Pons dictionary managed to translate "Thank you very much" correctly. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2024 to you too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid the lyrics are... cheesy? In German, I'd say "schnulzig" or "kitschig". On the other hand, I listen to Santiano too, so I might even be a fan of it if I understood the lyrics. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Philipnelson99, no worries! After checking this, I had a closer look at their contributions and noticed that prior blocks weren't necessary for an indefinite block in this case. Thanks for your report! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 1 January 2024:
Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, to remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:
Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators, who have not elected to retain them, after 31 December 2023:
CheckUser: Enterprisey, Izno, SilkTork
Oversight: Enterprisey, Izno, SilkTork
Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list, with the exception of Enterprisey, who has elected to be unsubscribed.
All outgoing arbitrators will be unsubscribed from the clerks-l mailing list, with the exception of Izno, who has elected to remain subscribed.
Congratulations to your election! - I uploaded more pics, with Christmas trees and related artworks, and I have two women on the Main page (for a sad reason). Our Christmas singing (of my user's infobox music "singen, singen") was pictured! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Congrats on being elected to ArbCom. I was super pleased to see your name on the list of candidates this year! Happy new year as well! Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
I noticed that you remove my arbitration case requested. I also see that the reason for the removal was violation of which I disagree. I did not violate any of the. I hope you can give me a real detailed reason for my removal as soon as possible as I feel that it was unjust. Thank you. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Your case request started with the sentence "I have filed this arbitration case request because both of these editors have been making edits to any article regarding the war in Ukraine with personal bias".
You thus attempted to start an internal project discussion about editing in this topic area, but WP:GS/RUSUKR currently prohibits you from doing so, as you are not yet extended-confirmed.
I decline; it was about the Russo-Ukrainian war and had one single revision. You are not extended-confirmed and may thus not create such pages (WP:GS/RUSUKR). You can, however, re-create it as an empty page or with content unrelated to the Russo-Ukrainian war, whenever you like to. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
World B. Free
Hello To.Be.Frei,
I came to your user page just to get better acquainted with you and to give you my congratulations on the ArbCom election. Congratulations!
I did notice something on your user page that interested me. Are you any relation to World B. Free? Now that would be quite an honor! (even if his first name at birth was Lloyd).
I haven't heard of World B. Free before, but an article with sentences starting with "Free" as a name is a very entertaining reading experience. Sadly, Free retired before I was born. Being related to him would really have been an honor!
I was hoping you could take a look at the Battle of Kosovo article where edit warring between another editor and me is happening. The other editor is reverting based on WP:CON and WP:DEADHORSE, which is a misuse of policies—similar to the reason you once blocked me. I've genuinely tried to cooperate with this editor, explaining how the edit doesn't violate any guidelines, but my contributions have been completely shut down. I've also previously suggested that if the editor has issues with specific parts of my edit, it would be better to address those instead of completely reverting everything. This is no longer a content dispute; it's becoming extensive stonewalling. If you could take a look, it would be a great help. Thanks. --Azor (talk). 13:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Mmmh. Hi AzorzaI, thank you very much for the notification. I've had a look at the cooperation attempt, but I'm afraid that this talk page message to Botushali came across as too confrontational to be of help.
I've also had a look at the history of the article, looking at months of reverts instead of discussion. I could have fully protected the page, but the page is already extended-confirmed protected, and raising the level further would have unjustly affected many contributors. The only solution, it seems, is a long-duration partial block ([269], [270]).
This may not have been as one-sided as expected, and the first reaction may be regretting having asked for help, but if you look at this in three months, I hope you'll agree with the idea.
Hi @ToBeFree, thanks for the tag and for being impartial. To be frank with you, I do not mind this page-specific block due to a number of reasons. You’ll notice months of fruitless and cyclical discussions on the TP accompanied by long-term edit warring mainly spurred by AzorzaI’s constant attempts at making drastic and otherwise pointless or deceptive edits that they mask as productive or useful in a manner comparable to WP:CPP.
In reality, they have been trying to push a certain agenda or POV that obstructs source precision or attempts to paint certain aspects in a specific light that aligns with their POV. They would claim that they are simply creating a new subsection, when in reality they were altering sourced information according to their own interpretations and providing undue weight to certain sources that they personally preferred. That’s a violation of the guidelines within WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.
In all honesty, however, I believe that AzorzaI is more “deserving” of sanctions than I am, for lack of a better term. I don’t know how thoroughly you looked at the TP discussions or even the edits they made, but it was very apparent that they were trying to push particular POV’s that did not align with many of the sources on the article. They ignored/manipulated/altered cited information and the sources they are derived from to better suit the narratives they want to get across, and would repeatedly ignore what I or any other editor has to say on the TP.
You’ll notice a lot of the time during our disputes on the article in question, I tend to revert AzorzaI’s changes. According to WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This is something that this user has failed to do for a variety of edits across a number of articles, and they have instead resorted to trying to push through particular edits by constantly edit-warring over the same things for no apparent reason. Most of the time, they will make edits and keep trying to draw me and other editors into the same conversations over and over again with the same results. I apologise for my phrasing here, but a lot of the time, their contributions on the TP are paragraphs of nonsense, resulting in a deadlock where the conversations continue to circle around again and again with no consensus for whatever edits they try to make. WP:DEADHORSE exists for this very reason, but they just keep bringing the same things up for months on end. Battle of Kosovo isn’t the only article where AzorzaI adopted an approach of cyclical and monthly edit-warring in which they bring almost zero sources of their own to the table - Andrea II Muzaka and Voisava Kastrioti come to mind. On the Battle of Vajkal, they intervened on the TP to push an ahistorical narrative that has no backing by any sources anywhere whatsoever (so it would seem to be an intervention carried out more so to spite me, rather than to intervene in good-faith). I’ve had my fair share of disputes across a number of articles and with a variety of editors as that is the volatile nature of the Balkan topic area, but unlike my disputes with AzorzaI, they come to natural conclusions which are typically accepted and upheld by those I am engaged in disputes with.
Looking at their edit history, I don’t know when AzorzaI last made major additions to an article, or created an article, or overhauled an article etc etc. Most of the time, they bring absolutely zero sources to the table during disputes, and only discuss their personal interpretations of whatever sources may be currently present on said articles. It would seem as though they came to Wikipedia to argue, conversate and push a certain pro-Serbian POV, particularly in articles revolving around Albanians. That’s not what Wikipedia is for, and those are the wrong reasons to be editing here.
Nonetheless, I’ve said my piece. I am very pleased that this isn’t a one-sided block, as AzorzaI can no longer make inappropriate edits on the article over and over again. Hopefully, it will also allow me to get back to creating, expanding or overhauling articles, which is something I thoroughly enjoyed doing in the past and did quite a lot of. I wasted far too much time arguing with this user over the same things to no avail, and it discouraged me from editing on Wikipedia for the right reasons. This two-way block will ensure I don’t have to focus on this cyclical nonsense on the same articles over and over again, although I would have obviously preferred not being blocked from that article at all.
I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at Azor’s behaviour and edits in articles revolving around Albanians - it’s been very disruptive to say the least, so perhaps you could consider a topic ban for all Albanian-related articles or something along those lines, because I truly believe they do not have WP:GOODFAITH when editing these articles. Aside from that, the only thing I would hope that you, @ToBeFree, will look out for from now on, is this same WP:CPP behaviour on other articles by the same user. Edit-warring and POV-pushing through the CPP manner is very frustrating, and it’s very difficult to work around, so I trust that in future disputes between me and AzorzaI (of which I hope there will be none), you would not be surprised or bothered if I ask for your intervention. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Botushali, thanks for joining and for the detailed, understanding message. I can see the frustration, but I think the concerns about general disruptiveness should be voiced at WP:ANI instead, with evidence, so the community can decide if desired.
Would you have another look at User: Regulartrongdd's edits? They seem to be creating a lot of new redirect pages for what looks like every song they can think of since being blocked from editing category pages a few days ago, and their three one line drafts they sent to AFC don't instill much confidence in their editing or their editing goals here. Zinnober9 (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Zinnober9, thank you for the notification – yeah, I see the problem, but I wouldn't say it justifies an immediate block-on-sight. I guess competence issues could be raised at WP:ANI if the new redirect pages end up being deleted. The draft submissions seem to have been made without knowing how to create a redirect; once they found out, they just did so themselves. Strange and perhaps just meant to reach 500 edits to become extended-confirmed. We'll see if that really works. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I didn't think it is block-worthy (yet), and I wasn't asking for such with this conversation. Manly just wanted more eyes on this editor's odd behavior, and wondered if they had crossed into "delete-worthy mass redirects" territory yet. Certainly have been wondering if they are trying to game the edit counts for Extended, but other than just creating a lot of edits that don't seem to do much, I haven't seen anything deliberately vandalistic nor seen any surprising advanced wiki knowledge. I guess we'll find out in a few days. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Zinnober9 (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi King Ayan Das, thanks for asking. The link itself seems to be okay; the problem could be fixed by describing open source satellites in a new section of the target article. However, it may be reasonable to replace [[Satellite#Open source satellites|Open source satellites]] by Open source [[satellite]]s for now. I'll copy this request to the article's talk page, with {{edit partially-blocked}} above to request independent review. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
mediawiki2latex is a tool that converts wiki content into the formats of LaTeX, PDF, ODT, and EPUB. The code now runs many times faster due to recent improvements. There is also an optional Docker container you can install on your local machine.
The way that Random pages are selected has been updated. This will slowly reduce the problem of some pages having a lower chance of appearing. [271]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 January. It will be on all wikis from 11 January (calendar). [272][273]
Thank you for stepping up to serve on the arbitration committee. Could I respectfully suggest that some of your comments on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case could be problematic, as you appear to be stating findings before even the case is open. For example "correct – you have not been wheel warring", "you used your administrative tools to undelete it. Do you see the problem", etc. Such findings would arise in a case after hearing detailed evidence and analysis. The purpose of that page is to decide if there is a case to answer, not to hold the case itself. (I know lots of arbs do similar things!) Thanks again — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I was trying to explain the difference between WP:WHEEL and WP:INVOLVED to a confused administrator who had reversed an initial administrative action. As Mzajac suddenly was a party to a case request about wheel warring, Mzajac thought that "wheel warring" was the issue with their action. I felt a clarification was needed that it simply isn't. The definition doesn't work this way. At the same time, undeleting a page one had created themselves the day before and that was deleted as an attack page by another administrator is an involved action.
Better wording would probably have been: "Mzajac, you are being accused of having used your administrative tools to perform an involved action. That accusation is not about wheel warring."
Hello 2403:6200:8871:2E38:5D93:8AB6:E87D:5F04, WP:G10 didn't apply as clearly and objectively as I'd have expected when reading the AIV report, and user talk pages are rarely deleted in general. If I understand correctly, your main concern was that the recipient would be notified about the edit. This is an absurd concern for one specific IPv6 address that was used for editing Wikipedia once, 1 year and 8 months ago, though: The probability of someone being assigned the same /64 subnet is low, and the probability of that person receiving this specific address in their /64 subnet is about 1/264 ≈ 1/18,446,744,073,709,551,616 for each time they start their computer during the period of their assignment. And even if that happens, I don't see how it would be a huge problem justifying deletion by itself. This all makes little sense. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The deleted page contained one single word that was a direct personal attack; this isn't the same. I removed a disruptive/pointless talk page comment, which is fine (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Examples of appropriately editing others' comments); that the page ended up blank as a result is also fine. To remove the need for discussion, I'll place a welcome message there. I'd say it will never be read, but you seem to disagree, so you won't complain about that either... Wonderful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-03
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. [274]
Gadgets and personal user scripts may now use JavaScript syntax introduced in ES6 (also known as "ES2015") and ES7 ("ES2016"). MediaWiki validates the source code to protect other site functionality from syntax errors, and to ensure scripts are valid in all supported browsers. Previously, Gadgets could use the requiresES6 option. This option is no longer needed and will be removed in the future. [275]
An update on the status of the Community Wishlist Survey for 2024 has been published. Please read and give your feedback.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 January. It will be on all wikis from 18 January (calendar). [278][279]
Starting on January 17, it will not be possible to login to Wikimedia wikis from some specific old versions of the Chrome browser (versions 51–66, released between 2016 and 2018). Additionally, users of iOS 12, or Safari on Mac OS 10.14, may need to login to each wiki separately. [280]
The jquery.cookie module was deprecated and replaced with the mediawiki.cookie module last year. A script has now been run to replace any remaining uses, and this week the temporary alias will be removed. [281]
Greetings. I have reverted your deletion of material placed on my Talk page. In the future I’d appreciate you not doing that. Thanks, Jusdafax (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I was unaware of the specifics of blocking policy and after a review of your link, which I appreciate you pointing to, I obviously find your actions are solidly with that policy. My apologies if I came off a bit curt, and without going into the matter further, I would still prefer to keep the post. I also appreciate your consideration. Cheers, Jusdafax (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Jusdafax, I incorrectly assumed you might have been aware of that policy and were venting criticism about it this way. I think your reply to John-w-Buchanan is valuable and they might even be listening to your advice – at least I haven't yet seen another account from them since. Sometimes, talking instead of reverting turns out to have a positive effect. There may of course also be sockpuppeteers who feel encouraged by their success in getting an edit through their block, so making an individual decision about this is tough and I'm happy about both the policy guidance and knowing that you prefer talking to slamming the door. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:RFPP is indeed usually the best place to ask for any kind of page protection including WP:GS/RUSUKR- or WP:A/I/PIA-related ones. For the latter, WP:AE may arguably also be a place where protection could be asked for, but I haven't seen that happen yet – probably because AE sections require more time to create and process, and the additional formality isn't needed.
I have extended-confirmed protected the page now, and I might remove or strikethrough the existing restriction violations later.
For last 7 days, this editor keeps edit warring to incite a new edit war on Shambuka[282][283][284] while falsely describing other's edits a "vandalism",[285] (also see grave-dancing in edit summary) and also assume bad-faith by referring to the opposing stance as "brahminical superiority".[286] This is all when he is warned over this very article since 2020 to this year.[287]ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello ArvindPalaskar, thank you very much for the notification. I have partially blocked Phule lulu from editing the page and, considering the history of disruption, extended-confirmed protected the article afterwards. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
This is correct, thank you – I warned them about the edit warring and mentioned this in the ANI thread. In general, I think the main issue with the article at the moment is not the lack of consensus itself but rather many editors' attempts to restore what they perceive as the "status quo". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
My action is unrelated to those claims; for example, the talk page can still be freely edited. This is purely about the edit warring from my side. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
A bug in UploadWizard prevented linking to the userpage of the uploader when uploading. It has now been fixed. [288]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 January. It will be on all wikis from 25 January (calendar). [289][290]
Additionally his talk page notice for being banned was automatically archived by a bot (so I probably shouldn't change the suppressed revision link reply the archive), but that's tangential. 84.250.15.152 (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
On 25 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shalom chaverim, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Shalom chaverim" ('Peace, friends'), a Hebrew traditional folk song, has been sung at events commemorating the Holocaust and victims of anti-Semitic violence? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shalom chaverim. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Shalom chaverim), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Starting Monday January 29, all talk pages messages' timestamps will become a link. This link is a permanent link to the comment. It allows users to find the comment they are looking for, even if this comment was moved elsewhere. This will affect all wikis except for the English Wikipedia. You can read more about this change on Diff or on Mediawiki.org. [300]
There are some improvements to the CAPTCHA to make it harder for spam bots and scripts to bypass it. If you have feedback on this change, please comment on the task. Staff are monitoring metrics related to the CAPTCHA, as well as secondary metrics such as account creations and edit counts.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 31 January. It will be on all wikis from 1 February (calendar). [301][302]
Gadgets which only work in some skins have sometimes used the targets option to limit where you can use them. This will stop working this week. You should use the skins option instead. [304]
Hm, it's the user's only contribution. Thank you for the notification; I don't think there is an immediate need for action. If I have overlooked something or this continues, please let me know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. If you hear of any problems relating to mobile history usage please point them to the phabricator task.
On most wikis, admins can now block users from making specific actions. These actions are: uploading files, creating new pages, moving (renaming) pages, and sending thanks. The goal of this feature is to allow admins to apply blocks that are adequate to the blocked users' activity. Learn more about "action blocks". [305][306]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 February. It will be on all wikis from 8 February (calendar). [307][308]
Talk pages permalinks that included diacritics and non-Latin script were malfunctioning. This issue is fixed. [309]
Future changes
24 Wikipedias with Reference Tooltips as a default gadget are encouraged to remove that default flag. This would make Reference Previews the new default for reference popups, leading to a more consistent experience across wikis. For 46 Wikipedias with less than 4 interface admins, the change is already scheduled for mid-February, unless there are concerns. The older Reference Tooltips gadget will still remain usable and will override this feature, if it is available on your wiki and you have enabled it in your settings. [310][311]
Hi 81.187.192.168, thank you very much! I had seen the filter false positive report and had a look at the accounts. They should all be blocked now, including the most obvious sleepers.
A while back, you had commented on my use on the term 'appeals' to discuss concerns raised regarding rollbacks/undos from RCP'ing. Just thought you'd get a grin from knowing I now see how it looks a bit cheesy, and I've redone the whole section. Thanks again for the second opinion on it. Synorem (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
After 3 weeks of this edit to the disputed content, all discussion died and the page got stable.
However, Redtigerxyz has resumed his edit war without gaining consensus.[314] He has been edit warring in a similar disruptive manner for months. [315][316][317][318] He is evidently aware of every block and its circumstances with regards to this page per this thread. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The WDQS Graph Split experiment is working and loaded onto 3 test servers. The team in charge is testing the split's impact and requires feedback from WDQS users through the UI or programmatically in different channels. [319][320][321] Users' feedback will validate the impact of various use cases and workflows around the Wikidata Query service. [322][323]
Problems
There was a bug that affected the appearance of visited links when using mobile device to access wiki sites. It made the links appear black; this issue is fixed.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 February. It will be on all wikis from 15 February (calendar). [324][325]
As work continues on the grid engine deprecation,[326] tools on the grid engine will be stopped starting on February 14th, 2024. If you have tools actively migrating you can ask for an extension so they are not stopped. [327]
First, Botushali is the editor with the smaller number of reverts there. Second, it was Alexikoua who compared Bowden, an academic source, to "children's books", not Botushali [328]. He did so with another academic source in January [329]. Do not take other editors' words out of context. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Nice to see you still follow me around, but none of the above is relevant. Alexikoua did not cast any aspersions against anyone, only Botushali did. And he did so repeatedly, after he cast aspersions against me [330], and I warned him about, and then on top of that he had the nerve to taunt me [331] before mocking Alexikoua in such crude fashion. Not only did that user not contribute positively to the discussion in any way, but every single one of his talkpage contribs contains aspersions or taunts. So, yeah, "context". Khirurg (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Nice to see you still follow me around
I do not follow you around. I have had this tp on my watchlist since I posted here some time ago. Not surprising though since you consider me an "enemy" [332]. As for the rest, no admin would sanction someone for such comments; at least they are not worse than your patronising tone there. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Khirurg, thank you very much for the notification. If I see correctly, Botushali has made one single revert at Lynkestis, then started discussing on the article's talk page. The "children's books" text seems to be in response to Alexikoua's claims about "childish expressions" and "children's book expressions" (providing a diff for this is a bit tough because many edits have been made; it's the lower paragraph added in Special:Diff/1207077038/1207081043).
Edit warring can be reported at WP:ANEW, page protection can be requested at WP:RFPP, and persistent incivility or similar behavior can be reported at WP:ANI if attempts to raise the issue on the user's talk page have been unsuccessful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, ToBeFree. Another show of responsible and rational administrative behaviour on your part. You’re spot on with the guess that my children’s book comment is related to Alexikoua’s interesting use of the term “childish”. Botushali (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the intervention but Botushali is accusing me though it is obvious that he showed up there just to provide support to Βατο to his revert warring. For the record Βατο has made by far the most reverts (it can be seen by simply checking the history log) in that article and had also breached 3rr/24h there in the last two weeks. It is really sad that Botushali provides a partial picture on this. That's not the first time though he's accusing me in that fashion.Alexikoua (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
It would be appropriate that Bato should have mentioned that the "childish and vague expression" which I was referring concerns the addition "since centuries" and avoiding to provide a precise time frame on that. I've kindly explained to Bato that such expressions should be avoided. Though it's nothing bad to use children's book/fairy-tale expressions but in terms of historical research there is a need for more precise wording. On the other hand Βατο doesn't hesitate to use aggressive edit summaries by terming as 'consistent disruption' everything that's not suited to his personal POV. Considered that various cases have been filled against him in ANI mainly due to wp:NPA& violations [[333]][[334]] I believe that a warning to his talkpage would be appropriate.Alexikoua (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Since this discussion is rekindling, I just want to add first and foremost that I didn't accuse Alexikoua of anything. I simply am observing that Alexikoua has some strange obsession with the terms 'child' and 'children' and constantly uses it when dealing with their fellow editors. For example, some time ago I posted on Alexikoua's TP with evidence of him misusing warning templates and posting false "warnings" on a number of TP's (including my own) - I cautioned them against violating WP:HUSH by misusing warnings and policies on my TP (4 times in the space of 12 days). Alexikoua's response was to delete my post with an edit summary telling me that I am ... behaving in a childish manner.[335] (you can ignore the first part of the comment, Alexikoua seemed determined to accuse me of writing puffery language that I actually had nothing to do with...)
I really don't think Alexikoua should be allowed to ridicule and mock the concerns or work of their fellow editors so openly in such a condescending manner. Perhaps giving them a warning about the use of the word "childish" and general civility would be helpful. Sorry to continue bothering you, ToBeFree. Botushali (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Focus on content on article talk pages, please.Civility is helpful of course. We could even say: It's required by policy. But I would say the main issue isn't a lack of civility: If I joined an article page discussion and civilly raised detailed concerns about the other discussion participants' behavior, that would still be inappropriate for an article talk page.
What would have been the best practice to have dealt with the Aegean Sea dispute, given I was stripped of rollback for using it too aggressively there. Asking for future reference. Will120 (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Even if this turns out to be unverifiable or even a deliberate hoax (vandalism), it would still not be a case of "obvious vandalism" in the way WP:ROLLBACKUSE and WP:3RRNO require. Rollback (without a custom edit summary) was thus never an option.
Reverting the addition at least once is fine, but should be done with an edit summary that clearly explains the concern (a simple [[WP:V|unsourced]] or [[WP:INTREF|please provide a source]] is sufficient). It should come with a notification on the user's talk page – something more specific than the uw-vandalism1 that was originally left. You used the "unsourced" warning series afterwards, which is generally a good choice for dealing with editors who silently fail to provide explanations and sources for their edits. However, the user clearly tried to engage in a discussion with you through edit summaries, so creating a talk page section and inviting them there would have been perfect.
If the user refuses to discuss, page protection can be requested at WP:RFPP, and/or the advice of the DISCFAIL essay may be helpful.
Also, there are thousands of other recent changes patrollers who would eventually have shared your concerns and removed the material, or provided a citation, if there was a need to do so. Unless you are highly knowledgeable about the subject and can say with certainty that the IP's claims about the Axis occupation of Greece or similar topics are nonsense, and perhaps at least unless you have taken the time to check the article for sourced content the user may be referring to, reverting on sight is hard to explain. If it took you a few minutes to determine that an edit should be reverted, then that revert should have an explanation of the issue in its summary. Writing one takes perhaps 20 more seconds, which is time well-invested into helping others to come to the same conclusion. You can attract their attention, if needed, via the NPOV noticeboard, the original research noticeboard, the BLP noticeboard or whichever else seems fitting (choose one). A third opinion can be requested after a talk page discussion, and a RfC can be started if more editors disagree.
If a user's behavior is generally problematic in multiple articles, and they don't stop when asked to, a report at WP:ANI would be a good step. Not WP:AIV unless it's really (obvious) vandalism; most edit warring is done by disruptive editors who attempt to make Wikipedia more neutral and disregard others' concerns about this. Don't be them!
(talk page stalker) For what it's worth and I'm sure you saw this @ToBeFree, but I did engage with what appears to be this editor yesterday see Special:Contributions/88.244.92.173 bu they didn't want to discuss via edit summaries yesterday. I am happy to see that they at least decided to explain their changes today. Please let me know if I could have done anything better. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Philipnelson99, and sorry Will120, 88.244.92.173 is blocked... It should have occurred to me earlier that this may be block evasion. When I asked for an explanation and stared at [336] and [337] in disbelief, I should have checked if – even without Will120 intentionally doing so – there was such an easy justification for their reverts. I have now restored the permission; I don't want to remove it in response to reverts of block evasion, labeling the behavior as "edit warring" when it wasn't that. Additionally, I have now semi-protected the page to prevent further block evasion at least there.
Hey again, I really appreciate admins that are willing to walk back an action. I've had rollback for quite some time now and have made way too many reverts using it. I know when I first got it I probably made mistakes after first getting the perm. I didn't have the goal of getting the above editors perm restored, but I did just want you to be aware that it was likely block evasion. I don't think I'll ever want the mop personally but if I ever become an admin I hope I can at least be willing to reverse an action with as much courtesy as you did. Making mistakes is never fun, right? Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Philipnelson99, you'd do good with the admin toolset. Making mistakes hurts and messages like yours ease the pain. Thank you very much for the 22:13 notification and these kind words. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I just blocked Sally-yates-21 for disruption. I suspect they are a sock of the above farm. I noticed that you've done a lot of the checks and blocks in that case, so I thought I'd ask you to check. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
If you have the "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed" option enabled, edits by bot accounts no longer trigger notification emails. Previously, only minor edits would not trigger the notification emails. [339]
There are changes to how user and site scripts load for Vector 2022 on specific wikis. The changes impacted the following Wikis: all projects with Vector legacy as the default skin, Wikivoyage, and Wikibooks. Other wikis will be affected over the course of the next three months. Gadgets are not impacted. If you have been affected or want to minimize the impact on your project, see this ticket. Please coordinate and take action proactively.
Newly auto-created accounts (the accounts you get when you visit a new wiki) now have the same local notification preferences as users who freshly register on that wiki. It is effected in four notification types listed in the task's description.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 20 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 21 February. It will be on all wikis from 22 February (calendar). [341][342]
Selected tools on the grid engine have been stopped as we prepare to shut down the grid on March 14th, 2024. The tool's code and data have not been deleted. If you are a maintainer and you want your tool re-enabled reach out to the team. Only tools that have asked for extension are still running on the grid.
The CSS filter property can now be used in HTML style attributes in wikitext. [343]
Greetings ToBeFree, I hope you are doing well. I'm puzzled, and I need your advice on the boundaries of my topic ban. I was reading though an article, and while reading, I noted missing citations here and there; subsequently, I made a few edits. Then I realized that this article contains mentions of Azerbaijan and Armenia, and although my edits did not touch those parts, I am still not sure—do those edits fall outside the boundaries of my topic ban? or am I not allowed to edit that article, which is not about Armenia or Azerbaijan but mentions them? Thank you! A b r v a g l (PingMe)16:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Abrvagl, my personal opinion is that the edits can stay unless reverted by someone else (no need for you or me to revert), but that future edits similarly close to the topic ban area should probably be avoided. For a definite answer, I'm afraid the only way to get an official one is a clarification request at WP:ARCA. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi dear friend! Thanks for the heads up on the registered email that is used on my old account brother!!! I wanted to send you a message on libera, but I think you have disabled private chats :'(
Any other way of reaching out privately for a quick question?
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The mobile visual editor is now the default editor for users who never edited before, at a small group of wikis. Research shows that users using this editor are slightly more successful publishing the edits they started, and slightly less successful publishing non-reverted edits. Users who defined the wikitext editor as their default on desktop will get the wikitext editor on mobile for their first edit on mobile as well. [344]
The mw.config value wgGlobalGroups now only contains groups that are active in the wiki. Scripts no longer have to check whether the group is active on the wiki via an API request. A code example of the above is: if (/globalgroupname/.test(mw.config.get("wgGlobalGroups"))). [345]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 27 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 28 February. It will be on all wikis from 29 February (calendar). [346][347]
Future changes
The right to change edit tags (changetags) will be removed from users in Wikimedia sites, keeping it by default for admins and bots only. Your community can ask to retain the old configuration on your wiki before this change happens. Please indicate in this ticket to keep it for your community before the end of March 2024.
184.152.68.190, the pages have already been protected and an AIV report about the issue has already been removed. There is no need for an ANEW report at this point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the WP:MULTI here. I didn't see the AIV or protection, wasn't actually monitoring those pages actively since the issue seemed small. I agree that AFD is the proper way forward even if WP:DRAFTOBJECT is not actually a guideline. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
My edit summary incorrectly implied that you intentionally filed a report about something already discussed elsewhere – what I was trying to say is "duplicate to a closed AIV report" or "already resolved, already being dealt with" or something similar. Describing it as "forum shopping" was wrong, sorry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
That's fine it happens, we trip over each other. I've been called more things than I could ever have imagined sometimes even intentionally. Thanks for taking the time to look this one over. Personally I think they should have been AFD'd after the first draft objection, and I think they will end up redirected, but that's a separate issue. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, redirection does sound like a possible result of all these discussions... I'm afraid even redirection will have to come through AfD though, looking at the page move history. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes when everyone is genuinely open to changing their mind and in a cooperative mood talk page discussions can be a quick informal way to resolve some superficial disagreement, but whenever things are remotely contentious it's best save everyone's time and start an AFD. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Extended confirmed status revoked due to random edits :|
Hi Tobi, I was going to email you but didn't want to spam you so I thought I could ask here. Remember of the 500/30 restriction I had, and the whole being locked out of my account and having to need to use Elijahtree etc. I thought I it wasn't against the rules to use my sandbox to test edits, since nothing was mentioned on the BADSAND page when I checked before going ahead and making random edits on the page. I literally called every edit "Random edit x" so I wasn't trying to obfuscate anything. Further seeing that I already have quiet a few edits on my other account and ip address, I was almost certain this should be fine. Apparently there is another rule which affects sandbox and I was reported for WP:GAME. I mean even though it says edits are considered gaming the system when 'An editor makes many unconstructive edits in a sandbox to become extended confirmed, and then makes controversial changes to extended confirmed protected articles', I purposefully did not add the controversial conflict topic, since I don't really think it is necessary anymore, and if I did I would have called for a census between us three editors in disagreement.
Alas even with everything I explained, the mods all unanimously sided against me and removed my status indefinetly. I mean i dont know what to do, the least they could have done was remove the edits, even though it wasn't mentioned under WP:BADSAND but whatever, instead they revoke indefinetly? I was just reaching out regarding potentially anything I can do? I do not want to open an arbritration case since the person who reported me, although kept an eye on my edits, seemed to be nice. I don't understand why the mods are so discriminatory and favoritize against me everytime, like look through my edits Tobi, I was being extremely careful to follow the rules and keep the other editors in consensus, yet there still is an issue and side against me. He said to message them when I get 500 edits, but I know they will not respond. I asked for a checkuser I think 2 or 3 times now and nothing. Yet when someone reports me, they are on it asap. It feels to exclusionary, even when I am making fair, resourceful edits. Sorry for the long message, just wanted to ask you if you had any ideas? thanks :) ~ Mohamed18:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
like many other "WP:" pages, WP:BADSAND is just an information page, no community-approved guideline or even a policy. Also, pages describing possible issues or ways of misuse are of course not exhaustive nor meant to be. Disruptive editing exists in many different forms that can't be comprehensively listed.
Any permission revocation is "indefinitely". There is no way to set up automatic re-granting of a permission, so you'll have to rebuild the broken reputation, gain the experience that is expected from extended-confirmed editors by making normal edits (Task Center, community portal) and one day request the permission to be manually re-granted at WP:PERM/EC, explaining why it was revoked and what has changed since.
I hope you don't mind if I continue the discussion on your talk page. I feel it has ventured a little bit away from the clerical and into the personal, plus I feel there's a bit more space to expand on certain things here.
The purpose of my continuing this on your talk page isn't so much to change the decision as it is to address some of the concerns on my end with your replies. To provide clarification, seek clarification and to see if we can at least have some mutual understanding, regardless of if we end up agreeing on certain points. Nevertheless, here and there, I'll make some points of a clerical nature.
It's a bit long, so I've made sections for ease of reading. On a similar note: while I'll, of course, try to avoid any misunderstandings, due to it being a rather long comment I might not be able to achieve this, so I hope I can count on a generous intepretation from your side.
You made some good points in your reply, but I feel that I failed to get across what I was trying to say. I'll quote the relevant parts as I reply to them.
The Main Motiviation of the Request
My request made no secret of my main motivation for submitting the request. I put it front and center in no uncertain terms at the beginning of my request:
The context here, which I perhaps should've included in the request itself (although it remains questionable if it would've mattered at all, with the way RFP/ECs are currently handled, but that's perhaps a topic more suitable in a policy discussion), is that this is an AfD pertaining to an article that has been overrun with sockpuppetry and other shenanigans.
All of that is to say that I don't think it is unreasonable for me to participate in the AfD in question. Especially considering the fact that people made comments that directly relate to my contributions to the discussion.
Because the shenanigans continued even on the AfD, @Vanamonde93 put ECP on the AfD. To be clear: I don't fault them for that. In fact, I welcome it because I also think it was much needed to curb the disruptiveness of the person/people involved, to maintain the integrity of the discussion, and I can't think of a lesser way in which to achieve all that considering WP:SEMI and WP:PCPP didn't do much to curb the disruptions on the article of topic in that AfD.
This did put me in a little of a bind, though, because I don't have 30/500 so I am not able to reply to comments addressed at me or my comments in the AfD, and it causes a bit of the privilege issues the ECP guidelines talk about:
nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered/new users in valid content disputes — WP:ECP
Initially I didn't think that it was that big of a deal, because we have WP:ER for that, so I created one. But it turns out that people don't dare to touch it and as a result, it's been collecting dust, which isn't exactly desirable in a rather dynamic and short-lived process such as AfD.
I can only presume @Some1 (and perhaps others) noticed this, because they soon after suggested I should request EC, and while I didn't have high hopes, I nevertheless put in my request, as you know, under the adage that it can't hurt to ask.
While all of this context wasn't provided in the request itself, the main motivation was provided. Nevertheless, at no point in your replies did you acknowledge this main motivation, nor did you address it.
The Matter of the Vanishing and the Return
Your initial reply starts off focusing on the vanishing, suggesting that this is the most important motivation for your decision.
The real problem, however, is that the matter of "to undo, or to not undo" seems to be an entirely separate matter that, to my knowledge anyways, has no bearing on granting EC, nor am I sure if that matter merits discussion in public on WP:RFP/EC.
The consequence of doing so and in the manner which you did, while I'm sure is unintended, makes it seem to the rest of the community that I'm doing something inappropriate, if only because of your standing within the community as a member of ArbCom.
This seems an especially harsh consequence, considering I went out of my way to disclose my return to ArbCom via WP:EMAIL with ample context specifically to avoid situations like this. This is also, in part, why I mentioned my disclosure in the request to begin with, and I think a reply to my email would've been the most opportune way of addressing the matter of undoing the vanishing if that matter was of paramount import to you.
Still, I can't help but wonder how important it really is to you and the rest of ArbCom when, as of this writing, I haven't even received so much as an acknowledgment of my disclosure via email, much less an attempt to broach the subject.
In your follow-up reply, you bring up a pretty good point about me mentioning the vanishing in my request:
Hello ConcurrentState, I've since had a look at the disclosure, but I can only address what is publicly written here on this page. In response to the public description of a vanishing that should probably be undone, I stated that the vanishing should probably be undone. It was you who brought up the topic as an argument for receiving a permission, and it seems legitimate to respond with at least a short clarification that vanishing is not really meant for this purpose — User:ToBeFree0:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
As stated above, part of the reason for me mentioning it in the first place was to avoid issues such as those described above. However, another reason for me mentioning it is because the the WP:RFP/EC process pretty much solicits information like that, because it is made clear that EC requests are almost always guaranteed to be a WP:SNOW unless a different account is part of the equation:
Unless you are requesting confirmation for a legitimate alternate account your request will almost certainly be denied.
— WP:RFP/EC
And a lesser reason was to refer to a history of good behavior.
Keep in mind, that this was a relatively minor part of the request itself, I didn't make it part of the main argument nor link it to the lesser translation argument. It was a separate clause, detached from the main arguments, at the end of the request, to convey a piece of information of lesser importance as you can see (emphasis mine):
Mainly asking to be able to continue to reply on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josh_Cahill after it received a much needed ECP and to use the Content Translation tool to translate articles from nlwiki. It goes without saying that I wouldn't abuse it if I were to be granted the right. Alternatively, a temporary right would also be useful. I'm a reborn Wikipedian and have disclosed my prior vanished account to ArbCom. The old account was in good standing on both enwiki(11 edits) and nlwiki(~800 edits). — User:ConcurrentState02:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Still, while yes, I brought it up for the three reasons mentioned above, I don't think it merits going over the vanishing policy. Even setting aside the way it looks and my motivations for mentioning it in the first place, as I touched upon above, given the minor role it played in the request and the lack of follow-through on your end (I will touch upon further a bit later), I don't see what it adds to the RFP/EC conversation.
In your follow-up reply, you continue with:
I personally am not granting the permission because of the concerns I described above – and I (think I) have to explain this instead of simply saying "Not done". I understand that the explanation is easily perceived as biting, and that a small amount of not assuming good faith is part of it. — User:ToBeFree0:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the part about having to explain decisions was meant to relate back to the matter of the vanishing, but if it was, I don't see how the two are related. Your comments don't seem to indicate that the vanishing policy motivated your decision other than starting off your decision with an emphasis on the policy. Rather your motivation seems to focus on the matter of me mentioning the translation tool.
Nevertheless, the whole matter of the vanishing is left in a weird place. You bring up the policy with the optical consequences I described above, and you further reiterate your interpretation of the policy in the follow-up reply, but there is no follow-through, even after explicitly inviting you to follow through:
Still, since you brought it up, I'm not opposed to undoing it and merging the two accounts, since it would eliminate some of the issues I've so far encountered. Perhaps we could even roll my name change request into it as well and get it all done in one fell swoop. — User:ConcurrentState19:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
You said you could only address what was publicly written on the page. Why not address it in a reply to my disclosure email, or address the disclosure itself via email, for that matter?
Respectfully, you a rather big deal out of needing to undo the vanishing, but then you leave me hanging. I haven't heard from ArbCom in general about my disclosure, and I haven't heard from you directly about what needs to be done and how to get it done. As it stands now, you essentially publicly gave me the Mark of Cain and then went on with your merry way.
Again, I don't think this was necessarily intended, or there is bad faith at play here, but I'm a bit puzzled by this all because it's hard to gauge your motivation behind it all.
Apparently it's important enough to draw attention to it in public, but not important enough to actually resolve the matter?
Lastly, before moving onto the matter of the language tool and me using it as an argument, I think it might be important to express my views on the policy and clarify my wishes.
I genuinely don't have a good grasp on the policy of undoing a vanishing. Both enwiki and metawiki only make very vague, non-committed, minor reference to undoing vanishings.
enwiki states:
If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed. […] If you make a request to vanish, and then start over with a new account, and are then discovered, the vanishing procedure may be reversed, and your old and new accounts may be linked.
— WP:RTV
Words like "likely" and "may" don't clearly indicate a certain outcome. Also, does the second clause quoted above only apply when an editor is discovered? What if they, like I did, disclose it?
Honestly, the overall tone in WP:RTV seems to be talking about people who essentially "fake vanish" only to immediately return with a different account, because some of the language sounds weird when applied to situations in which editors have left years prior with the intent of not returning, like I have.
metawiki isn't much clearer on this:
Even if vanish is intended to be permanent, it may still be reversed.
— meta:RTV
It's the same vague "may."
None of this explains when it will be reversed. Clearly it's not in all cases otherwise stronger language would've been used, no?
Also who is the final arbiter of this. Is it enwiki because I'm here now with a new account with enwiki as my home wiki? Is it metawiki because they do global renames and everything tied to global accounts or is nlwiki, which is the home wiki of the old vanished account?
In my disclosure to ArbCom, prior to the RFP/EC, I expressed the wish to essentially do a clean start because the old vanished account was made when I was underage and I'm fairly sure I've inadvertently outed myself back in the day, plus I'm a different person now that lives entirely elsewhere in the world. So, all in all, at the time, I preferred the prospect of starting clean and with privacy.
Since then, however, I've noticed the downsides of starting new, down to other editors being, rightfully, confused about my experience and knowledge of wiki policies. Which is why in the RFP/EC I indicated that I'm also open to reversing the vanish and merging stuff.
It seems that I have no clear preference either way, and I need to defer to you and others at ArbCom on what needs to happen and how the policies regarding this work. That said, I would appreciate it if could be actively involved in whatever needs to be done, so that I end up in a situation that I can work with and can ask help with setting everything up in the right way if needed.
The Matter of the Content Translation Tool Argument
As stated above, in my initial request and my follow-up reply, my main motivation for the request wasn't the Content Translation tool. I've never made that a secret and I've in fact admitted to not knowing of its existence prior to seeing the other request while I was submitting my request.
Your follow-up reply suggests that I was unable to convey my main concern regarding your remarks.
Specifically, you said:
As I have expected and you have confirmed, the idea of integrating the Content Translation tool into the permission request came from LuCKY's request and wasn't the reason why you opened this page. Even if this resulted in actual interest in also using the Content Translation tool, it clearly wasn't the reason for your request, so I decided not to take it into account too much. — User:ToBeFree0:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Which seems to serve as a form of "gotcha" while entirely ignoring the context.
While you're right in that it wasn't the initial reason for opening the request, you never acknowledged the actual main reason I stated in my request, much less addressed it, not even in the follow-up reply. The result of this is that it feels like you're making it look like I'm doing something inappropriate, despite having clearly stated my main motivation. A similar effect to that of the whole part about vanishing.
Furthermore, I don't think it's unreasonable to realize during my request that EC comes with additional rights I can put to good use and to add that to my request. Especially considering the fact that it is a lesser known right tied to a lesser known tool.
Brushing that aside by "not tak[ing] it into account too much," as you stated, seems especially unwarranted considering that how I learn about a tool is less important than how I intend to use it and end up using it.
I've learned nearly 98% of what I know on Wikipedia by seeing others do it, even as I write this to you, I've looked up certain templates and policies and how they've been applied. That doesn't change the legitimacy of the use of those tools.
To insist that the only thing that matters is what my intention was before I opened the page is to insist I submit multiple requests simultaneously, one for each motivation up until the moment I opened the page.
What doesn't help either is questioning my commitment to using the tool to then completely ignore the parts in my follow-up that explain my commitment.
While I appreciate the advice on translating without the tool, it should go without saying that comparing the source with the translation side-by-side is invaluable because it allows you to keep an eye on the context of different paragraphs to make sure the translation makes sense. I'm currently doing this off-wiki by juggling windows side by side, so it's not the end of the world, but it's yet another hurdle on a long list of hurdles I've encountered since my return that grinds away at my motivation.
Some Final Thoughts
It wasn't lost on me that the whole vanishing matter is kind of like Schrödinger's vanishing. If one were to insist the vanishing needs to be reversed, then it would make sense to take into account the global edits of that account, if however one were to insist that only the edits on enwiki are relevant, then it doesn't make sense to insist the treatment of my current account and the vanished account as one and the same.
I know you only focused on the enwiki contributions in your replies, but it wasn't entirely clear to me why you disregarded the (old) nlwiki edits, especially when seemingly feeling rather strongly about reversing the vanishing. Both for the purpose of translation as well as for the purposes of the RFP/EC (adding up to 500), considering you did take into account global edits when deciding on other editors' requests.
I appreciate you clarifying what you are and aren't able to see as part of ArbCom, sadly it was my hope that you could, to further assess my commitment of using the translation tool for good purposes.
As alluded to elsewhere, since my return to Wikipedia, I've encountered a long list of hurdles that are grinding away at my motivation because they hinder my ability to contribute and participate as an editor.
The biggest one that affects every single move I make is the hard block policy on iCloud Private Relay, which prevents me from editing anything, including my own talk page, and it makes using scripts cumbersome. I'm not eligible for an IPBE, and wiki doesn't always properly detect when I've turned it off, so it's actively hindering me at every step along the way. But I'm working up proposals on both enwiki and metawiki to see if we might be able to mitigate some of that for me and other editors.
Other hurdles are, of course, the special protections and the lack of access to the Content Translation tool, but I'm not too concerned about those. At my pace, even while hampered by the hard block, 30/500 isn't too far away.
Your comments made me feel like I was being put on the spot and as if you're making it look like I'm doing something inappropriate, so it added to those hurdles.
I hope I was able to convey my respect towards you regardless of everything else, and I respectfully ask, in light of all of the above, that you strike out or reword some of your comments.
Hello ConcurrentState, a novel with subsections is a bit too much in response to not granting extended confirmation to a user with about 100 enwiki edits. I believe a significant part of your concerns must be due to me granting it to someone else before and thus feeling treated inequally. Does this appropriately summarize the actual issue? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Point taken on the size of the comment.
But no, the actual issue has nothing to do with not being granted the EC nor is it about a feeling of being treated unequally/about others being granted EC.
Still, if it's a summary you seek I can give you the main bullet points:
You failed to address my main motivation
In doing so, you made it look like I'm doing something inappropriate
You've brought up matters that weren't appropriate to bring up there, and in a way that wasn't appropriate
You disregarded my motivation to use the Content Translation tool with shaky logic
There's incongruence between your concerns for the vanished account and the lack of follow-through, as well as between the concerns for the vanished account and your decision making
I'm trying to provide and seek clarification
I'm trying to share how it affects me as an editor and how it fits in my general experience as an editor
ConcurrentState, I understand your concerns, but when declining a permission, I need to provide a proper explanation of why I'm not granting the permission, and I believe I have done so. I could alternatively just have said "Not done" and we would now be arguing about why I didn't provide an explanation. I will not reword or strikethrough my explanations at WP:PERM/EC.
I didn't "bring up" any "matters"; I addressed exactly what you wrote in your request. If you don't want the things in your request to be addressed, don't mention them in the public request.
I'd point to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Josh Cahill, but you have already found this page. There is no need to grant the extended-confirmed permission for continuing to participate in this specific deletion discussion. I believe requiring 500 contributions before granting extended confirmation is generally a good idea and the current case is not an exception. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I came across your conversations and felt the need to comment. Regarding my own application; As I stated in my application, I am an experienced user with around 16,000 contributions globally. For this reason, I find it natural that my application has been concluded positively. Before my application, I translated a page manually instead of using a content translator. Although it took a little effort to adjust the viki links, it didn't make much of a difference. If my application was unsuccessful, I would still continue to translate manually, this is not the end of the world. 500 edits is not a difficult number to reach. LuCKY talk14:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Hemşerım, you truly don't have to explain yourself.
My qualms with @ToBeFree have nothing to do with you or your request, and I'm very sorry you were made to feel that you had to comment or explain yourself.
Your request should've been granted 100% and I'm glad it did, and you're right in that 500 edits isn't a big deal. Like I said in my big comment above, at my pace 30/500 isn't that far away.
I don't think you understand my concerns, but there's very little I can add without repeating myself.
I've tried to convey my issue in the follow-up reply in a casual manner, in the novel in an elaborate manner, and in the bullet points in a summarized manner. Still, despite those efforts, it seems I've not only failed to convey my concerns in an adequate way, but I've not even been able to set up a constructive communication channel with you.
Since I tried bringing up the issue at hand, my goals and expectations have shifted from initially seeking agreement to just seeking understanding, to just wanting to be heard. It's clear to me now that I'm not going to be able to achieve any goal, no matter where they shift.
It's tempting to blame the recipient, but perhaps I'm just extraordinarily bad at conveying the message. Whatever the case, whether unintended or not, this is starting to venture into WP:IDHT territories.
Worse still, it's starting to affect other editors, which crosses a hard line for me.
As such, I'm going to respectfully disengage.
If something needs to be done about the vanished account, then I suggest you and the rest of ArbCom figure out what it is that needs to be done and for someone from ArbCom, preferably someone uninvolved, to reach out to me in a reply to my disclosure email so that we can get it done.
I'll leave you with the suggestion that should you ever find yourself in a situation again where you end up writing "y is a bit too much in response to x," to perhaps stop for a second and consider if there might be a different x
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Special:Book page (as well as the associated "Create a book" functionality) provided by the old Collection extension has been removed from all Wikisource wikis, as it was broken. This does not affect the ability to download normal books, which is provided by the Wikisource extension. [349]
Maintenance on etherpad is completed. If you encounter any issues, please indicate in this ticket.
Gadgets allow interface admins to create custom features with CSS and JavaScript. The Gadget and Gadget_definition namespaces and gadgets-definition-edit user right were reserved for an experiment in 2015, but were never used. These were visible on Special:Search and Special:ListGroupRights. The unused namespaces and user rights are now removed. No pages are moved, and no changes need to be made. [350]
A usability improvement to the "Add a citation" in Wikipedia workflow has been made, the insert button was moved to the popup header. [351]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 March. It will be on all wikis from 7 March (calendar). [352][353]
Future changes
All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on March 20. This is planned at 14:00 UTC. More information will be published in Tech News and will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [354]
The HTML markup of headings and section edit links will be changed later this year to improve accessibility. See Heading HTML changes for details. The new markup will be the same as in the new Parsoid wikitext parser. You can test your gadget or stylesheet with the new markup if you add ?useparsoid=1 to your URL (more info) or turn on Parsoid read views in your user options (more info).
Hi, I hesitate to bring this minor issue to ANI, so I wonder if you could help. Over the past few weeks, the IP 94.114.243.248(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has been persistently adding to cryptography-related articles external links to programs that they say are "commented by Google AI". There is no indication of who wrote the program (AI or human) or what part of the comments are AI-written (the comments are in both English and German). All their edits have been reverted by 5 or 6 different editors, and they have multiple warnings on their talk page about these edits. Yesterday they created an account CryptoDiscussion(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) and have continued adding these links. I left a message on the account's talk page explaining that Wikipedia:RSPCHATGPT says such links should not be added. They have ignored that message as they have ignored all other messages left for them, and have continued re-adding these links. Could you help to get their attention? Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
In reference to this report, it seems that the IPs that were involved in edit warring were actually 1 person who is evading his ban for months now. See [355]. Interestingly, the IP user himself confirmed his personal feud with Abhishek0831996 (the reported editor).[356] Perhaps this block evader's edits shall surface again on ANEW anytime soon so kindly keep this in mind. Thanks Ratnahastin (talk)04:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I wanted to ask for your experienced opinion about sockpuppets and reverting if this is alright.
For about two years now a certain sockmaster has been creating new accounts, often IP accounts, and brigading various Azerbaijan-Armenia related pages, and basically spamming edits. This is the link to the investigations Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Əzərbəyəniləri
I was wondering, what is the Wikipedia guideline on reverting the edits of a new, spam sock account? Is it generally accepted that all edits made by the sock should be reverted, or is it advised to consider the edits on a case-by-case basis?
It seems logical to me that reverting all the edits of a sock, regardless of whether they are of good quality, makes sense because that way the sockmaster is discouraged from creating new accounts continuously. This is especially the case given that as I said, this has been going on for two years now, and doesn't seem to end.
Hi Creffel, first of all, thanks for reporting and dealing with these. If you are 100% certain that an edit has been made by someone evading an active block, even if the IP/account is currently not blocked, you can freely revert it. You are not required to wait for a checkuser result when you are sure about this; you are not required to wait for the new sock to be blocked, and you are usually not required to perform a lot of work to check if an edit was good or not. When in doubt, you may revert. You are not required to, however, and you should of course not restore content that was clearly vandalism or a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. If a sockpuppet reverts vandalism, restoring the vandalism would obviously not be good.
The blocking policy says that "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert."
Thank you for responding and moving this to a second forum. Could you provide some guidance on how I should respond to the discussion? I'm quite concerned as it appears that the discussion has quickly deviated from its original scope and now includes numerous false accusations of wrongdoing against me. 33ABGirl (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
33ABGirl, the scope of such an Incidents noticeboard discussion (ANI discussion) is the behavior of the involved users. While this includes yours, sockpuppetry accusations should be made at WP:SPI instead, and it may not always be possible to properly respond to incorrect sockpuppetry accusations. You are not required, and often not able to, prove your innocence. Sockpuppetry stuff aside, you can just respond normally to the discussion, explain behavior others found concerning or wait for more opinions to arrive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
My concern is really on the way the discussion has been framed. It seems contradictory that a conversation initiated to address an editor's refusal to engage in a content dispute has now evolved into a second discussion where the same editor continues to avoid discussing the actual dispute. Instead, they have introduced the spectre of a blocked user and brought up minor unrelated incidents to divert attention from the main issue. Although I could respond to these diversions, it appears that doing so would only perpetuate the cycle. 33ABGirl (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
There are outing concerns so I will be vague but direct: the edits by Thmazing are within the scope of the COI concerns about Nihonjoe. They are directly related in a way which arbcon is surely already aware of but which hasn't yet been acknowledged on-wiki in such a way that we can talk openly about it (or at least until I feel comfortable doing so, I am rather paranoid about outing). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
No need to apologize, without knowing about the private evidence the link would have seemed entirely non-sequitur. Hopefully we have enough in the way of on-wiki disclosures to enumerate the concerns in public before the end of the evidence gathering period (more than a week from now). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Although I now see that @El C: has removed the comment so perhaps they weren't actually aware of the connection. I haven't communicated with them so I could very well have made a mistaken assumption. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Somewhat aware of it, yes. But it's obviously pointless for me to directly participate in this case. Worse than pointless. I've been too critical of the committee recently, including mentioning the failings of specific members just yesterday. So it's probably best I don't harm the chances of some (selective) accountability, at least, by virtue of that participation. El_C22:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that, I've always appreciated your contributions to important discussions (even when that contribution is blistering criticism of me). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-11
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 March. It will be on all wikis from 14 March (calendar). [358][359]
After consulting with various communities, the line height of the text on the Minerva skin will be increased to its previous value of 1.65. Different options for typography can also be set using the options in the menu, as needed. [360]
The active link color in Minerva will be changed to provide more consistency with our other platforms and best practices. [361]
Structured data on Commons will no longer ask whether you want to leave the page without saving. This will prevent the “information you’ve entered may not be saved” popups from appearing when no information have been entered. It will also make file pages on Commons load faster in certain cases. However, the popups will be hidden even if information has indeed been entered. If you accidentally close the page before saving the structured data you entered, that data will be lost. [362]
Future changes
All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on March 20. This is planned at 14:00 UTC. More information will be published in Tech News and will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [363][364]
Hi Skywatcher68, if you'd like to restore the material, please do so, and start a discussion on the article's talk page ideally before doing so, or at least directly when doing so. Then invite the user to it, who does seem to be listening to talk page messages. I'd ignore the connection and focus on the content and possibly edit warring behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter to me. A bit suspicious is all, particularly with such large swaths tagged m removed as their first edits. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it's definitely worth keeping an eye on, and it would be a problem if it went against others' remaining concerns. At the moment, noone seems to have complained about the most recent edits, neither by reverting nor starting a talk page discussion. So at the moment, it seems to be okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to let you that someone claiming to be the wrestler has been editing here. It appears that he's not at all clear on how Wikipedia works. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification. Looks like a case for {{uw-ublock-wellknown}} and semi-protection for me. I have removed the challenged content for now, but I may have overlooked other issues. If you have the time, please check the article for basic verifiability issues or similar problems too, and just remove them. The user may return to editing with their autoconfirmed account after verification, and I'm not sure if they actually understand the issues yet, but we'll see... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
Why delete valid information, when the statement made by nintendo never even actually named Palworld, but shut down a company no more than 5 days later? Seems kinda sus to me that you would do something like that. My sources are 100% valid, trolls just kept deleting it. Apparently they didnt like the link having %s in it, so i added 4 verifiable sources instead. Im not so sure how thats not valid when it was speculation that nintendo was going after pocketpair in the first place. Elinias1 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Apologies dear sir/maam. It didn't actually show up at first. Feel free to remove this as you have directed me to the proper location. Edit: I seen something about links being bad, so i had edited it with additional sources. Was not trying to enter a A"Edit war"Elinias1 (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The notice "Language links are at the top of the page" that appears in the Vector 2022 skin main menu has been removed now that users have learned the new location of the Language switcher. [365]
IP info feature displays data from Spur, an IP addresses database. Previously, the only data source for this feature was MaxMind. Now, IP info is more useful for patrollers. [366]
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. [367][368][369]
RevisionSlider is an interface to interactively browse a page's history. Users in right-to-left languages reported RevisionSlider reacting wrong to mouse clicks. This should be fixed now. [371]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 March. It will be on all wikis from 21 March (calendar). [372][373]
All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on March 20. This is planned at 14:00 UTC. [374][375]
There is an editor who has been removing multiple sources statements on the SpaceX Starship Flight Tests. They are not auto-confirmed, and their editing is extremely disruptive.
If this is the wrong place to request article protection, then please let me know where I can put in a request to protect the article. Redacted II (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Given than you were not involved in the previous debate, nor have you been involved in the RfC, can you close the RfC? Redacted II (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Polling doesn't create consensus, but it can helpful to "evaluate whether a consensus exists". By a quick count of the previous IFT-3 discussion, editors were split 8 for success, 8 for partial failure, and 4 for failure. It incorrect to say an overwhelming consensus was reached especially when most of the discussion consists of a couple of editors.
Hi Redacted II, thanks for asking. I hope it's okay if I stay out of this decision, though. I'm happy about every attempt to build, document or strengthen a consensus, and WP:RFCL exists.
As you describe yourself as "potentially obsessed with Starship" on your user page and have participated in the discussion, please consider if you really have the neutral view required to make such assessments and avoid closing it yourself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
"As you describe yourself as "potentially obsessed with Starship" on your user page and have participated in the discussion, please consider if you really have the neutral view required to make such assessments and avoid closing it yourself"
While I do maintain NPOV (the potentially obsessed with Starship infobox was provided by another user, and the text was done almost a year ago for comedically purposes), I have no intention of closing the RfC, because I have been involved in it. Redacted II (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey, looks like we have a couple more cases for that wellknown block here; one hasn't been active since their handful of posts a couple of years ago, though. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Please have a look at {{uw-ublock-wellknown}}, which is the message that should appear when you try editing any page while logged into your account. Try with a desktop browser rather than a mobile device, please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
That's how I closed the SPI, with two diffs. Please provide evidence in a similar way next time; this will make it much easier to process the report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
No worries. Regarding the revert request: I am not allowed to do so; full protection applies to all users including administrators: Fully protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus.[WP:FULL]
@Montigliani I have lifted the full page protection and placed semi-protection on it for a period of 2 years. You are now free to edit the article. I apologize for the inconvenience of the last few days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
An update was made on March 18th 2024 to how various projects load site, user JavaScript and CSS in Vector 2022 skin. A checklist is provided for site admins to follow.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 March. It will be on all wikis from 28 March (calendar). [378][379]
This comment was in response to Levivich's request for one of the dozen arbs to speak on behalf of arbcom and let us know if they're going to do anything or not. While I explicitly didn't speak on behalf of the committee, I explained why the requested statement was unlikely to appear in the requested form at least from my perspective. The only alternative at that point would have been silence. There should ideally not be silence in response to such messages, although I'm sure uncountable examples exist of cases where silence was the response.
Would you have preferred silence? There's nothing in my message that pre-judges the outcome of the current case, just statements about WP:COI that people are unhappy about partly because they are still true, and statements about the privacy of existing evidence as far as I could see it at the time.
I need to remain able to respond to such messages without having to fear recusal requests based on my opinion rather than an actual conflict of interest. I believe that El C knows that the recusal request lacks a strong foundation, which is why they have addressed the audience (including you, successfully) rather than the arbitrators directly.
(Just to make sure that you "may refer the request to the Committee for a ruling", I formally note that the message above declines the recusal request. I do not recuse.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
To preface this, WP:INVOLVED isn't only about actual involvements, it's also about the appearance of involvement. In the case of ArbCom I believe it is particularly important because for ArbCom to continue being an effective arbitrator it must maintain its legitimacy among the community; arbitrators failing to recuse themselves from cases where a non-trivial portion of the community sees them as involved harms that legitimacy.
My understanding of the issue itself is that a non-trivial portion of the community perceive you as being involved based on that comment, particularly your final sentence where you say This is a community discussion to me unless WP:COI becomes policy and gains strict prohibitions that it currently lacks, which can be interpreted as you rejecting the evidence presented and saying there is no case for Nihonjoe to answer.
I understand you disagree with this interpretation, and I understand why you disagree with it, but I don't think you should be basing your decision off whether you believe the interpretation is accurate - I think you should basing it off whether you believe this interpretation is unreasonable. If you don't believe it is unreasonable, then I think you should recuse yourself. BilledMammal (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
No, it was because I thought it was pointless, which I still do and said as much. But since I'm pressed via your ping to me here, I'll expand. I (and others) found your comment to have served to diminish the complaint. That to me is a fact. I think it had the effect of prejudging, even if to a lesser degree than the more overt bias of some of your counterparts on the committee, whose respective positions, at times, seemed indistinguishable from plain advocacy. On a personal note, every election I usually have someone of whom I am most hopeful about. Once, it was Barkeep, then it was Guerillero (whom I even fauxed campaigned for a couple of times), and there have been others. But I seem to find myself increasingly dissapointed with my picks for hope at ARBCOM (perhaps it goes to show that my intuition is for shit, which, fair). Still, more rarely, like with Moneytrees and GN, my pick seems good.
You, specifically, were a top hope pick in this election. But as soon as I've seen you post that to AN, I'm sorry to say, that hope was insta-dashed, with you now inhabiting a much less hopeful spot, closer to the hopelessness that I feel towards Primefac and HJ Mitchell's roles on the committee — though, both of whom, unlike with you, I voted against. To be clear, none of this is personal, and to the best of my recollection, I've never had a problem of any kind with either one of them (or with any current arb for that matter), but instead, a perfectly fine working relationship (at least from my perspective). Also, in fairness, I did vote to oppose more in WP:ACE2023 than ever before. Still, as noted, you were a top pick, so it truly sucks that now I'm not sure I'd even have voted to support you. Your tenure is just starting, so who knows, maybe you'll eventually go on to change my mind. But to me it's a bad start. Yours sincerely, El_C10:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps it's also worth noting, as I neglected to add this to my evidence (plain forgot), but I resisted this same diminishing attitude at that AN thread from the outset: undoing its premature closure by another admin (them, specifically, having done so serving as another unfortunate surprise for me), as can be viewed here.El_C10:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Toby, I said "one of the dozen arbs to speak on behalf of arbcom and let us know if they're going to do anything or not."
You said: "While I explicitly didn't speak on behalf of the committee..."
And that's where you messed up.
"I need to remain able to respond to such messages without having to fear recusal requests based on my opinion rather than an actual conflict of interest."
No, actually, you don't. You have this so very backwards. When asked for a statement on behalf of the committee, you need to NOT give your personal opinion. You need to not respond with your personal opinion.
I did not ask you for you personal opinion. I did not want it, you should not have given it, and you shouldn't even have had an opinion at all.
I asked the committee if it would look at the evidence and make a decision or not. Instead you told me you personally had already made up your mind.
For this reason, you should recuse, learn from this, don't repeat it.
Worse, though, was your substantive opinion, which was "it's a guideline not a policy."
Hobestly that was one of the worst takes on anything I've ever seen by an arb. I was so speechless at the time I didn't even respond to you.
Sorry to be harsh, but you're so very wrong on this one. Please recuse from the entire Nihonjoe and BYU/AML constellation of matters. You got this so wrong you've completely lost my trust on this one. Levivich (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
BilledMammal, it seems I have underestimated or misunderstood your opinion about this. Your message seemed intentionally purely procedural, but – I shouldn't be surprised about this – I think you do have an opinion on whether I should recuse, and it's a "weak yes" due to the existence of a few loud voices, the "non-trivial portion of the community", saying "yes"? I would probably have worded my reply differently if I had been fully aware of this, sorry. My initial interpretation was that your message was a request purely on behalf of others, which didn't entirely feel right, so I hinted at this in the first paragraph.
Hello El C, the feedback is saddening and I didn't mean to break your hopes. Both my candidate statement and my questions page stated pretty openly that I'm fine with the way ArbCom operated in a time you probably had already lost hope in it, so I'm not sure if this was evitable. Regarding pointlessness, I think it wouldn't be pointless if the arguments were good enough, which is why the lack of an actual recusal request seemed to more-or-less admit the lack of really convincing arguments for a recusal.
While this discussion – this unnecessary drama, I'd say – makes it significantly less likely that I'll touch an AN/ANI discussion about administrator conduct again during my term, I don't think that the way I did so is reason for recusal. I understand that we'll remain in disagreement about this. If arbitrators stay silent, people complain about a lack of transparency; if they provide transparency, people complain about the kind of transparency or about what they see.
I give my personal opinion or arbcom stays silent is an extremely false dichotomy. You know there are other options besides those two. So long as you're sticking to that false dichotomy, you're not even engaging with the substance of the recusal request. This has nothing to do with "transparency" or a lack of transparency. Pre-judging the outcome is not being transparent. Announcing your opinion as to whether conduct is sanctionable is not being transparent. Being biased, not being impartial, are not the same things as being transparent. Levivich (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
You labeling these objections as unnecessary drama proves engaging these with you to be as pointless as I predicted, ToBeFree. El_C20:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I should have been clearer with my request myself. I am primarily participating procedurally, as I believe ArbCom's decision to not consider these requests purely on procedural grounds to be hugely problematic and to have damaged the legitimacy of the committee, but I do also generally believe that if it is not unreasonable to believe an editor is involved then that editor should avoid acting as an administrator - or acting as an arbitrator.
There are a sufficient number of indisputably uninvolved arbitrators for this case to proceed without you, and I hope you will reconsider your recusal so as to preserve the legitimacy of the committee and the communities trust in the process. BilledMammal (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, this is tough – on the article's talk page, the original reverts were described as exempt from the edit warring policy; there seems to have been a report at the edit warring noticeboard and it was probably declined at that time. I didn't dig that deep. What I see is, however, that after changes to the content that probably made it inapplicable for the edit warring exemption, there was further edit warring and a 48-hour block as the result. The new account has now continued exactly the behavior that led to a block before, and at very least the last reverts require discussion on the article's talk page rather than continued attempts to rely on an edit warring exemption. There seems to be no other way than at least a partial block to enforce such discussion to actually happen. I'm also afraid that CDavidE08, who has edited the article since 2018 without ever editing any other page, might have a significant conflict of interest, so I have now additionally informed them about the guideline.
Reporting invalid complain based on Lie & personal grudge
Dear Mr Fei,
How are you doing,
I really appreciate your efforts in improving articles in Wikipedia and appreciate your role as an administrator, as you must have observed Mr Saqib has been very unreasonable to me, he has been insulting me again and again which is against wikipedia WP:NPA policy, I forgot to write user edit he reported me to you and then he requested two articles for deletion and being very unreasonable and he has doing personal attacks. We are all here to contribute Wikipedia give our precious time to make this place a better place and do the research to improve each other and he also allege me for creating paid articles, which is truly unacceptable all I said we should take responsibility of each article we create as its our responsibility to continuously improving thus I keep improving my articles I give each day to improve my articles and if I get time I edit or improve or create new article.
Whatever he reported as per policy I improved but he has being very unreasonable and continuedly disrespecting please your kind action is required.
It seems as he toxic person should be reported even I tried to send message on his personal talk page to resolve the issue between us, I am very peaceful person I am here to improve quality of Wikipedia and improve articles in South Asian Region.
As per Wikipedia WP:DRR policy. I hope you will assist me I do not know him personally being from same country he suppose to be supportive and improve articles together, if you review his profile he has doing personal attacks to everyone in his contribution history its mostly these maters. WP:NPA
Hi Skywatcher68, I think the username is acceptable and doesn't really uniquely identify that person in a way the username policy would prohibit, but the editing is surely... interesting. And there's an obvious conflict of interest. I have now welcomed the user with {{welcome-coi}}, removed the company name paragraph from it and will now probably protect the article for a while, looking with a raised eyebrow at Contributor892z's contributions too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I created this SPI report sometime back and I just wanted to ask for your experienced opinion on it? I tried to make it as detailed as possible, but I have not received further opinion on this yet - Creffel (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
hello tobe! I was wondering if you are able to remove the restriction you placed on Al-Daraji since the May 2024 deadline has passed :) I will avoid writing about contentious information on the article and just leave it to genealogy. Wiki-heIper (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah, no worries, Wiki-heIper. The protection will automatically expire 56 days from now, and while it may take a while for a bot to automatically remove the protection icon template, you'll already be able to edit the article as soon as the date is reached. That said, articles in such topic areas are quickly re-protected in case of disruption, so the most reliable way to regain the ability to edit the article would not simply be waiting, but rather taking the time to help in other areas of Wikipedia described at the Task Center and the community portal. You'll slowly but steadily gain the needed experience to re-request the extended-confirmed permission, and then you can edit these articles normally again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Dunki2024 blocked on 4 March 2024 at 11:24 by you.
Pathaan2024 joined Wikipedia on same day 15:25 4 March 2024 couple of hours after Dunki2024 was blocked. Both users have same username pattern based on Bollywood movies Dunki and Pathaan. Both users made first edits on article Ghor Province. Significant article and edit overlap. These two are same. I have created a SPI for it. Dekhoaayadon (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
ToBeFree, the user above is almost certainly a SPA of Historian2325, who himself is very likely a SPA of an extremely pertinacious sockmaster. I knew from the very beginning since I saw his edits on the talk page of this article, done immediately after his account creation, which was clearly a continuation of an edit war between Historian2325 and Dunki-[380]. I was waiting until he more brazenly revealed his hands. I will file a SPI in the coming days. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
El C, I'm sorry for having broken hopes with the AN diff. I think my participation in the final decision would have alleviated some of your concerns, but it's better this way. Thanks for your feedback and best wishes from me too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I hope it didn't come across as some kind of a purity test on my part. But I believe that the integrity and unimpeachability of a proceeding such as this, in case such as this especially, positively resonates (for lack of a better term). So thanks again! All the best. El_C18:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Follow up and request to removal of deletion templates
Dear Fei,
Thanks for kind assistance and reply regards to issue between me as you must have seen all his edits were against me thus can you please remove the invalid request and keep the articles which he has requested for deletion and warm him please edit with responsibility and as per policy and do read articles. I would like to kindly request in removal of deletion templates for Faysal Aziz Khan and Ovais Mangalwala. Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions20:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Faizanalivarya, I'd like to wait for the result of the deletion discussions. Each tag will be removed after a week or two, when the discussion is closed. And if none of the deletion nominations actually leads to a deletion, that would be a pretty strong sign that Saqib is overreacting. We'll see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed the comment you made and corrected my requesy. However, I was @ for @Rydex64 review, was that by accident or for something else? Reaper1945 (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Hi Skywatcher68, thanks! I'm not sure about the removals and whether they should perhaps better have been discussed rather than rollbacked (courtesy ping Taking Out The Trash). However, Special:Diff/1216730076 may have introduced a factual error and at very least fails verification. Perhaps Gonzo fan2007 has an idea about what's going on; Wisc1999 appeared a few days after their major editing of the article, apparently unhappy with the changes.
Anyway: Semi-protected for 2 weeks, after which semi-protection will have lost its meaning in the current situation anyway. I have now informed Wisc1999 about the policies and guidelines around biographies, edit warring and COI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I reverted merely due to the unexplained removal of sourced content. I agree that in some situations sourced content should be removed, but in every case like that an edit summary must be provided. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi 'Taking Out The Trash'- I am 'living person' in this case, and can attest to the the sourced content error. Financial Services / Health care was the career direction. Wisc1999 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I've updated the article with a reliable source so further discussion at the article's talk page should not be necessary. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I personally would avoid making an unexplained action in response to an unexplained action, at least if the only reason for doing so is the lack of an explanation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! I thought there had been a sports event leading to interest in the article from Wikipedians and the article subject at the same time or something like that. Perhaps Wisc1999 may like to share how they noticed the changes relatively quickly, but that's just my personal curiosity and by no means a required or recommended disclosure. All currently looks good to me. We have an edit request open at Talk:Joe Shield and everything can be discussed there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate this post. But I don't understand why you found it necessary, or appropriate, to recuse from the arbitration case. Because Thinker wrote an irritating post to you in 2022? Really? Bishonen | tålk17:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen, thanks for asking. It's a good question.
I may have been influenced by CaptainEek's recusal and the recent discussion about whether to recuse or not to recuse from the running COI case ("Recusal, redux" above).
When I had a look at Thinker78's contributions, I noticed that I'd prefer to directly address the behavior described in Special:Diff/1216639582/1216721627, and perhaps to take the matter to ANI if the behavior persists after this. I didn't want to do so while I still had the ability to accept or decline the case request, as this obviously matters a lot to the user and it could have made the impression of threatening arbitrator action dependent on how they react to my talk page message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
So, if I volubly oppose everybody in the arbcom elections, they will all have to recuse if some case involving me should come up at RFAR? A bit of a long game, and volubility doesn't come as easily to all of us, but still, a good trick. Bishonen | tålk01:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC).
Heh. Well, you can't use any such trick on too many arbs or they'll hear the case anyway, citing a "rule of necessity" I guess. Perhaps there's a better term but our article about judicial disqualification uses this one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-14
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Users of the reading accessibility beta feature will notice that the default line height for the standard and large text options has changed. [382]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 April. It will be on all wikis from 4 April (calendar). [383][384]
Future changes
The Wikimedia Foundation has an annual plan. The annual plan decides what the Wikimedia Foundation will work on. You can now read the draft key results for the Product and Technology department. They are suggestions for what results the Foundation wants from big technical changes from July 2024 to June 2025. You can comment on the talk page.
Just saw that you'd been elected to ArbCom! Good for you!! I know this is probably old news by now, but I think it's an excellent thing. Couldn't have happened to a better wikiadmin. Hope you don't hate (what I can only imagine is) the extra headache too soon :) — Shibbolethink(♔♕)22:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Life is back to normal with COVID-19 mostly (at least being treated as, I don't know and can't judge) a thing of the past? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh absolutely I think we careened past the end of COVID-19 like a BMW on the autobahn! I would hope our post-COVID America is a bit more mask conscious, but I think it probably isn't . And we have yet to see the full impact of Long COVID, which is the next generation's fibromyalgia on steroids...For what it's worth I think you've handled the recusal and review process very well. Any and all naysayers be damned. Or at least moderated.... Good luck out there, I'm really happy to see that the hot button articles have not descended into total chaos, but I recognize every day is a new day on the wikiverse — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh god That comparison. But that's good to know! And while I hadn't heard about fibromyalgia before, Long COVID affected quite a few friends very significantly (and may well influence me ever since the infection) and that sucks of course. We'll see what the future holds.
Oh, that's very kind. Heh. Regarding hot button articles, new ones in different topic areas seem to appear every week or two. The price of Wikipedia's popularity and openness: Newcomers fight each other over the content of Wikipedia articles. But if it were only newcomers, that would be comparatively easy to deal with. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I had hoped that it wouldn't have to progress to that point, and I have seen people come back and realize their errors while such sanctions are being considered and supported... Simply wasn't to be here. What broke the camel's back for me was their filing of the AARV against ScottishFinnishRadish after your and other people's' comments at their TP and their subsequent behavior at that thread (comparing an admin to a Guatemalan death squad). That's mostly why I filed the AN/I when I did. Their behavior at the AN/I thread was also along similar lines as the comparison made at the AARV. I hope this at least provides some explanation as to what happened. Thank you for putting in effort to try to get them to change their behavior. Noah, AATalk23:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, I forgot to reply but I had a look and failed to find the copyright issue or a BLP violation strong enough for me to directly go ahead and remove the entire section. If there's something in the article to be fixed, please be bold and do so; you can use {{copyvio-revdel}} afterwards if applicable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Dekhoaayadon
Hi there, do you remember this thread-[386]. It turns out my suspicions concerning Dekhoaayadon were correct as he was blocked a few days ago by Ponyo who conducted a CU check and confirmed that Dekhoaayadon was indeed a sock of HauhgtonBrit. I filed a SPI on Historian2325 if you're interested-[387]. Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Web browsers can use tools called extensions. There is now a Chrome extension called Citation Needed which you can use to see if an online statement is supported by a Wikipedia article. This is a small experiment to see if Wikipedia can be used this way. Because it is a small experiment, it can only be used in Chrome in English.
A new Edit Recovery feature has been added to all wikis, available as a user preference. Once you enable it, your in-progress edits will be stored in your web browser, and if you accidentally close an editing window or your browser or computer crashes, you will be prompted to recover the unpublished text. Please leave any feedback on the project talk page. This was the #8 wish in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey.
Readers using the Minerva skin on mobile will notice there has been an improvement in the line height across all typography settings. [390]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 April. It will be on all wikis from 11 April (calendar). [391][392]
New accounts and logged-out users will get the visual editor as their default editor on mobile. This deployment is made at all wikis except for the English Wikipedia. [393]
Hi ToBeFree, hope you're doing well. Regarding [395], I have evidence of them creating a thread at Reddit after their block to ask for assistance. But from my understanding it is a violation of WP:OUTING if I post it here? Can I email you the link, or do you think I should take it to ArbCom? HistoryofIran (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
Between 2 April and 8 April, on wikis using Flagged Revisions, the "Reverted" tag was not applied to undone edits. In addition, page moves, protections and imports were not autoreviewed. This problem is now fixed. [396][397]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 April. It will be on all wikis from 18 April (calendar). [398][399]
Default category sort keys will now affect categories added by templates placed in footnotes. Previously footnotes used the page title as the default sort key even if a different default sort key was specified (category-specific sort keys already worked). [400]
A new variable page_last_edit_age will be added to abuse filters. It tells how many seconds ago the last edit to a page was made. [401]
Future changes
Volunteer developers are kindly asked to update the code of their tools and features to handle temporary accounts. Learn more.
Four database fields will be removed from database replicas (including Quarry). This affects only the abuse_filter and abuse_filter_history tables. Some queries might need to be updated. [402]
My bad on Connie Mulder, I was just looking at where and what they changed, and then looked at the whole sentence. Are you sure that is what the name is supposed to be?
Hi Myrealnamm, don't worry too much about this, please, but Me Da Wikipedian had received enough warnings for this to lead to an edit warring block, and your message here may well have come at a good time. To answer your question, why don't you have a look at the source provided directly after the disputed material? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I will put my head down in shame (at myself). I should have known that English in the middle of a German name shouldn't exist. I just used Google Translate and found out "van die" means "of the", not something die. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 00:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Myrealnamm, this is probably Afrikaans rather than German, but they're similar. Afrikaans is more similar to Dutch than to German, but Dutch is pretty similar to German indeed. All good, no worries. I rarely, rarely take any other action than curiously asking what's happening in such cases; it's only the history of warnings about similar patrolling issues that led to a block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. I mean, there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with it, but rewording? Is it necessary? I'm just not sure. I mainly just revert edits and copyedit. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 00:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary rewording, especially when done in many articles at the same time, can be disruptive. However, looking at the comma duplication removed in Special:Diff/1219473362, the article does seem to have had a need for at least basic copyediting, so I personally wouldn't complain. Also, this appears to be limited to one article at the moment, and that article has three maintenance tags at the top. Each of them adds the article to a maintenance category and invites newcomers, for example through the Task Center and the community portal, to fix issues. As long as the maintenance tags remain at the top of the article, such edits will come more-or-less automatically. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-17
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
You can nominate your favorite tools for the fifth edition of the Coolest Tool Award. Nominations will be open until May 10.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 April. It will be on all wikis from 25 April (calendar). [404][405]
Future changes
This is the last warning that by the end of May 2024 the Vector 2022 skin will no longer share site and user scripts/styles with old Vector. For user-scripts that you want to keep using on Vector 2022, copy the contents of Special:MyPage/vector.js to Special:MyPage/vector-2022.js. There are more technical details available. Interface administrators who foresee this leading to lots of technical support questions may wish to send a mass message to your community, as was done on French Wikipedia. [406]
A belated thank you for the notification, Bcmh. I have no strong opinion about this, but it doesn't look as if the appeal will be successful. The low number of edits during the topic ban seems to be the main argument against lifting the ban at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree, I hope you're well. I am not sure if this is the right place to be doing this, but would it be possible for you to look over this short report thread [407] on the ANI and potentially action it based on your opinion? The user in question was already reported previously, but that report was sadly auto-archived [408] and by the looks of it, the current report will also be auto-archived. I don't quite understand why no one has looked at it or taken any action, especially when multiple editors from different topic backgrounds seem to take serious issue with the behaviour of the editor in question.
Again, I am not sure if this is the right place to do it, but you've shown yourself to be a capable and fair admin in the interactions I've had with you in the past, and I would hate to see this report go under the radar. The subject of this report really needs to be dealt with according to Wikipedia policies. Much appreciated! Botushali (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Botushali, thank you very much for the kind feedback, which is an honor as our interactions include a (partial) block. I've had a look and think that WP:DISRUPTSIGNS applies, so it seems reasonable to require an unblock request the addresses the concerns that have been silently ignored after the initial incivility. The low frequency of Frenchprotector29's editing probably helped them to avoid blocks before. I have now also replied at ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi ToBeFree, thank you very much. I really do appreciate it.
I also want to draw your attention to AzorzaI, the user who shared a partial block with me on Battle of Kosovo. It hasn’t been long since our partial block expired on said article, but an RfC has resulted in the removal of certain commanders, which is fair enough. However, AzorzaI has now extended it to the removal of certain elements from the Belligerents section, which has been the focus of our previous edit warring that earned us the partial block months ago.
The RfC result said nothing about the Belligerents section of the infobox, only the Commanders section. Yet, AzorzaI has gone ahead and removed the belligerents in question [409] even though there is no consensus for such a change. They have made a TP discussion [410], although I don’t know why they’ve proceeded with such an edit when it’s been the centre of much edit warring on said article in the past. They’ve made a claim that the participation of these belligerents is poorly sourced, even though there are 12 WP:RS academic sources (at the least) supporting their participation. This is the same exact content that we have edit warred for months over prior to our block.
Basically, the reason I am writing to you about this is because I really want to avoid another block over the same issues as before, and I do not want to be trapped in the same cyclical discussions as I was previously. Normally, I would RV and participate in the same never-ending discussion on the TP, but I want to avoid that behaviour, as it’s the reason I received a block. How would you advise I proceed? Sorry for bothering you with the matter. Botushali (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Botushali, I initiated the RfC, which ultimately led to the exclusion of the leaders you had vigorously defended for months on the TP. Their exclusion was based on their violation of the guidelines I've consistently highlighted in all our previous discussions. Still, you're not dropping the stick over the infobox, and much like you did previously with the now-removed leaders, are arguing for "twelve RS supporting your standpoint". Moreover, a review of the edit history reveals that these leaders and their respective belligerents were added correspondingly and they were both included with no previousconsensus among editors.
Instead of seizing this opportunity to learn from the RfC and collaboratively improve the infobox, you've chosen to escalate the matter to admin attention. It's disappointing, as I had hoped the RfC discussions on the exact same breaches of Wikipedia guidelines would offer valuable insights to everyone, including both of us. This is precisely why I saw no need to initiate a new RfC; doing so would only expend drain energy and time for everyone involved. However, if you still remain so confident in your position, why not take the initiative to start a new RfC, as I have already done? --Azor (talk). 07:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I shouldn’t have to initiate an RfC for something that’s stood on the article for many months now, no matter how much you edit warred over it.
You’re missing the point - regardless of how the last RfC concluded, that doesn’t mean that you can now make changes which you have not established consensus for. You’re not interested in collaboratively improve the infobox… because you made the move without seeking consensus. In fact, you must’ve expected a negative reaction from me ahead of time, hence why you’ve followed me to ToBeFree’s TP without being tagged in it.
… arguing for "twelve RS supporting your standpoint"… That’s right - 12 reliable sources included in the article should have bearing on said article. I don’t see the issue with supporting something that is backed by a dozen reliable sources.
I asked ToBeFree for advice because I do not wish to engage in edit wars and pointless, unending conversations on the same content that I have previously been blocked for in the past. It’s not my fault you want to go back to that. There’s no reason for you to be disappointed that I am asking an admin for advice on how to approach the situation, and there is also no reason for you to stalk my edits and check my activity. Botushali (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
The timeframe of the content is not relevant. You're not entitled to not bring up a RfC simply because previous edit warring succeeded in placing them at the infobox. Their inclusion still raises several major concerns:
The leaders and their respective belligerents were added simultaneously, likely due to their associations.
They both were added withot consensus or support of overall RS (as explained in the RfC)
They violate the exact same Wikipedia guidelines on Infobox.
The last two points are the reason why their leaders were removed from the infobox. Should you be correct about the relevance of including the belligerents in the infobox, despite the absence of their leaders, a RfC will let them remain - and this time with consensus. This is the same process I had to follow when discussing the placement of leaders in the infobox with you, which only caused further edit warring, forcing me to open up an RfC. --Azor (talk). 09:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Quite frankly, this whole paragraph is a load of nonsense. The RfC was about the commanders, not belligerents. I don’t want to engage in discussion with you anymore, I’d prefer to await ToBeFree’s opinion… Botushali (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Botushali, administrators don't have authority over article content; they deal with behavior. When there is an edit war, the need for discussion becomes clear, so discussing instead of reverting is generally a commendable approach. A discussion seems to have been started at Talk:Battle of Kosovo § Belligerents (permalink), and it should probably continue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I understand that, but it’s the behaviour that’s concerning. It’s the same exact behaviour that resulted in both of us receiving a partial block - edit warring over the same content without consensus for their changes. That’s ok - next time, I’ll revert and then proceed with the discussion. Botushali (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Example of a talk page with the new design, in French.
The appearance of talk pages changed for the following wikis: Azerbaijani Wikipedia, Bengali Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, Persian Wikipedia, Hebrew Wikipedia, Hindi Wikipedia, Indonesian Wikipedia, Korean Wikipedia, Dutch Wikipedia, Portuguese Wikipedia, Romanian Wikipedia, Thai Wikipedia, Turkish Wikipedia, Ukrainian Wikipedia, Vietnamese Wikipedia. These wikis participated to a test, where 50% of users got the new design, for one year. As this test gave positive results, the new design is deployed on these wikis as the default design. It is possible to opt-out these changes in user preferences ("Show discussion activity"). The deployment will happen at all wikis in the coming weeks. [411]
Kartographer maps can use an alternative visual style without labels, by using mapstyle="osm". This wasn't working in previews, creating the wrong impression that it wasn't supported. This has now been fixed. [420]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 May. It will be on all wikis from 2 May (calendar). [421][422]
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Hello. I'm following up on some feud that took place in February and that led to edit warring. It was agreed upon that any further changes should be discussed in the country's talk page (Colombia). However, it looks like Zaquezipe just kept on adding information in Colombia's wiki page, without reaching any consensus. I'm referring to the genetic study he posted. He also edited the country's page in Spanish.
Is there anything that can be done to prevent this. Thanks. Dougwash (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Dougwash, if there's a controversial change you'd like to make, please pre-announce the edit on the article's talk page, invite Zaquezipe to the discussion using a short, neutral notification on their user talk page, and perform the edit if noone has replied to your announcement. In your edit summary, point to the talk page section you have created. More detailed advice can be found in the great essay WP:DISCFAIL. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
It is accurate and reliable information, I do not know why you would prefer to use an outdated and unreliable study from 1993 to assess the genetic ancestry of Colombians other than trying to make the country seem more european than it is. I have tried to contact you but you were offline for a while so I just implemented the change, no one else seems to object to the change and its one of the more recent genetic ancestry studies done on Colombia. Not only that, this study is conducted on many departments and is much more specific about the genetic ancestry of those departments than the Emilio Yunis study which uses regions instead. Remember, the emilio yunis study states that the amazonian region is only 30% Native ancestry (Being the most in the study but being much less than the average genetic study conducted on colombians) and its from 1993 as well it isnt published anywhere except for an archived version of a site, thats how you know its outdated, unreliable and should not be used. Zaquezipe (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Your edits also seem to be heavily biased, trying to undercount the ethnic minorities of colombia as I have seen on the Colombia and Afro-Colombian pages and overestimate the european contribution to Colombia despite colombia being a genetically diverse nation. This is further clarified by the fact you want to use an outdated and unreliable study from 1993 (Conducted on more european colombians) over any other for the sole reason that it has a larger sample pool (Which doesnt always justify its inclusion over another). Zaquezipe (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Zaquezipe, please click "Talk" above the article you're discussing and create a section for the discussion, so that there is a central place where a consensus can be found. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Example of a talk page with the new design, in French.
The appearance of talk pages changed for all wikis, except for Commons, Wikidata and most Wikipedias (a few have already received this design change). You can read the detail of the changes on Diff. It is possible to opt-out these changes in user preferences ("Show discussion activity"). The deployment will happen at remaining wikis in the coming weeks. [423][424]
Interface admins now have greater control over the styling of article components on mobile with the introduction of the SiteAdminHelper. More information on how styles can be disabled can be found at the extension's page. [425]
Wikimedia Enterprise has added article body sections in JSON format and a curated short description field to the existing parsed Infobox. This expansion to the API is also available via Wikimedia Cloud Services. [426]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 May. It will be on all wikis from 9 May (calendar). [427][428]
When you look at the Special:Log page, the first view is labelled "All public logs", but it only shows some logs. This label will now say "Main public logs". [429]
I'm unable to determine who is behind 103.176.190.39 other than it belongs to an ISP in India but they've been making some questionable edits here. I've issued a WP:COI notice on their user talk. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I need some help with this. Due to the article Don Pramudwinai there is Vandalism by deleting the position of Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs by IP. I tried to get him to stop making unconstructive edits. But there's no sign of stopping. Can you help with Protection? Preime TH (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello Preime TH, thanks for asking. This doesn't appear to be bad-faith editing / vandalism but instead a dispute with a long history of an IP-address-hopping editor edit warring against everyone else including other unregistered editors. I have semi-protected the page for a year now, but I'm surprised that the article's talk page is empty. Could you please create a discussion about whether "Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs" is a position that should be included in the infobox? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
On Wikisource there is a special page listing pages of works without corresponding scan images. Now you can use the new magic word __EXPECTWITHOUTSCANS__ to exclude certain pages (list of editions or translations of works) from that list. [431]
If you use the user-preference "Show preview without reloading the page", then the template-page feature "Preview page with this template (what's this?)" will now also work without reloading the page. [432]
Kartographer maps can now specify an alternative text via the alt= attribute. This is identical in usage to the alt= attribute in the image and gallery syntax. An exception for this feature is wikis like Wikivoyage where the miniature maps are interactive. [433]
The old Guided Tour for the "New Filters for Edit Review" feature has been removed. It was created in 2017 to show people with older accounts how the interface had changed, and has now been seen by most of the intended people. [434]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 May. It will be on all wikis from 16 May (calendar). [435][436]
The Special:Search results page will now use CSS flex attributes, for better accessibility, instead of a table. If you have a gadget or script that adjusts search results, you should update your script to the new HTML structure. [437]
Future changes
In the Vector 2022 skin, main pages will be displayed at full width (like special pages). The goal is to keep the number of characters per line large enough. This is related to the coming changes to typography in Vector 2022. Learn more. [438]
Two columns of the pagelinks database table (pl_namespace and pl_title) are being dropped soon. Users must use two columns of the new linktarget table instead (lt_namespace and lt_title). In your existing SQL queries:
Replace JOIN pagelinks with JOIN linktarget and pl_ with lt_ in the ON statement
Below that add JOIN pagelinks ON lt_id = pl_target_id
I just wanted to ask you this question since you seem to be a Linux user, what distro do you use at home and what's your favourite?
Currently I'm on Windows 10 Pro 64-bit 22H2; however, I am growing frustrated and tired of modern-day Microsoft Windows and am looking to learn and switch to Linux as my main OS some time in the near distant future. I hope to start contributing to Wikipedia from there one day.
Note, this is not a request for help or anything, just wondering what distro you use, that's all! I'm probably going to start with using Linux Mint and go from there. — AP 499D25(talk)14:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I assume Windows 11 is not an option and/or the desire to switch is because of Windows 11? I like my Kubuntu for being Windows-like and could normally recommend it to new Linux users for the same reason, but if you'd like to try something different, a regular Ubuntu installation may be interesting. I haven't tried Linux Mint, but the main reason for its existence, to my knowledge, is how different Ubuntu's (Gnome's) default design became from Windows. People unhappy about the design changes created a new environment named Cinnamon that, as far as I understand, remains more Windows-like by design.
All of these (Kubuntu, Ubuntu, Linux Mint) run from an USB stick without installation and can be tried before choosing. And if there's software bundled with one distribution that you would like to use on another, you can simply install the same package using apt on the command line or using synaptic as a universal graphical tool that works on all Debian-based distributions.
I see. Well, I kind of dislike present-day Windows 10 for a number of reasons (e.g. nagware popups, lack of control over updates), but as for Windows 11 I have never actually used it besides just a little bit on other PCs. Though I've heard about some pretty bad things about it such as bugs, slowdowns and apparently they are adding advertisements to the start menu. It's also not just that I don't like Windows but also that I am interested in and willing to learn another family of operating systems now after numerous years of having used various Windows as well as Mac OS X releases. I want to learn something new.
Though the main reason why I was looking into Linux as of late, was because my desktop's had a bit of a major slowdown issue with web browser programs; it was hurting my productivity quite a lot, with webpages taking several minutes to load instead of the seconds they would normally take. I couldn't easily determine what it was, as there weren't any unusual high resource usages when it happened. But funny enough, it seems to have resolved itself now after a windows update and restart.
Either way, I'm probably gonna move to Linux around when Windows 10 support ends. I do know about live boot and have actually tried out Linux Mint on live boot USB and in virtual machines many years ago before, it's pretty cool you can try it out before installing.
I think Windows 11 is worth a try, at least next to Linux on the same machine, before throwing Windows away. To me, Microsoft's operating system became an actual option with Windows 10's beta release, which was my first Windows since XP which ran on all my school's computers. I never had Vista, 7 or 8 on an own machine. When Windows 10 was opened to testing, it was free (at least as in free beer), I wanted to play Elite Dangerous after years of fun in Oolite and I am happy with the experience. I also like Windows 11's design and some new features such as native .tar archive access in the Explorer and LF line ending support in Notepad.
But the desire to try something new, intentionally something that requires a few habit changes, is strong in me too! In that case, my recommendation is really the default Ubuntu. It's the least Windows-like Linux I've used so far. It feels more like a smartphone with a huge screen and proper input methods to me.
The Windows slowdown, if truly gone away with an update and depending on its duration, may have been the update process itself, especially if you have classical hard disk drives instead of SSDs. But that's just blind guessing.
Back when I actually used a desktop I ran mint with mate. I installed it on my wife's computer and she immediately understood how to use it at near the proficiency she has in windows. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Alright, I'll give both Windows 11 and Ubuntu a try for sure!
I did get Mint booted up in a VM yesterday, however my only spare USB drive is broken so no live boot for now unfortunately.
As for the slowdown issue, it was constant and would linger for days upon end. Disk usage was very minimal (I do have SSD as main storage), so I don't think it was caused by the update process itself, rather some weird bug or glitch. On Firefox, Youtube would be incredibly laggy, unresponsive, and the UI would freeze for a few seconds regularly. But that's all gone now after the restart.
On a related note, one big software switch I have made not long ago, is Google Chrome to Firefox. I never thought I could be able to make the switch after more than a decade of using Chrome, but lately I got the courage to do it (primarily motivated by the Manifest v2 phase out, not wanting to be part of the Chromium monopoly and a number of other reasons). — AP 499D25(talk)04:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah, well, then I sadly have no idea what might have caused that slowdown (except for a hidden virus that is now done with encrypting your files or something similarly hopefully absurd).
Actually I got a bit of an idea what it might've been, the issue started not long after I added my web browsers and various other productivity programs to the AMD Software graphics control panel to set some image quality setting overrides. Though after removing them from the apps list they continued to be incredibly sluggish afterwards, until I restarted; worth noting that video games on my computer continued to run smoothly like before, during all of this. So yeah not that malicious after all.
Hmm. Hi Fylindfotberserk, I'm unsure about this editor's motivations. The account seems to be dedicated to negative statements and criticism, and defending them vehemently against "whitewashing". Most users with a conflict of interest promote something, but perhaps PotatoCyborg has a conflict of interest against the subjects of these articles. Whatever it is, I had already planned to take action in case the edit war over Christ University continues after my full protection, and I have now noticed (a bit late) that this is the case. Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Fellow editors, I would like to assure you that I have no conflict of interest regarding the edits I have made. I am not associated with Bagpat district in any way, nor do I have any political affiliations or personal motivations related to these subjects. I also would like to assure you that I am not trying to or promote anything, my work has nothing to do with anything here.
Regarding the edits on the Bagpat district page, my intention was solely to provide well-documented and verifiable information about significant water quality issues affecting the region. I came across a random YouTube documentary about the water contamination in Bagpat, which piqued my interest and prompted me to seek further information. When I looked at the Wikipedia page, I found that there was no information on this critical issue.
To address this gap, I read several news articles and reliable reports, including those from the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and other authoritative bodies. Based on this research, I added information highlighting the severe health risks posed by contaminated groundwater, ensuring that the content was accurate and well-sourced. My goal was to help others learn about these important issues and contribute valuable information to the page.
If you feel that my edit is not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines or requires adjustments, please feel free to undo it or suggest improvements. My goal is to contribute positively and accurately to Wikipedia, and I am open to discussing further to ensure the content meets the necessary standards.
As for the Christ University edits, I have provided a detailed explanation on my talk page. My edits were aimed at maintaining a balanced and comprehensive account of the institution's history, including notable incidents documented by reliable sources. I have no personal or professional connection to Christ University.
I appreciate your diligence in maintaining Wikipedia's integrity and look forward to any feedback or suggestions you may have.
Thanks for the suggestion. I have trimmed the section and removed the names of the officers involved as you recommended. Could you please take a look and let me know if you have any further suggestions? PotatoCyborg (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
But if you look at the talk page the consensus is yet to be found. It only has two 3POs so far, and one of them suggests keeping the section while shrinking the content. Do you think the edit was fair? PotatoCyborg (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello PotatoCyborg, at very least as an intermediate measure to enforce WP:ONUS, I'm sorry to say that I'm only surprised this hasn't happened earlier. You can now propose additions on the article's talk page that address the other users' concerns and may be more agreeable than the previous edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Eem dik doun in toene, thank you very much for the well-written SPI request and the notification! Processing this case was unusually easy and led to quick confirmations. If I may nitpick, I only blocked – the term "banning" is mostly used when the community throws someone out by consensus. Such a ban can then only be removed by the community again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. [441]
New changes have been made to the UploadWizard in Wikimedia Commons: the overall layout has been improved, by following new styling and spacing for the form and its fields; the headers and helper text for each of the fields was changed; the Caption field is now a required field, and there is an option for users to copy their caption into the media description. [442][443]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 May. It will be on all wikis from 23 May (calendar). [444][445]
The HTML used to render all headings is being changed to improve accessibility. It will change on 22 May in some skins (Timeless, Modern, CologneBlue, Nostalgia, and Monobook). Please test gadgets on your wiki on these skins and report any related problems so that they can be resolved before this change is made in all other skins. The developers are also considering the introduction of a Gadget API for adding buttons to section titles if that would be helpful to tool creators, and would appreciate any input you have on that.
I know you're really busy, but please take a look at this discussion. I've changed my userboxes a couple days ago so some of the stuff there aren't the same anymore, but still. Is this showing respect to other editors and showing that they are here to build an encyclopedia? Thx.
I've also "think" that some of the userboxes were also the same from other users. What's it called when you copy userboxes from another user?
The following is an oversimplification and not legal advice. All Wikipedia pages including your user page are irrevocably freely licensed, and everyone including huge companies is legally allowed to copy, publish, even print and sell them without even asking for your permission, as long as your username is mentioned as the author or a link to the original page is provided. So even if I sold copies of your userpage (with a link to it at the bottom) to people who pay me hundreds of dollar for them, I would be allowed to do that, I wouldn't have to inform you about it and I would be allowed to keep the entire money. So from a copyright perspective, this is generally fine and a simple edit summary like "I copied this from User:Myrealnamm" would be sufficient attribution. I see no attribution in the page's history yet, but that's a small mistake that can be fixed. See also: WP:CWW.
Additionally, someone might argue that simply adding userboxes to a page isn't even sufficiently original enough to qualify for copyright protection at all (threshold of originality).
So in a nutshell, let's forget about copyright. Your first thoughts may have been about copyright and how this surely must be forbidden, but when the source is a Wikipedia page, it usually isn't. You published the content under a free license, and people doing things with the content you didn't intend to be done is quickly part of the experience.
However, we surely agree that copying someone else's user page isn't a nice thing to do. User pages represent you as a person on Wikipedia, and if someone copies your user page, that feels like they're copying your identity. Putting on a mask that looks like your face. Perhaps you're looking for the term "impersonation", perhaps just "laziness". While you have freely licensed your content, you're a member of a community that has agreed on civil interactions and excluding those who disrupt the peace. And a member of that community is behaving in a way that feels rather unfriendly. Even if there is no strict policy against their specific behavior (contrary to signature forgery), talking to them and informing them how their behavior makes you feel is important.
I think you did the right thing when you chose to talk to Me Da Wikipedian at [446]. You also already correctly note that it's probably not a copyright issue yet still understandably upsetting.
It may help to put this into perspective. Copying userboxes is a bit different than copying a long user-specific text. Copying userboxes and topicons is a bit different than copying a custom background like mine, perhaps. Most userboxes and topicons are made for being copied; they're templates, and templates are usually created for being transcluded by anyone who would like to use them.
The user is blocked and can't fix the attribution in the history of their user page at the moment. And please allow them to have a pause from Wikipedia instead of constantly getting notified about user/talk page edits. Ideally, just let the situation be as is. The user has been informed that copying user pages can upset their creators and currently can't continue doing so anyway.
Wow, thanks for replying so fast! And yes, I knew there aren't copyright issues and all my work on this wiki is being published under CC BY-SA 4.0 and the GFDL (It says so near the "Reply" button I'm seeing right now, and also the "Publish" buttons). It was just a little upsetting to see other users using my userboxes that I've used from my userpage (impersonation was what I was looking for). Ok, I'll leave things as is, since the user is blocked for a while and can't do much. A break for them is really necessary . Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 00:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Timtrent, sorry. I didn't mean to send you away. I found it via AIV and was distracted by the disclosure discussion; I hope someone else will evaluate the report based on whether their editing is promotional and time-consuming enough to prevent it from continuing. Because that may well be the case and I didn't mean to deny that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I think my interpretation was probably in order, but thank you for ameliorating it. There are times when we become ineffective with editors. I am obviously past that time with this one. I got bogged down in their arguments about life, the universe and everything and failed to let go of the stick! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh, don't say that too early. The probability of the next edit being an article creation is high enough to make me reconsider the block settings. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Yurii Melnyk, we shouldn't be talking behind your back. This is about you. Please find something different to contribute about than the International Journal of Science Annals. The block doesn't have to be a permanent stigma; it can be removed as soon as it has become clear that it's no longer needed to prevent you from promoting the journal. The Task Center and the community portal contain many ideas for a new start away from the conflict of interest. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Several bugs related to the latest updates to the UploadWizard on Wikimedia Commons have been fixed. For more information, see T365107 and T365119.
In March 2024 a new addPortlet API was added to allow gadgets to create new portlets (menus) in the skin. In certain skins this can be used to create dropdowns. Gadget developers are invited to try it and give feedback.
Some CSS in the Minerva skin has been removed to enable easier community configuration. Interface editors should check the rendering on mobile devices for aspects related to the classes: .collapsible, .multicol, .reflist, .coordinates, .topicon. Further details are available on replacement CSS if it is needed.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 May. It will be on all wikis from 30 May (calendar). [447][448]
When you visit a wiki where you don't yet have a local account, local rules such as edit filters can sometimes prevent your account from being created. Starting this week, MediaWiki takes your global rights into account when evaluating whether you can override such local rules. [449]
To my knowledge, Open heaven reflection's now-deleted userpage promotes a religious organization, which by search engine can be verified as real and active. I assumed that the account was promoting the organization with that webpage. I have not been informed by anything related to this user prior to encountering them on Wikipedia or outside Wikipedia besides my websearch. Air on White (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Air on White, the full source code of the deleted page is "Experience the depth of God love in coming of Christ! Read these daily reflections to gain insight into the power of God's living word and reclaim spiritual renewal". It's pure plain text without links and without referring to an organization. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
It was promotional regardless as confirmed by the username. "These reflections" would be understood to be the "Open heaven reflection." Air on White (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
RUSUKR
Hi there. I have alerted User:Dmytrootamanenko two times on their talk page about the editing restriction due to WP:RUSUKR. One of the edits they made was particularly disruptive. When they continued to make edits in the topic area, I raised this on WP:ANI but no one was interested in taking action and this was left to be archived. They also never responded. Following this, they have continued to make edits explicitly about the war such as this. What is the best way to approach this and other similar situations in the future? Thanks. Mellk (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mellk, thank you very much for the notification, and for informing and warning the user about the restriction. For contentious topics designated by the Arbitration Committee, I'd say WP:AE is the best place to go. This is sadly not an option for community-authorized general sanctions such as those described at WP:GS/RUSUKR, but ANI is normally fine for this. I hope the lack of action taken there is just an unusual case.
There is no template requirement for informing users about the RUSUKR restriction; I often used User:ToBeFree/RUSUKR introduction because none existed.
I see, thank you for explaining. I noticed that WP:RUSUKR was updated to include links to potentially useful templates; would there be any use case for Template:Gs/alert? It does not mention what the restrictions are, though, so I do not think it would be particularly useful in this case. Thanks again. Mellk (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
No problem. I've checked in the sandbox and {{subst:Gs/alert|rusukr}} ~~~~ does indeed not even inform the user about the restriction, so I think it's currently not useful. In case of general disruption, {{subst:alert/first|e-e}} is important: As soon as the user is formally aware, you can use WP:AE for reports about disruptive editing in the "Eastern Europe or the Balkans" area. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello Skywatcher68, thank you very much. I didn't expect to end up informing two recent changes patrollers about WP:BLPPRIMARY and revoking the article creator's autopatrolled permission. I have no idea how you find these cases but please keep them coming. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, Gadget-markblocked.js sadly doesn't display these as blocked. It was proposed twice in the past at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-markblocked.js, declined for a lack of consensus, and I'd start an RfC for rangeblock support right now if the displaying of IP addresses in revision histories had a future. But temporary accounts are coming, and your heading may be one of the last ones openly referring to an IP address on a talk page. I think cookie-based temporary accounts are a good thing and will make communication with good-faith IPv6 users much easier while not hurting enforcement against bad-faith editors much. But we'll see... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I have a feeling far more people than the WMF expects will be surprised when this arrives on enwiki. No problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-23
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
It is now possible for local administrators to add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without JavaScript. Documentation is available. [450]
The message name for the definition of the tracking category of WikiHiero has changed from "MediaWiki:Wikhiero-usage-tracking-category" to "MediaWiki:Wikihiero-usage-tracking-category". [451]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 June. It will be on all wikis from 6 June (calendar). [453][454]
Future changes
Next week, on wikis with the Vector 2022 skin as the default, logged-out desktop users will be able to choose between different font sizes. The default font size will also be increased for them. This is to make Wikimedia projects easier to read. Learn more.
Hi Izno, you had declined two sock reports at AIV, I had declined a third one, for being far from as obvious as the reporter thought. SPI's evidence requirements are valuable and unactionable AIV reports are expensive in their own way, so I personally would prefer if at least Air on White avoided making sock reports at AIV for the time being. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll be more careful about reporting socks at AIV, but I'll continue as warranted. I have successfully reported duck socks of blocked vandals and LTAs in the past. Air on White (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Air on White, in most cases, these have probably simply been vandals, and their vandalism was reason enough to place a block. My concern is about reports for behavior that wouldn't justify a block if it wasn't sockpuppetry. Regarding these, the advice at AIV's header applies, Reports of sockpuppetry should be made at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations unless the connection between the accounts is obvious and disruption is recent and ongoing.~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with 2001:8003 that the section was probably too long, but overall the main gist of the content should remain - just made shorter with a couple of sources pruned.
Thank you very much! I have now invited the others to the section using {{Please see}}. If a consensus is found early, the protection can also be removed earlier; it is currently set to automatically expire in two weeks, pretty pessimistically. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I trust you're doing well. I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at this report as a CheckUser when you have the time. The reported account is quite active. If my report has merit, which has often been the case in the past, the amount of scrutiny and work they require is increasing day by day as they are editing almost every day. The report has been waiting along for about three weeks, and I thought reaching out to active CUs would help as this is a typical WP:LTA. Thank you, Aintabli (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
No problem. Honestly, I didn't expect another admin would deal with a weeks-old report shortly after I reached out to you about it. Thank you nevertheless. Aintabli (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I have a feeling Spicy may be one of the 316 people watching this page. If that's the case, I'm very grateful for this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Their history suggests they should be a new user, but they knew enough to file a blatantly false report at AIV. Either this is the worst CIR fail I've ever seen, or they are a troll. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The software used to render SVG files has been updated to a new version, fixing many longstanding bugs in SVG rendering. [461]
The HTML used to render all headings is being changed to improve accessibility. It was changed last week in some skins (Vector legacy and Minerva). Please test gadgets on your wiki on these skins and report any related problems so that they can be resolved before this change is made in Vector-2022. The developers are still considering the introduction of a Gadget API for adding buttons to section titles if that would be helpful to tool creators, and would appreciate any input you have on that.
The HTML markup used for citations by Parsoid changed last week. In places where Parsoid previously added the mw-reference-text class, Parsoid now also adds the reference-text class for better compatibility with the legacy parser. More details are available. [462]
Problems
There was a bug with the Content Translation interface that caused the tools menus to appear in the wrong location. This has now been fixed. [463]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 June. It will be on all wikis from 13 June (calendar). [464][465]
The new version of MediaWiki includes another change to the HTML markup used for citations: Parsoid will now generate a <span class="mw-cite-backlink"> wrapper for both named and unnamed references for better compatibility with the legacy parser. Interface administrators should verify that gadgets that interact with citations are compatible with the new markup. More details are available. [466]
On multilingual wikis that use the <translate> system, there is a feature that shows potentially-outdated translations with a pink background until they are updated or confirmed. From this week, confirming translations will be logged, and there is a new user-right that can be required for confirming translations if the community requests it. [467]
Hello, I know you take WP:BLP seriously, so would you mind looking into the report I created on WP:AN/I about Fastcar4924539 (talk·contribs)? This editor shows little to no regard to the policy despite being told numerous times about it, I was hoping it would be dealt with posting on the board, but no administrator has even commented, so I thought I would see if you can do anything/have input on how to deal with such things. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thanks for reverting – that kind of silly promotion is something I'd rather expect from a student than a paid editor, though. Technically a "promotion-only account", practically not worth blocking unless they continue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
New sockpuppetry on the same article that you solved this problem 1 year ago
Hey ToBefree.
How are you? Hope you have been well.
Here we go again, one year after you solve the problem of sockpuppetry on Baruch Spinoza article, it seems the problem is affecting th article again. Here’s my full report:
He is currently edit warring to change a stable version of Baruch Spinoza page, making a point to describe him as a “Dutch philosopher”, a matter that disrupted this wikipedia page many times in the past because he was born in Holland as a refugee, his family had to leave Portugal due inquisition. Amsterdam hosted many Jews at the time, when they were persecuted everywhere else in Europe. But they were refugees, not citizens. So, since this is a matter with no consensus, Spinoza description on Wikipedia was made without claiming any nationality just to avoid unnecessary potential disruptions.
1 year ago though, a Dutch user Awater01 started disrupting the article, edit warring, saying it was unacceptable that the article was not claiming his nationality. Other editors explained this was unnecessary because there is no consensus about it and not claiming any nationality was the most impartial way to go. He carried on edit warring and due to 3 reversion rule he created other accounts, all of them doing the same edition. It turned out he had 4 accounts/sock puppets (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Cornelis_Dopper)
Now we have new sock puppets with same behavior doing the very same edition/reversion for the first time since those other sock puppets were banned:
He is certainly a sock puppet of GoneWithThePuffery.
GoneWithThePuffery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoneWithThePuffery): Joint February 18, 2024, and was banned on May 15, 2024 for persistently making disruptive editions. His final edit warring was in Baruch Spinoza article, doing the same thing Nico Gombert is doing: trying to claim his nationality, even though there is an waring in article text saying “Not put Dutch here”.
Interesting point is that this user, who is now banned had already been denounced as a sock puppet, but it seems there was no clear evidence at that time, so he was allowed to carry on editing. (here is the discussionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1223997015#GoneWithThePuffery).
So it seems both Nico Gombert and GoneWithThePuffery are the same person. However, given that GoneWithThePuffery account was created recently and his behaviour was really similar to a sock puppet, I decided to do by myself further investigations that took some weeks. After a deep analysis on GoneWithThePuffery former edits, I found out a Dutch nationalist/patriot who basically dedicates his editions almost entirely to Dutch subjects on Wikipedia. The user is DavidDijkgraaf, he has an account fairly old, was created in 2020.
On May 15, 2024 DavidDijkgraaf was the first one to start the disruption on the page, by claiming a Dutch nationality for Spinoza. A couple of hours later GoneWithThePuffery keeps making another string of other disruptions and edit warring. This ended up leading GoneWithThePuffery to be banned.
So I decided to make a trap to see if he would make the same edition on the Baruch Spinoza page if I reverted the article for the stable version. So I deleted “Dutch” (see Baruch Spinoza history - 13:52, 8 June 2024). Then the new user Nico Gombert came up and reverted it. (see 13:21, 12 June 2024). I was wondering what should I do, then I remembered that one of the main reasons why sock puppets are used is to avoid breaking the 3 reversions rules and to give the impression that there are more editors who agree with a certain edition. So I decided to revert Nico Gombert edit (see at 17:04, 12 June 2024) and then it happened what I was expecting: on the same day few minutes latter DavidDijkgraaf pops up and makes the same reversion Nico Gombert did few hours earlier ( see 18:17, 12 June 2024). To confirm what I had discovered I undid it again (see 01:32, 13 June 2024), logically if it follows the typical behavior of a sock puppet the next one to revert my edition should be Nico Gombert, and this exactly what happened (see 16:39, 13 June 2024). Then I friendly even tried to warn him not to carry on that behaviour, it didn’t work he acted the same way as when he was using GoneWithThePuffery account. So once I already caught him, I did not to revert his latest reversion. I think the better way is reporting what I found out and let you guys solve this issue. It is possible that DavidDijkgraaf have more sock puppets but you probably have better tools than I have to confirm this. PepGuardi (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I did have a look and blocked a couple accounts, all confirmed to Puffery. I cannot confirm that they are the same as the sockmaster who was mentioned. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry but I see no evidence that makes me suspect Dijkgraaf of socking. Adding "Dutch" (and removing it) is apparently a thing to do in this article. In the checks I ran nothing suspicious pertaining to that editor appeared. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply Drmies :)
Surely only the same edit would not be enough, but don’t you think it’s too much coincidence that Dijkgraaf edits happen around the same time as the two other sock puppets.
So he’s making the very same edits as those two sock puppets. Could be coincidence? Of course. But then we can see that his edits happen always around the time those two sock puppets start an edit war/dispute with other editors. The same edits and around the same time as sock puppets edits. Ok… but these “coincidences” do not stop, here another evidence: right in between the time that Nico and GoneWithThePuffery sock puppet accounts are banned, we can see Dijkgraaf searching for “How can you know that you are dealing with a sockpuppet?” on Eastfarthingan talk page (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eastfarthingan&oldid=1227630502). He of course gives whatever explanation on why he’s searching for that.
Of course, if isolated, each of those three facts would not be enough for suspecting of sock puppetry. However, the point is that we have all those three evidences - together - appointing to Dijkgraaf: 1) he makes the very same edits as those editors already blocked for sock puppetry. 2) those same edits happened around the time (same day) as those suck puppets edits. 3) Right in between time time that those two suck puppets were blocked, Dijkgraaf was searching for “How can you know that you are dealing with a sockpuppet?”. I mean, doesn’t it look too much of coincidences? PepGuardi (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
People who attempt to add an external link in the visual editor will now receive immediate feedback if they attempt to link to a domain that a project has decided to block. Please see Edit check for more details. [468]
The dark mode beta feature is now available on category and help pages, as well as more special pages. There may be contrast issues. Please report bugs on the project talk page. [471]
Problems
Cloud Services tools were not available for 25 minutes last week. This was caused by a faulty hardware cable in the data center. [472]
Last week, styling updates were made to the Vector 2022 skin. This caused unforeseen issues with templates, hatnotes, and images. Changes to templates and hatnotes were reverted. Most issues with images were fixed. If you still see any, report them here. [473]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 June. It will be on all wikis from 20 June (calendar). [474][475]
Starting June 18, the Reference Edit Check will be deployed to a new set of Wikipedias. This feature is intended to help newcomers and to assist edit-patrollers by inviting people who are adding new content to a Wikipedia article to add a citation when they do not do so themselves. During a test at 11 wikis, the number of citations added more than doubled when Reference Check was shown to people. Reference Check is community configurable. [476]
Mailing lists will be unavailable for roughly two hours on Tuesday 10:00–12:00 UTC. This is to enable migration to a new server and upgrade its software. [477]
Hey,
I wanted to ask whether there is a way to check if a user is in the mentoring program. (I was just reading about that, and trying to find appropriate answers.) JackTheSecond (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
How can I display the mentor of a given user? / How do I add the mentor name to our welcome message?
Type the magic word {{#mentor:Foo}} in a wikitext page, and preview. "Foo" has to be replaced by the username you target. This will display the name of Foo's mentor.
This magic word can be used in a template: welcome message, user talk page messages, userbox, etc.
If the mentor changes, then the magic word picks the new mentor's name.
That's cool. Usedtobecool, did you know you're my mentor?
I thought it would display an empty string, but I did use the Newcomer Homepage at least once. ToBeFree_(mobile) didn't, though...
{{subst:#mentor:ToBeFree_(mobile)}} currently shows: --- yeah, nothing. Okay, so this is the answer, but being "in the mentoring program" just means having used it at least once in your Wikipedia life. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand. I won't revert/cleanup/undo at this time; all I noticed is that Hashid Khan's claims about unsourced content in other articles seem to be disruptively incorrect often enough to justify requiring an unblock request for now. It doesn't mean that all of their edits are bad or have to be reverted. Anyone is free to do so if there's a reason to do so. Your filter log is empty. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-26
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Editors will notice that there have been some changes to the background color of text in the diff view, and the color of the byte-change numbers, last week. These changes are intended to make text more readable in both light mode and dark mode, and are part of a larger effort to increase accessibility. You can share your comments or questions on the project talkpage. [478]
The text colors that are used for visited-links, hovered-links, and active-links, were also slightly changed last week to improve their accessibility in both light mode and dark mode. [479]
Problems
You can copy permanent links to talk page comments by clicking on a comment's timestamp. This feature did not always work when the topic title was very long and the link was used as a wikitext link. This has been fixed. Thanks to Lofhi for submitting the bug. [480]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 June. It will be on all wikis from 27 June (calendar). [481][482]
Starting 26 June, all talk pages messages' timestamps will become a link at English Wikipedia, making this feature available for you to use at all wikis. This link is a permanent link to the comment. It allows users to find the comment they were linked to, even if this comment has since been moved elsewhere. You can read more about this feature on Diff or on Mediawiki.org. [483]
That's perfect; it separates the content improvements from the administrative action. I'm thankful for all the talk page watchers here, assuming the attention came from your message. Thank you very much for the notification, the page is now semi-protected for a while which effectively prevents further similar edits for at least a few days and may cause Farmerdave3 to have a closer look at their user talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to let you know that someone claiming to be the subject has removed sourced information twice, under two different accounts. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, thanks for the notification. I have now soft-blocked the old account for a username issue but also clarified that simply using the new account is fine ([484]). At the moment, no further action seems to be needed; if it becomes an edit war, please let me know. The current state of the article is without the disputed content, and that's usually fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, the term "promotion-only account" and an indefinite block are probably justified. I hope Chos3nl3gacy is here for writing about films they like instead of films they get paid for promoting, both because this would confirm my decision to let the block automatically expire after two weeks, and because I'd else feel sorry for whomever made the payment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Russian conspiracist at 77.222.115.41
The IP is already blocked but I wanted to give you a heads-up. I ran this through Google Translate:
Why are you undoing edits?
It contains lies that are being propagated in our country by fake historians from the CIA. There is a link there to a new book from 2019;) this is fake. Since about 2015, these fakes have been spreading; there is no historical information about these names, which I erased, anywhere. For example, there is a reference to VILA Pokhlebkin (circa 1980s), and this new name from 2019, of course, is not used there, because Pokhlebkin (a historian with a scientific degree who wrote books on behalf of the institute and later the USSR government) of course did not know, although and rummaged through all the archives of Moscow.
This is being planted by the CIA. Why do you believe them and not the Russians? The article is about a Russian subject, and it’s better for me, a Russian, to know where the truth is and where it’s fiction. Listen to the embittered Ukrainians ;)
Hi Skywatcher68, thanks – a link and the information "try running Google Translate on this" would probably have been sufficient; spreading the content through full quotes is usually not necessary.
As the user is currently blocked and the text doesn't seem to qualify for revision deletion, I think no action is needed at this time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Asking for revdel wasn't my intention; just letting you know that the text existed in case the IP continues in a similar vein after the block expires. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. 48 hours aren't that long. I'll try to keep an eye on the contributions, but please let me know if you see them continuing and I haven't noticed yet! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Over the next three weeks, dark mode will become available for all users, both logged-in and logged-out, starting with the mobile web version. This fulfils one of the top-requested community wishes, and improves low-contrast reading and usage in low-light settings. As part of these changes, dark mode will also work on User-pages and Portals. There is more information in the latest Web team update. [485]
Logged-in users can now set global preferences for the text-size and dark-mode, thanks to a combined effort across Foundation teams. This allows Wikimedians using multiple wikis to set up a consistent reading experience easily, for example by switching between light and dark mode only once for all wikis. [486]
If you use a very old web browser some features might not work on the Wikimedia wikis. This affects Internet Explorer 11 and versions of Chrome, Firefox and Safari older than 2016. This change makes it possible to use new CSS features and to send less code to all readers. [487][488]
Wikipedia Admins can customize local wiki configuration options easily using Community Configuration. Community Configuration was created to allow communities to customize how some features work, because each language wiki has unique needs. At the moment, admins can configure Growth features on their home wikis, in order to better recruit and retain new editors. More options will be provided in the coming months. [489]
Editors interested in language issues that are related to Unicode standards, can now discuss those topics at a new conversation space in MediaWiki.org. The Wikimedia Foundation is now a member of the Unicode Consortium, and the coordination group can collaboratively review the issues discussed and, where appropriate, bring them to the attention of the Unicode Consortium.
I tried simply reverting the IP who has been editing today but they're too quick for me. The article would still be a bit of a mess, anyway. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
You gave Marshyg notice on edit warring but the editor continues to do the same by reverting changes 3 times to his version on page List of highest-grossing Telugu films. He is rude in his description even after I posted on his talk page about the concern over the reliability of sources. Day before on June 29, he again reverted changes of other editor 3 times to his version. I do not see warning having any influence on him even though he has been warned 3 times on his talk page in June 2024. Need your intervention. RangersRus (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of it and as expected the unblock request came in and then a quick turn around with rude behavior. Something else caught my eye. This user name is close to user name RogerYg who also edited an Indian film page [492]. Perhaps same and with your checkuser abilities it can be cleared? RangersRus (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Marshyg's behavior is not a surprise; the block is indefinite for example because of their recent incivility. It didn't feel like a situation where an automatically expiring block would help, and it turns out not to be such a situation indeed.
I did not find anything similar in edits between Marshyg and RogerYg to file a case. The way both user names have YG at the end put me in doubt. RangersRus (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I would like to confirm that I have nothing to do with Marshyg .I never heard of this account on the Wiki pages I have edited or TALK page discussions. Thanks RangersRus (talk) for clearing this. I don't think I have edits on any pages (or similar pages) where Marshyg was editing. Anyway Thanks ToBeFree (talk) and RangersRus (talk) for clearing it. Kind regards. RogerYg (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi Skywatcher68, I'm not sure if I had to block and revert to a stable revision twice in a row before, but the article seems to attract an interesting type of disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks! As there is no username issue, I haven't blocked, but the page is now semi-protected for two weeks and FAltimare (who you seem to refer to, looking at Special:Diff/1232418990's edit summary) would be welcome to request edits on the talk page of the article.
I've had a quick look at the sources and the history, and I'm happy to see that Wburrow took the time to revert only the removal of sourced content, leaving unsourced content removed. I'd be happy if everyone did it that way, but it's a rare sight.
It may be worth discussing the reliability of the Soundcloud biography as a source ([493]); it's probably not as bad as IMDb but may still not be sufficient by itself. A search of the WP:RSN archives seems to yield only two results for Soundcloud; I thought it might be part of WP:RSP already. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I wonder if you could take a look at 67.83.125.225(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). This user was reported to ANI by User:Waxworker for disruptive editing (persistent addition of unsourced, false and/or nonsensical content) on 1 July and was blocked for 31 hours by Robertsky. After the block expired, the user resumed the same type of edits. Waxworker and I reported this resumed activity on the ANI thread but it was archived without action. Also note my last addition to that thread, in which I present evidence that the same editor has been making these same kind of edits using other IP addresses for several years, and some of these alternate IPs have already been blocked for long periods (up to 3 years). I did send a note to robertsky yesterday but got no response. I hope that the current IP can be blocked for a longer period of time, as it's quite tedious to keep up with these disruptive edits. Thanks for your help! CodeTalker (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi CodeTalker, thank you very much for the notification and the links in the thread. 67.83.125.225 is now blocked for a month. If similar edits continue on the same address after the block, I'll place a longer block; please keep me updated. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The CampaignEvents extension is now available on Meta-wiki, Igbo Wikipedia, and Swahili Wikipedia, and can be requested on your wiki. This extension helps in managing and making events more visible, giving Event organizers the ability to use tools like the Event registration tool. To learn more about the deployment status and how to request this extension for your wiki, visit the CampaignEvents page on Meta-wiki.
Editors using the iOS Wikipedia app who have more than 50 edits can now use the Add an Image feature. This feature presents opportunities for small but useful contributions to Wikipedia.
A problem with the color of the talkpage tabs always showing as blue, even for non-existent pages which should have been red, affecting the Vector 2022 skin, has been fixed.
Future changes
The Trust and Safety Product team wants to introduce temporary accounts with as little disruption to tools and workflows as possible. Volunteer developers, including gadget and user-script maintainers, are kindly asked to update the code of their tools and features to handle temporary accounts. The team has created documentation explaining how to do the update. Learn more.
A blocked vandal that edits articles about Conan the Barbarian is back. I created a sockpuppet investigation three days ago, but so far no one has looked at it. He edited again today, but fortunately only a few pages.
Newly-registered editor Log6849129 appears to have a COI, taking an Instragram post at face value and removing content which contradicts the subject's claim. I've already reverted once. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 March. It will be on all wikis from 30 March (calendar).
The legacy Mobile Content Service is going away in July 2023. Developers are encouraged to switch to Parsoid or another API before then to ensure service continuity. [8]
The deprecated 
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Selfstudier, thank you very much for the notification. Courtesy ping Xaosflux. We should have protected the draft.
In the visual editor, it is now possible to edit captions of images in galleries without opening the gallery dialog. This feature request was voted #61 in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey. [22]
Hey, after all the years. Thank you very much, I'm glad someone noticed! I love robots.txt art; see also:
Seems pretty soon-ish 🙉 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Miscellaneous
Thank you very much, 76.119.253.82. I think you did most of the work in this case. Please let me know if you find more of these copyright-violating accounts. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Please click "Show" next to "How to open an investigation:" at WP:SPI, then enter "Awater01" in the box and click "Submit". A page with further instructions will open. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org with any additional information that can help to automatically identify the socks? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
Moved to WP:ANI
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org.
Interface administrator changes
--WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Done
Not done (but chose to add a different JWST image from the same press release)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Question: Is there something wrong with this edition? I didn't understand very well. Gabriel bier talk 02:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Gabriel bier talk 22:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Heyy Andrevan! Thank you very much! This means a lot to me. Thank you for all your work! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2601:243:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 looks like a shared IP range as it has a mix of good edits like typo fixes, misguided things like copypastes, and your typical silly vandalism and test edits. Mainly it just needs more eyes on it. The admin noticeboards don't seem like the appropriate place to put this, and not sure about the Pump either so hey I figured you could be volunteered to see what you thought would be the best course of action here! 
~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
![{\displaystyle v_{1}([t,y(t)])}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/690e88fcfa44fff4747d0467dc239a549340ffdb)
![{\displaystyle [t^{\ast },y(t^{\ast })]}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/016cf95bd0327f79ceedef84b122948f93a7328f)
(sorry the logo is large, not sure how to minimize it). I took a look at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial_agriculture/Proposed_decision and couldnt find that logo there and also didnt see anything at the (i)logo article itself. Could you please let me know what I have missed. Have I made a comment that was either off topic, the wrong section, or something improper that I should strike? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey Davey2010, thank you very much! Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year 2024 to you too! 
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
El_C 18:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
. And we have yet to see the full impact of Long COVID, which is the next generation's fibromyalgia on steroids...For what it's worth I think you've handled the recusal and review process very well. Any and all naysayers be damned. Or at least moderated.... Good luck out there, I'm really happy to see that the hot button articles have not descended into total chaos, but I recognize every day is a new day on the wikiverse 
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
![[104]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Visual_editor_toolbar_search_feature.png){kind=link}
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard that involves you, regarding an appeal to remove a topic ban and 0RR restriction. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Appeal to remove topic ban on politics and 0RR restriction. Thank you. Bcmh (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
